Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrandonYusufToropov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] BrandonYusufToropov

Final (22/31/7) ending 15:34, Jun 29, 2005 (UTC) (EST)

Thanks for the feedback everyone -- it didn't work out, but as I've said, I didn't expect this vote in the first place. This experience has been a very valuable one. I've improved communications, I think, with many of the people who expressed reservations with my occasionally-too-abrasive editing style, and I hope to keep on learning about WP and improving as a contributor here. Again, many thanks for your input. BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Yusuf is a published author and very knowledgeable in his field. He has contributed a lot to Islamic subjects. He's good at explaining WHY people think the way the do, and draw the conclusions they draw. He ought to have the ability to undo hasty page moves. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept. I don't pretend that I don't have opinions, but I certainly try to be fair, and I appreciate Ed's nomination.BrandonYusufToropov 17:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Side note: I would like to add that this nomination took me (and apparently a number of other people) completely by surprise, and is not, or at least has not yet been, a subject of discussion in my current mediation with Ed Poor. He and I have not discussed this nomination in any way, shape or form up to this point. I do, however, feel that this would reduce the chance of conflicts on pages Ed and I both edit, of which there are quite a few. BrandonYusufToropov

See User_talk:Ed_Poor#BYT_RFA. It appears that the nomination was a spontaneous idea of Ed's as he realized that he had an unfair advantage in "move wars". I admit this is a bit strange. At this point I would recommend BYT withdraw the RFA, and has another go once the dust has settled a bit, in a month or two. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are all making a big deal out of something which is "no big deal". Unless somebody can make a convincing argument that Yusuf is going to abuse the ability to (1) undo an article move, (2) lock an article, (3) delete an article or (4) block a user, THEN I predict that he will be granted admin rights on this web site. Please think this over. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Lee Hunter 17:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. If Ed can support him given their history, then I see no reason to oppose. Guettarda 17:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. support, from first hand experience. dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. BYT will make a fine admin. -- Viajero | Talk 17:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. support --csloat 17:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Very Strong Support . -- From first hand experience , he will make be a great admin . And seeing that he & Ed have resolved their disputes , I think he will do really good . Farhansher 18:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Even in the heat of a dispute, he worked within and respected the dispute resolution system, so his being an admin will work out fine. NoSeptember 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Highly Support. Great editor who has consistently promoted NPOV to the highest manner in many different articles and has reverted vandalism in many articles by anon IPs. I highly recommend him for this post. --Anonymous editor 20:43, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. In my experience, he has been extremely level-headed and calm in his editing, even under great provocation. - Mustafaa 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. Very good editor who keeps cool under the hundreds of personal attacks EnviroKainKabong and his sockpuppets have leveled at him.Yuber(talk) 22:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support apart from being a good editor, if Ed Poor nominated him then I can only support. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support I support because of "complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation against Ed Poor, most of which Ed Poor himself quickly deleted while transferring it to a talk page" Kevin Baastalk: new 23:40, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
    • I don't get it... you're supporting him because he is attacking Ed Poor on his userpage? Radiant_>|< 07:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well first of all, I fail to see the "attack" in that; second of all, this is rather similar to RickK's opposition vote on my RFA (he opposed because I endorsed an RFC on him)... – ugen64 00:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Works on controversial articles that are infested with very motivated POV pushers and generally improves them. I think all you should need to become an admin is to generally be in credit, and Brandon is. Grace Note 02:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Clearly Ed Poor didn't make this nomination in good faith. Unfortunately he seems to be succeeding with his set-up. NoPuzzleStranger 19:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Can you please clarify the good faith issue? Thanks --csloat 20:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Ed Poor obviously has been in conflict with Brandon, telling him for example "Honestly, Brandon, you are the most inflammatory person I've dealt with on-line in years." Now, calculating correctly that there would be sufficient opposition, he nominated him only to set him up for defeat. NoPuzzleStranger 21:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I don't know about the "calculating correctly" part, but if the nomination served only as a positive gesture that illuminated some of the reasons people are uncomfortable with my work, and spotlighted my occasional lack of tact, which I admit, I have no problem with what Ed did.
    Update: I believe our mediation concluded successfully. Again, I wasn't trying to become an admin (though I'd like to be one someday, after the dust settles a bit).
    The only downside I see to this whole process is the few people who have simply voted to oppose without offering any reason for doing so, which doesn't seem very helpful. On another note, Sn0wflake, thanks for your comment, but I haven't been purposely avoiding questions, but rather trying to make sure I didn't interfere with the process. I wasn't trying to let other people answer for me; I just haven't followed a lot of these things, and wasn't sure how much noise I was supposed to make here. The main criticisms I saw seemed to boil down to "this sure looks weird" (can't disagree, but can't change it, either) and "why did he put that stuff up on his userpage?" (which I tried to answer below).
    I do disagree with the notion that the number of edits is too low for me to be a good admin, and I certainly feel proud of the objectivity of the articles I've worked on. Are there other issues you want to raise here for me? (Not asked sarcastically, only asked because it sounds like you feel I haven't been addressing questions directly, and I can't think of any others to address now.) BrandonYusufToropov 22:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I am sorry if it seemed that I was basing my opinion solely on your edit count, in the sense that you had not contributed enough to the project. To make this matter clear, I see the edit count as a rough measure of how much the user has fiddled around with the Wikipedia. Even very experienced users still find every once in a while a little something in the Wikipedia that they didn't know about... this is a very vast community with just too much to absorb. That's why I think your edit count would have to be a little more tangible. It's just a personal opinion, though. Edit counting is a flawed practice. Also, I don't have anything to address particularly, and found your answer to be very reasonable. On the other hand, I do feel that a couple of users were confronted during the proccess in instances where an answer from you would have sufficed. Please don't let there be any hard feelings between us, because that is the last thing I intend to do here. I hope you can spend a couple more months getting to know the project better, be nominated once more and then have a RfA based on your own merits, not on some dispute. --Sn0wflake 23:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. He has strong views, but he's been good at applying them to maintaining NPoV, rather than allowing them to overbalance articles in the other direction. I'd trust him as an admin. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. – ugen64 00:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. CrazyDude 01:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Should be "no big deal". --Silversmith Hewwo 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support POV biases are worth noting, as they are in the case of Mzajac, who shows a strong Ukrainian nationalist bent in his edits, but they are no reason to oppose the nomination, just as they are not in the case of Mzajac; admins are not editors. 172 17:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. I have decided this nomination would have been better at another time, however I'm assuming good faith. -JCarriker 18:05, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Not sure if this is too late, I only Checked my talk page just now. he works well and neutrally with a healthy respect of the Guidlines and wikipedia policy. --Irishpunktom\talk June 29, 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Looking at his user page I'd rather oppose.  Grue  16:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    um, what are we opposing on grounds of religious affiliation now? You should check out all the good BYT has done keeping the Islam related articles bias-free. What better recommendation could there be than nominatino by Ed Poor, the anti-Anti-American! dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    This doesn't have anything to do with religion. User pages are not the place for personal attacks or collecting evidence.  Grue  18:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I find it very worrying and unethical that you (dab) are challenging Grue for his opposition (in a highly patronising manner i would add), he does not mention anything about religion, yet you somehow are implying he is religiously prejudiced. Be ashamed of yourself. Bluemoose 18:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    well - I don't think I'm inclined to feel ashamed for myself, seeing that I was voicing an opinion I have every reason to expect will not make me popular. Anyway, I respect Grue's vote, seeing that by referring to BYT's userpage, he was not referring to the stuff about Islam, but to it being plastered with the ongoing dispute with his nominator. I actually do think it may be better to have BYT re-apply once his dispute settles down, and I hope this request here will not be held against him. dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Looking at his user page, I'm surprised Ed Poor even nominated this guy at all. Mike H 16:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'd prefer that candidates aren't engaged in ongoing disputes...even with their nominator. Strange. Carbonite | Talk 17:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    there can be no better proof of a calm hand, or capability of grasping the concept of "writing for the enemy". All admins should have first hand knowledge of editing disputes. dab (ᛏ) 17:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    True, but I must stress the ongoing nature of the dispute. Even with this potential (odd) closure, it's far too early (for me, at least) to judge how this dispute has turned out. In a month or so, I would have no problem with supporting provided there were no more disputes. Carbonite | Talk 17:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Brandon left a note on my talk page saying his nomination was connected to resolving a dispute between him and Ed, which sounds a bit odd. [1] SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm a bit puzzled here; I take it that that isn't your reason for opposing. I mean, it's an odd comment, but not grounds for opposition, surely? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, Mel, I didn't see this earlier. I was concerned about the connection between the nomination and the dispute being resolved: there was some comment, still not explained, about it putting the two editors on an equal footing. I trust Ed completely (and have no reason not to trust Brandon, though I know very little about him) but it would have been helpful if Brandon had explained what was meant. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:12, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose because almost his entire user page deals with "complaint at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation against Ed Poor, most of which Ed Poor himself quickly deleted while transferring it to a talk page". Radiant_>|< 18:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) [2]
  6. Oppose His user page is too confrontational. ~~~~ 18:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Hmmm... this was three days after you removed "List of (hypocritical) editors with no manners or social skills" from your user page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, 1070 edits is not enough to be comfortable with all aspects of Wiki, seems to be at war with other users, does not appear user would actually benefit from admin capabilities. probably a good user, admin no way. Bluemoose 18:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose -- Stereotek 18:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Doesn't respect important Wikipedia policies, not suitable as an admin. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, Generic reason: I don't think that 1081 edits (editcountitis can be fatal) many of them not being major edits is enough for qualification for adminiship. Specific reason: I have found with Brandon a willingness to espouse very Sunni centric material, on the talk page of Hadith I found him to be someone difficult in not wanting to show alternative material (not that it is nearly as notable as the Sunni view). He's not a bad user by any means, but with his relative inexperience and me not being convinced that he'd keep NPOV and resolve problems well I must oppose. If he's nominated later down the road I'd consider changing my vote. gren 21:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Strongly Oppose BrandonYusufToropov has repeatedly gotten involved with Yuber's antics.Enviroknot 23:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I'd be interested in seeing any evidence that you have to that extent. Jtkiefer 21:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Evidence? He don' need no steenkin' evidence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Brandon's edits show a strong pro Islam slant/ agenda of which he is entitled to but this does not speak well of the attribute of impartiality which is highly important and which we would expect from an admin.--CltFn 23:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. — Ford 11:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. --Briangotts 16:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. I have observed this nomination unfold over the course of the past few days, and have decided that I can't vote support. One of the reasons for this is the user's lack of experience on the Wikipedia; I am by no way questioning the quality of his edits, but he still needs more time in activity to qualify as an admin. Secondly, and much more serious in my opinion, is the way the user has let other editors defend him during this RfA, instead of giving clean answers to editors who questioned his actions. Ed Poor's disappearance after the initial nomination also leaves me with doubts. Thus, I oppose to this user not due to his merit - or lack of - as an editor, but by the way he has reacted and by the events that lead to this RfA. Will likely support in case he is nominated once more in the future. --Sn0wflake 21:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - While I initially had never heard of this user, as I have never edied any Islam related subjects because it is not where my interests or expertise lies, I find the possibility of having an administrator with a bias over a highly controversial subject to be upsetting. While everyone has a bias about something, some are more or less likely to ever result in any kind of rising of tempers. I also have never considered the fact that someone has contributed a lot to Wikipedia to be grounds for being an Admin. Páll 00:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Even though I feel that someday he'd make a fine administrator at this time I do not feel comfortable supporting an administrator who is involved in an ongoing dispute, has unresolved issues with other users and has such a confrontational style. Jtkiefer 00:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Not enough edits. --Oldak Quill 00:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Devious editor- If you look at his edit trail , he is totally intolerant of other POVs. Not Neutral in any sense of the word.--Fredwall 04:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, the "jury is still out", not enough is known about this user to justify an admin position. IZAK 05:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose I agree that he's made some good contributions, but from what I've seen of him in discussions, he doesn't seem to deal with others well enough to justify adminship. I think he deserves acknowledgement for his contributions, but not with an adminship. Mikeage 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  23. oppose. not enough edits. Seems to be in dispute with others. Admin nomination is no way to end disputes. Almog 06:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Too confrontational. Dmn / Դմն 13:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  25. Oppose until ongoing conflicts are (at least partially) resolved. the wub "?/!" 14:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  26. Strong Oppose Constantly engages in content wars with other editors on islamic topics. Users has a 'very very very strong pro-Islam POV (He's a recent convert to Islam) that he can't seem to disengage from. Klonimus 19:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Too controversal. Chmouel 22:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  28. Mild Oppose for now. I see potential in BYT as an admin, but he's still a bit rough around the edges. It's been less than 2 weeks since this business with his User page started, and by his own admission, he put the materials there because of his unfamiliarity w/ the logistics of WP. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not a good thing for an admin, especially when Ed's rationale is so that BYT can do everything he (Ed) can. In addition, while BYT has been exceptionally diplomatic here, this has not always been the case in his discussions with other users on various talk pages, where he has sometimes been openly confrontational. Finally, I am somewhat concerned by what I regard as his possibly dubious grasp of NPOV on issues close to his heart. (The thing that bothers me the most is the ongoing "lone wolf" business at Terrorism...but this isn't really the appropriate place to air laundry.) That said, I am confident that some work on this, along with another couple months of quality editing will change my "mild oppose" to "strong support". Tomer TALK 19:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Oppose I've witnessed how he handles disputes and i'm not particularily impressed. Definite POV problems that can been seen in his User Page. --EatAlbertaBeef 22:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  30. Oppose I cannot support a candidate who has been the cause of several revert wars in sensitive articles. For example, terrorism. Guy Montag 28 June 2005 03:38 (UTC)
    I have to object here. You've waited until the next-to-last day of the vote to claim that I have been the "cause" of revert wars, but have provided no specifics. The outcome here is clear. This vote seems more of a strategic move to affect future votes than anything else.
    Some questions for you.
    When I wrote the following on the Terrorism talk page...
    * Don't let's launch World War Six on this. Let's just go back to the (presumably non-adrenaline-provoking) version that stood for several months without incident, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 18:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    ... did that constitute "causing" a revert war?
    Is "causing" a revert war the same thing as "starting" a revert war? ("Causing" one seems to imply that the mere act of disagreeing with someone on the Talk page is problematic.)
    Is the issue in question currently under discussion at Terrorism? How do you think the discussions are going? BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 12:19 (UTC)
  31. A decent editor, but controversial. I have not been in any confrontations with this user. --Merovingian (t) (c) June 28, 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Almost an oppose. Like others, there are a lot of issues here to look at. Relative inexperience only serves as a barrier (in my mind) for self-noms. However, the fact is that our admins should not have so many questions and issues surrounding them, such as this recent POV dispute, and the reasons for the nomination. The principle reasons I'm not opposing are a)there is opposition already and b) some geniuses figure it would be good to have no Muslim ("Islamist") admins, which is religious bias. Therefore, neutrality is the order of the day. --Scimitar 19:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see that; for example, User:Mustafaa's Request for Adminship got very strong support from almost everybody (including me), even though he is both Muslim, and has a very strong POV in controversial areas such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The main difference is that Mustafaa is careful to adhere to policy in his article edits, and is generally collaborative (rather than needlessly confrontational) in his Talk: comments. Jayjg (talk) 20:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't referring to the majority; rather to a few of the comments made by anonymous users below, who wish they could vote. I'm attempting to make a point, albeit a non-disruptive one- xenophobia drives away potential allies. --Scimitar 20:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Abstain This user currently generates too much controversy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Something just doesn't seem right here, so I'm remaining neutral until/if I figure out what it is. If it was not someone like Ed Poor who nominated him, I would suspect a bad faith nomination. Since Ed Poor wouldn't do such a thing, it makes the matter even more puzzeling to me— Perhaps the oddness of this nomination is sipmly in its timing? It is worth noting that Brandon has made a step of good faith in removing the hostile tone from his user page. -JCarriker 03:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Neutral. Not very many edits, and I wonder if BYT would really gain anything (for WP) by becoming an admin at this point. I'm not as familliar as some with the whole BYT vs EdPoor fiasco, but it does take two to tango. --Silversmith Hewwo 12:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed to Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral-Almost a Support. My experience with BYT has been with attempts to find NPOV solutions to controversial issues of religion and politics. He played a very constructive role. My hesitation is simply with the fact that one gains experience over a longer period of time. We all get into conflicts over the long haul, what matters is how we deal with them. Also, just a note, some of the comments here make me concerned about religious bigotry. --Cberlet 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Abstain. Obviously there is a great deal of contention going on here, and we may in fact be dealing with a good user who will make a solid administrator. However, I think that this might not be the best time or the best circumstance for promotion. I do not like the idea of hanging one's dirty laundry on one's user page, and I am fully understanding of the small sins we may commit due to frustration, but I think that a convenient gesture of good faith now is good, but not necessarily meaningful without some time to bear it out. Perhaps this would be best revisited later. siafu 22:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral-almost a temporary mild oppose, but I definitely foresee supporting in the future, Brandon is a high-quality editor with all the right intentions to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. There are just a few rough edges that need to be ironed out first when it comes to Civility toward other editors in contentious articles. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. I don't oppose, I just feel I can't support at the moment. Come back in a couple of months' time. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 15:56 (UTC)

Comments

  • I find this nomination rather confusing. Could Ed Poor please explain why he nominated this user with which he clearly had many problems recently? I believe this would benefit all voters. --Sn0wflake 17:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've been avoiding voting on RFAs while my own is in session, but I have to add a "me too" to Sn0wflake's comment above. Given that four days ago Ed was lecturing Brandon on how to get along with difficult people, this nomination seems...odd. Perhaps I'm misreading things? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Brandon left a note on my talk page saying his nomination was connected to resolving a dispute between him and Ed, which sounds a bit odd. [3] SlimVirgin (talk) 17:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • So, basically, this is meant to put them on the same power level within the Wikipedia, one could assume. I could be wrong. --Sn0wflake 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I read the note as saying that it could help in resolving the persistent edit wars on pages they both edit, not as saying it could help resolve the dispute between him and Ed (though I imagine it might, at that.) - Mustafaa 21:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not making a recommendation when I say this, and I'm withholding a vote on this matter until I've finished researching what parts of BYT's history at WP as I have access to, but it seems to me that VfA is a ridiculous way to level a dispute between a user and an admin. Is this so that they can fight with each other with the same size gun or what? May I respectfully point out that if anyone thinks this is a legitimate move, that removing Ed Poor's admin powers would have the same effect? Tomer TALK 21:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Opposed in the strongest possible terms Do NOT let this Islamist get admin powers. Posted by User:216.138.211.80
  • ok, it does seem a bit weird. But with RFA's you should ignore the nominator, and look at the candidate. fwiiw, I would have been willing to nominate both Ed (were he not already an admin) and Yussuf, anytime. Note that they are sorting out their differences with mediation, something your average pov-warrior could never wrap his mind around. My experience with YBT is that he is doing a great job of repelling both Islam-bashers and Islam-hypers. And believe me, WP is getting a lot of both. So if you object, do so on grounds outside the perfecly civilized dispute that led up to this nomination. dab (ᛏ) 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oh great, just what we need, ANOTHER Islamist with Admin-powers who can run around banning for POV disputes (like Mustafaa) or harassing users (like Mel Etitis). And to the idiot who claims he's kept Islam-related articles "bias free", he's second only to Yuber in causing disputes on them in the first place by pushing his own bullshit POVs.
    • Comment made by 217.79.181.118 (talk • contribs)
      • Moved to 'comments' section, since anons can't vote here. Radiant_>|< 18:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Those who voted oppose, please note that BYT has removed the offending material from his userpage. Ingoolemo talk 20:08, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
    • So I see. However, the fact that he put such things on his userpage in the first place makes him a poor choice for adminship (for a couple of months, at least). Radiant_>|< 07:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    That shouldn't matter though - whether the material was removed or not, its presence at ANY time reveals that he shouldn't be given Admin powers. (Unsigned comment by 129.7.35.176 (talk • contribs))
  • Jayjg says "Doesn't respect important Wikipedia policies". I have seen no sign of this. Could you give examples? - Mustafaa 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have likewise seen no evidence of this and would be keen to see examples. -- Viajero | Talk 21:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Brandon has engaged in a relentless series of Talk: comments containing personal attacks e.g. " Wriggle elsewhere, please", "One of the things you've been busy doing is misdirecting conversations like these", " your various underhanded attempts", "faux ignorance" [4] [5] [6] [7], or filled with innuendo, [8], or filled with both personal attacks and innuendo [9] that indicate to me he doesn't respect what may be Wikipedia's most important policies, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. This is only strengthened by Brandon's apparent inability to recognize that when someone prefaces their very first Talk: comment to another editor with the phrase "You obviously have strong biases" they are making a personal attack; instead, he attributes any suggestion that this is a personal attack to an attempt "to undermine a point someone else was making, and intimidate them from posting on this page, by making an aggressive accusation that had no basis in fact." As well, when a person raises concerns about NPOV and balance in a paragraph, Brandon seems to think that the fact that it hasn't changed in a couple of months is a reasonable response to these concerns, and is a perfectly good reason for reverting to the months-old version.[10] To me this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • "You obviously have strong biases" is clearly not a personal attack (as you yourself have noted more than once, it's not reasonable to expect Wikipedians not to have biases), and, given that your expressed objection was to the new version, I don't see anything wrong with his suggestion of reverting to the "months-old version". His accusing you of misdirection (context) does constitute a failure to assume good faith; however, if that's the worst he's done in all the extremely controversy-ridden articles he's been working on, then I'm more impressed than shocked. - Mustafaa 21:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not reasonable to expect people not to have biases, but opening your comment to someone by stating they do is obviously a personal attack. Comments should ideally deal with edit content, not your negative analyses of the other editor. I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend your comment about versions, and I've only brought a small number of examples for the purposes of demonstration. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Jay, I stand by the objectivity of every edit I've contributed to an article, and I hope you don't question that. I do apologize for questioning your motives in the instance you cite. I was relatively new to the process.
      • That said, I think we both know it's a fact of life that things occassionally get testy on talk pages, especially the ones you and I choose to work on. Let's move on.
      • I respectfully disagree with your assessment that someone saying "You obviously have strong biases" constitutes a personal attack; your insisting that it is seems a little labored at this point. I'm obviously not doing well on this adminship thing, which gives me something to work on, but I do hope this vote, and your comments here, represent a chance for you and I to begin to work a little more constructively together, as Ed and I have, and I want you to know I respect your work a great deal, even when we disagree. BrandonYusufToropov 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I took a look at some of the diffs jayjg cited, and BYT does come across as someone with strong opinions who can be argumentative at times. However, I would say the same about jayjg himself. But while I don't always agree with every position jayjg takes, I did support his admin vote last year, and he has never abused these priviledges. I would expect the case to be exactly the same with Brandon. -- Viajero | Talk 15:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ok, what are these "we don't like the stuff on his userpage" opposing votes? What policy was he violating there? People tend to do pretty much as they please, with their user pages. Especially, seeing that BYT removed the stuff once people complained. How can it be held against him that he had stuff related to his mediation on his userpage before people came along saying that they consider this objectionable? I mean, feel free to oppose on grounds of his actual behaviour, but such technicalities are really not a good reason, in my book. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm still not prepared to register a vote on this VfA, but given that BYT felt it appropriate to post the material there to begin with is, I think, rather "questionworthy", see question 4 below. Before I comment further on this issue (which I was prepared to do right now, but...), I'll await a response to that question, which I'm sure a number of undecided editors are curious to see/"hear". (oops! signing: this was me last night. Tomer TALK)
      • I accept your explanation, although I still think, without wanting to create an atmosphere of ill-will between us, that it looks more like pandering for votes to those who have expressed concerns about it (which is not what consensus is about) and removing evidence (which does not sit well with me) than removing it "in good faith" (instead of because you felt it was inappropriate to have it there). That said, let me just clarify that I think removing it was, in fact, the proper course of action (since I don't think it should have been there to begin with). You've convincingly explained why you put it into your userspace, even if in an inappropriate place, in bullet 2 of question 4, for which I thank you. Tomer TALK 15:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic (and one specific) questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I think I will follow the lead of more experienced admins on this point, but I would like to think I can help on maintenance issues that they identify for me.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The article currently entitled Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 features many of my edits, as do Qur'an, Muhammad, Muhammad as warrior, Hadith, and (sigh) Screaming Lord Sutch, which is particularly near and dear to my heart.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I certainly have had conflicts, and I won't say I haven't occasionally been stressed by them. The current exchange of viewpoints with Ed Poor has been an interesting and informative experience, and I have learned a great deal from Improv on mediation and compromise strategies that I hope to be able to incorporate in future work on WP, whether or not I become an admin. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I plan to model his tact and fair-mindedness.
4. Why did you feel it necessary or appropriate to post the now-deleted content on your user page? When you say you deleted it "in good faith", what part of the meaning of "in good faith", according to your understanding, was fulfilled by your deletion?

I can only answer this tangentially, because we have an agreement in mediation to keep our specific discussions there confidential, but I respect your question and I understand the reason you've asked it, so I want to give it my best shot while staying within the boundaries of my agreement there..

  • I originally posted the first half of this material on my userpage because, when I posted it in the RfM area, part of it was (perhaps mistakenly) omitted while it was transfered to the talk page. (This was the section that dealt with my question about the pattern of page moves; I later posted a dialogue between myself and Ed that I felt would be important evidence for the mediation.)
  • It's certainly fair to ask why I placed this stuff on my userpage, which is a prominent spot. There are two answers: First, I was not sure how to post a separate page in my own archive that would point to this material. (This betrays an ignorance of WP logistics that probably does not support my cause here, but it is nevertheless true, so there you go.)
  • Second, I wanted other people to be aware of the nature of the problems I was having. If the second reason seems like a reason for people not to vote for me as admin, I can certainly accept that. I realize my rhetoric was over the top in places, and I apologize to Ed for that.
  • Finally, the reason I took this material down in "in good faith" was that the off-line mediation discussions took a turn for the better, which is what we all were after. I can't discuss the specific progress Ed and I made, but I want people here to know that I did not agree to take the material down as part of any 'this for that" agreement, and that Ed never asked me to take the material down. I want to reiterate that Ed's nomination of me here was a complete surprise to me. It looks like it's not going well :) which is, I think, reason enough to accept that my motivation in taking the material down from my user page (and not reposting it) was in fact "good faith." I'm hoping Ed will show me how to archive my material. BrandonYusufToropov 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to avoid this page so long. One reason for the delay was that I was in the middle of a Mediation, and wanted to wait for that to conclude. In fact, it was during the mediation betwee Yusuf and me - which ended much better than a lot of people expected (!) - that I realized something technically about Wikipedia.

Only an admin can easily undo a page move. As long as the page wasn't moved via cut and paste, the software now responds to an "undo" (actually a "redo") of the move. So I was taking advantage of a feature which I didn't realize others were unable to use.

Buoyed by the stimulating tide of a Mediation going splendidly, this sudden realization crystalized the decision. Remember, it's no big deal.

How long do you have to be here, before you can be trusted with page un-move and page delete and simple vandalism block and page protection? Jimbo said it should be no big deal. So I'd like to ask a lot of the "oppose" voters to flip their votes. Yusuf can be trusted to use these simple functions.

This idea of their being two classes of users is absurd. Does anyone seriously think Yusuf would block someone to enforce his POV? Only about 4 out of 50 fear that. The rest of you, please change your votes to support the ordinary usage of the ordinary tools in the hands of a proven contributor. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! I don't always agree with Ed, but where did the idea of "not a big deal" go to? Guettarda 03:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I completely concur with Ed and Guettarda. No one has presented a shred of evidence that BYT cannot be trusted with the keys to the broom closet. -- Viajero | Talk 10:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to have done a good job on the pages I have seen with which he has been involved. 62.253.64.14 22:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)