Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chmod007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] David Remahl

Vote here

(32/1/0) Ends 09:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've argued for self-noms to be given the same consideration as "normal" nominations many times, so I think it would be hypocritical to wait for someone to nominate me, or even worse to ask someone to nominate me. I've been using Wikipedia since May 31, 2004 and have approximately 2050 edits on en (a high proportion of those are minor, but I have contributed quite substantially too). I've taken the liberty of answering the standard set of questions below. Feel free to ask me anything else — here, or on my talk page. Note: My user name is "Chmod007", and my signature is my real name: "David Remahl".

Support

  1. First post. PS, it's me, Mero, from #wikipedia!! --MerovingianѤTalk 10:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support wholeheartedly. I actually thought about nominating you a few days ago, but didn't get around to it. Sorry about that. Now show up at Chalmers damnit :) Fredrik | talk 10:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. — Kate Turner | Talk 10:20, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
  4. Jwrosenzweig 14:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Nice to be able for a non-controversial candidate....my first here in a while. :-) David is an excellent and intelligent user, well worthy of this position.
  5. —No-One Jones (m) 14:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. Acegikmo1 14:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. If people I trust support him, I see no reason not to. And adminship should be no big deal anyway. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 14:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  8. -- orthogonal 14:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Self-noms should be given the same consideration; as long as they have at least one supporting vote, it's almost the same thing, no? And as Ananrion notes, adminship is no big deal, as desysopping is frequent and easy to achieve. [Reinserted after User:33451 removed my vote. -- orthogonal 19:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)]
  9. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  10. Sippan 16:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  11. func(talk) 16:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) This will get me some of your Mac shareware for free, right? ;-)
  12. Although I waited too long and missed the opportunity to nominate him myself, I'm glad to see he uses this opportunity to make a point I support about self-nominations. --Michael Snow 17:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  13. Yes, ofcourse. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 18:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  14. –Andre (talk) 19:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  15. Wasn't he already an administrator????? Strongly support. --Lst27 19:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  16. Indeed. +sj+ 21:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  17. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  18. Grunt   ҈  00:32, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
  19. Support strongly. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  20. ffirehorse 22:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  21. Danny 23:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  22. Bishonen 00:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Excellent user, extra points for the self-nomination!
  23. Geogre 01:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) Extremely strong approval. He has gone the extra mile in trying to contact authors and always shown moderation, and yet strong standards.
  24. David Gerard 20:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  25. I could have sworn I had already voted support, but I'm not seeing it in the list. Well, here it is now. Support. SWAdair | Talk 23:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  26. SupportBesu 06:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  27. Well this is a nobrainer. CryptoDerk 14:30, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Austin Hair 19:34, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  29. Jayjg 22:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  30. Hopping on the bandwagon, and anyone that Mr Grinch opposes, I endorse. --Golbez 00:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Good user. ugen64 04:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  32. Great user. - Mark 06:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  33. Nice user. squash 00:54, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. He's accused me several times of trolling and sockpuppetry, without any grounds for such accusations. — i386 | Talk 14:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • He had grounds indeed, and rightfully accused you. You should not try to dirty this man's good and honest name. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • He can if he thinks chmod007's actions are detrimental to his abilities as an admin. --MerovingianѤTalk 10:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • If he's accused you of sockpuppetry, it's on the grounds of your documented use of sockpuppets - David Gerard 20:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

#Oppose. He makes unjustified personal attacks. Evidence: Talk:General_Mayhem#Repost. In the discussion, User:Ambi is seen as an icon of sincerity, individuality, creativity and female dignity. Then, Chmod007 comes along and starts making personal attacks. That kind of mental instability is something an admin should not have. Besu 21:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Note that 33451 has admitted to having more than one account. One of the accounts was used to vandalize, he has just slipped up and blown his cover on another account as well, see my talk page. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, "33451" is the username of the person who signed "i386" above (not the candidate in question). VV 02:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict, this is what I was trying to say before, but poorly worded).Okay, my comment before was poorly phrased. Let's look at it this way: WikiWatch was a sockpuppet, but I thought that by replying to him on my main account, I could convince other users that more than one person had heard of the WikiWatch Foundation. So although his accusation was correct, is had no background and was totally inappropriate. Also, I object to his adminship on the grounds that this user links to other users' subpages without their consent. — i386 | Talk 17:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • You just have to love the "truth is not a valid defense against charges of libel and slander" argument there. --Michael Snow 18:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I put back the link, but now it doesn't link to your namespace. I wasn't, and still am not, aware of any policy prohibiting linking to pages in other users' namespaces. Satisfied? — David Remahl 17:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • There is no such policy, and it sounds mostly like an unjustified attempt to extend ownership over pages in the user namespace. David can link to any page he chooses, and the only issue is that by linking to a wiki page, you always risk the possibility that the page you link to will change in some way. — Michael Snow 18:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • No, not at all. I simply don't want trolls such as him linking to my subpages (main pages are fine) to ruin my reputation unless they are posting on an RfC or RfAr. I can't afford to have trolls using my own subpages against me. — i386 | Talk 18:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • I'd say this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, except that David is no kettle. --Michael Snow 18:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • The pot calling the refrigerator black? - David Gerard 20:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • (before he reworded his statement)Then, how come you suspect that a sockpuppet search would show the incredible coincidence that WikiWatch and you were actually editing from the exact same terminal at the exact same school? — David Remahl 17:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Candidate would make Wikipedia only other-writable. VV 02:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:-P. For the unitiated, this is a reference to my nickname, chmod 007. — David Remahl 08:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To anyone that may consider voting against, on grounds that this is a self-nomination: I fully endorse this nomination, as if I had myself nominated him. blankfaze | (беседа!) 07:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:Besu has 3 edits. Nevertheless, I want to explain the situation on General Mayhem. I do not believe that claiming that a particular attitude is wiki-unfriendly is a "personal attack." I've got nothing at all against Ambi personally, but in this case I think she used policy unnecessarily to the letter. In any case, it was nothing more than a simple disagreement. I did not "come along" all of a sudden and start making attacks. Everyone was also more irritable than normal that day, since General Mayhem was the target of repeated vandalism. Everyone on the page had been helping to clean it up. Furthermore, Ambi and I were both on IRC at the time, so we had the opportunity to work out the "conflict" there. — David Remahl 06:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A. Of course. I obviously wouldn't nominate myself if I didn't have a good idea of what it was.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A. I've manually reverted vandalism many times. I've taken part in VfD and policy-forming concerning that process. I will continue to do these things, only more efficiently.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A. Oops, I already answered this above :-).
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most successfully and helpfully to?
A. Hmm, difficult question. I'm rather proud of the articles I've written almost exclusively myself (Crypto Operating System, Mark Abene, PlainTalk, etc.). However, I wish that in the future, other people will want to edit them as well!
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A. I've always done a lot of image tagging. I've added interlanguage links too, which is the main reason for my contributions outside of en (my native tongue is Swedish). I've also done some categorization, but not for a while because I think the cat system is too arbitrary right now...As for vandalism, as I said, I've always manually reverted it as I've seen it. Last week I helped keeping a watchful eye on the people who were editing/vandalising General Mayhem, making sure they stayed on that particular page.
6. 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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I was disturbed by Robert Brooks' behaviour on Penis. He removed a link to an "anti-circumcision" website, and I put it back and suggested a small informational message [1]. Later-on, he expanded the informational message in a POV way and was generally disruptive (he is now on RfC, thanks to Theresa). Most conflicts have been minor like this one. I really haven't edited that many controversial subjects, although I can't promise you I'll stay out of them forever. I'm quite aware of what constitutes abuse of sysop powers, so you need not worry about that.