Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] HolyRomanEmperor

Closed due to snowball clause (8/15/2) ended early; original deadline 16:41 27 December 2005 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs) – HolyRomanEmperor has been around since August this year and has amassed around 2000 edits in that time. He's a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit, and gets involved in discussions so he knows what's going on. He's also a very civil and sociable Wikipedian, which is shown by the number of edits made in the user talk namespace. He could do with the admin powers to assist him with all the hard work he does on Wikipedia, and I believe he would use them responsibly. FireFox 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator. FireFox 16:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - He has some nice edits and is an all-round asset to Wikipedia that would be better as an admin. --Mistress Selina Kyle 16:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Edit Conflict with the Mistress Support because he does good work, but in the future, please use edit summaries more often, okay? —BorgHunter (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support with similar stats to me how could I vote any other way :).Gator (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support He looks deserving to me. Drn8 16:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. Awesome dude. «LordViD» 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. PANONIAN (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. S.Miljkovic

Oppose

  1. Oppose - vote spam in #wikipedia-de, #wikipedia-fr, most probably in more channels. This is a no-no. --Avatar-en 16:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    I sincerely apologize for that. Several other (successful) candidates have been "advertising" as well. I have also preserved an advertising case on my talk page. HolyRomanEmperor 17:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. dito --Leon ¿! | de:WP de:WP ¿! 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. dito --diba 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. oppose Sansculotte 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. oppose Crux 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. oppose Elephantus 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. strong oppose Not only was this user advertising, he made it blatantly clear in the vandalism IRC chat that he didn't even fully read through the pages one is supposed to read through before nomination to become an admin, via asking questions about the process he would have known the answers to if he had read the necessary materials. Search4Lancer 17:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose: Recent edit summary usage seems to be well below 10%. Although I'm admittedly unaware of the context, some of his comments (taken at random within the past week or so) seem to exhibit a sharp lack of objectivity: Greater Croatian propaganda, "Why are you making such a noise...?", loss of temper, deceipt and ban. Unfortunately, I don't think he'd use his administrative powers wisely; if he improves on these points, I see no reason to oppose in any future request. // Pathoschild 18:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Low use of edit summaries, could use more work in the Wikipedia: namespace. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. strong oppose I think this user is a hard-line Serb nationalist. He used to vandalize many articles that are related to Bosnia and Bosniaks, Montenegro and Montenegrins, and Kosovo. He lied several times about my contribution, saying that I edited some articles that I never did. For instance he said this: I am an goodf (at least I think) historian, and am currently re-writing the articles of Doclea, Zeta (state), Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia and Pagania. User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles. That would vandalism if he didn't actually think that way. HolyRomanEmperor 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Here.But I have to say that I have never visited Rascia, Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania articles. As you can see above, he said: "User:Emir_Arven is changing those articles." He was blocked for breaking 3RR and also tried to brake 3RR asking other user User_talk:Obradovic_Goran to help him in his nationalistic behaviour. He wrote this: Pih, I need to ask you for another favour: History of Bosnia; vandal User:Emir_Arven has (unexplainingly) deleted my edits. Please revert the vandal's change to my last ([4]) I cannot, it would be 3RR violation. The vandal just said "yes" and deleted important info. HolyRomanEmperor 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC) So I think this user should be blocked because he lied and tried to manipulate with administrators about my contribution. --Emir Arven 18:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. 'Oppose Lack of edit summarries and lack of wiki namespace edits. Sorry --Jaranda wat's sup 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose The user can often be friendly but simply is not someone I or many others would trust as an administrator. His edits are virtually exclusive to topics of interest to Serb nationalists and he's been involved in countless edit wars throughout his career. He's flooded the talk pages of numerous users from the region, including myself, with countless questions about nationalist issues and then proceeded to give his own (controversial) views on the matter whether that person has responded or not. Many users have been bothered by this and consider it a provocation. Furthermore, the user often displays bad wiki-etiquette. I distinctly remember that only just recently he lied to fellow users about me breaking the 3RR (when I didn't) in order to get me banned. Asim Led 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Sorry Holy. As much as I may respect you personally you come with a lot of baggage and a constituency that would count on your admin status to push their agenda. Much more needs to be done in cooperation between our groups before I am comfortable to give you my vote and trust you that it will not be misused. Also for some of the reasons noted above: opposed.--Dado 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose You already know what I think. But it will be well to add in passing that you're throwing mud into Joy's face. --VKokielov 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose --Thewanderer 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose It will provoke further conflicts and disagreements. He is known for his use of lies as arguments, as i once saw. Evidence is his, i dont know, xy request for adminship. It will be disaster, however. We don't need admins like that, Wikipedia don't need that. It would be dissapointment for me and many others, and failure for Wikipedia community. Yes, he is good contributor, but for adminship NO! He approaches sensitive articles to often and careless. --HarisM 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning towards oppose. Very few edits in the project namespace, low use of edit summaries, answer to question (1) seems vague, welcoming new users isn't a sysop chore and good contribution to RC Patrol is not reliant on sysop status. --pgk(talk) 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I too would like to see more use of edit summaries. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Can anybody bring up an IRC log so we can have a look at the alleged spamming? Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There's questionable legality in doing so. I've put the question out to some people who should know. --Durin 18:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Unlist this nom please, per snowball clause. Radiant_>|< 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. The main task will be (and has been by now) welcoming new users. I have joined also the Counter-vandalism Unit and as soon as I become an admin, this will become a priority.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. One of my largest edits is the Duklja article. The following articles have been also created by me, but need some clean-up: Mihailo Voislav, Stefan Voislav and Jovan Vladimir. I am currently working on Zeta (state), Skadar and Lika. I enjoy writing history-related articles and think that my contributions to them are more than necessary to expand the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia project.
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 have been involved in several conflicts like regarding a population census on Cazin and Mesa Selimovic but they have all been solved successfully. I tried to interviene in the Oj, svijetla majska zoro's edit war, creating a neutral version of the article; but it wasn't accepted and the edit war was continued until one side simply gave up, unfortunately. I have attempted to insert some info on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it was deleted despite my explainations on the talk page, and I really don't like fighting edit wars, so I didn't insert the info again (one of the main reasons for my adminship would be the advantage to lock the edit-warring articles) I have had some conflicts with several users watching that page; but I gave reasonable explainations for them as can be seen on Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, confirmed by the administrator User:Rama as well-documented and typically more civil than those of many others.


The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.