Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality.09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutrality (32/22/4) Ends 02:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~5,000 edits. [1] since 5/15/04. Neutrality has now been here for three months. Yet, the scope of his contributions are typical of users who have been here for a couple of years. Also a member of the mediation committee. [2] Few candidates are nearly as qualified at the time of their nominations. 172 02:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination, but I want to note one thing. Many people look upon adminship as a title and an inherent indication of influence and power. I don't believe that. I subscribe to the view that sysops are simply "Wiki-janitors" - those that have such dedication to the wiki that they do those mundane chores that are required to keep Wikipedia's cogs moving. So I don’t really plan to do anything particularly exotic with sysop powers – just chores, mostly. Neutrality 02:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd object to the constant tinkering with the vote tally, above, by nominator, etc. As has been stated below, bureaucrats may decide for themselves whether to discount individual votes. In the meantime, this sort of tampering makes both the nominee and his supporters look petty. Please allow the vote to proceed without further obstruction, and direct your objections to bureaucrats if necessary. Cribcage 16:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree. Please contact a bureaucrat or state your concerns under the comments section. Do not start asserting that votes are invalid. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Aaagghh. Everybody misunderstood what I meant... Neutrality 21:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There was no misunderstanding. We heard you. We understand you. Please look in the mirror. Rex071404 15:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please, can we close this discussion now, and just keep the vote? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. 172 02:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Gamaliel 02:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rhymeless 02:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gzornenplatz 02:57, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  5. JCarriker 03:05, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Strongly support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Acegikmo1 03:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Everyking 11:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian✍Talk 12:53, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  11. David Gerard 12:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Danny 12:58, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • pir 13:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Fully support. Good point about "Wiki-janitors". I'm really sorry, but if I'm honest I can no longer support his nomination for admin, see below. - pir 16:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Ambi 13:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yet another "I can't believe (s)he's not a sysop!
  15. Infrogmation 17:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 20:11, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Kevin Baas | talk 21:11, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC) Strongly support.
  18. I've seen nothing but good from this individual. -- Grunt (talk) 23:39, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  19. Shard 00:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has 24 edits and has been here since Jul 26, and nearly of his edits are to "meta" pages. Prob sock puppet. VV 02:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. GeneralPatton 00:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  21. Antandrus 01:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. Mark 01:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  23. Lan3y - Talk 02:09, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • User has 47 edits. Fuzheado | Talk 08:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Markalexander100 03:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  25. Defending yourself is only what should be expected. Andre 07:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Snowspinner 20:53, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  27. uc 21:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC). While nominees shouldn't edit their nominations, I consider this a fairly minor faux paux from an otherwise excellent nominee. It would be unfair to oppose his nomination solely on these grounds.
  28. Lucky 6.9 00:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  29. ugen64 02:49, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  30. SimonP 02:52, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Gavin M 05:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • User has 6 edits, one to an article, four to VfD pages, and this one. VV 06:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • This vote should be removed, along with all the other ostensible sockpuppet votes on both sides (there are even more seemingly dubious votes on the "oppose" side). A bureaucrat should take a look at this. 172 06:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I think you mean a developer, because s/he's have to take a look at the database. But I'm not sure it will make a big diff one way or the other on the outcome. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I disagree. There is indeed a strong chance, mathematically speaking, that sockpuppets will decide the outcome of this Rfa. Since a candidate needs over 80% support to become an admin, just one "oppose" vote carries as much weight as four "yes" votes. As of now, there are currently three suspicious votes on the "support" side and four suspicious votes on the "oppose" side. In that sense, it would require about sixteen "support" votes to outweigh the effect of just four suspicious votes on the "oppose" side. Thus, the possible use of sockpuppets stands as very disproportionately unfair to the ~30 users choosing to support Neutrality's nomination for admin janitor. 172 08:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Well, as of right now, the sheer numerical vote, throwing out all the doubtful votes is 29-12, which is not quite 71%, so we shall see. As to the broader issue of who can vote, some of these ("Pusher" jumps out at me--almost all of his edits are non-edits) seem obvious sockpuppets. Right now, I think we only require a logged-in user; we can have this discussion (again) on talk. -- Cecropia | Talk 09:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  32. Andries (2760 edits since 20 January 2004) 19:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Guanaco 04:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Noisy 08:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. User:Timothy001 15 August 2004 "I object to his becoming an administrator. As it is now he has deleted legit. articles Pro-Life and Pro-Choice twice and made them re-directs. I think articles should be more important than re-directs when they have information to add on subjects. He would continue to abuse his power as a system admin. I don't think he is ready to be an admin."
    I object to taking this vote seriously. The user has less than fifteen edits, all of which were on abortion. As far me "deleting legit. articles" — I simply returned poorly written, inherently POV articles back to the proper redirects, (to Morality and legality of abortion), which was the status quo. Neutrality 21:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this voting user has 15 edits as of 15 August 2004.
  4. VV 21:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Until this user develops a better understanding of Wikipedia's neutrality policies and working with other editors, clearly oppose. He had been involved in chronic edit wars on several pages in only the last few days, usually provoked by repeated reversion of others' edits with little cause and also due to a clear political bias. (I also want to add something about N's judgement. See, e.g., this revert, part of a long war, in particular the edit summary he uses to justify it. VV 03:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    I'd like to note that VV has held a grudge aganist me from the day I arrived here, and forced me to file a RfC aganist him due to his lack of respect for consensus at all. Neutrality 21:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    "My wife forced me to kill her." The source of this supposed "grudge" was Neutrality repeatedly reverting me at FOX News with only dismissive comments. I tried very hard to work with him, both on the Talk page there and User talk:Neutrality, but to no avail. VV 21:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Actually, Fox News had nothing to do with the dispute; the matter was actually George W. Bush, where VV continued to revert not only me, but at least three others, aganist voted consensus. Neutrality 21:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    On this page here Neutrality admits that he was involved in an "edit war" about Fox News. At this page section here Neutrality is told by Fred Bauder that moving (evidence) "statements to the talk page is highly inappropriate". At this page section here on August 13th, 2004 (only four days ago!) he was warned and admonished by Guanaco for "You have reverted John Kerry nine times in 24 hours". Also, at this link here you can find this sentence; "C'mon! Sysops get in edit wars all the time; as long as they don't abuse their power, I'm fine with it." by Neutrality (from July 15th, 2004). Let the record about these episodes, speak for itself. Rex071404 05:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    It's precisely this sort of lack of conciliation that is my reason for opposition. Noisy 23:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Taco Deposit 22:30, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this voting user has 142 edits 15 August 2004.
    As I asked on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Michael_Moore_Hates_America, how many edits do you feel a user must have before his vote should be counted? Please stop trying to disenfranchise me. Taco Deposit 12:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • But has been here since Apr 18. VV 02:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Rex071404 23:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) There is currently an Arbitration case pending, in which Neutrality is named as both a complainant and a respondant [3]. As strongly as I can possibly say, I feel that Neutrality is not qualified for Admin. Should he attain that role now, it would I feel, bring discredit on and loss of respect for, the title of Admin. Please be advised that at the begining of that Arb case, Neutrality took the extremely inappropriate step of actually deleting my facts from the case page! He was strongly reprimanded by Fred Bauder for that. Also, Neutrality has an Rfc [4] pending against him for the misleading nature of his user name. Also, Neutrality recently reverted me 9 times on one article in one day John Kerry and when I opposed him on that article over time, I was the one who got banned from editing it! Neutrality also has his fingerprints all over the squabbling at George_W._Bush. Neutrality recently used vulgar language against me and just now today, taunted me on my talk page (an entry which I deleted). He constantly reverts people with false and misleading edit summaries. He refuses to dialog. And he quite obviously holds grudges. Rex071404 23:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    This vote is invalid. I object to taking this vote seriously. Just the facts, ma'am:
    Question: what wikipedia policy supports your assertion that "this vote is invalid"? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    The vote is not officially invalid in the sense of "explicitly should not be counted," but common sense says the vote is essentially meaningless with regards to determining consensus. Perhaps "invalid" is not the best word to use. Neutrality 00:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that beaurocrats (as was decided by the beaurocrat poll) are entitled to give RFA votes whatever heed they want - they can ignore votes if they so choose. →Raul654 01:03, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    I trust every current bureaucrat and their judgement, and I truly mean that. Neutrality 01:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    I'd like to encourage bureaucrats to disregard votes by any user with less than 200 edits and a month under his/her belt, as I strongly suspect sockpuppetry, and grudge voting at the minimum, by several of the users voting to oppose. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Such a blanket policy is an extremely bad idea. There are actually some legit new users. Decisions on validity of votes should be done individually for each voter. — Kate | Talk 01:13, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
    I agree with Kate. By the way, I notice nobody seems to be in such a tearing hurry to declare Shard's vote to support invalid. --Michael Snow 01:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Ah, I just made a note of that myself. Also, Shard had opposed me on RfC as his sixth edit to Wikipedia. VV 02:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Regardless of whatever the policy is for counting votes, I'd advise everyone to take Rex's retaliatory comments with a shaker of salt. He got himself banned and refuses to take responsibility for his behavior. Gamaliel 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    You mean like when Rex said "My inter-editor comments conduct has improved greatly in the last few days. I have been chastened by Snowspinner and have improved myself as a result." Sounds to me like he's taking responsibility for the behavior that got him banned. VV 02:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Just because he said that doesn't mean it is true. He posted that comment before he was banned from editing and before he engaged in an edit war over a minor point in grammar. His behavior before and after that comment is not noticably different. He continues to blame what has happened on the supposed pro-Kerry bias of the arbitration committee, other editors, and Neutrality in particular instead of on his own behavior. Gamaliel 03:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Did he engage in this "edit war over a minor point in grammar" by himself? VV 03:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    He managed to insult me and a half dozen editors repeatedly over the course of over two weeks all by himself. Gamaliel 04:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. I wasn't going to vote on this matter, but Neutrality's conduct on this page worries me greatly. All of us encounter opposition to our views, some if it from users who many find turbulent. The views of all non-banned, non-sock puppet users count equally, and Neutrality's belief that common sense dictates against counting Rex071404's vote doesn't square well either with policy or my sense of fair play. I've had my run-ins with VV myself, but VV's opinion counts too, whether or not VV has a "grudge" against anyone. It appears that Neutrality is intent on having the last word with his/her critics, which often isn't the best strategy toward ensuring long-term wikipeace. Lastly, it's important that the record of discussions such as this be as accurate as possible, and even subtle changes such as this edit make me uncomfortable (I'm fine with strikeouts, however). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, I confirmed with FMcW that there was only one (singular) "run-in" with me, and it was him protecting a page (curtly), on account of a short conflict between me and Jor which had already been amicably settled when he showed up. VV 02:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Zocky 01:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC): Oppose because of behaviour on this page (challenging other people's votes in the vote list itself, instead of commenting on them under comments, among other things).
  9. Please no. Just because someone makes a lot of edits does not qualify a person to become a “sysops” user. I have seen some of Neutrality’s not so neutral edits and I do not think he should get anymore power than what he has now. He goes around deleting pages and makes them re-directs for no other reason then his personal bias. Just his idiotic responses to anyone who votes against him proves that he is not up to the position. Also, since he claims he is not interested in power in his inflated egotistical gabfest of an acceptance speech and that he only wants to be a Wiki-janitor doing mundane tasks, he doesn’t need anymore authority to do that. He should stay as is until he can respect other peoples contributions and grow up a little bit. User:Pitchka 16 Aug 2004 (Removing obvious sockpuppet vote. 172 03:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)) (Unstriking. The evidence that this is a sockpuppet can be considered by the bureaucrats, and his opinions and reasons are valid in either case. VV 22:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    It is not necessarily the large number of Neutrality's edits that proves his ability to manage admin responsibilities, but rather the quality of those edits and evidence of both his strong competence and dedication to the project. Please see for yourself and take a look at the following list of articles on which he has made substantial contributions: Democrats Abroad, Charles Graner, El Cid, Scott Turow, Caprivi, Quebec Bridge, Spessard Holland, FleetCenter, Agnes Macphail, Francis P. Fleming, Henry L. Mitchell, Calvin and Hobbes, and (my favorite) United States Army Air Forces. And, to a lesser extent: Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Ruth Ann Minner, Wesley Clark, Bristol, Rhode Island, DCCC, Papal election, and List of West Virginia state prisons. 172 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    User has 76 edits. Likely a sockpuppet of Timothy001, given that they edit the same pages and both have the same userpage pattern (e.g., the entire content of Timothy001 userpage is "Timothy T. = The Man," and the entire content of Pitchka's userpage is "Pitchka = Little Bird." Neutrality 03:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Agree. Pitchka's (aka Timothy001's) sockpuppet vote needs to be removed. 172 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. I'd like to wait a few more months until I support Neutrality. At least because of editing disputes I have seen him in, and because of his assertions that votes are invalid (lemme guess, mine is too?) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to nominee's conduct during this vote. Cribcage 13:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Oppose for now. Nominee's conduct during this vote has been totally dismissive of criticism. Moreover, he is in the middle of controversy over John Kerry in which, although Rex has been banned (and perhaps with good reason), Neutrality has been less than.... neutral. Aside from Neutrality's actual performance wrt [[John Kerry]}, it does not make sense to elevate someone to sysop in the middle of a POV conflict in which he or she has been a main player. This needs to cool off first. Klanda 15:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 90 edits as of 16 Aug 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 06:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Not that this counts for much, but user has less than 100 edits, half of which are in the Talk or Wikipedia namespace. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • It counts for nothing. Klanda raised two reasonable objections -- and rather than address either, you chose to attack his credibility. That seems to be a pattern, above, from the nominee and his supporters -- hardly behavior befitting a would-be admin. Cribcage 16:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I didn't intend to address those. I was just making a note for benefit of others. I'm not even drawing any conclusions, because there's no proof this user's a sockpuppet. His objections are perfectly reasonable — I didn't say otherwise. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. As far as I can tell, this user has valuable contributions, but much too short of a temper. (Yes, I only have 47 or so edits and two months, but I've been reading the political (and other) talk pages out of curiosity.) Miss Puffskein 21:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 46 edits as of 15 Aug 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 06:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Gentgeen 23:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Pusher 06:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 83 edits as of 17 Aug 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 06:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • "Cerulean blue is a gentle breeze" Acegikmo1 13:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, lacking in neutrality and embrace of certain policies/project ideals. A great deal of recent conflict of a nature unflattering to himself. Sam [Spade] 06:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Bad conduct here, and the annoying habit that he practically never describes or explains the changes he makes, whether minor or major. He just recently switched the flag in the Template:United_States_infobox twice without explanation. And in case you are wondering I have about 1670 edits. Aris Katsaris 16:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  18. Pattern of conduct does not inspire confidence that he will use his powers solely in a janitorial manner. Pcb21| Pete 16:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • (>8000 edits to save you poor lambs from having to count'em!) Pcb21| Pete 16:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. As I said above, I'm very sorry about this, but I need to oppose his nomination. His attempt to disenfranchise fellow Wikipedians (I'm not talking about sockpuppets, but Rex - 'This vote is invalid' with the "justification" of a past conflict) is out of order and destroys all confidence I had in his ability to use admin powers responsibly. This does not dominish him in any way as a Wikipedian - he's a very good contributor, and I like his user page a lot.pir 16:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  20. I have had limited experience with this user, however the experience I have had with him, in the John Kerry article leads me to believe that he would not use his new found powers responsibly, since he hasn't used the powers he currently has responsibly. Until he can show a little more restrant, I can not support him becoming an admin. — マイケル ₪ 04:25, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've reconsidered my vote due to his inappropriate actions towards Rex's vote. He may be annoying at times, but thatis no excuse for unilaterally declaring his vote invalid. — マイケル ₪ 17:16, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Although the nominee appears to write some good articles, I find his/her behaviour on this page extremely inappropriate if not sometimes disgusting. I dread to think what would happen if he/she had the power to delete pages. Dmn / Դմն 20:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  22. More heat than light in this RFA. Not a good idea to spend more time on it today. Lets try again in a month or two when tempers have cooled. I'm sure Neutrality would make an fair admin, but I know *I* wouldn't want to become an admin with a vote like this.:) When things have cooled down, we'll be able to judge in all neutrality. ;-) Kim Bruning 21:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Not really sure about the nominee's eagerness to pronounce votes invalid. — Kate | Talk 00:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
    • This sounds like you're opposing. VV 06:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Possibly. I don't think I can support adminship, but at the same time I'm not sure I'm concerned enough to actually oppose. — Kate | Talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
        • Argh! I've been misrepresented, unintentionally I assume. I wrote that comment in reply to Mbecker, but he moved his vote to the Oppose section, and left my comment under your neutral vote! VV 19:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Oh, I see. Never mind then :-) — Kate | Talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
  2. I see both pro et contras. I'd like Neutrality to be a bit more neutral and accurate in his actions, but on the other hand I don't any reason to expect that he would abuse the admin power. I'd also like to the previous nomination: Neutrality Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 17:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, since you point towards that old vote and I don't want any further accusations against me: I voted against Neutrality in that old poll, without explaining my vote. User:Hcheney then asked for my vote not to be counted and accused me of being a "possible troll" (I'd never even come across him before and don't engage in trolling). I wasn't made aware of User:Hcheney's attempt to disenfranchise me until the vote was closed. I then explained my reasons for opposing Neutrality's nomination [5] to Neutrality and HCheney. I asked HCheney to susbtantiate his accusation or to withdraw it and apologise [6]. Neither Neutrality nor HCheney ever responded to my messages. pir 18:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Klanda that Neutrality's reaction to criticism has been less than ideal. This vote is one example, and I had seen similar behavior before, on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality, where N posted a response and immediately delisted the page in an unsummarized minor edit. However, Neutrality's editing has otherwise been top-notch, and two incidents of misbehavior do not a pattern make, thus the neutral vote. —No-One Jones 03:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. At present, I am neutral in this. I agree with Neutrality's stance in the edits over John Kerry, as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" have made clear (as well as ongoing "books" coming from the partisan side), there really is a war over such words as "minor wound." These words, which by themselves seem innocent of all intent, are massively POV in the current environment, because some folks on the right are trying to get all the media to talk about the factuality of the wound or the medal/ribbon toss or whatever else, rather than service vs. non-service. However, the fact that the partisan debate in the outer world so quickly became a pitched battle in this virtual world -- one that has continued here -- and the readiness of both sides to employ fictional users or dopplegangers, makes me say that the truth of Neutrality's abilities are obscurred so thoroughly that I cannot support or oppose. If all Neutrality's opponents were wrong, it would, in a sense, make no difference, because he has become a polarizing actor. If the problem is with his opponents, then the ArbCom rulings will sort that out. Until then, the amount of heat surrounding this debate is enough to dissuade me from voting support. Geogre 18:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • From what I've seen, Neutrality seems like the type of user who would make a responsible admin, so I've voted my support. However I'm not fond of the user name "Neutrality", which IMO sounds even less apropriate for an admin than a contributor. -- Infrogmation 17:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've been thinking about changing it. Give me a week or so. Neutrality 18:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality seems somewhat careless about copyright. A number of images uploaded by Neutrality lack any documented origin and are probably copyright violations, for example Image:Nixon Agnes.JPG, Image:Operation_Market_Garden.jpg Image:KerryHockey.jpg, Image:KerryLacross.JPG. Some images claimed by Neutrality to be "fair use" are almost certainly not used fairly, for example Image:Looters.JPG, Image:Benjamin_Nighthorse_Campbell.JPG, Image:Kerryarrest.JPG. I don't think this should disqualify Neutrality from an admin position, but I would appreciate a response from the candidate. (My request on User talk:Neutrality was deleted with no response, but perhaps I will have more luck here.) Gdr 20:19, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
Image:Nixon Agnes.JPG and Image:Operation_Market_Garden.jpg should be deleted. The rest I have just supplied source and licensing information for. Neutrality 21:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Gdr 22:00, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  • User Cribcage has less than 60 edits to articles, 45 in april 2004 and the rest since then. OTOH, Cribcage has over 320 edits to RFA and VFD. Up to bureaucrats to decide what they do with his vote here and elsewhere. Zocky 14:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Some users take more of an interest in the adminstrative side of Wikipedia than the content. In my experience, Cribcage is one of the more reasonable and even-tempered involved in this project. VV 22:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • We're writing an encyclopedia here, not running a social club. People who aren't interested in the content should find another place to hang out. Zocky 03:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not ready to vote on this RfA, but saying that Cribcage is even-tempered, after calling MikeH "too dim to read between the lines" of his contribs and a thoroughly nasty series of personal insults on the Lucky 6.9 RfA is too outrageous to be passed over in silence. That was a really disgraceful exchange. Geogre 14:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I responded to the comment to MikeH myself, and I said it was unfortunate but understandable given what MikeH had said to Cribcage, which had been fairly mean-spirited. I'll have to look at the Lucky RfA to know what that's about. VV 16:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Currently, my vote is Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Act III, i, l. 61, but what I read "between the lines" of Cribcage's contributions was not to his credit. It is unusual for users to be here for a while and, straight out of the gate, contribute only in advocacy on RfA and VfD. Almost like a support of a particular other user or POV, and calling him deliberative and neutral and wise is, well, not something I could do. Geogre 15:35, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Quoting from WP:RFA, above: "Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the Comments section below every nomination." The candidate, and others, should take note of this.Klanda 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality: if you become a sysop, it may be wise for you to change your username, or at least modify your signature to make it clear that Neutrality is your handle. Someone with this handle performing admin actions might lead to confusion on some newbies. ato 22:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have a similar comment. Sometimes I interpret a username as suggesting some Wikipedia-related agenda (e.g. User:Wikisux). In Neutrality's case, correctly or not, when I see this username, I tend to think "This user believes he is a paragon of neutrality," or "This user believes that Wikipedia suffers from rampant non-neutrality and hopes to remedy it." Does Neutrality care to comment? Is such an interpretation surprising or farfetched? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. (Dope-slapping self) Duh. I yam stoopid. I should have checked his user page, where he explains it. Let this stand as a comment; no reply needed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality writes quality articles as 172 wrote. He is involved in a lot of conflict but I think that is because of the sort of articles he edits not because he is argumentative. I do not think that his response to criticism and conflict here or elsewhere is ideal but it is good enough. It is logical that you want to defend yourself against criticism here that you think is unfair though he should have folled the rules in this. Andries 19:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) (2760 edits since 20 January 2004 )

Preemptive respond to questions:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
A. Twice.
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. Yes. I am here nearly everyday, and I have a good working knowledge of Wikipedia’s important functions.
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. Most likely RC patrol, 24-hour blocking vandals. Perhaps helping out with speedy deletions, etc. And I’ll do cleanup and mark stubs and categorize, which I do anyway. I'll also watch WP:RFPP.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A. Unsure as to one specific article, but here’s a few I did heavy work on: Democrats Abroad, Charles Graner, El Cid, Scott Turow, Caprivi, Quebec Bridge, Spessard Holland, FleetCenter, Agnes Macphail, Francis P. Fleming, Henry L. Mitchell, Calvin and Hobbes, and (my favorite) United States Army Air Forces. And, to a lesser extent: Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Ruth Ann Minner, Wesley Clark, Bristol, Rhode Island, DCCC, Papal election, and List of West Virginia state prisons.
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 done a lot of grunt work categorizing articles, most notably Category:Awards and decorations of the U.S. military, Category:Rivers, and Category:Olympics. In the future I want to complete Category:Terrorist organizations. I’m also on the Mediation Committee, and am learning a lot about mediation.
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?
AYes, I have, and I think that gives me a unique perspective as opposed to someone who never conflicts with other users. On several occasions I simply left the article and worked on others — after all, the Wiki has thousands of articles, and it’s always regrettable when any user gets emotionally involved in articles. Conflict that is impossible to resolve and that will cause irreparable harm to an article is very rare, but it regrettably has happened to me and others on one article. The matter currently is in arbitration.
it’s always regrettable when any user gets involved in articles. Typo? Markalexander100 04:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's a typo. I meant emotionally involved. :) Thanks for catching it. Neutrality 04:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)