Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plato.07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Plato (1/10/1) Ends 00:38, 10 July 2004 (UTC)

~846 edits since March 6.

It may appear that he would abuse his powers to support the trolls, and I felt this way myself when he was nominated last month by Lir. He actually is less likely than most to misuse them, and he would help counteract those who are quick to click the Block this user and Confirm buttons. This is shown by his ability to defend those who are most unpopular with the community and to protect them against sysop vigilantism and unfair extended blocks. Guanaco 00:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I accept, and thank Guanaco for his nomination. Comrade Nick

Support

  1. Guanaco 00:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Lirath Q. Pynnor Trolling is not a valid reason to oppose sysophood; all such complaints should be negated.
    Only in your mind. →Raul654 04:47, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Trolling is the best darn reason I can think of to oppose sysophood. Get out. All of you just get out. The only people who want you here is you. The "administration" (ha ha) of this site put up with you. I won't. I am sure there are others who won't, either. You want democracy? You've got it. - Hephaestos|§ 05:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Amen. Cribcage 06:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. A self-admitted former troll - this is a joke, right? User:Plato/red faction - that's about all I have to say. (For the record, this page has now been changed to reflect on Plato better. Here is what it looked like when I posted that link) →Raul654 00:43, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    I am not a troll.
    You just think they're the highest form of Wikilife? Snowspinner 00:59, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    That was moved there from User:JRR Trollkien/Troll because it would have been deleted otherwise. It does not represent anyone's beliefs but JRR Trollkien's. Guanaco 01:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    It's linked to from Plato's Red Faction page. Snowspinner 01:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Murder is linked to from my user page. So I guess I am a murderer now. Guanaco 01:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I think, considering that you just added that, that it's more likely that you're prone to proving points in odd ways. Whereas, in the case of the Red Faction page, context, particularly that offered by the page prior to its sudden and unexpected change to a page about fostering Wikilove, suggests that it is not simply an arbitrary link made to prove a point. Snowspinner 01:59, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    He has intentionally associated himself with the worst users on Wikipedia. He now has has no right to complain that it is being held against him. →Raul654 01:59, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Images for deletion/Flags has been there for a long time, and is not there to prove a point. Am I a flag or a PNG image of one that needs to be deleted? Guanaco
    I am incapable of believing you are actually missing my point here. Snowspinner 02:50, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    I think Guanaco's repeated unilateral unblocking of hard banned users such as User:Bird and the various User names created by User:Michael says volumes about his agenda. RickK 05:57, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I think plenty of checks exist for sysop vigilantism without needing to grant sysophood to people who have actively supported some of the worst Wikipedia users I can think of. Snowspinner 00:49, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is not a country club for those who are "tough on crime". We need admins with diverse opinions on how to deal with problem users. Guanaco 00:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    To reply to an unsupported statement with another unsupported statement, no, we don't. - Hephaestos|§ 03:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. I think Plato means well enough, but I don't believe him to be mature or sensible enough. I don't trust him. When MNH started a RFC on me Plato signed it because (as he later said on the mailing list) MNH and lir and irismeister all pushed him into doing it. Someone who will cave in to pressure like that is not likely to make a good admin IMO. theresa knott 01:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Could you give a link to the mailing list archives showing that post? Guanaco 03:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-May/012848.html - Hephaestos|§ 03:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. A frivolous nomination. He was nominated less than a month ago and failed by a huge margin. How often are people able to renominate themselves? - David Gerard 01:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    He hasn't renominated himself.theresa knott 01:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    How often are people able to be renominated, though? - David Gerard 01:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Last time, the nomination was by Lir during disputes involving User:Editing Saddam Hussein. Comrade Nick was not actually involved. After that that had been cleared up, it seemed to be a good time for him to be renominated by another user. Guanaco 01:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Although Nick was not involved directly in posting from Editing Saddam Hussein, he has admitted to talking to Lir during the process, encouraging Lir to do things, and generally to being a coconspirator in that incident. It's also worth noting that the Editing Saddam Hussein affair gave every appearance of being linked to the user who was impersonating RickK (The fake RickK voted for Lir's nomination of Plato, and was posting on the ViP for Editing.) Snowspinner 01:45, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    When did he admit to this? If you have a link or an IRC log, please post it. Guanaco 02:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    It was in IRC, about a onth ago, however, as I do not log, I'm unable to provide hard evidence. Snowspinner 02:58, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    I'll believe you once I see a log. Guanaco 03:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Are you accusing me of lying? Snowspinner 03:37, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Posting large sections of logs is explicetely against the rules. →Raul654 03:39, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Which is neither here nor there, since I don't have the logs in question. I'm aware that this makes it a situation of my word against Plato's. Or, actually, since he hasn't responded one way or another, of my word against nothing at all. I'm willing to allow people to believe what they will - I hardly see how I have any option. (After all, it's not as though a log would be proof - they're easily enough faked. Those inclined not to believe me, I suspect, cannot be persuaded) Snowspinner 03:52, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  5. --DrBob 01:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Dori | Talk 01:39, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Hephaestos|§ 02:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Neutrality 05:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Utter nonsense. Plato is not a former troll, he is a repeated, recurring, continuing troll. And this nomination just reveals Adam/Lir for what he is -- a troll himself. RickK 05:50, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. I would, however, support a permanent ban of both nominator and nominee. Frankly, I consider it long overdue. Cribcage 06:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I disagreed with Guanaco's unblockings as much as anyone else, but I think he's a good contributor and that's a very unfair accusation to make. →Raul654 06:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. After researching this user, I withdraw my neutral status and change to oppose (see above) For now, I remain neutral (and skeptical). Some questions for Plato; A) What are your Wikipedia tendencies? Do you consider yourself to be a deletionist or an inclusionist? An eventualist or an immediatist? B) What is your alternative philosophy for dealing with trolls, vandals, and problem users? Under what circumstances would you block a user? C) Can you say with complete honesty that you can perform sysop duties without alienating users? Neutrality 01:12, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments