Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plato.08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Plato (4/25/7) Ends 20:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Part of Red Faction group. Barnstar Award. Anyone that is an admirer of King Umberto II, Karl Marx, and Cicero, and enjoys Vermeer paintings can't be all that bad! Nominated but not signed by User:IndigoGenius. Please sign your nominations. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I accept your nomination and thank you!--Plato 01:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. IndigoGenius 00:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Guanaco 00:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) But I don't know why this is being tried again.
  3. Lirath Q. Pynnor A superb user!
  4. I ignore this "Red Faction". --Merovingian✍Talk 12:19, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Heh. Adam Bishop 00:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Request disciplinary action against nominator. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Anyone who starts his own cabal while complaining about cabalism can be all that bad. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 01:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Unless Plato is an admirer of Groucho, Zeppo, or Chico, I could not in good conscience vote for a Marx admirer. Plato is also a known associate of troll/vandal Lir. --H. CHENEY 01:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I do love Marx brothers movies.
      • OK - dump the Red Faction crap, Karl Marx, and Lir... and I will nominate you myself after three months of good behavior and quality editing. --H. CHENEY 02:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I agree with the general sentiment, but surely you can't mean that anybody who admires Karl Marx shouldn't be admin, can you? john k 22:44, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Stop associating with all this Red Faction BS, and you could really be a good user. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. The fact that he continues to accept spurious nominations gives me little faith that he's even begun to understand how Wikipedia works. Oppose. Snowspinner 01:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Graham ☺ | Talk 02:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Also agree with Fennec's request for disciplinary action against nominator. 172 03:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. Agree with the above comments and concur with Fennec's and 172's request. Neutrality 03:13, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  11. EddEdmondson 04:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. Bryan 04:11, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Guanaco is becoming more and more bizarre. What he's doing in this company, I don't know. Oppose, of course. Ban all of them. RickK 04:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    Ban all of who? theresa knott 10:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    See the section labeled "Support". - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 12:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    You're not seriously proposing that people be banned because of the way they have voted? theresa knott 23:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Of course he is. He could probably find some reason to ban you as well. Guanaco 23:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I suppose asking you all to stop bickering would be an exercise in futility? Snowspinner 00:00, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  14. David Cannon 05:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC). Oppose.
  15. theresa knott 10:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. --GeneralPatton 13:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  17. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  18. UtherSRG 17:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) *cough* troll *cough*
  19. Knock off the nonsense and focus on helping to create an encyclopedia. In a few months, I'll support. Cribcage 17:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, for now. However, if Plato became a better contributor in future, I might reconsider. -- The Anome 18:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  21. Don't do this, Lir. --Merovingian✍Talk 19:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Lst27 21:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  23. Arwel 00:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  24. I don't believe I voted in previous editions of this nomination, but since someone apparently needs it made utterly clear... the answer is no. Plato seems like a decent guy, but he needs to demonstrate better judgement. Isomorphic 07:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  25. BCorr|Брайен 15:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) . Ton. Ynnuf yrev ah ah ah.

Neutral

  1. Danny 05:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Personally, I think that this is a potentially excellent contributor and one day will be a fine admin. Just get past the Red Faction bullshit and continue contributing to the articles.
  2. I agree. Red Faction is so dumb. It's very sixth grade. Mike H 17:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny and Blankfaze said it well. If he disbanded the Red Faction, I'd change my vote to support. —No-One Jones 00:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Coming soon: the Green Faction - David Gerard 00:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     :-P No, I think Craig has dibs on that one. —No-One Jones 00:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I'm all for plaid, myself. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 14:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Not a bad contributor from what I have seen. I do not understand why he would want the position considering his distaste for what seems to be much of current wikipedia policy. There also is some question of the nominator. I suggest user:plato try again when he agrees more with wikipedia's goals or the policies that he opposes (and will most likely not enforce as an admin) are changed. Arminius 23:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. squash 08:49, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) Although, I've havn't seen any works of this guy or gal, and *could* have opposed (after looking at the oppose votes). I can't say if this person is good bad... so yeah... neutral vote
  6. VV 14:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) Plato appears to be being beleaguered merely because of the nominator, which isn't right.
  7. I don't think the nominator has anything to do with it. People seem to be following the herd. Secretlondon 04:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

FYI, 858 edits since March 3 of 2004. Snowspinner 03:08, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
A second FYI, previously was User:Jesus Chirst Snowspinner 03:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
However Fennec I refused to vote for bird when he was nomated for syosp!!! :)
Plato- Sign your remarks, wouldya? =b
  • I suggest that we not delete this nomination this time. I'm tired of the complaining whenever this nomination gets deleted. Let's let it go down 2/20/0 this time. Snowspinner 00:48, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Note Lir's support of this user and the nominator of the same user for an admin above. (Until it's removed.) Draw your own conclusion about potential sock puppet issues. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:55, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


A few questions. (I know I've already voted here, but I still have some questions.)

  1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
  2. 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?)
  3. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently?

Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • People are known by the company they keep. See the contributions of User:I support the Cabal and User: Voûte Royale, both of whom have self-identified as friends of Plato, both of whom have done nothing but vandalize and make death threats. How would a so-called new user such as I support the Cabal know to try to pass himself off as me unless he'd been given the information by Plato himself? RickK 20:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

People who request disciplinary action against nominator, if possible

  1. Neutrality 03:46, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (as mentioned above, Oppose #2)
  3. RickK 04:46, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  4. 172 10:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Assuming we get a trolling policy sorted out. After the last vote this is a clear case of trolling. theresa knott 10:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • After thinking about it, how can discipline someone for trolling when we don't actually have an antitrolling policy in pace yet? theresa knott 23:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  6. Ambivalenthysteria 11:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. David Cannon 12:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC).
  8. GeneralPatton 14:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. UtherSRG 17:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. Graham ☺ | Talk 18:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) though I understand there is no precedent for this action yet
  11. Cribcage 18:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. If it's possible, yes, of course! blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. Lst27 21:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  14. David Gerard 23:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  15. The nominator is obviously either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Lir, and should be banned as a troll. --H. CHENEY 04:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LoL -- what a bunch of noobs you guys are. Luckily, Jimbo Wales knows as well as I that Cesido Tallini is not my puppet. Run along little nooblets, your cabal will one day be destroyed. Lirath Q. Pynnor

How can people be both noobs and in a cabal? Aren't the two groups mutually exclusive? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:39, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

They are noobs to law and order. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Ah, makes sense now. I knew there had to be something. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:31, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • I oppose going after Lir. Lir's not harming anybody. --Merovingian✍Talk 19:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I changed my mind. We still shouldn't ban Lir, but this kind of disruption does need some kind discipline. --Merovingian✍Talk 20:18, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • You do know that Lir has been banned once before, promised to behave and stop using sock puppets, has been shown to still be using sock puppets, and is currently under review to be banned again, right? RickK 20:21, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ermf, I don't want to believe that Lir is evil (read: troublesome), (s)he has contributed decently. Now I'm confused. --Merovingian✍Talk 21:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Who are you requesting disciplinary action from? Is there any policy that allows this?- -- Cecropia | Talk 01:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • To hell with policy, bureaucracy, and red tape. Whatever happened to plain, old-fashioned common sense? The Arbitration Committee are nice folks, dedicated Wikipedians -- but they take this community far too seriously, and they aggravate more problems than they help. Spend a month debating? "Presenting evidence"? Knock off the nonsense. This isn't a courtroom, and it isn't playtime. These trolls have zero interest in contributing to an encyclopedia. They don't even disguise that fact. They are singly intent on disrupting this project, and they need to be banned. Cribcage 04:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why are you requesting disciplinary action? My blindness may well be because I am new to Wikipedia, but the only "crime" that I see is that IndigoGenius is an aquaintance of an aquaintance of Lir, whom I am not-so-gradually realizing is not well-liked, for reasons I am only beginning to discern. Spectatrix 03:14, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
    • I've dropped a note on your talk page. But making nominations of people such as this, which can only lead to failure (aka "joke" or "troll" nominations) is Bad. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 11:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • In case you missed it, Lir nominated IndigoGenius as well, after IndigoGenius had nominated Plato, and the measure was so soundly shouted down that it's already been removed (in compliance with the "no-way-under-the-sun this will pass" rule). - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 13:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • This whole Red Faction nonsense ought to be banned for good, they do nothing but vandalize.--GeneralPatton 21:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • YOU! People on the list above! You are aware of a thing called democracy? Or not? Muriel G 11:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Democracy: from the Greek demos + kratos, or mob-rule? Exactly what we see here... Anárion 11:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not a democracy. This is an encyclopedia. Cribcage 23:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I was under the impression that in here, a encyclopedia, people were supposed to have freedom of say what they want and subject themselves to opposing votes. Apparently, wikipedia is turning more and more to hypocrisy. That makes me sad. Muriel G 12:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • The gang (dare I say cabal?) is feeding the troll. Why I don't know. Secretlondon 04:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)