Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Refdoc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Refdoc

final (14/2/0) ending 22:11 11 February 2005 (UTC)

I am now for about 14 months active on Wikipedia and have been involved on many - mostly Iran and Middle-East related - pages. Most of these pages attract by their nature a lot of fire between different parties. I believe my contributions overall helped to further NPOV by small gradual steps. Often though any NPOV work is - particularly on these pages - made hard by persistent vandalism . I believe my work would be a lot easier if I had adminrights. I am more than aware of the increased responsibilities of administrators. My area of work is fairly circumscribed and the group of actual contributors is small and equally circumscribed, while a lot of trouble comes in from the "outside" and runs away again. There are too few administrators amongst us.

Support

  1. Please use the preview button. :-) Great user, however, so support. ugen64 02:54, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Seems like a good user. --Slowking Man 08:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Great user, works fairly on controversial subjects and is cool under pressure. Rje 13:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Seems to make good edits and is able to work well on controversial subjects. Carrp | Talk 05:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. I remember you from a long ways back from an edit war (involving Azerbaijan, IIRC). I also remember you working well under those conditions. This demonstrates to me that you would make a good admin. -- Grunt   ҈  16:52, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  6. Ryan! | Talk 22:42, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Seems OK. Bart133 (t) 03:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  8. Lst27 (talk) 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  9. If anything, the discussion between k1 and refdoc, as far as I can tell, reflects well on refdoc. I support this RFA - RedWordSmith 14:27, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Okay, I am willing to support now after convincing myself that Amir1's statements are biased, and that refdoc has handled the situation coolly. --JuntungWu 19:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  11. Tentative support: I've seen this user's name come up in page histories and he/she does appear willing to engage in discussions on difficult subject areas: an essential quality for admins. However I haven't had time to conduct a thorough browse of their edit history so cannot comment on what other voters have written. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 02:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. A person's personal beliefs do not factor into my decisions concerning RfA's -- their conduct on WP is what matters. Refdoc's manner of handling disputes speaks highly of his character, knowledge of Wikipedia policies and willingness to abide by them. Support, of course. SWAdair | Talk 07:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. After consultation with other users and reading more of the disputes he has handled I feel I can support him. Apollomelos 08:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  14. After taking quite a bit of time going over the available information, I feel confident that I can vote to support. A good admin is not necessarily one who avoids controversial subjects, but one who can handle them appropriately. Refdoc will be a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. For the reasons below. CheeseDreams 19:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. His history speaks for itself. He uses Wikipedia to promote his brand of Christianity. Such people by defintion cannot be fair and unbiased although it is natural that they will do their best to hide their intentions and agendas. --Amir 06:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: I don't know Refdoc, I haven't seen his contributions, and you are entitled to support or oppose for any reason at all, but if promoting an agenda or simply furthering a point of view were a disqualification for adminship on Wikipedia, we could probably sweep out a good number of our admins right now. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Comment I'm not prepared to vote one way or the other yet, but that's a pretty serious accusation, Amir. Could you possibly link us to some of the better examples of this behaviour that you've noticed? I'm not saying that either party is right or wrong, but I'd like to see evidence backing up your position, if it's true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes. I ran into some problems with this user a couple of weeks ago and he managed to piss me off enough to make me check his history. That's when I noticed he has a Christian focus (nothing wrong with that per se, of course) but with a promotional slant (certainly wrong). I got this impression after following the trace of his fight with another user which he mentions him in answer to question number 3 in the section "Questions for the candidate". I checked this and this (and possibly more, can't remember now) and compared some of the history of those pages. My take is that people should be free to practice any faith they want, but those who try to push/promote/impose their faith and belief system onto the rest of the world, should not be given any position of authority, even if it is just an adminship in an internet forum. From my point of view, people like this guy are as dangerous as their Islamic counterparts. --Amir 08:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User:Apollomelos subsequently changed vote to support above. His/her original oppose comments are retained below for record. Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am worried about any biases. Seems to downplay any criticisms of conservative organizations through edits and exemplify criticisms of liberal organizations. I have noticed [1] which is an edit to Fox News in what appears to be an attempt to downplay a terrorism link. At first he deleted it all the way from the page, then he tried to downplay it. For example the terrorism link has been branded a terrorist organization however he changed it to "accused of terorism" and only "proscribed by the United States".
  1. [2] - deletion
    [3] - downplaying
    [4] -relevant discussion on FOX NEWS talk page.
    I don't know if I can support him. Apollomelos 04:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I personally think the downplaying is okay in the sense that the admission criteria for administrators is pretty low to start with. I don't agree with some of his edits but that should not be a big enough impediment towards granitng him administrator privileges. If he becomes a rouge admin the community can de-sysop him if required. (It's a lot of work to de-sysop someone but it's doable; look up the Guanaco case.) --JuntungWu 05:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Great, great user, but needs to put more edit summaries. --Lst27 (talk) 23:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Note: Lst27 changed vote to support at 22:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'll vote neutral for now since Amir1's accusation is quite serious. However, unless it's substantiated in great detail I lean towards support. I haven't dealt with this fellow user so don't know enough to tell. JuntungWu 17:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) (Further comment is that I would like to have the vote extended to learn more about this issue before casting my vote.) --JuntungWu 18:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)--JuntungWu 19:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • 1303 edits.[5] --Slowking Man 08:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • More edit summaries would be helpful. They are just a way of increasing transparency of one's actions, letting others see at a glance what each edit was for. Although edit summaries are not required, it is especially important for admins to use them constantly. SWAdair | Talk 10:43, 10 Feb 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.My current work already has a lot to do with it : reverting vandalism, and helping to stop edit wars, will I think be my biggest concerns -a s already. But the increased powers would make this a lot easier, faster and more effective.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.I like to choose the most controversial themes, where a lot of edit warring has been going on - or is going on. Some of these ceased. Not all This is in the nature of these pages. But all grew and got better. Turkic peoples was a big clear out job of a vandalised and messed page which I did together with User:roozbeh last year.
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Yes. User:k1 got at one stage very irate and became extremely abusive. I used teh normal procedures of conflict resolution - asking other users for help, asking for mediation etc. He continued to spiral out of control and eventually was banned by several admins. An arbitration request by another user, regarding the same incidents was initiated, taken up, but then laid ad acta as k1 never re-appeared following a longer ban. I think at the time I was quite upset about everything, but a new similar event would find me probably a lot more relaxed. Refdoc 22:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)