Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Ronline

Final (37/0/1) ended 13:49 2 December 2005, 13:40 (UTC)

Ronline (talk · contribs) – I am proud to nominate Ronline to be Administrator! He has always been a reliable, friendly editor, contributor of countless articles, I've seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics. He is also sysop at Romanian Wikipedia. He is a good researcher and very good defender of the truth. Let's go and vote for him! Bonaparte 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Ronline 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support- Like I said in nomination, I am strongly support his nomination. He's very helpful, nice, and will help with a lot of things!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs
  2. Support --Anittas 15:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support: I trust Ronline to use adminship appropriately. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support the guy who once flooded Wikinews with Romania-related articles :)  Grue  09:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, looks good. NSLE (讨论+extra) 09:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. I Support and find the comments about the nominator to be out of place. MONGO 10:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong support I've seen he did a great job up until now --Orioane 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian 10:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Despite who the nominator is, after all, this is based on the user, not the nom ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 12:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support, due in no small part to the handling of the questions below. Turnstep 16:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. What Turnstep said. I, for one, wouldn't have taken those questions as calmly... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I know his good job as a sysop on the Romanian Wikipedia. This argument counterbalances the nominator and the bad timing. --AdiJapan 17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. mikka (t) 18:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. His responses to the baiting, probing, irrelevant questions below demonstrate that he has the proper temprament for being an admin. ZacharyS 20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Alexander 007 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Strongly Support He deserves this nomination and he can be a real help for the other admins. Romihaitza 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. He already does a tremendous job as a bureaucrat on Romanian wiki! --Vlad 22:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Izehar 22:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support Quentin Pierce 23:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Cool-headed user in many hot disputes. I would like to ask Ronline to promise to fill the edit summary more often though. And about the nominator, I suspect Bonaparte's motivation is to have a friend with big stick at certain controversal articles, but I don't think Ronline will fall into that trap. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Having not been involved in the apparant conflicts, I'm going to side with the majority on this one. This user shows promise, and promise should always get a chance to prove itself. --Martin Osterman 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. I believe he is fair, rational and doesn't resort to ad hominems. I expect him to continue to be so once he's elected. --Chris S. 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support bogdan 11:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. El_C 12:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support - I don't get why his religion should affect his chances at adminship. --Celestianpower hablamé 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support - Very moderated edits, even in harsh disputes. I do not agree with users arguing that the RfA should be rejected because of who submitted it. This is not about User:Bonaparte, but about User:Ronline. User:DpotopJacky 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Strong Support - He is the right man for the job! --Dacodava
  28. Support: I don't know the candidate from Adam's Off Ox, but no one could fake tolerance and fair mindedness through all the inappropriate questions below. Holy smokes, but that takes some equanimity. Geogre 12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Never seen this editor, but by studying the contributions, I must Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 16:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. However, for the record I would like to show that I am pretty sure that Bonaparte has ulterior motives here. --Node 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, I am sure of that. :) But I am sure that Ronline is smarter than that. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Seems like a good editor, and he did a nice job handling the questions below. I don't really care about the source of the nom, since it's not germane. -Colin Kimbrell 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. -- DS1953 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Ronline's able and common-sense mediation in the matter of the anon Romanian contributor with a prediliction for unjustifiably augmenting Romanian stats demonstrates he's made of the right admin material.--cjllw | TALK 03:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. Should make an excellent admin. Olessi 19:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. Excellent job of handling the inappropriate questions below. --Kbdank71 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support Proto t c 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support per above. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose – Please enable your email id. (Please inform me once this is done) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. Oppose. I like Ronline. He is a good person, and deserving of adminship probably. But as Zserghei and Iulian U. said, the fact that the nominator is Bonaparte makes this request suspect. If this RfA fails (which it probably won't), I would vote "support" in a new RfA later if the nominator's motives were less suspcious. Now, if it didn't look like this RfA was definitely going to win, I would truly consider a "support" vote because it's Ronline we're talking about, but since it looks like it is with or without me, I'm just registering my opposition here more as a matter of principle. --Node 19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    Good points. I am aware that you had your share of verbal abuse from certain people at certain articles, but it was precisely there that Ronline had a moderating influence. That is to say, keep in mind that this is not a vote for Bonaparte to be an admin. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose On the basis of the user to question 6 (which I've just taken the liberty of correcting the numbering of by hand). Please review Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy, fix your answer to be in line with these, and I'll be glad to review this. Alai 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Changing to abstain, following (iterated) modifications to answer, with which I'm now completely happy, pending a closer look at candidate's contribs/developing an actual substantiative opinion. Alai 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Zserghei 23:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC) I don't have anything against Ronline. I support his goal of making Bucharest a featured article, but personality of nominator (Bonaparte) is suspect.
    We are supposed to be judging the candidate here. In my view the nominator should not come into it. If you have a dispute with Bonaparte that is fine, but this is not the place to bring it up. Raven4x4x 09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    I agree with Raven. Such votes may be considered invalid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    These are nuetral votes, so what would be the point of considering them invalid? Turnstep 16:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    I know. I would like to make it clear that this also applies to a negative vote, not necessarily a neutral vote. Voting against a candidate because you have differences with the nominator (but nothing against the candidate) is totally unfair to the RFA in question. If you have doubts on the candidate feel free to ask him questions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I also feel that who the nominator is does matter to people. For example, if I don't know a person who is being nominated personally, but I do know and trust the nominator, I will tend to give the person nominated a little more credit. Similarly, unsigned nominations and nominations by anonymous IPs tend to raise the bar of my giving them a support vote, and I tend to subject those people to closer scrutiny. I don't think I would ever negatively discount a person based on the nominator however, which is what the above appears to be doing. So (in a very roundabout way!), I am agreeing with you: any oppose votes based solely on who the nominator is should be discarded or at least heavily discounted. Glad to see the above are nuetral votes. :) Turnstep 19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think Ronline would be a good admin, but the fact that Bonaparte is the nominator makes me wonder what his intentions are. I don't want my Support vote to endorse Bonaparte's stance (see Talk:Moldovan language). Iulian U. 14:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
  • May I suggest that User:Anittas treat this as an RfA and not a Senate confirmation hearing. The questions and insinuations below are ridiculous and have no bearing on this nom. Marskell 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. It's really ridiculous. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Says the guy who writes his nickname in a 'weirdo' kind of way. --Anittas 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Because Anittas has no respect for people who don't have Romanian name. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 27 November 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. I would be willing to work against vandalism in all of its forms. However, I'd also like to help with requested moves and things like that, the only an administrator can do and that people sometimes wait too much time for!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I've contributed mostly to the Romanian Wikipedia and I haven't really been a content contributor - I've mostly been involved in organisation, planning, stuff like that. I'm really proud, however, of the Caile Ferate Romane article. This isn't my article, but I was one of the major contributors that brought it up to featured status. I'm doing that with Bucharest now, but there's still some work to go :)
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. Yes I have, for that matter. I've been involved in a dispute at the Moldovan Wikipedia, and I've tried to deal with that in as neutral a way as possible. The only thing I believe in more than neutrality is communication - without direct, reasonable communication, everything fails. I've also been involved in the Moldovan language article, which has been through some tough times lately. There, I've tried to stand for the truth, to prevent both sides taking things too far on their own way. In the future, I hope to maintain that. Mediating conflict is one thing I really enjoy doing, if only because it achieves a sense of social justice and constructive stability. Have any users caused me stress - yes, but I've never sought to aggrevate conflict. If there's one thing people must learn at Wikipedia, is that we should try to talk to each other in a nicer way. Ronline 07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
{Big wedge of crap moved to the talk page Proto t c 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.