Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brian0918 (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 31 December 2005 (→[[User:Anonymous editor|Anonymous editor]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anonymous editor

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor 2|action=edit}} Vote here] (56/3/0) ending 16:58 January 6, 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) has been a contributor to Wikipedia since May 31st, 2005. He's been editing and contributing to many religion related articles as well as other different topics. He is an active member of CVU. He also can contribute with French. He was nominated 2 months ago before his withdrawal and since then, this user has shown that he's able for the task. For users interested in editcountitis, Anonymous editor has amassed no less than 6800 edits [1]. I trust him. -- Szvest 07:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept your nomination. And I would just like to also say for those interested that I have made over 3300 edits more since my last Rfa and have taken the advice of many seriously using more edit summaries and staying away from edit warring on articles. Don't worry, I still edit dangerous articles, but I also edit much more. Thank you for nominating me again Svest.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. FireFox 16:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suppa! - As nominator. FireFox is on fire (edit conflict). -- Szvest 17:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support (after edit conflict). «LordViD» 17:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support (deja vu all over again) BDAbramson T 17:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Splendid contribution to the Encyclopedia. --Ian Pitchford 17:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, as AE has been pretty gracious in the way he's interacted with me since our meltdown two months ago. It's time to let that water pass under the bridge! Babajobu 17:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Very strong support excellent user, I wanted to nominate him :p. POV concerns had been taken care of. --Jaranda wat's sup 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Editor will make a fine administrator. Xoloz 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Deserves to be an administrator. Good luck --Deepak|वार्ता 17:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I said it then and I'll say it again: Support.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 17:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Phaedriel 17:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support freestylefrappe 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  14. King of All the Franks 18:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Honored to support. Mature, honest, responsible. Never makes excuses. A ton of multifarious edits. Experiance in the Wikipedia namespace. What's not to like? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. PJM 19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Easy Support good editor.Gator (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Fad (ix) 19:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --JuanMuslim 1m 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Good user KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Remember all that convincing you did to get me to change my vote to support?(I love it when candidates defend themselves). No oppose votes so far? I envy you, thanks to Boothy443.Voice of All (MTG)T|@|ESP 21:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seen this user doing good work.--Alhutch 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Been seeing him around a lot lately, thought he already was one. Tufflaw 22:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 22:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I'm a little miffed I got here so late, but, as last time, I give my full support. Anonym's a trustworthy guy with a well-leveled head. Dmcdevit·t 23:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. 172 23:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Easy decison.--Sean|Black 00:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, as last time. Chick Bowen 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--MONGO 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support; good editor and likely to be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --HappyCamper 00:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. First someone without a name, now an anon. Who's next? (oh no, that's right... Who's already an admin). Grutness...wha? 01:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support -- Dedicated wikipedian. Has recently diversified the kind of articles he's involved in, which is a welcome change. I hope he will discharge his admin responsibilities in the most neutral manner. deeptrivia (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support again. --rogerd 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Garion1000 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Great editor and vandal fighter. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support This one is going to get a bit lengthy. AE's answer to my question was a bit puzzling, as I was looking for an article which history would tell me much about how he interacts with other users. However, I asked the question I asked and got the answer I deserved. From my interpreation, AE feels very strongly about article writing and improvement, even on articles that don't attract large amounts of controversy. While I on the otherhand, tend to be smack dab in the middle of it, which led to my confusion While I believe a large portion of responsibility of adminstration is dispute resolution, an equally large part is making sure wikipedia doesn't fall apart from neglect either. We need all sorts of administrators, so I strongly support AE's nomination.--Tznkai 01:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. It's my pleasure to support a great candidate and I'm very pleased to see this nomination doing so well. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Terence Ong Talk 04:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support now. -- Francs2000 04:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support And don't change the name. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Everyking 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Excellent editor. -- Natalinasmpf 08:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -- MicahMN | μ 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Increasingly good work; adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 09:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose until user gets a name. I mean, support. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Anonymous Support.- Darwinek 11:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Sceptre (Talk) 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, again. El_C 12:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Dlyons493 Talk 14:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Good editor will make good admin --rogerd 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Hey, a bandwagon this time! Palmiro | Talk 14:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - he is not anonymous but well known! --Bhadani 16:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Yes, Anon deserves the admin tools this time around. – Bratschetalk | Esperanza 16:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Susvolans ⇔ 16:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I strongly urge everyone to closely look at his contributions before voting. A selection of diff's is still at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Talk_pages. He said that he now staid away from edit-warring (and indeed he did less edit-warring recently), but I don't know how much of this is motivated by political reasons. I think that a user who has done such a large amount of pov-warring and edit-warring as AE has done in the past (check his contributions and the link [2] should take up a new user name if he absolutely wants to become an admin. I'd say the same to Willy on Wheels, or to any other user who has been disruptive in the past. I don't think it would better the image of Wikipedia, if there are admins that have a history of pov-warring. Of course AE likes to blame this on other users (and there may have been also bad behavior among some other editors), but this can not mask the fact that AE himself did a lot of pov-warring, blankings and much more such behaviour. He also has a "wiki-clique" behaviour, a history of unacceptable behaviour and he has a strong political bias (for example in the Kashmir debate). AE has already rollback priveligies (he used them shortly after his first RFA), and I think the best way is to let him use these rollback privelegies, as they can be easier undone if he would abuses them. To summarize, no, I don't think that users who in the past did pov-warring, edit-warring, deletions/blankings, and similar would make good admins, though he should be allowed to use his rollback privelegies as long as they're not abused. Some of his disputed behaviour can be found in the following articles (there are many more):
    See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence for more details. --Kefalonia 13:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Kefalonia you really can't mention this every time I have an Rfa. I have really improved since then and have doubled my edits and worked on so many different articles. Sorry, but it really is bad faith when you mention the same things this Rfa that you did the last time. Can you please show something current or edits that are POV that I have made since my last Rfa rather than mention the same things over again and try to convince people.
    It's clear that my POV differs from yours, but bringing up very old discussions is not friendly, esecially when you are keeping evidence against me on your user page or when you have contacted other editors to clearly vote against me. [3], [4], [5].
    People who I have had conflicts with before have mended their disputes with me, why can't you as someone who I've never really had one with? Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    WEll for the first time I went to those articles , do you in their current form call them NPOV . Terrorism in Pakistan has been prevalent since the 1980s , 90% of all reported terrorist activities worldwide were located in Pakistan , Islamic conquest of South Asia(Ever heard of Christian conquest of America) , The cause of the war was infiltration of Pakistani soldiers (do you see any Siachen war , or RAW financed bombings or RAW agents captured in Pakistan kind of articles) . Sorry dude , but the voters should also see if there is any kind of Pakistani POV on these articles or not , or are they just Indian propaganda . An admin's job is to keep things NPOV , not Indian POV . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 13:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — Openly engages and starts revert wars with several friends over anyone daring to link to articles or sites that criticise Islam with disruptive users like Yuber who break their RfAs - bad conduct, not suitable to be an admin. POV-supporting, cliqueish behaviour.
    • [6] — Deletes comment by Yuber for help on a revert war to hide his behaviour - "Thanks."
    • [7] — "Christianity is a dying fad" - believes in superiority of Islam over other religions - also makes a lot of edits to the "Jesus" article (for example, recently removed the "Christianity" template from it), which with comments like those can't be well meaning.
    Messages left about this behaviour and prompt deletion/changing of comments:
    • [8] (user mistakenly thought he was an admin already, but all the same..)
    • [9] — Changes other user's comment title to draw less attention to his POV-pushing on Islam-related articles
    To quote Babajobu, in Anonymous' last RfA: "his worrying commitment to advancing his POV on Wikipedia." --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. strong oppose I have been involved in numerous revert wars and conflicts with this editor . This guy is an Islamist and he is a member of a group of editors which continuously patrols Islam related sites to delete , white wash or revise any insertion that portrays his ideology unfavourably. He colludes with a number of other editors , including Yuber, BrandoYusuf and others to gang up on pages to impose their points of view by strength of numbers. If other editors have experienced impartial contributions , then this has not been evident to me in my experience.User:CltFn, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with calling upon other users to assist the user in editing a page or watching it. (This is unlike calling on other users to stuff an afd, or an RFA as this one). Let me remind the community that CltFn is a person who thinks "Wikipedia is being invaded by Islamists" and I hope the community will take his vote with a pinch of salt. -- Natalinasmpf 17:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  • Neutral Leaning towards support. I havn't interacted with AE recently (and would highly suggest a name change in the future to avoid mass newbie confusion if AE becomes an admin) but I recall likling him a great deal. I'd like an answer to question four before I procede however.--Tznkai 18:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, has shown some improvement in maturity, and I am inclined to support. However, I would like to ask if you would continue doing things like replacing "Jammu and Kashmir" with "Indian held Kashmir" (eg [10]) marking your edit as "rv POV", while replacing "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" or "so-called Azad Kashmir" with "Azad Kashmir", marking it again as "rv POV" (eg [11], [12]), or would make an effort to be more neutral and responsible with issues in which you clearly have a strong POV? deeptrivia (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    • PS: Apart from this concern, however, I'm all for support. I hope this will be addressed. deeptrivia (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Changed to support[reply]
      • Hi. I have never tried to replace Jammu and Kashmir with anything or Pakistan-held Kashmir with anything; those are reverts. The examples to which you are referring actually have me reverting other pov by anonymous editors. I have always tried to keep the proper names, but it really isn't fair when the Indian version is replaced with the actual name (Jammu and Kashmir) and the Pakistani version says "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir". Can you show me an example of where I actually changed it and it wasn't a revert. Both I and user Deepak Gupta keep an eye on this to keep the article as neutral as possible. I haven't really added or removed anything from Indian or Pakistan related articles and certainly nothing that was pov since my last Rfa. I have no POV on the issue, I have just seen that many of these articles are very disputed and there are anonymous editors who will come along and try to POV it. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Over 6800 edits almost half in article namespace.
  • I'm kinda weirded out by what appears to be an "I'll vote for you if you vote for me" RfA campaigning in Babajobu's RfA immediately below. Not familiar enough with this editors history to put in a vote above either way, just a comment. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In AE's defense, we're in the process of mending fences from an old dispute...I don't see it as vote-jockeying so much as establishing where we're at. Babajobu 17:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually more like I am sorry so I'll sign; if you are sorry please sign too. :p You need to see the history of our conflicts for that. And thanks for the defense Baba. :-) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Chairboy, what is wierd is to experience moments of tensions instead of moments of peace. Neither AE nor Baba has needed the support vote from the other. The important thing is that there's no more weirdo stuff anymore. Cheers -- Szvest 17:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
That's cool, I guess. You're right, I don't know about the shared background, and I may not be the only one, so I'll leave this intact. One thing, I think it's great that you two have mended fences so well, that's fantastic and should be commended. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Reverting vandalism, something which I already do as part of patrolling RC, protecting pages (that I haven't edited recently) and dealing with issues on the noticeboard. The admin rollback button would be great, making vandalism reversion a quicker process. Closing Afd's is also needed as mentioned by some admins during my last Rfa. Blocking and unblocking vandal users (this should speed up because I won't even have to report them to an admin) And of course I will do all the tasks I do now which are cleaning up new articles, wikifying links, pointing out suspected sockpuppets, and making sure that articles and sections are NPOV. I have also started to speedy delete tag pages which were created just as a blank page or as vandalism, and admin status will make it easier for for me. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Yes, I am pleased with many contributions, too many to name actually, but I will choose a few including some that I choose last time: Halaal, Isa, Iblis Egyptian National Library and Archives(about historical archives) and Gibson (about guitars). Also my contributions discussing issues over with other editors was also pleasing and reverting vandalism is very pleasing. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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, in my last Rfa several were mentioned. My last Rfa was a disaster with much edit warring, sockpuppetry and more, but some editors made some good recommendations. These were due to me working on dangerous articles which are Religion and politics. No one is safe when working on those articles. I have dealt with all issues and resolved them. Since then, I have had no large edit wars except for once when a banned editor was using a sockpuppet to edit wikipedia. He was dealt with after I pointed him out for a sockcheck. I still work on dangerous religion and politics articles, but have moved on to editing historical articles, articles about music and bands and many more, so my edit warring is much less. We must remember that even if another editor has a different pov, they are still there to help with articles. As long as everyone keeps remembering policy we will be fine.I feel that Wikipedia is more helpful and fun to edit than it is stressful. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4 What article do you think shows the best totality of your behavior as an editor?--Tznkai 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Tznkai, I have edited so many. Maybe the Isa article or my recent Egyptian National Library and Archives article contribs. I was able to work in peace and clean up and improve those articles a lot. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor_2&oldid=33400092"