Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

[edit]

Final (42/22/6) - withdrawn by candidate 17:47 4 February 2006, original ending date 08:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk · contribs) – A great editor (cliché I know...), with a great percentage of edits on actual articles, rather than on user & talk like mine. R.D.H. always has a good vibe & personality about him & will probably make a great admin. He's always ready to help & is extremely sensible (at least more than I am...). Please vote for him.... Spawn Man 03:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

(DAMMIT I'VE BEEN DRAFTED!;) I hesitantly, reluctantly and adverbaly accept.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC) The candid candidate withdraws--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support I nominated him didn't I? Spawn Man 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support clearly an experienced and able user. KI 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, happy to give a loud "yes!" for one of the best members of the Military history project ever. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 05:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Drafted? I just hope thst you do not become inactive for a very long time.--Jusjih 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Infectiously enthusiastic about Wikipedia, knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects and a great contributor. Leithp 08:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Friendly, good-humoured and hard working! Demonstrates a great deal of knowledge on WikiPolicy not by debating them over endlessly (as some of us are prone to do), but by actually putting them into practice. Would no doubt excel as an admin, especially in tough stuff like mediating NPOV disputes where his WP:COOL is needed. - The Minister of War (Peace) 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - no problems here. Latinus 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, diligent and dedicated. —Kirill Lokshin 09:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - No problems here. A very dedicated user. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support fine editor and will be a great admin.Gator (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Contributions are just fine.--MONGO 17:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support  Grue  20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. support per Ghirla. Clearly deserves to join The Police. William M. Connolley 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  16. Support. A good editor and will be a good admin. Rhion 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Suppoer, I'm liking the answers, and I'm very impressed with quality of contributions.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Hell yea. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support (he is not an admin yet? type).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Not informed, thus grrrr late support SoLando (Talk) 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, with one slight reservation. Keep your sense of humor in check, okay? The comments Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) provided did give me pause, though I understood them to be in good spirit. Keep in mind that others may not take it the same way. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Moved to oppose. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, will be a great help in dealing with problem editors in a nice way. Kusma (討論) 04:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Jaranda wat's sup 05:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Merovingian {T C E} 06:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Need I add a cliché here.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I've seen this user's edits/efforts in the past and he has the credentials to be a good admin. --Madchester 21:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Helpful, knowledgable, and pleasant to work with. --RobthTalk 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support--Ugur Basak 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support (see oppose section for why). The diffs Ghirla provides are clearly out of context; in context, they're not something that I'd say but are clearly meant humorously. And, frankly, having User:Ghirlandajo getting upset with one over nothing is not necessarily a stain on one's character these days. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark, please keep your temper in check and avoid personal attacks. --Ghirla | talk 18:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fiddlesticks. I've seen you get mad inappropriately, and I won't be using it as a reason to oppose anyone. As it happens, though, I've found my own reasons ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. good efforts, just watch the jokes. Pschemp | Talk 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support - quick, let's crucify another poor SOB for having a sense of humour. Yeesh. Awesome editor. Proto t c 13:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Absolutely, nothing but positive interactions/opinions of the Ghost. Karmafist 13:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Proto. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral per questions raised. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: --Bhadani 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Welcome aboard, Mr. Ghost. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Noting the apology to Chirla, I offer the support I wanted to offer from the beginning. Marskell 08:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, Pro Ghost,Amico carissimo suffargium Filippus dat --Philx 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Thought he already was one; I was going to nominate him, but thought he already was an admin. WikiFanatic 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support We need aggressive administrators User:Mjal 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User has a total of 42 edits. Geogre 02:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support good editor, fellow military history buff --rogerd 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support alx-pl D 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support. the wub "?!" 15:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Strong oppose, of course. My experience of communication with this guy was so disgusting that I cannot rightly tell if he was sober at that time. During our first encounter, he referred to Russians in general and me in particular as Vodka Pissers and Russki Sons-A-Bitches. Another comment from a would-be admin aimed at an editor who he had never conversed with before: "The Vodka must make him paranoid too". Perhaps the user finds abuse of ethnic slurs funny, but I don't. Really, I don't want an admin who would call me names taken from the List of ethnic slurs. Although I edit controversial topics for a long time, I don't recall worse examples of boorishness. Talk about problem admins then... --Ghirla | talk 18:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Striking my vote upon receiving good-natured apologies from the candidate)[reply]
Thank you, Sir --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record this comment relates to this particularly venomous RFA and this RFC, if anyone wants to know the background. Leithp 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. IIRC the incident happened after the RFA and before Halibutt brought his ridiculous crusade to the RFC, where it died an ignominious death. What particularly strikes me is that the candidate's comments came out of nowhere, as I had had no prior experience with him before that point. --Ghirla | talk 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For further clarification, Here was my response--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I am not seeing the "good vibe" evinced above. Avriette 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. To see this person described as "...always ready to help & is extremely sensible" just defies belief. This editor would find in completely impossible to act within the patterns of required and accepted behaviour of an admin. I have been involved with this editor twice. the first time in a dispute over a failed RFA when his erratic and insulting comments had to be removed, and a second time with in the last month over an objection at FAC, when attempting to prove his point he dragged up again the RFA. If he has one scrap of decency he will withdraw his name now, in order to prevent the whole sorry business being dragged up again, because the third party in all this is trying, successfully, to put it behind him and get on with editing which he does so well. I see, with amazement, he has been asked to mediate in a dispute. I have reached an uneasy truce with another editor - is in spite of this candidate's unhelpful stirring from the sidelines. No doubt people will want "diffs" to substantiate this, so I hope he withdraws but sadly in my dealings with this candidate I have often seriously wondered if he is unwell. Giano | talk 08:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you feel so strongly that this issue is important enough to oppose his RFA, perhaps you should post some diffs. To be honest, im not sure i understand why you havent in the first place. The Minister of War (Peace) 11:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    HERE is my response.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Giano will take issue with me doing so, but I dug up some of the edits I think he's talking about. They do seem to show someone with a nasty temperment, not averse to making PAs. [1] [2] [3] [4] —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to Giano or myself? Because that statement could apply equally well to either. The main diff is, I have attempted to apologize and make amens.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another rather significant difference, an interesting one to overlook, is that Giano is not requesting adminship; you are. I'd like to see two to three months of good behavior. You have perhaps one month, with apologies made during the course of this RfA. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not requesting adminship, I was drafted. Also I find THIS rather interesting. Apparently I'm not the only one here in need of a "Time out" for good behaviour.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh don't be so dramatic you are not being drafted anywhere, there are no glorious heros in Adminland, and how pompous of you to use such a term. You have merely allowed yourself to be nominated to be an admin (remember no big deal) because you wanted to attend a "Vandal Thrwacking party at SoL's place" [5] which rather bears out Geogre's observations listed below. Regarding your latest link I've told Bunch of Grapes my views on his talk page - any one interested can find their own way there. Giano | talk 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the drama-llama here, Giano. You are now trying to make the casual banter between two friends somehow sound like an insidious conspiracy. ONCE AGAIN, I offer you the olive branch .--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind being subsumed into a little cabal/conspiracy, but they seem to be awfully elusive ;-) Now Giano, Ghost, just come on. Reconcile your differences. We're all trying to build an encyclopaedia here, lets not have conflict hinder that. It doesn't matter if you support Ghost's RFA,, Giano, but I'd like to see the conflict between you two consigned to (edit) history. Wikipedia doesn't need animosity. Shake hands? SoLando (Talk) 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Looks over at SoL, sees SoL nod, Squits at Giano) BANZAI! (Extends hand;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 19:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Geogre 12:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC) My first encounter was a disappointment. It was on WP:FAC, and the user had made a comment indicating that there were good people to make suggestions and bad people to make suggestions. When I went to urge him to be more mature about things, I saw that there was a Wiki-friends and Not-friends set up. All of that is as may be, but what struck me instantly from that, and what has been borne out since, is that the editor has been looking for chums at least as much as looking for encyclopedic content, and we have enough instances right now of judgment blinded by friendship and in-group actions. I have not seen evidence yet where he has stood up to support his least favorite people or where he has embraced valid objections from people he dislikes or who aren't in a circle of buddies. This is, indeed, a bad vibe for admin-ship, although the user is a fine article writer and editor.[reply]
    THIS is the FA discussion to which you are referring Geogre. But that, at least in Wiki terms, is archeology. Here is my more recent response.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per my above diffs and comments. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also want to check THIS OUT.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For a person so interested in armies, you do have an unfortunate knack of shooting yourself through the foot. The link you mention above was in fact prompted by the conversation here. [6] Giano | talk 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well my foot may be hurting, but my poor old eyes tell me, it looks like you are actively campaigning against me by trying to manipulate Ghirlandajo to reject my apology and change his vote to oppose again. And making some progress too.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for heaven's sake this whole charade is just a bunch of kids mucking about. [7] Call a a halt to it now. Giano | talk 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I have seen quite a lot of incivility and aggressiveness from R.D.H., a good example being the insertion of the image just above. Worldtraveller 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it you don't find the comments to which that image is a response to be at all incivil or aggressive? Please explain? By the way, perhaps it is because you are too busy travelling the world, but I don't recall us ever directly interacting before now.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How may I ask is the above image aggressive? It's a wikipedia supported image which basically says not to feed arguments. People can't have arguments if one party isn't talking. What are they going to do? Fight with themselves like gollum? To me it shows that he's responsible & doesn't want to engage in uncivil behaviour that the editors above have been creating. Personally, if he gave the picture to me, I would have been annoyed because I like arguing until something is resolved. Other than that, I don't see what your oppose is for?.... Spawn Man 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is named "DoNotFeedTroll.jpg"; it's clear, cute shorthand for "do not feed the troll". See Wikipedia:What is a troll if there's any question about the "troll" label having negative connotations. It's uncivil and strongly bordering on a personal attack. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You would say that as you are currently opposed to this RfA. If I was opposed I would also shoot down anyone in my position. Further, it is my opinion about the image. I feel that the above editors have been very abusive & aggressive. If that doesn't sound like a troll, or at least an ogre or fairy tale creature, then I don't know what is!
    Just think of poor R.D.H., seeing his family of goats (others who have left Wikipedia from horrid RfAs) being eaten by trolls (people like Ghirlandajo & Giano) as they tried to cross the big bridge (the crossing to adminship). Now it's R.D.H.'s turn to cross the big bridge. He gets all kind of emotional abuse from the trolls. I have no idea why I just made this ordeal into a bed time story, but it made me feel calmer at least..... Sayounara.... Spawn Man 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess "How may I ask is the above image aggressive?" was a rhetorical question. Sorry for upsetting you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question I asked WorldTraveller above is open to you also.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was "So I take it you don't find the comments to which that image is a response to be at all incivil or aggressive? Please explain?" I'll respond with a question: Do you believe there is a loophole in WP:CIVIL that states you need be civil only to those you believe are being civil to you first? Because you seem to be tacitly admitting that the image is tantamount to calling Giano a troll, and I'm not sure how you can stretch logic to claim that isn't incivil; instead, you are falling back on the schoolyard defense "but he started it." Responding to incivility with your own is called escalation, and it's a bad thing. As an admin, you'll draw more such fire, not less, and you need to demonstrate an ability to calmly deal with it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, I've removed the image.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And referring to the nominator and candidate as "kids" and this process as a "charade" are not borderline personal attacks...they ARE personal attacks. Or at the very least, trolling.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kids? People can look at these links below and form their own opinions
    [8]
    [9]
    [10] Giano | talk 09:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I removed the image. Do you strike the comments which inspired its invocation?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Too often sets a poor example. Motivations obscure. I don't expect to be wheedled or harried into changing my vote. --Wetman 04:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Comments in this RfA and in diffs do not make me confident that R.D.H. has the temperment to be an admin.--Sean Black (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose. His harrassment of Geogre and this image do not inspire confidence. My support above was in the nature of "what could it hurt?", and I think we've been given a glimpse of what it could. I'm none too impressed by User:Giano's behaviour here, either, but then, Giano isn't up for RfA. RDH is. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Too much hostility, as seen above, poor judgment regarding "troll" labelling. Responds poorly to criticism, from what I've seen on this page alone. Too little involvement in the project namespace, only 211 edits to "Wikipedia:" pages and almost all are candidacy-related, almost zero experience with deletion process. Averages 4.34 edits per page, which suggests too much focus on specific topics, which is generally not an admirable trait for an admin. Does a lot of reverting with nondescriptive summaries, which is okay for vandalism issues, but this revert demands better explanation. Possibility of using admin abilities in an edit war seems too open. Also often reverts OrphanBot's removal of unsourced images. Might reconsider in a few months. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:04, Feb. 3, 2006
  10. Oppose per my discussion with Ghost at the end of the Questions section (at present at the foot of the page) and also the concerns raised by Freakofnurture. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  11. Oppose. I'm unfamiliar with RDH but the matters opined on this nomination and his reactions to that make me uncomfortable about supporting him. >Radiant< 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Candidate's response to opposition has been significantly less than civil. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. The candidate's response to comments in this RFA has convinced me that they are not ready for administrative tasks, which often involve dealing with strongly-phrased criticism (accurate or not). Nandesuka 14:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Concerned about his responses on this RfA. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose many civility concerns raised by this RfA. Cannot in good conscience support.--Alhutch 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, conduct on this RFA is sufficient. Demi T/C 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per conduct on this RfA and incivility in several of the diffs brought up. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Administrators are often called upon to resolve conflicts and make decisions about matters over which there is disagreement. Doing this successfully requires (1) some skill, and (2) a suitable temperament, if I may use that word: one has to be patient, well-mannered, and disinclined to taking things personally or calling the other fellow(s) names. I have taken some time to review RDH's contributions. Those to military topics, the related WikiProject, and the histories of wars are impressive: it made me glad to see his industry and ability in this regard. However, I am unable to support this request for adminship, mainly because of concerns related to the above. I view this point especially seriously as RDH writes that he in fact intends to actively involve himself in dispute resolution, quite apart from the many conflicts that will undoubtedly come his way were he a sysop ("I will take an active role in trying to moderate and mediate disputes before they become full blown edit/flame wars and Rfc fodder..."). Lastly, I find Freak of Nuture's comments on policy experience to be quite pertinent (although I do not share the opinion that RDH's focus on a smaller number of topics necessarily detracts from his candidacy). Best wishes to all. Regards ENCEPHALON 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC) NB. Some diffs: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].[reply]
  19. Oppose per temperament issues already described by others. FreplySpang (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Geogre and Encephalon. User has inconsistent history with respect to civility. Xoloz 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, this is a classic example of someone who is a great editor, but also totally unsuitable for adminship for all the reasons addressed above. Martin 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Concerns about incivility. Carbonite | Talk 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Ghirla's opposition gives me some pause, as does the response you gave in question 4 in the following section. I suppose I'm a bit worried that your self description as "a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing". While I appreciate editors that have a sense of humour, I am trepidatious at this point about fully supporting your nomination. Which is hard for me because I am fully appreciative of your editing, in the larger part by far! I suppose, at this point I need some more convincing. I will watch this page for other comment, but if I remain unconvinced, I will retain this neutral stance. Hamster Sandwich 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Reading the oppose comments, above, I am not so sure... --M@thwiz2020 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral not sure yet how I will vote. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral for the time being, but more inclined to oppose, after spotting a recent sickening talk about "Ghirla's distortions" on the candidate's talk page. What particularly bothers me is the nominator's trollish personal attacks. After I contributed more than 400 full-fledged articles to this Wikipeida, I do not like being called a troll by someone who has more than 16 times less main-space edits than myself. I confess that I live far from the Yankee world, have never been abroad, and my command of the language is limited. But this is not a reason to call me a troll, especially as I find enough energy to make my new articles appear on Wikipedia's Main Page almost daily (even at this very minute). I believe that Giano, one of the finest contributors to this project, responsible for half a dozen featured articles too, doesn't deserve to be subjected to such attacks as well. I have a long experience of fighting archtrolls but even my patience has its limits. Consequently, I'm going to request the community to comment on offensive trolling that has plagued this page. --Ghirla | talk 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per questions raised regarding civility and preferential treatment. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, what KillerChihuahua said --kingboyk 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Will be happy to support based on contributions, but I will be waiting on answers section to be completed. Hamster Sandwich 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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. It goes without saying fight vandalism, so I won't say it. Vandal whacking aside, "Be liberal in what you accept, Be conservative in what you do" shall be my guiding creed as an admin. I will take an active role in trying to moderate and mediate disputes before they become full blown edit/flame wars and Rfc fodder (Discussion pages can be wonderful things if they are used right). As I become more familar with admin duties and chores and more comfortable using, but not abusing, admin powers I will help out in other ways as well. Philosophically, I'm a mixed breed between an Eventualist and a Darwikinist.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. There are so many... where to start?:) Obviously, there is the FA with Leithp on General Sir Richard O'Connor ( KT, GCB, GBE, DSO, MC ;). La Grande Armée, which is fast becoming a pet of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Of my non-military contibs, I'd have to say Tsul 'Kalu, because it combined my interests in mythology, cryptozoology, geography and etymology. In my research I was surprised to find how many places had been named for the beasty. So it was not only a fun article to do, but I learned something. Nufy8 and I turned Team Fortress Classic into a better, more presentable article. Maybe not FA quality yet, but a lot closer than it was when we found it (someone on its talkpage even went so far as to recommend "Nuclear Cleansing":). As my nominator mentioned, I've also contributed in non-article related ways. For instance, recently I came up with the idea of Task Forces for the military history project. It has proven popular, but time will tell if it is up to the task.
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. Of course I have:) I was here a scant few days before I found myself in a conflict over Steam (content delivery). Mr. Jennings and I did not resolve our differences fully, but we agreed to disagree and continued to edit the article more or less peaceably. Amazing what a little Good Faith can accomplish. I showed some to a new Wikipedian, Philx, when he posted an interesting but problematic section on the Roman legion article. The result not only resolved the conflict but led to a friendship and collaboration which gave rise to two fine articles where none had existed before. This was one of my best moments. Not quite so pleasant, but an example of how I try to handle disputes is A discussion between Piotrus and I on the subject of Molobo. He came to me for advice, which I'm always glad to offer but especially when it is a friend whose work I greatly admire, then asked me to try and mediate a dispute between him and Wiglaf (another friend for whom I have the highest regard), which I was also glad to do. The things which cause me most Wiki-stress tend to be outside the realm of articles and projects...such as Fac's, Rfc's and, of course RFa's :> When this happens, a combination of beer and computer games usually soothes the mood.
4. Why do you think people should vote for you? (Question by Spawn Man).
A. I don't:> I see myself, and everyone here, as editors/contributors first. The primary job of the admin cabal is to facilitate this and never lose sight of the project's ultimate goal. Thus I see adminship as a duty and responsibility, not a reward or perk (it is with good reason the mop is its symbol;). In all honesty, I'm a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing Y'all. My virtues and vices about even out. My dad used to call me "Kid Electricity", because I followed the path of least resistance. Being an admin would be one more duty I'd feel compelled to perform. By voting for me, you will make my life a bit more difficult and complex. But who said life was easy or simple:> I dispise dishonesty and injustice. When something catches my fancy, or ire, I can be very passionate about it. This project is one of those things. If anything I've stated above, or ever, here catches your fancy, then by all means do vote for me. If you find just reason to oppose, then no hard feelings. Any way the wind blows, I want to be part of this project and community for the long haul. If my becoming an admin can help make them better, then it is a burden I will accept. At the end of the day we are all flawed meatbots trying to build a great encylopedia together.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 14:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. When would you use {{test1}} to {{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A.That would depend on the situation as determined by common sense and judgement. If someone is an obvious newcomer, who has just discovered "Oh wow! I can EDIT this! Coolz!" Then a test1 is in order, along with perhaps a welcome message. A repeat minor offender (provided they've not been warned already) would earn a test4. A serial minor vandal (who has already been warned) or single major one would get themselves a free bv, the duration of which would depend on the nature of the offense.
6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A.Once again, the circumstances of the case would determine my reaction. Assuming they are not reverting vandalism (In which case I might leave them a "Good job! Thanks!" note), I would warn them first. 3RR is too often used as a weapon and justification for blocks and bans. In edit wars, one side will often try and see if they can get the opposition to break 3RR first, then go crying to an admin. I don't play that game. Policies are tools, not weapons.
7. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A.If it contains blatant, biased, unencyclopedic or malicious slander. Again, Judgement and common sense will have to determine this. But trivia, delusional rantings and self promotions, such as this Kenji Siratori, found by User:Anville a few weeks ago, are mostly harmless Foma. As a Darwikian, I believe they will become extinct eventually, unless they evolve into a more worthy form. The way VfD has been operating of late, this will be sooner rather than later.
8. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A.I try to actively AVOID controversial topics. Besides, such things usually get far more attention than they truly deserve. My interest are in the more obscure, strange and less covered realms. But failing this, I would try and present all major sides of the issue along with what sources, links and arguements I can find to back them up, and leave it to the reader to decide which view is best. If the other editors cannot reach a consensus and an edit war ensues, I would lock the article and actively engage them on the discussion page to see if some compromise can be crafted. If none can be reached, but tempers cool and the sides agree to disagree, then I will unlock the article and the battle of ideas can resume.
9. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A.When my dear friends get frustrated, jaded and leave the project. This does'nt frustrate me so much as it discourages. Sadly, my list of frustrations has grown a lot longer than it was only a few months ago (Ignorance, if not bliss is at least Novacane), it now includes: Vandals and Deletionists, who find it easier to destroy rather than build. Obstructionists, who like to argue for arguement's sake rather than to make valid point. Nationalist-POV pushers. Those who use policy and bots as weapons to enforce their own personal/editorial agendas. The over zealousness of the image Copyright-Vio Militia. Or ANYTHING which drives away productive, talented, valuable and helpful editors/contributors. For the last couple months, it seems, in the wake of the Seigenthaler controversy, the climate here has gotten far more contentious if not poisionous. It is not only me, ranting and bemoaning this state of affairs...several of my friends have noticed it too. We see the symptoms all around us, but until the causes are identified and delt with we can only try to treat the symptoms and HOPE things get better. Much of it, I believe, is an inevitable result of the community's increased notariety and growth. But unless changes can be made to cope with this, the dedicated, talented Wikipedians of good faith will continue to drift away with those who remain attempting to reclaim the 'Pedia, and steer it back on course.
Extra question (10): Is it all right to vote Oppose on this RfA? I know you say under question 4 that it is — "If you find just reason to oppose, then no hard feelings" — but it honestly doesn't look like it from your responses so far. Or have the Oppose voters all given UNjust reasons? You've been arguing with them a LOT, following them to their talkpages to insist that their criticisms are misguided, or bad faith, or that they've done worse themselves. Geogre, objecting to cronyism, comes in for a detailed "you too!", and Giano, referring back to your input on an October RFA, ges told at length about his own (perceived) faults. Bunchofgrapes, a little strangely, also gets told about things in general that you dislike about Giano (who is not currently applying for adminship).
Please note that it IS considered proper, and the best kind of vote, to give a reason for one's Support or Oppose; you're not supposed to give chase when people do that. Ghirlandajo accepted your apology, which is great, I'm glad to see it; but it does look like you're trying to argue the other three Opposers into the ground, on this page and even more on their talkpages. You even push your very apology for past conflict to Giano rather aggressively (as in "Ghirlandajo accepted, I don't see why you can't")! I mean, it's surely up to him, not you, to accept your apology as sincere or not. Other people than him might find the timing of it rather cynical. IMO you're very aggressive on Geogre's page, too. Is such belligerent polemic and hot pursuit what I have to expect, too, if I should oppose you? I don't think these are proper RfA manners. Bishonen | talk 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Of course anyone here may vote however they see fit. I'm surprised you have not yet done so, since you obviously feel so strongly about my nomination [17] What I'm mainly objecting to is the active campaign Giano has undertaken against this Rfa. It is not proper manners to refer to this Rfa as a "farce", a "charade" or "kids mucking around" either. There are over 40 users here on all sides of the matter who clearly disagree. In the case of Ghirlandajo, a number of comments were made expressing concern. I decided to address them, by being BOLD (or "Aggressive" if you prefer;) and try to make amens with him. I was wrong for what I wrote, regardless of my reasons, and he, as the gentleman and scholar he is at the end of the day, graciously accepted. This encouraged me, and I thought maybe reaching out to Giano and you in a similar fashion might, if not produce similar results, at least alleviate the ill will that has built up between us. My motives and timing I clearly stated to Giano [18]. I truly wish to start with a clear, if not entirely clean, slate. This means no serious enemies or animosities. He soundly rejected my offer and initiated his talkpage offensive against me. I have responded. Perhaps wrongly so, but I've kept my responses civil if, at times, a bit irreverent. A little healthy cynicism is all well and good, but when it leads us to always expect the worst from others, to doubt their benefits rather than give them the benefit of the doubt, to assume guilt until proven innocent, then we end up only bringing out the worst in ourselves. With this in mind, my offer of apologies and peace still stands and extends to you, Bishonen. Do you accept?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you have a problem with my voicing my concerns here before deciding whether to vote; I meant it as a mark of consideration. Sure, I'll accept your peace offer, and I hope we'll both be able to either interact civilly or avoid one another from now on. I feel I have to oppose, though, according to my conviction. I think you're a valuable contributor, but not suited for the admin role. For one thing, I simply don't agree with your tolerant description of your own demeanor on this RFA /your recent talkpage interactions as "civil if, at times, a bit irreverent". I'll take your word for it that your offer wasn't in any case about influencing my vote. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I have no qualms at all with you voicing your concerns here. I'm sorry I failed to address them to your satisfaction. But I respect your convictions. Thank you for accepting my offer and for your confidence in me as a contributor. As I've said (perhaps too many times) if we cannot be friends, at least let us not be enemies. Along these lines, may I also convey to you congradulations on your Featured Article today.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/R.D.H._(Ghost_In_The_Machine)&oldid=1089730805"