support: Looks good.
Ombudsman 03:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - Addendum: This
, endorsing the premature and entirely suspect AfD of the
Peter Fletcher article, has caused second thoughts. However, assumption of good faith carries greater weight, so there is no reason to withdraw support just to make a point.
Ombudsman03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Moral support. I know this RfA is doomed, but I thought I'd deign to give my support anyway... oh, never mind. Good editor, though; I see him around, making good edits, etc., and we need more vandal fighters.
Matt Yeager♫(
Talk?)05:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose This editor does not always abide by Wikipedia policies. He sometimes makes up his own rules as he goes.
[1] This editor also engages in edit warring
[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] I'm sure he's a nice person, but has he has helped to make Wikipedia a more neutral encyclopedia? No. I'm sorry, but no he hasn't.
Lou franklin13:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Note Please also read Lou's edit history and the arbitration case in which he is involved before deciding whether you wish to take his vote at face value.
Hbackman03:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
As a bureaucrat, I will take Lou's vote at face value. As a common-sense user, however... Lou, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Linuxbeak (drop me a
line)
14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral I have seen some work by this editor, and would like to see more from him. Still too new for my standards; unsure of decision making process, if someone could provide specific links for me to view, I would be more than happy to overturn my decision.
Moeε21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I have a 'deletion philsophy' on my userpage (which is fairly uncontroversial). I believe in deleting articles that don't meet Wikipedia policies but have already cleaned up a few articles that I saw on AfD and knew could be kept:
Rogelio dela Rosa,
Foot-in-the-door technique and
Kuldip Manak. Admittedly those aren't great examples - the first is good, but the second is still a bit OR-y and as for the third, I found lots of British
desi artists saying how awesome he was but no references on the guy himself. (Poke me in a few years if/when I learn Hindi and maybe I'll be able to find something then). I can't really think of any other relevant specific links without having a clearer idea of which decision making process you had in mind. --
Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian)(talk)23:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for providing links to some of your work. Like I said, I changed my vote to support. Good luck. :-D
Moeε02:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot14:45, 15 March 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:
A. I'd keep an eye on
WP:AIV and
WP:AN/3RR - the sooner alerts there are dealt with, the better. Deletion of articles and closing of debates is something else I feel experienced enough to do with confidence. And, of course, anything that turned up in the backlog.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. A full list of my significant contributions is on my
userpage. Of my translations from German,
Tepui is my current favourite, as it was interesting to start with (none of my doing, of course) and is relatively free of the Teutonic syntax that always plagues my first efforts at translation. Of my original writing, I'm pretty pleased with
The Road to Guantanamo, which was DYKed after I expanded it from a stub following its broadcast.
Swami (musical band) (initially a cleanup job, but I have significantly expanded it) is probably my actual favourite, as the band are still active and so there will be further updates.
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. I've been drawn into a few conflicts while here - although rarely over my own actual content, so it might be more accurate to say I've stuck my nose into them. Syrthiss already pointed out Jason Gastrich; I was fairly peripherally involved with Gastrich himself, but I like to think that when
Usenetpostsdotcom (
talk·contribs) (aka Uncle Davey) was drawn in, after initially mistaking him for a sockpuppet I did my best to persuade him to become a productive editor, which seems to have worked. I've also been involved in an ongoing dispute with an editor at
Societal attitudes towards homosexuality, which has now reached
arbitration: I filed the RFAR and have been maintaining the Evidence page. I believe I've always acted civilly and assumed good faith in disputes, and even in the most frustrating situations I don't think I've ever felt actual stress while on Wikipedia. I would never consider using admin powers in a content dispute in which I was involved.
Very stupid mistake. At the time I was assuming good faith with several new accounts, whom I now believe may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, who were vociferously claiming that Iain Lee had come out as gay on his radio programme. I did a Google search on the claims that he was gay, and somehow I came up with the idea that he had, indeed, come out on his radio programme. This was crap. After Arniep reverted me I had another look and couldn't for the life of me see where I got this idea. Since then I've tried to make up for it by keeping an eye on the page, despite it being the most tiresome page I've ever come across (it knocks Gastrich and
Societal attitudes towards homosexuality into a crooked hat). Recently I cleaned up after a couple of vandals who impersonated genuine contributors to that page, removing the actual impersonations and annotating the rest of their posts that I found.
The vandalism/dispute/whateveritis is still ongoing, with new accounts now adding an equally unsourced (but less provocative) claim that Lee is engaged, and I'm trying to keep it out until (hah) it's sourced. Probably more people are watching that page than I'm aware of, but I've posted messages to three of the contributors I believe to be genuine anyway, to try and resolve it in the normal fashion. Frankly I wish I'd never heard of
LBC. My first encounter with this radio station was at
Weetabix Minis - check the history and that of the talk page before it was made into a redirect (specifically
this). Apparently at least one of the station's DJs encourages his listeners to vandalise Wikipedia. --
Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian)(talk)00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I thought as much. I myself have reverted that article twice and reported someone for 3RR, and I heard about it 2 hours ago, so I can see where it could be messy. Thanks much!
KillerChihuahua?!?00:14, 16 March 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 talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.