Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:34, 29 November 2006

Biruitorul

Voice your opinion (18/12/4) Ending 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Biruitorul (talk · contribs) – Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "Kevin Barry" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Wikipedia's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, where political discussion is freewheeling. Of the many good contributors who have joined in the last year, I cannot imagine that any would be better qualified to be an administrator. Jmabel | Talk 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 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:

What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'd be most interested in WP:RCP, both fighting recent changes by vandals but especially in speedy-deleting nonsense pages. I would also like to close AfD disputes and help resolve NPOV problems. I plan to monitor the Administrators' noticeboard and help deal with WP:RM requests. More generally, I plan to be helpful wherever called on, both by other administrators to deal with backlog or by any user in trying to solve a problem, but the above would be my specialties. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What is your definition of "nonsense page"? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't have a hard and fast definition, but in general I know them when I see them. They're typically created by very new editors without user pages, are under 500 bytes in size, employ poor grammar and punctuation, etc. I'll give two recent examples. One was a page called "Nunn the gun" and read "Nunn The Gun, is a young influential musician. And a champion." Another was a page called "Jerry Tarkanian Court" and read "Named after the longtime head coach Jerry Tarkanian." That's the sort of thing I'm very eager to delete practically on sight. Biruitorul 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I've listed my articles here and I suppose most of them are all right, but I especially like the ones in bold, plus these two. I'm also somewhat of a templates man, with my creations (mainly drawn from other language editions) ranging from this one to this one to this one. There are also certain pages I like to keep clean of recurring vandalism, like these two. I'm pleased with these particular contributions because I think they've helped make the encyclopedia a better one and because they've demonstrated the wiki process in action, often undergoing substantial improvement since I first submitted them. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 in debates and discussions over content, but they've never gotten heated. Some of the more excited debates you can follow [1] and [2]. Most of the time I've resolved matters through persistent discussion, sometimes calling on other editors who support my position. I plan to continue doing the same; I will not be trigger-happy when it comes to blocking and will not abuse my powers to push my own version. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about letting banned users to be involved in discussions in wikipedia? `'mikkanarxi 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A It depends on the particulars of the case, but in general, a ban is a rather serious matter, so the user shouldn't be participating here until and unless the ban is lifted. Biruitorul 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What particulars make it permissible to be engaged in discussions with banned user? (When answering this question please keep in mind that bans are not given lightly, are always preceded by other means of conflict resolution and lengthy litigation) `'mikkanarxi 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Let me give a concrete example. As I understand it, User:Anittas was banned for reasons that don't have to do with his credibility. If Anittas wanted to contribute an idea to an article, I would engage in discussion with him through e-mail and weigh what he had to say, possibly making use of his ideas. However, all discussion would be kept off talk pages. If a sockpuppet of a banned user wrote on my talk page I would delete that discussion and direct him to use e-mail. But Anittas' case is fairly special (see, for instance, Jmabel's post here); since most banned users are trolls with nothing valuable to contribute, my default would be to ignore them. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When faced with vandals or edit disputes, do you favor a hard-line, "zero-tolerance" approach or negotiation and discourse? Do you believe in punishment or rehabiliation? What is your user rights policy in regards to admin action and how will you ensure that there are checks and balances in the process and accountability for your own actions? Ronline ✉ 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A To some extent, it depends on the nature of the vandalism. If we're talking about someone blanking pages or writing "hkjsgdfskfsk" in random spots, I would give the usual series of warnings before blocking, etc. Edit disputes are quite another matter. My own credo is dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue. I believe that the more debate we have, the better the results will be, so I will try to keep engaging with parties to a dispute for as long as is feasible. I believe that, within reason, rehabilitation should be the focus. For instance, if someone has shown that he has good ideas but also has a habit of making intemperate, abusive remarks, we should first try to get him to understand that those are unacceptable; only if he fails to grasp that within a reasonable time frame (maybe a week) would I support punitive action (unless the insults were truly egregious, in which case more forceful punishment would be appropriate). I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "user rights policy". As for accountability, to some extent it's a matter of trust with admins (though of course they too can be disciplined) but I think I've shown myself to be a rather conciliatory type and a good listener, so if my actions aroused opposition I would certainly take all complaints into account and pursue appropriate measures to ensure the best outcome for all involved parties. Biruitorul 19:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Biruitorul's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
I would appreciate your support. I won't make any grandiose promises but I do intend to keep those I've made to the best of my ability. Biruitorul 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest for Biruitorul to write edit comments for non-minor edits. `'mikkanarxi 19:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And major edits aswell. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd agree with the edit summary issue. Biruitorul's edits, though, have been so uniformly good that I've come to view just his name as 99% assurance that it will be a good edit. There are all of about a dozen editors I could say that about to a comparable degree in 3+ years working here. - Jmabel | Talk 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC) - Pleased to be the first to vote for this worthy candidate.[reply]
Hear, hear. As stated before, although he and I disagree on almost everything political, I am yet to see as neutral an editor as Biruitorul. Dahn 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience Biruitorul is a friendly and knowledgeable editor. Appleseed (Talk) 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Mihai -^talk 21:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the mainspace edits make up for everthing else for me. But you really need to get those edit summerys up and also the wikispace.__Seadog ^♪ 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has the experience; is a helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable contributor; does not edit-war or allow his own views to intrude into articles. I don't need to see dozens of "delete per noms" from this candidate to accept that he's able to grasp the principles of XfDs and admin-worthy behaviour. Edit summaries are a nice-to-have (there are plenty of established admins out there using these sparingly anyways), which could presumably be improved. I don't see the downside in making Biruitorul an admin, the reverse in fact.--cjllw | TALK 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support no negative stands out, and I don't mind if the nominee for focusing on building articles.-- danntm ^T _C 01:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and helpful user overall, qualified enough to become an adminstrator. Hello32020 01:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support We need more admins like Biruitorul who have experience in writing articles and getting into the trenches. The fact that this user has not been involved in "WikiPolitics" is a strong plus, not a minus. Instead of playing virtual cops and robbers in the Wikispaces, this editor has put in hard work to create articles and improve articles with information not readily available in the paper encyclopedias. That's been the purpose of Wikipedia, but I feel that many entrenched Wikipedians have forgotten this. Rather, they just get into a tizzy whenever a Stephen Colbert comes up with a term called Wikiality. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 05:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I met Biruitorul when he first came here, and I've seen nothing but good things since. He's proven himself to be a very neutral editor, plus I liked his answer to mikka's question. Khoikhoi 06:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Andrei 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With more than 13000 edits, he deserve to be an admin.--MariusM 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. NPOV, meticulous article improvements, modest, friendly and approachable, and, to comment on what I see is writen below by opposants, I would also add experience. Greier 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the edit count, number of high-quality articles, a.s.o. Givig him responsibilities will also help moderate his political views. Dpotop 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I'd like to address some of the points raised by those who have opposed you or have voted neutral. For one, I think that your work with Wikipedia so far has been grand. You've got all the signs of a good Wikipedian who would make a good moderator. There are some things, however, you are lacking in. As Nishkid pointed out, you have a lack of edit summary usage (something so minor keeping you from becoming an Admin!). Another thing pointed out was the fact that, although you are a great contributor to Wikipedia, you really don't need the tools. You're working well right now. Becoming an admin isn't everything. In fact, many admins eventually retire and give up the mop because they become too preoccupied with putting out fires, handling the vandals, and deciding policy. If you truely want to become an Admin, that's fine. However, you can still contribute above and beyond (look at User:Werdna, who is highly respected Wikipedian who isn't and chooses not to be an Admin) what is expected of the average Wikipedian without the admin tools. Sharkface217 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have yet to see an oppose vote that lists a legitimate reason for opposing him. He has always been productive. KazakhPol 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fact that this user spent most of his time building excellent articles rather performing petty bureaucratic tasks should not go against him. TSO1D 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – despite his often-controversial talk page opinions, Biruitorul is a very neutral and professional main namespace editor. In particular, I believe his answer to question 5 above embodies the values all admins should have, particularly an emphasis on dialogue and co-operation. Even though some people have opposed his candidature because he "hasn't warned enough vandals yet", I don't think this should impact at all on his status as an admin. Giving admin status to someone costs nothing, but can bring about a lot of benefits for the project, and I think that with admin powers, Biruitorul can be become an even better contributor. I look forward to having you on the admin team :) Ronline ✉ 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

We don't "fight" changes. ... aa:talk 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do. We also read carefully what other people write (in this case, what exactly candidates write or mean to write). If we don't understand something, we ask questions first, then vote. And again, we do fight vandalism. `'mikkanarxi 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I would like to support this user, but I'm not so sure due to the lack of edit summary usage and the lack of participation in AfD's. Nishkid 64 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose Excellent mainspace contributions, however low use of project and project/user talk spaces as well as very low edit summary usages concern me. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient project-space participation suggests lack of familiarity with wiki-process. - crz crztalk 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I must oppose as well. You appear to be an excellent editor, but your Wikipedia space count is just too low, your edit summary usage is far below the least acceptable, and I see no recent countervandalism or participation in AFD (which doesn't really look good for someone who's willing to perform administrative tasks in those areas).--Húsönd 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose partly per Nishkid, Crazy and Husond and partly because I can't really see a need for admin tools. Most of the "specialty" jobs you say you'd like to be able to do in question one can be done without adminship, eg, helping resolving NPOV issues, RCP, closing (some) XfDs, helping out on AN, ANI and RM. These jobs really don't require the tools and many, many editors are doing them now without the mop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to strong oppose. I don't care how credible you think a banned user might be, no one should be acting as proxies for editors who are under bans. The policy is completely unambiguous on this issue: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that the policy was unambiguous: "at the direction of" does not mean "after consultation with". If I have misinterpreted, I would (honestly) welcome an RFC or even a request that I be de-sysop'd on this ground, since I am in communication with at least two banned users and pass along messages when I think they are useful or on the mark. I don't intend to stop doing this, so if the community consensus is, indeed, that it should rule out someone being a sysop, then I no longer have that consensus, and I've long said that I (or anyone else) should be in this role only by clear consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You need to warn vandals, and you definitely need to use more edit summaries. Your article contributions are great, but writing articles is irrelevant to admin tools, as they do not help you with article writing in any way. You don't seem to have much participation in other things, thus, I don't see that you have need of admin tools. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per all the above concerns. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lacks of edits in several namespaces. Please warn vandals as much as possible, unless someone warned before you can. Don't be discouraged as you can still be a good editor without becoming an admin. If you want to, participate in xFDs etc. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crz, who has been reading my mind lately. Xoloz 06:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, despite the (unintentionally?) romantic nomination from Jmabel. Needs to learn that we do warn vandals. Proto::type 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose The level of wiki-space edits, talk pages (particularly vandal warnings) participation and edit summaries gets to me aswell as the decided lack of XfD discussion. Seeing as these are the areas of contribution this user will participate in as an admin, I think more experience in those areas is neccessary. The 12 000 mainspace edits is very good though. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 13:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral You look like a really good editor and I can't see any problems with your encyclopedic contributions. I do see less than ten XfD discussion contributions and no vandal warnings from a random sample of your user Talk page edits, latest to earliest. I would feel confident in supporting you with more of the above in evidence. A minor point, do you have edit summaries forced on your preferences? If you don't then I think that this would be a good idea. If you do, then the gaps are probably where you have used the '+' link to add comments. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral But on an aside, I think you're airing some family's dirty laundry in one of your answers. If this is corrected, I'd be inclined to support because I value mainspace editing, and especially article writing, over participating in WikiBureaucracy. I think our admins should be in the trenches writing articles before they can oversee the writing of articles. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't want to pile on opposes, so I'll just remain neutral. Although this user has many useful edits, the extreme lack of edit summaries is worth noting, as is the lack of Wikispace talk eits. NauticaShades 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I know this guy for some very minor, pedantic edits he makes to DYK pages. Since they are not accompanied by edit summaries, I have to check the page each time, which is sort of time-consuming. Reading the nomination, I hoped to learn why he would be helpful as an admin. Instead, I learned a lot about his and Jmabel's policial leanings. I don't care about political views of our admins and don't think that one's interest in politics is a sufficient reason to entrust him or her with tools. Sorry. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. You're a great contributor, but do you really need the tools? If you're dead set on becoming an admin, I'd recommend you get involved more in admin-related tasks and come back in a couple of months. I'll gladly support you then. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - not enough experience, but looks good. I see no reason why I wouldn't support in 3 months --T-rex 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul|Biruitorul]]===
 '''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul|action=edit}} Voice your opinion]'''
-'''(16/12/4) Ending 17:58, [[4 December]] [[2006]] (UTC)'''
+'''(18/12/4) Ending 17:58, [[4 December]] [[2006]] (UTC)'''
 {{User|Biruitorul}} – Biruitorul and I have about 2.7 languages in common, but have diametrically opposite politics. I'm a New York Jewish red-diaper-baby leftist whose guitar-playing father (due to the vagaries of New York ethnic politics) sang "[[Kevin Barry]]" with gusto; he may be the only Ulster Unionist Romanian monarchist in captivity. I have observed him to be one of the English-language Wikipedia's most excellent, erudite, even-handed, unbiased contributors; the only reason I even know his politics is from the [[Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board|Romanian Wikipedians' notice board]], where political discussion is freewheeling. Of the many good contributors who have joined in the last year, I cannot imagine that any would be better qualified to be an administrator. [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 #'''Support''' I have yet to see an oppose vote that lists a legitimate reason for opposing him. He has always been productive. [[User:KazakhPol|KazakhPol]] 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Support''' The fact that this user spent most of his time building excellent articles rather performing petty bureaucratic tasks should not go against him. [[User:TSO1D|TSO1D]] 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Strong support''' &ndash; despite his often-controversial talk page opinions, Biruitorul is a very neutral and professional main namespace editor. In particular, I believe his answer to question 5 above embodies the values all admins should have, particularly an emphasis on dialogue and co-operation. Even though some people have opposed his candidature because he "hasn't warned enough vandals yet", I don't think this should impact at all on his status as an admin. Giving admin status to someone costs nothing, but can bring about a lot of benefits for the project, and I think that with admin powers, Biruitorul can be become an even better contributor. I look forward to having you on the admin team :) [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] '''[[User:Ronline|Ronline]]''' [[User talk:Ronline|✉]] 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 '''Oppose'''