Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Voldemort: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:11, 28 September 2005

Lord Voldemort

Vote here (10/7/1) ending 21:13 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort (talk · contribs) – Lord Voldemort has spread his Dark Mark far and wide, with what I would consider great value. He has done admirable work NPOVing the unNPOVable (George W. Bush, for example), and substantial vandal work on that same article, and many others. He has started the promising WP:JEFTA, which is a great idea, and has been doing stub-wikifi-grunt work for quite a while. While his tenure at our encyclopedia is short when compared to geezers like Who, I feel that he has demonstrated the temperament and maturity to wield the mop.

Kate's tool has him at 2360, with an admirable balance across all of the wikispaces except for Category talk. Tisk tisk! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I most humbly accept. Although it is late in the day, and I must save the questions for tomorrow. Please forgive me. I'll get on them first thing. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - who steals the nominators spot while the nominator is away notifying the nominated? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. My eagerness to support him got the better of me. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all my encounters with him have been excellent but my main reason is he edited my user page. I admire that. Plus, my standards are met. Will make a great admin. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I see him revert vandalism and do great work at George W. Bush all the time, and he seems like a great contributor. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Voldy is a trustworthy character, ironically, with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really don't understand why JETFA is being held against him. Ac e tic '^Acid 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone else has said it all, really.--inks 03:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support FireFox ^{T C} 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Just edit the freakin' article I say :). I'm willing the candidate the benifit of the doubt when comes to the personal attack reform, as most of them seem to be from over two months ago. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose JETFA is a perfect example of the immaturity that seems to be creeping into Wikipedia. I am increasingly seeing users make offensive comments when voting, and editing in general. In addition to the "extreme" votes, other users have been voting neutral just for the sake of voting with ridiculous comments ("Neutral until candidate answers the question" or "Neutral I have not interacted with this user"). I see JETFA as inextricably tied to this voting pattern. freestylefrappe 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. I am sorry you feel that way, freestylefrappe. The reason I vote neutral on some nominations without responses is that I feel every admin candidate should make the effort to answer some standard questions; these questions serve as a rudimentary guideline for voters. If a candidate does not answer the questions by the end of the voting period, I feel that the person should not be sysoped. I only vote neutral, though, when it seems like the candidate already has garnered a large number of support votes, or if I have almost certainly made up my mind on my vote (such as this case, for example). Now, would you mind kindly telling us if you have any specific objections to User:Lord Voldemort besides your objections to WP:JETFA? Thanks very much for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I agree, JETFA is an extremely immature sort of diversion. While User:Lord Voldemort has some strengths as an editor, his weaknesses are such that I do not believe he is fit for adminship. Add to this his history of personal attacks and he is not a good candidate. Agriculture 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree JETFA isn't presented in the most mature way, but it is a noble cause that I agree with, I don't see why a bad choice of title for his wikiproject should be held against him. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Look at his history of personal attacks... Agriculture 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, he might be prepared to change the title of WP:JETFA. Though the personal attacks would still be worrying. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Although he has done good work on George W. Bush and other articles, this user has a history of personal attacks. Rhobite 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, making personal attacks, and then when someone removed those attacks attacking that person is not indicative of the right disposition for adminship. --fvw * 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The personal attacks violate Wikipedia norms for civility and are not indicative of a potential administrator--at least not right now. Sunray 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although admins are no more than regular contributors with a few extra buttons, they are often seen as representatives of Wikipedia, especially by new people. Because of this I cannot support someone who resorts to abuse rather than entering into a dialogue when he has a problem with a fellow Wikipedian. Also, although I believe it was created with good intentions, JETFA is, in my opinion, unhelpful. Rje 10:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the personal attacks. — JIP | Talk 17:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral until questions are answered (see above) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Average edits per day at 21. Use of edit summaries at 63%, last 500 edits at 74%. --Durin 21:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Last 500 article edits: 92.8% edit summaries. Only 36 times did I not use one, and 26 of those times I marked it minor, so it's not much of a worry. Just thought I'd point that out. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of JETFA before, but regardless, Voldy is a trustworthy character with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful. Is that right that he's only been here since July though? Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- First edit as registered user was June 9, 2005. --Durin 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, I meant to say June. It just seemed to me like he'd been here longer and that's why I brought it up. Also just because I thought there might be some prior account (some of the first edits were vandal reversions and VFD). That was probably gving the wrong impression asking that and not supporting, which was what I was planning on anyway. I have no arbitrary time requirement. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had been lurking for quite some time, and thought I should finally get involved, and allow my voice to be heard. And I think the edit summary thing is fairly misleading. Normally, I do not leave an edit summary when using talk pages. Is that a requirement? Look at my use of summaries on actual article edits. I try to always use one. Thanks.--Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Use of edit summaries in non-talk pages is 70%, last 500 non-talk pages at 88%. --Durin 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Whoops, I was only counting the article namespace. Thanks for the info Durin. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand your comments regarding talk page summaries. Others have voiced similar opinions elsewhere. This caused me to modify my template that does the calculations to also show me edit summary percentages for non-talk articles. I imagine someone will convince me at some point to add in a measure for non-talk, non-self user page edits. But, I think the point is that edit summaries are important, regardless of where you are editing. "Would I vandalize my own page?" might seem like a reasonable response to that, but I don't think it is. For example, a doppelganger account could be used to make the edit to your user page. Possible doppelgangers for you are "Lord Voldamort", "Lord VOldamort" "Lord Voldenort", "Lord Volbemort" and more. The human eye, when scanning, does not always recognize these as doppelgangers. So, the edit might go ignored if all we went by was whether it was the user editing their own user page. That's why it's important to have edit summaries even on edits to your own user page. For talk pages, I feel it is important as well because vandalism can and does happen on talk pages. The vast majority of vandalism that occurs on wikipedia is done without the use of edit summaries. By encouraging people to use edit summaries for legitimate edits, we raise the bar that vandals have to jump over in order to attempt to get a vandalizing edit past the watchful eyes of RC patrol. Thus, using edit summaries for every edit, even edits marked as minor, makes Wikipedia a better place. --Durin 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – How many Harry Potter fans are opposing The Dark Lord's" RFA? ;) User:Nichalp/sg 11:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, JETFA. I don't know how this is any less mature than WP:DICK. I would be more than willing to change them name, or even disband the project entirely. I was just sick and tired of very good, capable editors tagging something with {{wikify}} or {{cleanup}} and then leaving. If you know how to tag an article, chances are you probably know how to wikify it. The backlogs to some of those categories are enormous. Every WP:COTW for the rest of the year could be Wikification, and there would still be more to do. We should try and encourage people to fix the article rather than tag them. I don't really know what else to say about it. Like I said, if it is causing problems, it would be fine to disband it. The last thing I want on WP is more conflicts. And I wish people would hear me out before they had voted oppose. Cheers. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note the user has a history of personal attacks and is claiming to have "reformed". As the user has only been with Wikipedia since June, I don't see how there has been any possible real demonstration of such reformation. I suggest the candidate reapply in six months given the history of violating Wikipedia's rules to give time for an evaluation of the honesty of said users reformation. At the moment, I don't see how anyone in good conscience can vote support for the candidate. Agriculture 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to say that I don't have a "history of personal attacks". I do have "personal attacks in my history." I admit my faults and don't try to deny anything. And reading your edits Agri, you too have a history of personal attacks. Just thought I'd defend myself here. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might be pertinent to note that Agri isn't running for adminship; you are. Borisblue 17:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know, I understand that. But don't you think that there is enough hypocrisy in the world? Him calling the kettle black hardly gives him the right to speak authoritatively on the subject of personal attacks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - A user who is not an admin can certainly make a comment regarding personal attacks of an admin nominee and have it not be hypocrisy. We have no requirement that a person who is not an admin not vote, in fact quite the opposite. User:Agriculture may have no interest in being an admin. For all we know, the person may think they are not qualified. That doesn't stop them from having an opinion on what would qualify or disqualify a person from being an admin, nor does their own behavior automatically make their comments have less standing. --Durin 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I understand all of that. All I am saying is that everyone should try and follow WP policy, not just those who wish to be admins. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's no angel, but we hold admins to higher standards of behavior. Borisblue 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I know. Except for that one little incident, I think I have handled myself in a very amicable, personable way. Since then I have done nothing wrong to anyone. I have tried to be one of the friendliest, most level-headed editors around here. I am sorry if I have done something wrong. Thank you for your comments. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:41, 28 September 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

Of course everyone wants a rollback button, and there was a point where I was just getting so fed up with vandalism and the time it took to revert, that I just wanted to give it all up. I would be more than willing to help clean up some of those backlogs which are in awful conditions right now. I anticipate closing AfDs (seems to be a chore some sysops won't do). I think I have shown a willingness to help people. I know I have had some problems, but I'll deal with that below.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

I am not sure there is one particular article I like, maybe Air America Radio. I think my body of work, including the many welcomes I have given out are what I am most proud of. I actually like doing some of the grunt work, and am proud of that too.

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?

Okay, and it comes to this. I am not ashamed of my past. I am, however, sorry. My past shows that I had an issue with Gabrielsimon. We were working it all out when Rhobite jumped in. I admit the attacks were childish and immature, however, the remarks about Rhobite (obnoxious, etc.) were what he had called me. Why should he be allowed to get away with it. An admin had said those things, so I figured that would be okay. But I admit I was wrong. Me and Gabe (Gavin) now have a fine relationship. There is an old saying "forgive and forget." I hope all the people opposing me because of my past discretions can do that. Since then, I feel I have shown myself as a level-headed, reasonable editor. Perhaps my thoughts here would help explain myself. Not everyone is perfect all the time. I think an editor that actually wants forgiveness should be allowed it. In the future I just won't let people get under my skin. I was quick to react in the past, but now understanding the scope of this project, think before I act. I wish the people that oppose me would have waited for my answer before they voted. Oh well, I'm doing the best I can do now.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *****Use of edit summaries in non-talk pages is 70%, last 500 non-talk pages at 88%. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 ******Whoops, I was only counting the article namespace. Thanks for the info Durin. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">Lord Vold</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Lord Voldemort|<font color="purple">mort</font>]] <sup><font color="#3D9140">[[User talk:Lord Voldemort|(Dark Mark)]]</font></sup> 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
+*******I understand your comments regarding talk page summaries. Others have voiced similar opinions elsewhere. This caused me to modify my template that does the calculations to also show me edit summary percentages for non-talk articles. I imagine someone will convince me at some point to add in a measure for non-talk, non-self user page edits. But, I think the point is that edit summaries are important, regardless of where you are editing. "Would I vandalize my own page?" might seem like a reasonable response to that, but I don't think it is. For example, a [[Wikipedia:Doppelganger account|doppelganger account]] could be used to make the edit to your user page. Possible doppelgangers for you are "Lord Voldamort", "Lord VOldamort" "Lord Voldenort", "Lord Volbemort" and more. The human eye, when scanning, does not always recognize these as doppelgangers. So, the edit might go ignored if all we went by was whether it was the user editing their own user page. That's why it's important to have edit summaries even on edits to your own user page. For talk pages, I feel it is important as well because vandalism can and does happen on talk pages. The vast majority of vandalism that occurs on wikipedia is done without the use of edit summaries. By encouraging people to use edit summaries for legitimate edits, we raise the bar that vandals have to jump over in order to attempt to get a vandalizing edit past the watchful eyes of RC patrol. Thus, using edit summaries for every edit, ''even edits marked as minor'', makes Wikipedia a better place. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' &ndash; How many ''[[Harry Potter]]'' fans are opposing ''The Dark Lord's" RFA? ;) {{User:Nichalp/sg}} 11:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)