Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollomelos

Apollomelos

Vote here (2/1/0) ending 21:35 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This contributor is an exemplary member of the Wikipedian Community. As of May 15 the current logs indicate a total of 1,001 edits, many of them being major additions on topics ranging from Homosexuality, Taoism, Hijras (India) to Salt Lake City, Utah over a time span since late 2004. Sifting through the talk page I have read many comments that reflect the utmost civility, always listening to other users and addressing their concerns in a fair fashion, often with the bravery to address highly controversial topics in society where it is common for politics to blur knowledge. This user has kept politics aside and produced very informative pieces for all. While on occasion a few additions have contained misperceptions, it can be expected on such highly politicized issues and this user quickly addresses any concerns. I found his communications with user Dbachmann especially meaningful to characterize him: “Apollomelos, I agree with most of what you say, and I daresay I have known most of it, too. I appreciate you have really researched the subject, and I obviously consider you a good-faith editor.” Globeism 21:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I graciously accept. :) However I highly doubt I will garner enough votes since many Wikipedians seem to consider homosexuality “shocking, overt and explicit”, which is probably why I do not know of any gay administrators. Apollomelos 11:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Globeism 21:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the good guys, working well on potentially contentious subjects. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

oppose. (1) Apollomelos writes with a definite POV and a definite agenda. I do not see Apollomelos wanting to compromise. (2) Apollomelos is lackadaisical about edit summaries. (3) IMHO, Apollomelos likes to shock people with overt and explicit content. Kingturtle 07:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please cite where I have a POV, I would like to resolve it for you. To my knowledge none of my articles have NPOV notices on them. Also I would like you elaborate on what exactly you consider shocking, overt and explicit. Best wishes. Apollomelos 11:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

1080 edits, first edit at 23:33 on Dec 27, 2004. Occasional edit summaries, no minor edits. Seems to attract a bit of controversy. —Ben Brockert (42) 23:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The controversies are mostly because of the homosexual topics. such topics invite vandals and bigots to cause havok. Kingturtle 07:35, 16 May 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.)

Anything I can help out with.

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

Currently my favorites would be:

I have provided in-depth information and spent considerable time researching, many late nights taking notes from textbooks and such.

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 will deal with it in the future?

Yes. One such instance is a user who was issued a hard ban by arbitration and continues to defy it because he can with the rotating AOL IP addresses. He constantly vandalizes and adds disinformation along with copy edits from God Hates Fags. Among credible users I have not had a single person feel negative about my edits, sure there have been questions, but I always resolve them to a satisfactory level for them. The Wiki fails when it strays from knowledge to editorials.