Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vilerage (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 2 July 2006 (→‎[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 4|HolyRomanEmperor]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HolyRomanEmperor

Discuss here (33/4/5) ending 14:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs) – HolyRomanEmperor was nominated for admin two months ago but failed because the RfA had to be restarted. As he is of Slavic ancestry, he is involved in Slavic-related articles, but keeps a relatively cool head in disuptes, and has a good understanding of policy. Will (message me!) 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, but with some fear because of my previous nomination --HolyRomanEmperor 13:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Nominator's support Will (message me!) 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support He looks to be an experienced person and I think he would do well for the job. Great answers to questions below. Spelling could be improved but otherwise a great choice for adminship. --WillMak050389 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per last time. NSLE 15:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Great edits on Montenegro-related articles and Balkans history articles. Think he will make a good admin and resolve many of the problems here on Wikipedia. Good luck HRE. Crna tec Gora 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari 16:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. No questions asked. This support does not affect your statutory rights. Cash equivilant for this support: 0.0001p. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Seems well-qualified to be an admin. Kalani[talk|esp] 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 17:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Brilliant editor Rama's Arrow 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: I have always maintained that we require specialists to deal with certain issues requiring involvement of administrators with suitable aptitude, attitude and skills. He fits nicely into the job. If we want wikipedia to become a true encyclopedia, we require specialist editors as well as specialist administrators. I would have voted for him last time - but, in April 2006, I could not access wikipedia for weeks due to serious sickness. --Bhadani 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose? No way, this seems a good editor with needs of the tools. --WinHunter (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I've seen nothing but good from HRE. --Randy Johnston (‽) 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Don't let it go to your head! ;) - Kookykman|(t)e 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Excellent contributions. No worries at all. Afonso Silva 18:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian {T C @} 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as I did last time. DarthVader 18:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as per all of them --Robdurbar 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good user. GangstaEB (talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problems here. Hezky! TruthCrusader 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Cleared for admin. --Pilot|guy 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - per my vote on the previous nomination, have no reasons to change it abakharev 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Get the... hrm nevermind Support seriously, he seems like a fine editor who would benefit from the tools per Q1 hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, well-rounded, with great expertise in key areas. Definetely meets my standards. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, just like my vote last time. SushiGeek 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Like last time. — The King of Kings 01:05 July 02 '06
  28. Support. Kept a cool head through those last 3/4 RfAs - I sincerly hope this one isn't plauged with the same problems as your last one. --james // bornhj (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support, think will make a very good admin. -- Pravi Gusinjac 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support, definitely will become admin. Has great edit count and has proven to be a good editor in Slavic-related topics. Good luck. Note to the nominee: get into less conflicts, that way you can earn more support and also work on your areas of editing and also get more involved with Project edits. Milo 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to understand how these Yugoslavian redlink editors who have not participated in RfA's before found this page all of a sudden w/o a note on their talk pages? Is there a solicitation ring somewhere by email or on the Serbian 'pedia? What's going on, please? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are actually Montenegrin users by the likes of it. Pravi Gusinjac, definitely because of the "Gusinjac" term, which means person from Gusinje and Milan B. is Montenegrin because he kind of addressed it on the nominee's talk page earlier [1]. I guess they were either waiting for a Montenegrin to have an RfA ad become an admin or they probably went to ask the nominee a question, when they saw his nomination and then quickly voted and I guess forgot about that comment. Generally, those Montenegrin users are somewhat newbies, but having close to 100 edits, having looked at their contributions. Though, I think that they're probably friends who ask each other to do stuff. I guess Pravi Gusinjac saw the nomination first and then told Milan B. (Milo) over the phone, e-mail, or through instant messaging. Think about it. Crna Gora 05:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - These RfAs have turned into a saga. But none of it is HRE's fault. - Richardcavell 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I'm very sorry that you're still not an admin, despite the fact that you've done decently good work here (even if some think you have a "narrow" focus). I hope this succeeds, and I wish you much good luck. Thistheman 05:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Polite and experienced user. Good knowledge of all wikipedia areas. Give him the mop! Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 07:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks OK to me! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per (1) sort of few WP edits, (2) block history, (3) my perception of a very narrow focus on "Slavic" topics, (4) a very high number of conflicts with other users per answer to 3 and per my experience with HRE otherwise, and (5) per the failure of this RfA, by the nominator and by the nominee, to address the Oppose voted in RfA 3a which KofKs admitted to have been partially valid - and they were. A very contentious user is going to make a very contentious sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And the above reasons are not in order to importance. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, regretfully. There is some recent incivility of concern [2] [3] [4] [5]. I also would have to question User talk:HolyRomanEmperor/IncidentLog/CrnaGora. There might be a good reason for such a log, but I am uncertain what it could be. Also, though it doesn't bother me too much since I sometimes refer to an opinion expressed on an AFD as a "vote" simply out of lack of something better to call it, this edit summary [6] is worth at least mentioning - please keep in mind it's not a vote and that an admin needs to do more than count heads. I also, on that subject, note that most of this user's AFD participation is "piling on" when there are already a ton of deletes ([7] for example). Again, there's nothing horribly wrong with that, but it isn't overly productive. I also notice this - [8] - where he changed a correctly capitalized page to an incorrectly capitalized one. This is another edit that's a bit strange [9] - addressing a single individual on an article page rather than on their talk page. I'm sorry and I don't question that he's done a lot for articles within his area of expertise ... but there are just red flags waving as far as administrative access goes. I don't like having to oppose someone who clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, but there's too much here that bothers me ... particularly the recent incivility. BigDT 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per both above. --Guinnog 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per first two opposes. Yanksox 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. While the candidate has a lot of interaction with other users through talk pages, he only has 3% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I am afraid he will be a limited administrator who will only apply "corrections" to users in the articles where he is editing without reporting or discussing with other administrators. Also, replies to answers have been basically the same since his second nomination, even though they are outdated by now (the candidate claims Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions when someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react.; however I could not find a report in WP:AIV nor WP:AN3 from the user since March). Finally, the user does not appear to use test templates to warn users. Added some questions that may modify this vote in either direction. -- ReyBrujo 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above. Orane (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Roy A.A. 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HRE was nominated three/four times in the last six months. Just two months ago, the score of the vote was 50:49:7 (and previous votes were 8/15/2, 4/6/1, 29/15/10). The current nominator says that the previous nomination failed because it "had to be restarted" - I find it hard to believe that it failed for mere procedural reasons; rather, it seems apparent that it failed because there were a whole bunch of discontents. It seems reasonable to try to figure out what the hell happened to the 49 people and their negative opinions. It would be a bit disappointing to find out that all of them are actually sockpuppets or complete morons or something which makes them irrelevant for the present voting just a couple of months later. --Joy [shallot] 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Joy. Since I was pretty involved in the last RFA, and a main factor in me leaving Wikipedia last time, I would like to comment on your statement. Well, 49 people did oppose, but there was some heavy POV pushing between Croatian Wikipedians and Serbian Wikipedians at that moment and editors decided to make a few sockpuppets resulting in 49 opposes (although the majority of the opposers were not socks). Some of the reasons people opposed last time was because Linuxbeak had to restart the RFA. The first RFA #3 had been plagued with socks POV pushing and was getting unfair at the time and it was restarted at #3a. But there were other legitimate reasons people opposed last time too. — The King of Kings 01:05 July 02 '06
    True but weren't Albanian Wikipedians like Hipi Zhdripi and I guess and think Ilir pz were involved in the conflicts on the 3rd nomination and the restarted one. They kept getting involved just like the Serbs and Croats who voted on the nomination. And true, socks were also a reason why there was 49 opposers. There was some really heavy POV pushing and also conflicts started starting up on the nominations, which cause its failure. Unbelieveable, isn't it? Crna tec Gora 06:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changing vote to Neutral per concerns by Czrussian. Perfectly valid concerns in the past RFAs have not been addressed. Cowman109Talk 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Please refer to my prevous nomination. It had to be restarded because it was continuously vandalized by User:Hipi Zhdripi and had lots of controversal, ethnic-based votes. It's restart failed, although after the loads of controversy created by users that have less than 20 edits and controversal fellow-Balkan voters, I wouldn't myself vote for such a Nomination. I live in Serbia, Belgrade - I would much rather like to fulfill my dream and live at the rich West, but for now it's not a possible thing - thus I am Serbian. However, those ethnic-based votes are not so much about whome I consider myself to be, and not even whome they think I am, but solely because of what they want me to be. I understand that this is difficult to understand to many Wikipedians, especially those of the peaceful parts of our World, but one must be understood - a war was fought in here not long ago, and its traces are still evident - when in some places war isn't yet over at all. This creates a terrifying image of the well-known term Balkanization - and I do what I can (expecially after I became introduced in many of Wikipedia's policies) to avoid it - unfortunately, the same cannot be said for others. It is now that I send a plea to Administrators to watch carefully, please, how this voting lasts - for I do not want any more invited votes, or simple vandals at my RfAs.
  • I have almost 7,000 edits; although I do not have many Wikipedia namespace edits, I am fully skilled as I created WikiProject Montenegro, WikiProject Belgrade and contributed some other WikiProjects like "History", etc. I am also fully skilled in Portals (please refer to Portal:Montenegro) and Templates.
  • I have been blocked for 24 hours wtice, once when I practicly self-reported a stupid 3RR violation that I made - and the second time when I had an arguement with User:Emir_Arven (see the answer to the questions below, 3rd Answer) who was expressing too much aggressivness and was about to be blocked - so I requested to be blocked together with him out of solidarization.
Username HolyRomanEmperor
Total edits 6972
Distinct pages edited 1214
Average edits/page 5.743
First edit 16:49, 24 August 2005
 
(main) 2708
Talk 1158
User 113
User talk 2626
Image 29
Image talk 2
Template 44
Template talk 5
Category 8
Wikipedia 227
Wikipedia talk 25
Portal 25
Portal talk 2
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:
3RR violations, Intervention against vandalism, fullfilling page protection requests
I believe that wikipedia is being flooded by vandalism, and that always an extra hand is neaded. Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions when someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react. This is all understandable, naturally; regarding the unproportionally small number of admins towards (other) users; however, it is somewhat annoying as well. It is here that I would like to lend assistence by reacting as fast as possible to any violation and/or admin-required assistence (such as considering/fulfilling page protection requests, etc).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
I have a ton of edits and numerious articles written. One of my largest articles are Duklja – a South Slavic Early Medieval state on the Balkan peninsular and one of the first rulers of modern Montenegro as well as a prominent writer: Petar II Petrović Njegoš. There's also Tvrtko, a medieval Bosnian ruler and Stefan Nemanja - a Serbian one. Other good articles (in my opinion) are those of Medieval Bosnian Bans Stephen II Kotromanić, Kotroman and Matej Ninoslav or Mehmed-pasha Sokolović. History and Litteracy are my main subjects, so I am glad that I can contribute to wikipedia by adding these very little – but rich subjects that unseen pass the eyes of the world. I believe in the Historia magistra vitae est. ol' saying. Other contributions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the History sections of the articles Croats and Skadar, while I am currently rewriting the History of Slovenia. You might take a look at all the medieval figures found on List of rulers of Croatia and List of Bosnian rulers - most were written by me. I have a special interest in my homeland's (Croatia) medieval history - and this is combined with the history of the place of my origin, Montenegro, as well as my current place of residence - Belgrade, Serbia's capital - that alltogether makes me greatly interested in the "Serbo-Croatian milleu". This has also given me an interest in the History of Bosnia, but I am greatly disappointed by the amount of controversies that have come up because of the most recent Bosnian War - which could've and should've been avoided most definately (I myself was introduced into the Bosnian can of worms after creating/writing the Demographic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina article). I am also translating from the Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian wikipedias - some other notable figures whose articles I wrote are Stevan Hristić - a notable Serbian musician, or Marin Držić - a notable Croatian renaissance writer. I am not very interested in other subjects - but my "mini-edits" like removing deleted images, linking, categorizing, fixing grammar and adding some info on articles like Piracy can be found all over this Encyclopedia.
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:
Unfortunatly to admit - I have been involved in numerious controversies - but most/all of them have ended with a compromise orchestrated by - and are a long past by now. Most conflicts I have are not over editing - but I stay off the actual article and bring the discussion to the corresponding talk page. Most of my largest arguements were with people that possess a high quantity of anger and outburst it in here, or are simply plain vandals. Here is a list os some of mine most (un)famous arguements with Users in the past:
  • User:Ilir_pz - I've placed many warnings on this Wikipedian's user's talk page, and entered quitte some evere quarrels in the past - but it all eventually ended in mutual apologees quitte a nice friendship with this Wikipedian
  • User:Petrit_Augustini is another wikipedian that posted several threats on my talk page - as well as other peoples', without any reason whatsoever - he even threatened to bomb my own house
  • User:Emir_Arven, is sadly, a Wikipedian with whome I cannot find a common language - it is therefore that I have decided to stay out of his way, and hope that others will deal with him. He has been blocked due to his high level of aggressivness several times by now - and whenever I was involved in such arguements with him, I personally requested to be blocked as well out of mere solidarization. However, mutual language wasn't established, so I gave up.
  • User:Hipi_Zhdripi: this very infamous Wikipedian has vandalized and ultimately destroyed my previous nomination for adminship. He was 'blocked indefinitely because of this and previous matters three times before - once I even begged for his unblocking, trusting that things will be resolved at all cases. Aside from his rather minimal knowledge in English, his attitudes of calling me and several other peole "fu**ing" and opinions that the Serbian people should be exterminated as well as a rather frequent habit in sockpuppeteering speak a lot more about him, rather than me.
  • User:Bormalagurski: this Wikipedian has accused me of lying and has been somewhat rude and aggressive - but I have forgiven him now, and the (factually non-present) arguement has ended

Optional question by Winhunter:

  1. Q: It appears you have a total of 4 previous nominations: HolyRomanEmperor, HolyRomanEmperor2, HolyRomanEmperor3 and HolyRomanEmperor3a. Other than the last, can you elaborate a little bit about why you did not succeed in the other three?
    A:
Certainly:
  • First nomination: Here, I was an inexperienced newbie, and I am glad/thankful to all the people that voted Oppose - then I had very little understanding in Wikipedia's policies and most definately wouldn't be able to utulize admin privilages in the correct way. Once again, I express my gratitude to the nomination's failure. The two main reasons were 1. I didn't read many of Wikipedia's policies back then and 2. Self-advertising
  • Second nomination: I withdrew it after several comments regarding Wikipedia namespace edits. I understood that this is a necessity for a produtive Administrator.
  • Third nomination: This nomination had to be restarted, mostly because it was vandalized by User:Hipi_Zhdripi. The fourth nomination is actually an auto-restart of the third. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Kirill Lokshin:

  1. Q: Given that this is the English-language Wikipeda, do you think it is appropriate for editors to leave messages on talk pages in another language (e.g. [10])?
Essentially - no, but when a post is aimed directly for one group of people (it's actually connected to what someone had previously said in Croatian - so it's a continuation), and doesn't damage anyone at all - I think it's OK. Several wikipedians that I have met possess minimal knowledge in English - and rather communicate using German. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by ReyBrujo (talk · contribs)

  1. Q: You seem to just copy the answers you have been giving since March. They appear to be outdated by now; I checked WP:AIV and WP:AN3 back to March, and couldn't find any report, which kind of confirms my statement. Any reason for not answering the questions again instead of using old replies?
Well, they're not outdated - I have seen just as I said quitte a few occasions - and there is no telling that it will remain silent in the future. As I said - always shall an extra hand there be needed. I have vastly rewritten those answers of old - and I fail no see why should that be wrong? I am not sure if that exposes me as a rather weak candidate for an administrator - but if it does, I will be glad to entirely rewrite the answers. However, they will just seem as plain raphrasals - because what it says know is percisely what I wanted to say. I hope that this question doesn't turn out into an occasion when a man is simply judged because of one word. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Q: I have checked some of your edits according to the (obsolete) Interiot external edit count in talk pages, [11] and chose some randomly, mostly pages where you contributed once or twice, and came with the conclusion you don't use test templates. Am I correct with this conclusion? Why, if so?
Not really - I do use them. I think that your conclusion is just a mere coincidence. But yet again - I must note here: People should not be judged because they do some things a little less often then they do other. There cannot be equalized users. That's why in real life we have proffessions, specialized only in one single type of a trade. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HolyRomanEmperor_5&oldid=61658909"