Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous Dissident 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tomfoolery (talk | contribs)
442 edits
Hooray voting!
Line 148: Line 148:
#'''Support''' Candidate has made a tangible improvement since their last RFA, and I have no qualms about seeing them given the tools. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Candidate has made a tangible improvement since their last RFA, and I have no qualms about seeing them given the tools. [[User:VanTucky|<span style="color:#E49B0F">VanTucky</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:VanTucky|(talk)]]</sup> 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
# I'm [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] and I '''approve''' this message! - 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
# I'm [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] and I '''approve''' this message! - 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
# I've seen his editing in various places, and he certainly is admin material. He certainly is a fine candidate and deserves the position to the fullest! <strong><small><span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:Gray">-- Tommy Boy [[User:Tommyboy1334|<span style="color:Gray">♪</span>]] [[User_talk:Tommyboy1334|<span style="color:Gray">♪</span>]]</span></small></strong> 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''

Revision as of 17:17, 28 August 2007

Anonymous Dissident

Voice your opinion (talk page) (72/2/1); Scheduled to end 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs) - Dear fellow Wikipedians....

I'm simply delighted to announce Anonymous Dissident as a candidate for adminship.

Anonymous Dissident, has had a previous RfA fail over CSD concerns. He has since improved greatly as an editor, and has really improved on his speedy deletion tagging. As admins will notice, he appropriately nominates many page for speedy deletion. ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] ). He is a good vandal-fighter. He correctly recognizes vandalism, reverts it, and appropriately warns the user. ( [6] [7] [8] [9] ) As well as reverting and warning users, he correctly reports persistent vandals to WP:AIV ([10] which lead to this)

Anonymous Dissident is an amazing article writer. His mainspace contributions are very well balanced with his reverts. He has written over 60 articles, and a glance on his talkpage on August 26 reveals 11 DYK notices, and he had two in a day. As well, his userpage says that he has created 92 different articles, 27 templates, and he also founded WikiProject Malta. He has contributed extensively to 4 good articles. Not many users can boast something like this.

I offered to nominate Anonymous Dissident around July, completely unaware of his previous unsuccessful RfA. He declined, and told me he wanted to wait. I took the opportunity to observe his editing patterns, and I found him to be a very mature and trustworthy user. He doesn't lose his cool, and he is a polite and responsible user. He is very prepared for this new set of responsibilities. Maxim(talk) 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Wizardman: Well, I know a great potential administrator when I see one (we've figured that out by now), and Anonymous Dissident may be one the better hidden secrets yet. Well, he's been on the RfA talk page, at DYK, and elsewhere, so he's certainly not hidden. As Maxim has pointed out, he has been great at all aspects of Wikipedia, and I think that having him as an admin would be very beneficial to the Wikipedia community. His contributions pretty much speak for themselves. Wizardman 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by DarkFalls I first met Anonymous Dissident on the talk page (ironically) of the requests for adminship process. Since then, he has proven himself to be a thoughtful and experienced user, editing in various fields of article and project related tasks. I believe he will make a great and helpful admin, with his incredible article creation skills, sound judgement, and phenomenal DYK entries. In administrator-related tasks, I believe that AD will be able to help in new page patrol and clearing of CAT:CSD and the blocking of disruptive users and problematic usernames. In closing, I believe that Anonymous Dissident will be a great asset to Wikipedia as an administrator and it is my pleasure to co-nom such a prolific editor. --DarkFalls talk 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with a huge amount of gratitude for the well-written nom(s). -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My intent is to use the tools in a wide variety of areas; to block vandals reported at WP:AIV and inappropriate usernames reported at WP:UAA, participate, determine consensus, and act accordingly at WP:RFC/N, close XFDs which have consensus from the community to either keep or delete and see if I can help with the numerous posts at WP:ANI. These are areas to which I already participate on a fairly regular basis, and I feel I could use the administrative tools to the community's advantage in these areas. However, I feel that, in addition to these areas, which are areas that already enjoy a good deal of administrative attention, I could use the tools in more obscure, and often backlogged, areas, such as checking deleted contributions at WP:USURP (where I already clerk, on occasion), helping clear the T:DYK backlog (and helping to make sure updates there are as on time as possible), and possibly, despite my relative inexperience in this area, helping to clear the backlog that seems to pervade WP:SSP.
Finally, I would, just as I said at my last RFA, participate in clearing the CSD backlog. This deserves, as far as I can see, a little section to itself, because several mistakes relating to this particular area made by me was the main reason my last RFA was withdrawn. I had had problems determining and understanding the criteria for speedy deletion, and even after my first RFA, it seemed I could still not properly comprehend it, when people still remarked on my incorrect tagging with CSD tags. It was then that I realised that it was a problem, stopped tagging new pages for a while, sat down, and thoroughly read the CSD, and then I re-read it. I feel now that, after doing this, that I should not have any further issues in this area, and have not since figuratively burning the CSD right into my skull.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My articles. I have written 92 articles on Wikipedia, of which 61 have been featured on the main page as part of DYK, and of which 4 are good articles.Article writing is something I greatly enjoy doing - it gives one a sense of satisfaction and pride in hard work, and I figure its what this project is really about: the content.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: As I am now, I don't usually, and try not to get into conflicts. However, I know that, if I become an admin, conflicts are inevitable, because of the nature of the access. To try and answer this question, I will refer to my earlier days at Wikipedia. Shortly after coming here, I began writing articles on a variety of subjects. While some were accepted, and were acceptable content, a few were deleted/merged/redirected. One of these included an article on Umaril The Unfeathered, some character from a computer game I used to play. Someone proposed a merging of the content into a certain list of characters from the game, to my annoyance. However, after a bit of a debate, the decision was that the content was merged. After this, I conceded that it was probably for the best, and that I had realised my mistake.
How would I deal with conflicts in the future? I think that is important to remember to be polite and respectful of the the person. If I were to start to feel unable to continue being polite, respectful and tolerant, then I would know that it is time to press the little red 'X' tab at the top right hand corner of the page, and take a little break from Wikipedia, for a necessary amount of time. I think that trying to see then other person's point of view also helps a great deal.

Optional from User:Navou

4. Is your password a strong password as defined by "..no dictionary words and sufficiently long, random, or otherwise producible only by the user who chose it, such that successfully guessing it will require too long a time".
A: mine is a password that I would define as strong; it is something that does not exist in the English language, and it is alphanumeric. I would say it is pretty much impossible to guess randomly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Anonymous Dissident before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support as nom. Maxim(talk) 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've seen AD around a bunch, and I have little concern about his mop wielding. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support All my interactions with AD have been positive. He's also good at interacting with others. Has use for the tools and will be a good Admin. Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support without hesitation. A fabulous article writer, and a great member of our encyclopedia. Should be excellent. Good luck! Majorly (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. edit conflict support I've only seen good contributions from AD, who seems to be active in many different areas of WP, and I'd trust him with the mop. BencherliteTalk 21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. EC * 3 support. I've seen him a lot around WT:RFA. Great article writer and user in general, would make a great admin. — Malcolm (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Yes, finally I get to !vote for this guy. Article writer, vandal fighter, template creator. Yes, yes, yes. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Been watchlisted support :-). ~ Wikihermit 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - absolutely. - Philippe | Talk 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I leave to grab a bite and I'm this far down already? Wow. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I've just spent the last 20 minutes going through your contribs and I've got to say I'm very impressed, I couldn't fault you and I think you will be fine with the extra couple of buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (edit conflict)#Über support - I wanted to nominate him, but Wizardman and Maxim got there first. :) He will make an excellent admin! Good luck! I'm impressed! Neranei (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support: User would make a great admin, on top of his great contributions he has shown that he cared enough about the project to take the time to address the concerns raised in his last RFA. Nothing here worth opposing over. IvoShandor 22:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - absolutely. Good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support I offered to nominate him last month, but he wanted to allow a decent interval since last RfA - which he has done. A quite excellent editor, who has shown a deep level of understanding of wiki policy and of wiki procedures, and who has clearly addressed the concerns raised in his last RfA. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Fully qualified candidate with a strong record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Duh! Give them the tools. Jmlk17 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. This dude isn't an admin?!? AR Argon 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom. Good luck Carlosguitar 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, looks solid to me - no obvious trouble spots. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I have been waiting to see this RfA come around again. This user is extremely active here on enwiki, I have seen him on more than a few of my RC refreshes, its actually a bit unnerving to recognise someone so much on RC!.... But I say an active admin is a good admin. It will be good to have AD with the admin tools. aliasd·U·T 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I've seen AD around, and all sightings have left me with no reason to oppose. J-stan TalkContribs 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose for launching this RfA while I was at school!!!! :-) Seriously, an excellent editor. The DYK work is exceptional. I think he'll be one of the best admins ever (no offense, Husond) :-) --Boricuaeddie 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, in agreement with the statements by the co-nominator, Wizardman (talk · contribs), above. Shinealight2007 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  25. Support Good editor. Politics rule 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Candidate wouldn't let me nominate them :'( Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Oh, yes. I have been waiting to support in this RfA for quite some time now. Captain panda 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strongest possible support (How often do I get to write that?) I was one of the folks who opposed Anonymous Dissident's first RFA because of mistaken speedy deletion tagging. It is plainly obvious that he has learned from his mistakes, and this is no longer a problem. In all respects, he is a model Wikipedian, and totally ready for the responsibilities of active adminship. Shalom Hello 00:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. definatly deserves the mop!--Hu12 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
  30. Strong Support should have been an admin before! -Lemonflash(do something) 00:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Very nice answers and seems like a reliable person. However, I was just a tiny bit concerned on how in the beginning he neglected to write edit summaries but it seemed that he changed and have been actively describing his edits. -ScotchMB 00:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Exetremely super strong support - Seen him on Afds for a while, this user will definatly be a great admin. Good Luck (wait....I shouldn't wish...I should expect). --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support mopifying this experienced, versatile, trustworthy and dedicated user. Excellent job. Húsönd 01:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Has clue. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Darn. Should have nominated them earlier like I planned to do. bibliomaniac15 Prepare to be deleted! 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I have only seen good things from this editor and think he'll make a first rate admin. Contrib history shows he knows what he's doing - time to give him the mop and bucket. WjBscribe 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - I've seen AD around AfD for a while and he's usually right on the money. I think AD will make a fine admin. —Travistalk 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. SupportGreat track ,experienced and inpartial.Harlowraman 02:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support Brilliant editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support It is time to give this user the added tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support – I'm satisfied with the current sysop potential of this user and with his maturity level. — madman bum and angel 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support AD is a fine contributor and great admin material. κaτaʟavenoTC 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Excellent editor with a good understanding of how Wikipedia works. --Hdt83 Chat 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Only annoyed that I didn't see this until now. --John 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 60 DYKs and 4 GAs Support Please keep up the good work! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good writer and a nice person; why the heck not.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support great noms, article writing, seen AD around. Knows policy AND how to interact collaboratively, what a combo! :) Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 03:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as long as you promise not to let adminship distract you too much from the excellent article writing you do! --JayHenry 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - His work on WP:DYK and helping us document which users are active there is quite helpful.Bakaman 04:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. The nom has it right. --Bduke 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - give the chap a mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - contribution history is excellent in both articles and technical work, and good reasons presented for wanting to be an admin. I agree with JayHenry though - don't let adminiship divert you from the article writing. Euryalus 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oh yes, definitely. –sebi 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Would have nominated him myself except I'm not good at writing nominations. --Richard 05:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not phased. Your advice was helpful, and I am grateful for that. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. as co-nom. (Yes I know I am late, but I mixed up my times) --DarkFalls talk 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries DF - you still did, and I am very thankful. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support I have nothing but good things to say about AD, and I would feel very comfortable with him having a mop --lucid 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Strong all round candidate, the diff highlighted below and commented on by others does not concern me. I see an excellent, civil, friendly and helpful, user who I trust totally to use the buttons when required. Pedro |  Chat  07:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support For sure. Very competent all round. Recurring dreams 07:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support This young editor is very smart and gives good advice and a trusted Wikipedian. He would make an excellent admin. King Lopez Contribs 08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - You didn't let me nom you. — Giggy 07:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey hey! Its a two way thing! You didn't let me nom you at your last RFA! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You wouldn't have wanted to, I imagine Husond and Acalamari would like to drown me in a shallow pond (it's more painful that way). Besides, you never indicated that....and I did (right?). — Giggy 08:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well - you have got me there. I would have nommed, but all the same. :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I initially had concerns when I saw this RfA about whether AD had enough experience in mainspace. I apologise for being so totally wrong, per the numbers in Q2. Daniel 08:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support AD is a civil and level headed user would would make a great admin and use the tools wisely. --Chris  G  08:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Dfrg.msc 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Candidate is an industrious encyclopedia builder. Should be an excellent admin. Majoreditor 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Super-Stong support I was sure this user was an admin already--Pheonix15 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I've seen this user around the project, and he's always seemed courteous and helpful to all. I have no problem with this guy getting a mop. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I offered to nom him too support - his conduct on the project is exemplary, he has good dispue resolution skills, communicates well and writes brilliantly. Whats not to like? ViridaeTalk 13:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Seems an excellent choice. - Modernist 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Naturally. —AldeBaer 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support - all the best. Khukri 14:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Really? An RFA for an editor who I thought had already got adminship? Seriously, I thought you were an admin. :-) Stwalkerster talk 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Candidate has made a tangible improvement since their last RFA, and I have no qualms about seeing them given the tools. VanTucky (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I've seen his editing in various places, and he certainly is admin material. He certainly is a fine candidate and deserves the position to the fullest! -- Tommy Boy ♪ ♪ 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, not at the moment. Matthew 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to sound rude, but this is an exceedingly unhelpful response. Is there a particular pattern to AD's editing that you find unnerving? Do you think he doesn't have enough experience in a particular field? He can't improve as an editor if you don't explain what needs improvement. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found problems, but I don't believe the candidate wishes them to be told (as apparently RfA is a "vote"). Matthew 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that AD would want to hear your reasons for oppose; I know that if it were my RfA, I would want to hear your reasoning. Neranei (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree, I'm not really sure that your diff can be applied here, as that case where AD did it, there were already several oppose votes with a variety of explanations for the reasons for oppose, and AD was simply adding that he did not at that time, feel he could support (this is similar to someone posting an opinion, using "per above/per nom" as the reason). In this case, I would think that some sort of explanation could be helpful, aside from that diff you showed. Of course, it is totally up to you, but it would certainly be of assistance to those who are voting, and to those reviewing this RfA. Ariel♥Gold 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Unless you have another, more valid reason, you probably shouldn't oppose because of a single oppose !vote. J-stan TalkContribs 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing that Matthew has been here long enough that he knows what he is doing and that it is not necessary for a bunch of people to come here to dispute his opposition. I doubt that the success or failure of this RFA will hinge in one comment. --After Midnight 0001 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, what a candidate wants to come out is entirely irrelevant; diffs can illustrate problematic behavior that may have gone unseen by people digging through an editor's contribs, and could be used to more accurately gauge an editor's potential as an administrator. Besides, if every candidate got what they wanted, then every RfA would pass. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can make a comment on the diff - I opposed the RFA basically per the others. I am sorry I did not make this more clear, but I felt that what I said would be enough to in a way allude to the reasonings of the others. I said what I said because of the user's experience, so my comment of 'not at the moment' could be expanded to 'not at the moment, but when you have more experience'. I hope this makes my comments more clear. Basically, Ariel hit the nail on the head. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now ellaborated on the oppose, explaining myself in more depth. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for future reference AD, I think it's best that if an RfA is in a snowball position - unless you have some proper advice for the candidate it's best to just stay out of it completely - I've got to say that the oppose that Matthew highlighted did smack of newbie biting. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remember that then. Thanks for the advice. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I have a great amount of respect for Anonymous Dissident, as an editor, for his commitment to the project. However, I have very specific concerns with his ability to familiarize himself with policy that he could be implementing, and accept when he potentially should take another look. He is a very active participant at WP:RFCN, as he indicates above, but in a recent request for comment, he seemingly asserted that the applicable policy, WP:U, doesn't prohibit promotional usernames (which, it does). After apparently reading the policy, he played Devil's Advocate for a bit, before sort of coming around. Unfortunately, that was just a week ago. A day or so later, he submitted a request for comment that was promptly closed at the username clearly didn't violate any of the criteria of WP:U. AD can be a kind, helpful force at WP:RFCN, but I am concerned that his growing knowledge of Wikipedia policy, particularly at WP:RFCN, just isn't enough yet to ensure that he would utilize the tools competently.   justen   07:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that particular RFCN report (made, indeed, by you, Justen) resulted in an allowance, after lengthy discussion. The second, in relation to "Sexc tomboi chik": the matter of user names in reference to the word "Sexy" is being discussed at WT:RFCN now. Still, your oppose is valid, and I will say no more. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Ok, I'm confused by this. Isn't taking it to RFC/N a good thing, since he's asking other people's opinion on it? I might agree if it had been UAA, but I think one of us is missing the point of RFCN --lucid 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - I brought it to RFCN, not UAA, for community discussion, as I would do as an editor, admin or crat. I was unsure of the username's properness for Wikipedia, and thats why it was at RFCN, rather than UAA. It just so happened that that particular report to RFCN by me was found to be allowable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucid, taking it to RFCN is appropriate when there may be a violation of WP:U. But, again, thinking that "sexy" or "sexc" is somehow profane or obscene, I'm afraid, hearkens back to the same lack of understanding of policies he would be enforcing, the lack of understanding that led to my oppose. Anonymous Dissident, can you direct me to the discussion on disallowing "sexy" that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't see it on WT:RFCN...   justen   08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm not seeing your point. He said seems a bit of a breech to me -- obviously if he was confident enough that it was a violation of policy he would've taken it to WP:UAA. He was not sure if sexy/sexc was obscene by Wikipedia's standards, it's not a lack of understanding of policy, it's a lack of knowing if a word meets the obscenity clause or not, and he did the right thing to ask about it. I don't know about where he lives, but I know enough people that could find that name offensive or obscene are out there that I can understand his concern. I recommend you take a step back and consider why he took that name to RFCN, not just the fact that he did --lucid 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, AD, as you know, the username was not blocked as it was no longer active, not because it was in compliance with WP:U. In fact, as you came to acknowledge yourself, it did violate the promotional rule of the username policy, and otherwise would have been blocked.   justen   08:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to agree with you in the end, and I did not intend to play a "Devil's advocate", but rather have a polite communal discussion about the name. After all - I would have considered it an improper report had it gone to UAA, and you were right to take it RFCN, where I happened to firstly say one thing, and eventually see your way. It is a discussion-based system at WP:RFCN, for "borderline" usernames, and I happened to, at first, be on the other side of the border. I probably would have taken the same action as you had I been aware of the username in relation to contribution history. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey there Justin, I've got to speak up about AD's participation at RFCN - in my opinion he is one of the most sensible users who comment there. The diff's you highlight don't really give any serious concerns - just a different interpretation of a very ambiguous username policy. If an editor has a concern about a name, a good place to take it is to RFCN to see how the comunity feels about it, I could understand that poor judgement would have been shown if this had gone to UAA - but by taking it to RFCN, it shows AD wasn't completely sure himself, so wanted greater input - in my opinion that shows he wouldn't be trigger happy with the block button. Just my 2 cents.... Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'm worried about the editor's understanding of copyright, per DYK discussion on Oswald Tesimond [11]. In my opinion, merely paraphrasing occasional words while retaining the sentence structure of the original is insufficient. I don't have time to go through the editor's contributions in detail to see whether this article is an isolated case or a more general flaw, hence Neutral. Espresso Addict 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Espresso Addict, thanks for the comment. After you made a comment there, I made some changes and tried to make it more different from the said site. Do you still feel that there is an issue there? If there is, the RFA disregarded, I'd be happy ot take a look. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_Dissident_2&oldid=154206576"