Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alkivar 2

Alkivar
final (23/17/4) ending 18:35 6 July 2005 (UTC) Solid contributor, much improved since last time. Nathan256 29 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)
 * I accept, thanks alot. Hopefully you guys feel i've improved since last run through.

Support
 * 1) Alkivar is awesome. Nathan256 29 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, great guy.  Grue  29 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly. &mdash; Dan | Talk 29 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)
 * 4) We've had our differences, but since he's been willing to put them behind us, I will happily do the same. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  June 29, 2005 21:33 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support. I've had nothing but good communications with Alkivar. Hedley 29 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * 6) We've had our disagreements, but over time my opinion of Alkivar has improved. Everyking 30 June 2005 01:02 (UTC)
 * 7) Hey! I'd already told Alkivar I was gonna nominate him at the end of the month (i.e., tomorrow!) no fair! (Oh, and support, BTW) Grutness...  wha?  30 June 2005 01:37 (UTC)
 * 8) Nicer than most admins I have ran into. -- metta,  The Sunborn  30 June 2005 01:45 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Alkivar has improved since last nomination. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 07:01 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Seems like a good user. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 08:01 (UTC)
 * 11) '''UM, YES!" :D Project2501a 1 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Very helpful user. Evil Monkey∴Hello July 1, 2005 09:02 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, good and hardworking user. Not a great diplomat, but I believe he has learned a lot from the conflicts he's been in, and will be a better admin for them. Bishonen | talk 1 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I think we should keep it real. I belive that Alkivar will be a good admin, despite of being controversial user. - Darwinek 1 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Based upon this user's edit summary, it appears that he would be an excellent addition to the staff.  My earlier question about the nominator seems moot in light of the fact that Grutness, a well-known contributor, was eagerly looking forward to nominating Alkivar for adminship anyhow.  Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Hardworking and plays well with others. freestylefrappe July 2, 2005 03:08 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Three months overdue.  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 2 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)
 * 18) Of course. The oppose votes are wholly baseless. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 3 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)
 * 19) Weak support. I see respectable people voting for and nothing problematic in edits. You should make edit summary for every contribution to save time of people on RC patrol (hence the weak). Pavel Vozenilek 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
 * 20) Absolutely support if you don't support, you just haven't made an effort to research him. I don't care who nominated him, I'd nominate him myself.  He sent me, (a total stranger) at his own expense and carefully packaged a whole bunch of material from NASA that's becoming the NASA Facts collection on wikisource, what's there at present is barely the tip of the iceberg (the stack is about 2 inches thick of reports lovingly hoarded for just such a purpose) the delay is my fault, I don't have that much time that I can use the scanner, because I have to borrow it.  Anyway, he contributes well and makes good edits and is genuinely concerned with keeping wikipedia a great thing, and has done a lot of work and seems to me will be a good admin. see my comment on bite me below. And ask yourself how many articles you have shepherded to FA status, Alkivar has several. Pedant 2005 July 5 04:46 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good edits, strong contributions, appears to understand policy. Jayjg (talk) 5 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Changed my mind, I was far too quick to pass judgement. Trampled talk 6 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I actually thought he was an admin! --Neigel von Teighen 6 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) See first adminship nomination, from 3 months ago.  dbenbenn | talk 29 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)
 * 2) Many of his edit summaries come across as rude and/or condescending. I would probably hate to read his justifications for speedy deleting pages. Dmn / Դմն 29 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)
 * 3) I gotta vote no. If you go to his talk page, he literally told someone to "bite me" about a week ago. And looking at his other edits, I still see a short fuse. --Woohookitty 30 June 2005 00:25 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose –This edit does not convince me that the issues of civility from the last RfA have been dealt with. Even though Alkivar has done much good work, some lack of good faith does not show a readiness for adminship.  Bratsche talk  5 pillars June 30, 2005 03:28 (UTC)
 * 5) Too soon since last nomination to be able to show significant improvement given the concerns last time.  I'm additionally concerned that a two day old user who has done little besides use Wikipedia to play chess (?!) is nominating someone to be an admin. Gamaliel 1 July 2005 07:15 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that concern is allayed somewhat by the fact that someone with over 30,000 edits was going to nominate Alkivar the day after this nomination was made! Grutness...  wha?  1 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
 * 1) I've reviewed much of his activity since the last RfA (what there is of it, which isn't much), and what I see is a disturbingly high percentage of article edits without meaningful edit summaries (including a big long string of summary-less edits on Daniel Ruettiger).  The "bite me" comment doesn't help matters either.  And if he is going to "stay away from VfD" as he promises and is just going to be doing "vandalism patrol", he can use just use godmode-lite for the rollback button (or request rollback separately, if and when we get a procedure for that).  Sorry, not enough time has passed since the last RfA and it looks like he spent most of it away from Wikipedia.  There just isn't enough evidence that he's changed in any way.  Oppose.  Kelly Martin July 1, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. As the recipient of the comment in question, I of course found it less than civil. Bigger than that though was the lack of an apology, and that the comment is just one more in a pattern of similar behavior. Admins are subject to greater scrutiny and civility does matter. Obviously Alkivar makes positive contributions, so please keep doing that, but I just don't think adminship is warranted. - Taxman Talk July 1, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose While "bite me" is pretty mild when it comes to angry remarks, I think admins must always avoid being inflammatory.  It's a minor quibble, but I oppose.--Sophitus July 1, 2005 17:43 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I find I completely agree with Kelly Martin. Jonathunder 2005 July 1 20:27 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Concerned about civility issues. Jtkiefer July 2, 2005 04:20 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. User has disregarded consensus in the past. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 06:04 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. When and how?  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 3 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Kelly Martin and because of the last RfA, which I found disturbing. gkhan July 2, 2005 12:58 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I see enough evidence of poor behavior to vote against. -- JamesTeterenko 5 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now, because of civility issues and inconsistent use of edit summaries. Maybe later. Sietse 5 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose some significant contributions, but he needs to show some common courtesy and self-control. Maybe in a few months. Volatile 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * 5) Andre ( talk ) July 6, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Lack of civility. siafu 6 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Neutral
 * No vote pending acceptance and responses to questions. Kelly Martin June 30, 2005 01:29 (UTC)
 * I think I'll wait until he answers the questions too. --Scimitar 30 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until after the questions are answered. Jtkiefer June 30, 2005 17:17 (UTC)


 * 1) Vote pending acceptance and answers to questions. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  30 June 2005 21:02 (UTC) Vote still neutral. While I do beleive that Alkivar has learned from his mistakes in the past and that he is a valuable contributer, the edit history still shows signs of a quick temper. With more time and signs of improvement, I will be happy to support. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  2 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
 * On the fence with this admin request. Is it possible for a sockcheck be performed on the account of the nominator?  He does appear to be a solid contributor in any case, but I'll stay neutral for the time being.  Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to believe that the nominator is Alkivar's sockpuppet, but then that also means there wouldn't be any harm in checking. Someone ask David Gerard if they feel strongly enough about it. The nominator is clearly a sockpuppet of someone, which isn't against the rules. (As long as the sockpuppet is not used to duplicate votes or otherwise cause trouble.) - Taxman Talk July 1, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
 * In that case, my vote has been changed. See above.  Hall Monitor 1 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral When important suggestions are solicited, one expects the user to reply. Alkivar did not. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  July 4, 2005 08:34 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I still don't feel strongly enough to support or oppose.  Sorry. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Still generates too much controversy for my tastes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Comments
 * It seems Nathan256, the nominator, never even asked Alkivar if he cared to be nominated, nor mentioned to him that he had been. - Taxman Talk June 30, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
 * Well he may have just assumed because I said i'd accept Grutness's nomination that it was ok.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 1 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
 * Can someone become an admin and not even know it? I suppose. He was nominated before and he knew he was before, but still. I'm not sure someone should become an admin in a case like this. --Woohookitty 30 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)
 * No - they have to accept and answer the questions. Alkivar has done both. Grutness...  wha?  1 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by RFA nomination from a user on his very first day of editing. Is the nominator better known to wikipedia under other user names or been active as an anonymous editor? --Tabor 30 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
 * So am I, I really wonder why anyone would do it under a sockpuppet, most of my wikifriends would do so openly.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 1 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
 * <I'm with you, Tabor. I went to the nominators page and all it has is a chess game?? This is getting fishy. :) I'm starting to wonder if it's another username for Alkivar. I don't see anyone actually telling him that he's been nominated and that's very strange as well. Procedural question...if he doesn't answer the questions or accept the nomination, that kills the adminship request, doesn't it? I just find this all strange, since the last time he was up for a nomination, he did nothing but interrogate everyone who voted against him. This time? Nowhere to be found. Strrrrange. --Woohookitty 1 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)
 * No he's not one of my sockpuppets... I've laid those all to rest. I actually didnt know I was nominated, I was expecting not to be nominated until Grutness put me up next week.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 1 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
 * Nominating yourself through a sockpuppet doesn't make sense under those circumstances. It would be like busting out of jail on the last day of your sentence. Grutness...  wha?  1 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
 * Can you explain telling someone to "bite me" just a week ago? It doesn't exactly show you calming. My concern is that as an admin, you really shouldn't ever tell someone to bite me or call them names or whatever. What happens if you get angry and decide to permanently ban someone for no real reason? That's the concern. --Woohookitty 1 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
 * Stupidity mostly... I shouldnt have reacted that way to being called a sockpuppet. VfD tends to bring out the worst in me, reminds me too much of FidoNet politics, however you should note thats the first VfD page i've edited in a while. Misuse of banning is not something you should worry about though, I dont intend on using it except on repeat vandals. I was an ircop for a few years on DALnet and I never once misused k-line... this is pretty much the same thing. I may occaisionally react with harsh words, but I can honestly say I rarely react with a "bitch slap" or ban.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 1 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)
 * Taxman, go back and read the comment he was responding to. I respect you a lot, but you provoked him with that meaningless jab.  Of course there are civil ways to respond to someone even when 'bite me' is appropriate, I know, and I'm not defending any incivility anywhere, or supporting keeping the article you were weighing in on, but I don't think your comment that Alkivar responded to was very civil, and you are an admin aren't you?  This is the exchange we are talking about:


 * Delete, check all the votes here for sockpuppets. I don't see anything about the article or forum that warrants an article. - Taxman Talk 15:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep its a very well known board, this isnt self-promotion... I dont see why it cant stay on here. Alkivar (who was too lazy to actually log in)     19:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) --
 * I don't see any evidence this is really Alkivar. Alkivar has never edited this page. - Taxman Talk 12:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * You know what bite me... I never edit a lot of pages... doesnt mean I cant vote on their VfD.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 04:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Now now, be nice. He was merely saying that your name didn't appear in the edit history, which means it's impossible to verify whether the vote was really yours and not some impersonator's. "Bite me" is not the best choice of words for verifying it was your vote, but it'll do though. --W(t) 04:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)


 * and frankly Taxman, you seemed to be taking a personal stance on what should have been a simple vote. Personally I think the bite me thing is a bad example, I know Alkivar has been a little uncivil at times, I still think he'd be an excellent admin. No way I would believe that Alkivar would nominate himself using a sockpuppet, it's senseless, just pure senselessness.  It's not his fault a green user picked him out of the herd as being a worthy editor.Pedant
 * I'm not taking a personal stance. I'm not even slightly upset about the comment, I let it go long ago. If you read my vote comments, I believe it is just a recent example of a lack of civility making him unfit for adminship. And as I said, the lack of an apology was even more telling. Of course he's a great contributor, but adminship is not an award for good editing. Good editing is it's own reward, and based on his good record of article contributions, he knows that already. I also can't see how you think I provoked anything, nor how it was incivil. I was simply pointing out that an IP claimed to be Alkivar, but that there was no evidence Alkivar made the vote. In hindsight it would have been better to say "there is no evdidence Alkivar made this vote", but I thought saying what I said was exactly equivalent. Of course he doesn't need to have edited the article in order to vote on it's deletion: I'd never edited it either, and it is well known that there is no requirement that any editor had. But look at how many sockpuppet votes were on that VFD. There were probably ten or more comments about votes pointing them out as improper. Seen in that light, commenting on an anon vote claiming to be Alkivar should have been pretty obvious that that is what I was doing. All he had to say was, look, I did make that vote. In fact I made the comment in order to protect Alkivar's integrity so that someone else couldn't falsely use his credibility and claim the vote as his. It was a minor misunderstanding, but in any case did not warrant the response it received. Even if I unmistakenly said what he thought I did, his comment still wasn't warranted. As far as the sockpuppet issue, I think it's been fairly well established that a) given the circumstances of those willing to nominate it doesn't matter and b) it's probably not Alkivar's sockpuppet anyway. But as a side point, the nominator is clearly not a green user, that's part of what made it obvious it is a sock. - Taxman Talk July 5, 2005 14:56 (UTC)
 * I meant you seemed (at the time, on that page) to be taking a personal stance (on the VfD of that other page, on which by the way I agree it should be deleted, but we all have different ideas about things and that's just fine) in that you posted your vote, then a comment about Alkivar's vote, and that what you said could easily have been misunderstood as being a disparaging comment about Alkivar. I don't know what would have been the best way to go, but maybe just a question on Alkivar's talk page: "Did you make that vote over there, or is someone pretending to be you."  Civility is in the eye of the beholder to some extent, and I just didn't think Alkivar's comment was all that uncivil in the context, and that it would be not thast unreasonable for someone to take your comment personally.  That's all.  Also, your comments here on the VfA page seemed to lead a reader (me at least) to the conclusion that you think there's chicanery afoot with Alkivar's nomination... thank's for making it clear that that's not what you mean.  I don't have any problem with us disagreeing, but I think Alkivar is pretty devoted to wikipedia, and would really be a good admin.  Like Jimbo sez, it's supposed to be no big deal.  The only real question in my own opinion is would the user make a positive rather than neutral-or-negative impact on the project as an admin. Pedant 2005 July 5 18:39 (UTC)

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.)
 * A. Well I've intentionally stayed away from VfD of late since people seem to think I get too steamed up, but I'm sure just general vandalism patrol would be not so controversial :)
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Still very proud of the fact I got Colditz Castle through to FA status, that and Graffiti another of my FA's (even though its format has since changed).
 * 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. Yes, see my last nomination. I've tried to calm down and just take a bit of a break from stressful stuff like VfD.