Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Duncharris

Duncharris
(39/5/3) ending 22:27, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna take the plunge and nominate myself. I think I've been around for long enough. So here's your chance to really say what you think of me. Do your worst... Dunc|☺ 20:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Can someone please tell me what is going on with this "spam" issue? Dunc|☺ 12:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently someone was advertising your nomination on talk pages. Andre ( talk )A| 15:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * It was I. Huge and sincere apologies.  Sam Spade set me staight on my user page, and I immediately remove it all.  Tom - Talk 19:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support


 * He does the work of an administrator. I've rubbed shoulders with him a bit in stressful circumstances and he generally keeps cool.  Only once do I recall an irritated comment to a troublesome user that concerned me.  If somebody has a serious problem with him, I will obviously listen and reconsider. Tom - Talk 22:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) Sorry.  I like Dunch, but I have to change my vote to oppose. Tom - Talk 19:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) Andre ( talk )A| 23:07, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Acegikmo1 23:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 23:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) thought he already . . . oh, never mind.
 * 4) Joe D (t) 23:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Wile E. Heresiarch 23:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Have never dealt with him myself, but I trust the judgement of some of those signed above. Cool Hand Luke  23:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I am a little hesitant on the "spam" issue, but Dunc wasn't responsible for it, and I do note that the comment I saw didn't openly campaign for a vote either direction.  While I don't care much for advertising, I do grudgingly accept the right of people to publicize a RFA vote (though I wish they wouldn't do it on talk pages).  Anyhow, I've always had positive experiences with Duncharris, and I think he would make an excellent admin. Jwrosenzweig 23:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Has done lots of good work. Shane King 00:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC). Moving back to support, a single incident in so many edits doesn't seem such a big deal now I think about it. Shane King 00:39, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) --FeloniousMonk 00:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Netoholic @ 00:56, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) -- Well-balanced contributor.  Probably should have stepped up sooner. :)
 * 5) I have no reservations.  I have fought against him; I have fought by his side; I have learned to respect this guy greatly--particularly when we have disagreed--because in fighting against him, he has helped me learn about many pieces of history, philosophy, and science which I value highly.  Incidently, I also appreciated finding the advertisement--which as a matter of fact had already been thoughtfully removed and was buried in the history file.  But for the buried advertisement, I might have missed this opportunity to vote for a great man! :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Dunc isn't an admin? Why?  This makes no sense.  Support, and I can't think of any reason anyone would even be neutral.  Strong user, contributor, and mediator. Geogre 03:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Somebody set up us the nomination. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:24, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)
 * 8) Make it so. - RedWordSmith 04:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9)  Support.  SWAdair | Talk  04:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Thought you already were one. Strong support. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 05:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss) 05:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) older ≠ wiser 14:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Emsworth 14:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Excellent service record.  Strong support.  Antandrus 16:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Noisy | Talk 17:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Dunc, enjoy. Pleasant to work with. And almost 9000 edits is really great. JFW | T@lk  17:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. -JCarriker 19:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Dunc is a trustworthy, reliable, genial user, and would make a fine admin. →Raul654 19:58, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 23:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) support. ugen64 02:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Mike H 05:01, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. 172 10:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) He's not an administrator yet? --Lst27 (talk)  00:23, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Support because of the organized, frothing-at-the-mouth opposition. And would someone tell Sam Spade to stick to one name instead of changing his name at whim, so we know who he really is?  RickK 05:49, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Wolfman 00:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) What RickK said. Ambi 07:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Who is frothing? And what is this complaint about my sig about? That was for one day, one time... Sam [Spade] 21:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Proteus (Talk) 00:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Graham is a pillar of Wikipedia. It's unconscionable that he is not a sysop. Full support! Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:40, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Calling a liar and a pov-pusher a liar and a pov-pusher is not a flaw (although the bullshit thing went just a little far). Cyrius|✎ 05:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Holy crap, you mean....Duncharris' not an admin? Well, this is something we must certainly remedy right away! Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. zoney ♣ talk 01:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) CheeseDreams 20:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Yeah, admin material. func (talk)  15:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * I oppose out of principle as there was spam directing to this link on the talk atheism pages, sorry if I appear churlish, that's not my intent. Rather it is to discourage such practice --Nick-in-South-Africa 23:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Do note that he did not place them, and they were already removed by the time your vote was stamped. Cool Hand Luke  23:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK I think I made the point and I now withdraw the opposition, I cant support it as I dont know the user so now am agnostic on the nomination --Nick-in-South-Africa 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) I oppose, because he calls the return of the a Constitutional Monarchy in Vientam silliness and ridiculous idea also he called me a liar. I have been contributing articles relating to Vietnamese Royalty, and the Vietnam War. I am a neutral person has been researching this since I was in College. A person should not be a Admin, if they are using words like this to a Wikipedia members. This is not acceptable. please see evidence of his non-neutral position on the issue. I have never used any words concerning articles that he has presented as ridiculous or silliness and never called him a liar. I feel that this is not right nor it should be tolerated here on the wikipedia community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nguyen_Phuc_Buu_Chanh also please see "Please don't paste drivel onto my talk page. I'm just going to ignore you. I have better things to do. You're a aggressive pov-pushing crank. I'll make it easy for you, bugger off  and don't come back. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)"--Jimmyvanthach 12:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Duncharris ":Wikipedia is not Usenet. Please refrain from posting monotonous angry monologues in appalling prose.  This page is full of Jimmybullshit.  Dunc|☺ 15:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
 * why negative language and profanity?
 * For the community I have been contributing to Vietnam Royals, Laos Royals, and Vietnam War, particular ARVN Generals ie. Nguyen Cao Ky and just history pertaining to Vietnam, I have noticed a lack of Vietnamese history in certain areas and only want to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Please see I have never used cures or called anyone a liar. Everyone is entiled to their opinion and I respect it, but foul language should not be acceptable.--Jimmyvanthach 22:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I am opposing because of the way he is treating Jimmyvanthach.  I realize Jimmy has been a nuisance and a POV pusher who needs to be censured, but administrators are held to a higher standard of diplomacy.  Diplomacy factors heavily in my voting, so I have to ask Dunch to practice it a bit longer.  And, Dunc, I will continue to enjoy working with you on the Jimmy problem.  p.s.  With friends like me, I realize you don't need enemies, what with the "spam" and all.  My sincerest regrets.  Tom - Talk 19:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to treatment of Jimmyvanthatch, Civility is a keystone policy in my book. Sam [Spade] 20:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Civility issue pushes me to negative as above. Cool Hand Luke  23:25, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose unless you can explain the Jimmyvanthatch issue. I'm sure most people can think of a user that they feel that way about, but coming out and giving them a spray is not on. Shane King 01:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba, Requests for arbitration/Jimmvanthach; basically the guy is a systematic liar and POV pusher, and perhaps I should not have insulted him, but he insults the good community here with his behaviour. Dunc|☺ 12:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Evidently my concerns expressed in my neutral vote weren't worth a reply, so I change my vote to oppose. Everyking 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Why is there spam regarding this vote @ Talk:Atheism? Thomas Jefferson for President 23:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Talk:Natural selection and Talk:Intelligent design as well? I'm tempted to oppose on principal. Thomas Jefferson for President 23:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Tom is no sockpuppet, and I don't believe duncharris coordinated those. duncharris has been involved in a lot of disputes and apparently handled them well. It's not unfair that those who have dealt with him should vote for him: otherwise they might not know he's up for adminship. These are possibly the most qualified people to speak on behalf of his character. Cool Hand Luke  23:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place for that would be on people's talk pages, not article talk pages I would think. Shane King 00:01, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shane. Tom - Talk 19:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Didn't he once nominate Haylie Duff for deletion? Deletionism like that gets me all jittery. Everyking 00:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Moved to oppose.


 * Isn't the point of VfD to be a place where articles that are questionable are nominated to so that the whole community can have their say on whether they stay or go? As such, why is nominating an article there disturbing? It's the correct thing to do if you believe you find something that fits the deletion criteria, but not speedy criteria. The fact that some things get nominated that people decide shouldn't be deleted is the whole point: that's why there is a process rather than having things deleted on sight! Shane King 03:41, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Because, well, that article isn't really questionable, and it makes me wonder about whether he's out to eliminate legitimate content because he has a much higher standard of notability than most of us. But of course that's just one thing from months ago, so I don't know. Everyking 11:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Need some more information. Why do you want to be an admin? anthony 警告 18:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not sure what to make of the whole Jimmyvantach issue, so for now, I'll remain neutral on this. -- Schnee 02:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * 8488 edits since Feb 27, 2004. Cool Hand Luke  23:41, 3 Nov 2004 (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. I have done new pages patrols in the past, but try to stay away from them now as I start worrying that that the wiki is constantly under attack by a bunch of well-intentioned chimpanzees and end up wasting my time. But I do do some cleanup and wander around sweeping up the mess that people leave as well as trying to participate in the community pages.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I wrote George R. Price which is fully referenced having initially found nothing via Google. I also have lots on the peppered moth though I do need to go back and read up some more references on that.
 * 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?
 * A. I have had my share of arguments, I try not to let it get personal, and accept the wisdom of the people on here, even if they are wrong about the taxobox on the human page.  Jimmyvanthach is annoying me a bit at the moment, but I think we're dealing with him, albeit slowly. Dunc|☺ 18:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spam has been removed, and withdraw my neutrality. If I knew the guy better, I'd vote, but I don't so... Thomas Jefferson for President 00:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, had to change my vote to oppose due to evidence raised. Nothing to do w User:Hawstom tho, his was an honest mistake, which he promptly corrected. Sam [Spade] 20:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)