Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itai.09

User:Itai; (14/8/0/1), ends 07:47, 14 June 2004 (UTC)
I've been here for some time - less than some, more than others - and think that becoming an admin is a proper step towards illumination. If voted an admin, I promise to do very little harm, and to revert for fun no more than half the number of articles I revert due to vandalism. -- Itai 07:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Itai has made over 2200 edits since the start of December and seems to have a good understanding of Wikipedia. Angela. 10:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - A brief glance through the user's history shows nothing but good edits. Burgundavia 10:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Merovingian &#8597; T@Lk 23:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) JFW | T@lk  14:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Anthony, where's your sense of humour?
 * 5) *I understood it was most likely a joke (and still don't think it's a particularly funny one). But at the same time, this was my first introduction to this person, so I had no real basis to judge such things.  anthony (see warning) 12:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ugen64 01:40, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) Wow... just wow... y'all really do have no sense of humor...
 * 7) Personally, I very rarely revert things for outright vandalism (most of the vandalism I see is of the speedy delete variety), so Itai's formula wouldn't leave me much room for "recreational reverting". And in glancing through Itai's contributions, I couldn't find much in the way of reverts, period, so I don't consider this a concern. Plus, a sense of humor is often closely related to a sense of perspective, something I think is valuable for an admin to have. --Michael Snow 16:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Anárion 17:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Rhymeless 03:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Avala 20:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Guanaco 18:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Seems sincere and well-established at Wikipedia. cprompt 04:20, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Arwel 10:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, on the condition that he harms no carrots. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    12:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Danny 02:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I presume it's a joke, but I'd like Itai to confirm that before I support. Nat Krause 14:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for now on the grounds given above - and I'd also like to know what the "illumination" that Itai feels this is a step towards is.--    ALargeElk | Talk 14:40, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm still opposing, sorry. I would second all of Hceney's comments below. Self-restraint and community skills - if not here, then where?--   ALargeElk | Talk 15:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose until user clarifies cryptic message.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Maximus Rex 17:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 23:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) The request itself and Itai's responses to questions here on on hir talk page don't inspire me with confidence. A little jocularity is fine, but overall I'm concerned about what sort of dialogues and conversations Itai would have with other users or admins around contentious issues.
 * 5) Cribcage 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) blankfaze | &#8226;­&#8226; 02:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Now, I have a sense of humour, but I don't really think it's appropriate here, especially if you don't make it absolutely clear that you're kidding.  Itai seems to take this as a joke, and that makes me think he might be inclined to abuse his power.

Abstain

 * 1) anthony (see warning) I previously had opposed.  Based on your response, I have no idea how to vote.  I'd probably support in a month, if this nomination fails.

Comments

Fine. I was of a mind that I probably shouldn't reply - I honestly don't think the people whose adminship is voted should reply, lest the vote deteriorates into a free-for-all - but, as always. I can't help myself. All those who voted against me on grounds of my statement of intentions above: it is my humble opinion that whatever introductory paragraph I provide, be it a declaration of my undying love of carrots or a solemn oath to wear nothing but skirts for the rest of my days, is of no importance at all. I would much rather be judged according to. Then again, you may feel differently, and are entirely to your own opinion.

As for "DICK" CHENEY, you are, of course, entirely right. In refusing to answer anthony's question I was not displaying my community skills at their finest. However, that is merely due to my resentment of the growing puritan streak among Wikipedians - the notion, among other things, that everything (even outside the encyclopedia articles) must comply to form, be sensible and not be entirely meaningless. Another aspect of this trend is the ever-piling bureaucracy, which will neatly devour us all, in triplicate.

I realize the above my cause all 5 supporters to remove their votes, but this would appear to be unavoidable, if only due to the very little self restraint. -- Itai 05:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Your comments have raised even more doubts. If you are unwilling to display your community skills at their finest when asking for a consensus to fulfill your request for more power, when will we see your community skills? Despite my own opinions about Anthony, he deserved an answer to a very reasonable question for a user that may soon have the power to block, delete, and automatically revert.


 * I assure you, I am extremely troubled by the current formal-elitist country club trend in Wikipedia where only the 2-3% most profilific contributors are granted the esteemed priviledge and noble title of adminship. Being an excellent contributor does not necessairly mean you will be a good admin. Until you are at least somewhat serious about your desire to serve Wikipedia as an admin, I will withhold my support. --"D ICK " C HENEY 17:09, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)