Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Izehar


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Izehar
final (55/1/1) ending 22:34 24 December 2005 (UTC)

– All around good friend of mine, and perhaps one of the nicest Wikipedians here. I would give him the mop, the broom and the bucket without hesitation, as he has given Wikipedia more than 4,000 excellent contributions since October. Help make Wikipedia better by making Izehar a sysop, now!  ε γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, with gratitude to Encyclopedist for his kind words. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1)  ε γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: will be a fine administrator. HolyRomanEmperor 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Meets my one standard: Making him an admin would help Wikipedia. The absolutely torrid pace of edits doesn't hurt either. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support Another I thought he was a admin already --Jaranda wat's sup 22:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. A first rate vandal-hunter. Despite his relatively short time here, he seems familiar with policy, common practice and the Wiki culture. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support - The user's gained a lot of respect from the community because of all her/his contributions and vandal fighting. I believe we will always see more from this user. -- Svest 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * 7) Support Maybe I need to start checking Special:Listusers, but I thought Izehar was an admin! SoLando (Talk) 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support; I have frequently come across this editor on RC patrol doing useful things and following up on them. Would make a conscientious admin, I think.  Chick Bowen 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - will make an excellent janitor.--File Éireann 00:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support without reservation a hard-working, respectable contributor. --Elliskev 01:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Everything seems to be in good order here! xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Strong vandal fighter. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support a very good editor and a fellow vandal fighter. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Great vandal fighter. Will wield a mop and bucket with pride.  &mdash; The Hooded Man &#9795;&#9794; 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) 1 trillion percent support Would make a great admin--Shanel 03:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) He is not an admin? o.o NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong Support. Has my full confidence. R  e  dwolf24  (talk)  Attention Washingtonians!  04:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support Its high time.  Ban e  s  07:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support would make an excellent admin--MONGO 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Gamaliel 07:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Already thought he was one &laquo;  Lord  ViD  &raquo; 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support for good article contributions and excellent vandalism-hunting. David | Talk 11:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - because I thought I did an hour ago! And because I've had good interactions with Izehar, who has made good contribs as well as done some good anti-vandal work. jnothman talk 12:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support; unlikely that he will abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Fine, friendly user nominated by fine, friendly user. Has my confidence. Xoloz 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Daniel Brandt is a two-faced double crossing mongrel, as he just showed today. He didn't appreciate a single frigging thing I did for him, and instead insisted that I'd "prematurely ejaculated" to use his words, and ruined everything.  So he can go screw himself.  I thought that he of all people would appreciate someone trying to help, but he can't.  So forget it.  He's a mongrel.  Say what you like about him, I won't object.  And as for you Izehar, well, you did the right thing and wrote on my talk page, and didn't over-react, so you did your bit.  I am sorry that I was so vigorously supporting this guy.  I thought that he was just hardly done by.  It turns out that he has no honour whatsoever. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope that will be a learning experience for all of us. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  05:13, Dec. 25, 2005
 * 1) Support. KHM03 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support seems like a good, level headed editor --rogerd 01:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Most definite support, yeah. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) King of All the Franks 14:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support no brainer, great editor.Gator (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, of course! A certain boon to the ranks of admins. BD2412  T 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Strong vandal hunter. A constant feature on AIV. --Syrthiss 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Lectonar 14:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10)  Strong Support  - Pleasant person to be around, good editor, would be a huge asset to the admins. --Mistress Selina Kyle 18:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support fo sho. Tom e rtalk  08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Amazing performance. --Ian Pitchford 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) You've got to be kidding me. Izehar's not an admin? OMGWTF SUPPORT. Johnleemk | Talk 10:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Good track record, should use tools well. --Alf melmac 12:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. JFW | T@lk  15:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Very Strong Support - My friend Izehar - I'm happy for you! Izehar is one of the users that I like most, he is calm, friendly and a good user. I trust him to be one of the best Administrators. We truely need people like him. Bonaparte   talk  16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support See him on the vandal front often. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Zocky clearly has it in for this user. You should always annoy at least one troll before being considered for adminship. freestylefrappe 00:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support --Anittas 19:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong support. Good editor, knows how to apply Wikipedia's policies to resolve disputes. Alexander 007 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Will make an excellent administrator.  Hall Monitor 22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Lightning-fast "vandal-verter". Thought he was one :) -- Shinmawa 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support being on brandt's hitlist puts you on my promote list.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 08:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support; likely to be superb at the job. Antandrus  (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Deserving of the mop and the bucket. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per Hall Monitor, Shinmawa and others. WikiFanatic 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. rfa_cliche1 &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  05:13, Dec. 25, 2005
 * #Strong Oppose - Reacted very badly with regards to User:Daniel Brandt/Daniel Brandt, boasting about being on his "black list", and about being a vandal, supported criminal behaviour of User:Vilerage, went around drumming up hostility in other users and creating problems, attacked a new user who was trying to edit an article and created major problems on Macedonia (Greece), has repeatedly falsely accused people of vandalism and engaged in personal attacks through edit summaries. I am glad that he is not an admin right now, and hope that it remains that way.  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Sorry, I was just looking through the RFAs today and found this one. I voted on a few today. I know, this is only my 3rd day doing it but hey, I thought I was allowed to vote. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He shares Brandt's hitlist with Jimbo and a half dozen or so administrators. Good company, I'd say. Gamaliel 07:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very curious vote patterns, Zordrac has. Xoloz 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the lack of judgment demonstrated on the Daniel Brandt issue. Zocky 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose for the failure to deal gracefully with opposing opinions on this page. Zocky 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also raise an eyebrow at the habit of challenging people's votes in the vote list. There's a comments section underneath. Zocky 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Izehar will certainly make a good admin, I have no doubts about it, but presenting barnstars to the inveterate trolls like Bonaparte is unacceptable, for it encourages them to further trolling. --Ghirlandajo 07:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Ghirlo, you can't refrain a little bit, do you? I deserved it that barnstar as a truely gift from my friend Izehar. I got it because I didn't go further and start an RfC against that vandal who was just provocking me. Now what's your problem? I got it for being nice without being asked. You didn't got one did you? Maybe this explains all... Bonaparte  talk  20:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Many people active on this page seem to think that Wikipedia is some sort of a club you join to find friends and comrades in arms, defend the walls from vandals and occasionally go on glorious adventures to fight a mythical enemy. Perhaps they haven't read what Wikipedia is not. I find the tone of those that challenged Zordrac's vote up there and even went so far as to imply on User talk:Daniel Brandt that Zordrac is controlled by Brandt completely inappropriate for editors, let alone admins. All this about one relatively unimportant article about a person who is barely known outside Wikipedia, or indeed inside it, apart from the in-crowd who treats this issue as something extremely relevant, I suspect just for the thrill of it. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the only thing that this site is meant to be used for. I would like to ask people who wish to continue this boring and irelevant flamewar (from both sides of it), to do so in the blogosphere. Zocky 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * [discussion formerly here moved to the talk page by Izehar at 00:12, 21 December 2005 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I currently spend most of my Wikipedia time on RC patrol. I also perform Cleanup Taskforce chores, have responded to Requests for Comment and have participated in Peer Reviews. If promoted, I intend to continue those activities, but to also help clearing out that immense workload on the VfD pages, attending to WP:AIV, WP:RPP and WP:AN/3RR. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am particularly pleased with my work on English law related articles, especially the ones that I've started and almost exclusively contributed to: Partridge v. Crittenden and R. v. Constanza. I'm also particularly pleased with my work on the article on Reform Judaism. I am of course pleased with everything I've done and if anyone would like to check, it is all listed on my userpage. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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. During my time at Wikipedia, I've been fortunate enough not to have found myself in any conflicts nor experienced "wikistress". All content disputes I have been in were quickly resolved with a mutually acceptable NPOV solution with no civility breaches and no petty tantrums. I hope for this to continue, but as I understand, sysop duties will entail a lot of effort dealing with some disturbed and angry users. I intend to keep calm and reasonable and hopefully I'll succeed with the application of the if distressed, walk away from the computer, calm down, then come back rule. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's hardly true. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't troll. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. I don't know what your definition of troll is, but if you are referring to this one: internet troll, then I think that maybe you should read up on it first. I am merely voicing my opinion.  Izehar has got in about 10 or 15 fights with unconnected issues in the past 24 hours.  That's hardly "never" is it? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please? Izehar (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound mean, but Zordrac never provides evidence. Just look at W.marsh's rfa. WikiFanatic 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * He can't even control himself to the extent of only telling stories not directly contradicted by the evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.