Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rossami

Rossami
Rossami has made over 3900 contributions starting 2 Apr 2003. Has shown interest in issues related to adminship, such as deletion policy, and done particularly good work writing up the mechanics of the deletion process (a page Rossami created). In my observation, Rossami consistently tries to remain polite and works to resolve conflict as calmly as possible. I think Rossami has earned our trust and the community would benefit from having this fine contributor as an admin. --Michael Snow 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comments. I accept the nomination. Rossami 15:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Michael Snow 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Cyrius|&#9998; 05:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support. Was planning on nominating myself once the stats page showed a few more edits. Clearly understands the deletion policy, and will follow it with a more literal interpretation, instead of the more liberal interpretation of some admins. Also unprovokable, and a firm believer in hearing both sides of an issue before taking a stand. Niteowlneils 11:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Mike H 12:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  12:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Andre 18:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) &bull; Benc &bull; 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Mike J. 21:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) How did we miss this one for so long? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:41, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
 * 12) Ruhrjung 20:30, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) (Not a day too early.)
 * 13) Of course. Everyking 20:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Jwrosenzweig 22:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) SWAdair | Talk  07:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) What Meelar said. Johnleemk | Talk 18:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Gamaliel [[Image:Cubaflag15.gif]] 20:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 20:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Tuf-Kat 08:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Rhymeless 08:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Pcb21| Pete 14:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC). Excellent work on VfD.
 * 22) Geogre 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Rossami has a laudable and appropriate attention to the fine points of policy. See comments for the reason for my support.
 * 23) Satori 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Chris 73 Talk 08:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) David Cannon 10:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC).
 * 26) Sewing - talk 13:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC).  Mainly because he is playing devil's advocate on VfD these days.
 * 27) Support, based on Rossami's argument for giving articles time to grow on Votes for deletion/Sty. -- orthogonal 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) ffirehorse 07:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 29) ugen64 19:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 30) 172 20:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 31) Guanaco 21:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 32) David Remahl 21:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) Austin Hair 00:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) GeneralPatton 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) I don't agree with Rossami but I definitely want him/her to be an admin based on the calm, clear response I received. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 37) Anyone who wades through the cesspool of VfD while remaining calm (unlike myself) deserves a support vote. - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 38) --Lst27 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 1) I'm changing my vote. I had initially voted Support, but Rossami's recent contributions to VfD in which he feels that any and all garbage is worth keeping on Wikipedia calls into question his fitness for sysophood. RickK 19:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I have to go in the Oppose section since Rossami has not addressed RickK's comment or the comments of supporters who agree with the sentiment.  I'd like to see some explanation.  Where are the usual questions asked of the admin candidate? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Rick, do you mind citing sources on this? I'd be interested in this as a grounds for a possible vote change if I deem it necessary. Mike H 19:16, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The change of vote seems to have been precipitated by a disagreement over Votes for deletion/Sty. --Michael Snow 20:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't like the decision Rossami has taken but I won't remove my support vote. Checks and balances and somesuch. Mike H 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree with Rossami here, but we all make mistakes. I'll keep my support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I had also been taken aback by Rossami's comments in that VfD discussion, but voted to support anyway. In the balance of things, I think he is and will continue to be a definite asset to the Wikipedia.  SWAdair | Talk  03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Every time I have ever been on the other side from Rossami, he has had the law on his side. This is a good thing.  The problem is with the interpretation of law and how narrowly it is done.  I never have had an occasion to do anything but respect him.  He reasons well and truly.  So long as he recognizes that interpretation is involved, that the spirit of the law is to leave room for interpretation, I don't have a problem.  I hope his rectitude never leads him to the madness of intolerance or scolding.  I feel confident, though, because Rossami does the most important thing an admin can do:  he listens.  That's why, even though I had churlish words for him on that VfD, I have no hesitation in supporting him. Geogre 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If the Sty discussion is the evidence, I don't see a problem. He had a well-reasoned and well-presented argument, based on current policy.  If the wikigods would only let such civil discourse prevail in every dispute.... Satori 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He has never, ever, ever, been contentious that I've seen. Geogre 23:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)