Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Violetriga

Violetriga
(35/0/0) ending 20:47 07 November 2004 (UTC)

This user is one of the most annoying I have ever come across. Everytime I have a good idea about writing a new article or modifing an existing page in a nifty way, I discovered that Violetriga has done it weeks before. Violetriga has plenty of contributions, many of them new pages, and actively takes part in polls. Dmn[[United Kingdom| / Դմն ]] 20:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Support
 * Forgot the wikiquette of accepting the nomination. I would do, and thanks for the kind words said by all those so far. violet/riga (t) 15:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Dmn[[United Kingdom| / Դմն ]] 20:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Very helpful and amicable. Mike H 21:21, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 21:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) One of the greatest users ever, in my opinion. He did such a great job defending Wikipedia. Here is an example: This is what he said when an anon put him on "final warning" about removing the anon's votes. Very, very, very strongly support. --Lst27 (talk)  21:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 21:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Tuf-Kat 21:50, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Andre ( talk )A| 22:13, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Wonderful. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:50, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: contributions speak for themselves, user page content is not a criteria for adminship. Shane King 23:25, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Looks good. --Slowking Man 23:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Very much so. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 00:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) M7it 00:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) What Shane King said. Support. - RedWordSmith 01:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Of course.  --Whosyourjudas (talk) 05:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Good articles, great person! David 5000 11:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 13:16, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) All of my previous issues (see my talk page for details) were cleared up by the Violetriga. Emphatic Support. --Cynical 19:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Wikipedia is littered by Violet's good edits. :) func(talk) 20:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Most definitely yes. -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 21:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Nadavspi | talk 22:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) This user seems to be everything I would wish from an admin. The user appears to have a clear head, civility in the face of anger, participates in the community pages and adds contributions to articles as well. What more can we ask from an admin? I offer my strong support. Skyler1534 22:43, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Excellent candidate for adminship. - Vague Rant 01:30, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Michael Snow 04:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Yup - valuable asset to Wikipedia. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 16:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Has been a complete pleasure to work with. Name suggests Estonian background? JFW |  T@lk  17:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) *Riga is in Latvia, my friend... :-P BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 21:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Emsworth 21:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 28) Antandrus 00:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)  Excellent editor; certainly will be a good admin.
 * 29) Dieter Simon 01:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC). Yes, highly regarded and deserves adminship
 * 30) Filiocht 09:56, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC). Does good work.
 * 31) Netoholic @ 17:36, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC) -- (see comments)
 * 32) Full support from me. Schnee 01:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 33) Purely to offset 216.153.214.94, but I'm sure you're qualified --kizzle 21:24, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong candidate. Support. Jayjg 21:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 35) Wolfman 05:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 36) Gotta support those annoying users... :) ugen64 03:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * strongly oppose goes around and is a bully against anon ip editors on talk pages. 216.153.214.94 21:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * IP addresses may not vote on RFA. Use your account if you want your opposition to count, Rex. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 21:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anons may make comments under any column though, just in some places their votes can't get counted (unfortunately) because we can't be sure of sockpuppetry. Kim Bruning 11:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anybody wishing to take any of this into consideration should see all edits by this user and by myself. The reverse is more the case with threats from this faceless, terrorist obsessive.  See my talk and history, anon talk and contributions , and the start of it all at  Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks violet/riga (t) 21:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Further to this I'd just like to point out the arguments (particularly POV edits) this user has had with many other people, sufficient for me to post the name on WP:VIP after having my user and talk pages spammed and random edits of mine removed (and placed back by other Wikipedians). violet/riga (t) 22:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * See under comments Kim Bruning 11:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments
 * 2343 edits. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 21:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Violetriga - Regarding User:216.153.214.94, I agree that he's been very bothersome, and shouldn't be voting, but what reason was there to remove comments from the Talk page? -- Netoholic @ 09:10, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)
 * I thought I was helping by removing the (to me and many others) offensive rantings of some random anon (who now appears to be quite known). Perhaps this wasn't the correct action - I would've left it if it was posted by someone with a username... and that person has since caused numerous problems. violet/riga (t) 11:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comments left on a Talk page, unless of an extremely malicious nature, should generally be left in place. If they aren't, as you've seen, it can cause far greater strife because the poster likely is feeling "censored" in some way.  Although debatable, I think IP votes should also be left in place, just so that the concern being voiced can be heard.  Obviously, those votes will not count in the final tally, but again, its about listening to others.  I hope you'll take that away from your interaction in this case. -- Netoholic @ 17:36, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Violetriga is an excellent editor, but hir attitude towards new users could use a little work. An admin -being a janitor- deals with new users a bit more often than regular editors, because new users are the ones who most often make mistakes and don't know the rules. To deal with them, you need to be patient, and willing to explain things over and over again to new users, and yet you need to make them feel welcome. I think that's an important skill to have for an admin. Kim Bruning 11:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, it could have been handled better, but it's calm and tidy enough I suppose. :-) Kim Bruning 11:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but could you give me an example of this? I can't recall any problems I've had with any new users.  There is the anon IP above who started spamming and attacking my pages/edits after deleting one comment of theirs, but that user is far from new to wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 14:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you know that to be a fact before you removed the comment, or after you removed the comment? :-) Kim Bruning 15:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed an offensive post by an anon, then got attacked by him. I looked at the other contributions and saw similar problems caused by that anon and it quickly became apparent that he was a known nuisance.  The discussion of this anon is above, as for the way I treat new users I hope you can look at village pump (assistance) along with other places to see the whole picture.  violet/riga (t) 16:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If I read correctly the statement you removed seems to be a rather common POV in the USA. Hmm, that's not so good. Maybe I'm mistaken, could you point to the correct statement? Kim Bruning 21:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A common POV is "who cares what [everyone outside the US] thinks"? I do hope not. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I prayed even. 53% . Who'd have thought? :-( Kim Bruning 22:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I think we have our wires crossed here. Are you saying that 53% of Americans voted Bush (as I think you are) or that 53% of Americans don't care what people outside of the US think?  My annoyance with 216's edit was regarding the latter. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're just about on the mark :-) 53% voted for bush, thus proving that they don't care what people outside the US think. :-( (disclaimers: IMVVHO, POV, YMMV) Kim Bruning 22:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But because it's such a common POV, you can't really just write it off as random or anything. It's most annoying eh? Kim Bruning 22:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please take note Violet is now making multiple reverts against a valid edit of mine at Dedham, Massachusetts. I stand by my view that Violet is an ignorant, misinformed bully. There is no rational basis for the reverts Violet is engaged in at Dedham, Massachusetts. 216.153.214.94 20:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Or for the full story look at the edit history and see how myself, Jerzy, Gamaliel, Antaeus Feldspar, RickK, Ambi and Poccil have all reverted this guys edits on that article. violet/riga (t) 20:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see, Violet justifies doing the wrong thing on the basis that everyone is doing it. 216.153.214.94 03:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe the justification is that there was a consensus that your edits should be reverted, as demonstrated by the number of people doing so. Shane King 09:39, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Further, it was me that asked for it to be protected after just three reverts. 216 reverted that article, what, 40 times? violet/riga (t) 10:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks<BR>

Thank you all very much for the support in this RFA. If there is anything at all I can help you with then just let me know and I'll do what I can. Thanks again. violet/riga (t) 22:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)