Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voice of All(MTG)


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

Voice of All(MTG)
Final (26/4/2) ended 20:27 October 22, 2005 (UTC)'''

– I have been editing Wikipedia for several months now. I would like to be able to do more to prevent further vandalism to articles, which makes Wikipedia needlessly lose credibility. In addition, I don't mind perfoming some of the day-to-day cleanup tasks, such as checking RfAs ands AfDs and what not. I already do many of those tasks when I have the time, along with tagging, cleanup, and NPOV rewordings. I also follow a 1RR instead of 3RR as reverting someone more than once tends to lead staight into the next three times and just increases stress. My objective, as stated on my user page, is to make Wikipedia a factual, objective, and citable source. I stongly believe in encyclopedic standards for all Wikipedia articles; I do not, however, believe in needless censorship that takes away from articles. I have gained much experience editing Wikipedia(such as learning to use more edit summaries!:)), and I think that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit if I was given some extra tools.  Voice of  All   @  |  E  |Merit  20:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For the above reasons, I have nominated myself for adminship:

Support
 * 1) R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 21:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I've seen him about the place being civil and nice. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 21:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, seems like a good user, and will be a good admin. But first, I have more edits than you ha ha! Privat  e   Butcher  21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support of course. Ryan Norton T 21:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -Greg Asche (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --JAranda'' | watz sup 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support! BD2412  talk 05:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) SupportI like this editor and think he/she is one of the best mannered editors on the Wiki. I see Adminship as "no big deal" but encourage Voice of All to try and contribute more on RC Patrol and to heed friendly advice from well regarded admins that offer it.--MONGO 07:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Polite editor, with many good contributions.  Ban e  s  15:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support &mdash; J I P  | Talk 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, with e-mail enabled. Thanks for doing so.   Ral  315   WS  18:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Voice of Support(  [ +t, +c, +m,  +e  ] 11:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
 * 15) Andre ( talk ) 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) -- (drini's page| &#x260E; ) 19:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- Essjay ·    Talk 23:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Looking at his talk page, VAMTG appears to have a very high spirit. Supporting. Denelson83 07:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. the wub  "?!"  16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support devotion is more important than clicking "random article". freestylefrappe 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Friday (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Fir  e  Fo  x  08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. The Minister of War 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Very knowledgable, very helpful, very mature. This user knows a lot about Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy. He leave insightful and meaningful comments on the discussion page. And his contributions are solid. My vote thus reflects this opinion. -- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support V. Molotov (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]]  19:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. -- tomf688 {talk} 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose till user sets/enables his email id. =Nichalp «Talk»=  06:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nichalp. An admin needs an e-mail address for contact.  Please leave a note on my talk page if you do so, and I'll gladly reconsider my vote.   Ral  315   WS  08:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I already posted it my email up there yesterday on my user page. I also just enabled that e-mail feature. Voice of  All   @  |  E  |Merit  15:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for enabling it. =Nichalp «Talk»=  16:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not listen to him... Listen to us, User:JIP! An admin doesn't necessarily need an e-mail address. &mdash; J I P | Talk 16:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they most certainly do. Blockee's should be able to email you. If you don't have one set, I do hope you set it now. R  e  dwolf24  (talk&mdash;How's my driving?) 05:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Many minor edits to only a few articles, and use of edit summaries is very poor. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I either use an edit summary or "minor" when editing article space depending on what I am doing, so I would not considered it to be "very" poor. Also, I have made many edits that were not "minor", such as NLP, George Bush, History of Peurto Rico, Olmsted Amendment,Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery, Operation Bootstrap, Wraparound mortgage,Cephalosporin...and so on...I could go on...Finally, I would by no means not consider 230 distinct pages to be "only a few". 4000 Distince article is definitely a lot, so is 1000, but 230 is not "a few". Some people enjoy clicking "random page", some don't; both are still equally useful. Please check edit histories before making such comments and please do not exaggerate so much. Thank you. Voice of All  @ ''' 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that this user has put "oppose", without any explanation on almost every single RfA all in one short time period. This is either an agenda(no more admins?) or a possible RfC case. Note that the RfA guidelines say please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. Voice of All  @ ''' 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He has done for a while now, though I seem to recall he has voted support on a few very rare occasions. As for an RFC, it's been and gone. the wub "?!"  23:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Boothy does have admin standards and he explained them to Acetic Acid in one of his talk archives and they are very high so many admins dont even pass with his high admin standards, whichc explains his oppose vote. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 01:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea I seen Him vote support once in a while but that rare I think his limits on adminship are somewhere --JAranda'' | watz sup 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * here. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) (posted after edit conflict with the wub) Oppose &mdash; while Voice of All(MTG) is a great contributor, I recently came across this edit posted by him on Redwolf24's talk page:  boothy344 has voted no on every single RfA without explanation. This is not only suspesious, but against RfA guidlines. This is possible trolling warranting RfC. I wonder if the beaurocrates even count such silly votes. This is just ridiculous. (sic) As far as I'm concerned, I would prefer admin candidates not to call someone a possible troll. Not only will this usually flame a conflict, but it may be considered a personal attack. Though I don't agree with Boothy's votes, he is a respected Wikipedian in good standing and should not be called a troll. The rest of the comment, along with his response to Boothy's vote above, also makes me hesistant. While it's OK to question Boothy's votes (many have done so, and I'm sure many will do so in the future), it's certainly not OK to call someone a troll. Combined with a low edit count percentage and diminishing edits on the project (see the chart; your overall contributions have leveled off since 9/16), I just don't think you're ready yet. You're a great Wikipedian, VOA, so please don't be discouraged by my comments. If this RfA fails (which it looks like it won't), I'd gladly support you in the future. Best wishes, and thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note?  | Desk |  WS 23:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I said "possible" trolling. In addittion, my edits have increased shortly after I arrived at college. While I was first getting set up there, freshman year,(sept 18), I did not have much edit time. So that explains the temporary edit decrease. They are on the rise again, just get a new chart with Kate's tool or something. Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction. Also, thank you for your respect though, as the other two oppose votes are either unexplained or harsh and exaggerated.  Voice of All  @ ''' 02:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Neutral based on: "Also, I would not accuse him possible trolling if I was confronting him, I was merely discussing that possibility with other people. You should not the distinction (sic)." I do note the distinction and think it a poor one. If you are unwilling to say something to someone directly how is it becoming of you to say it to others? Slander is not slander if presented in a person's company; it only becomes so when an accusation is levelled to third parties. Marskell 09:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not slander, I said "possible".
 * And Boothy would not listen to me anyway, as others have tried, even made an RfC against him, and he totally ignored it. He simply signs under oppose, not bothering to even write "oppose", and then moves on to the next RfA and does the same. When people ask why, he just ignores them(I think that he did responde once to someone though).
 * I often find it useful to discuss possible explanations of civility matter with other reasonable people like RedWolf24, and after I consider their opinions and ideas, I then can decide how to attack the situation. MONGO also believes that Boothy was being disruptive and unreasonable, but he also said that he doubts that he is a troll. I considered his opinion and agree. Let me be clear: I do not think that Boothy is a troll, he has made plenty of good contribitions. However, I do believe that being disruptive on RfA is a serious matter, that he should have responded in his RfC, and that such behavoir is uncivil, uneccesary, and makes Wikipedia more cold and harsh than it need be.
 * Slander is knowingly saying something false about someone. I said possible trolling, not "he is a troll". In fact, one can do things that are considered trolling and still not be a troll, as they perhaps do not realize the extend of their actions. If I said "he is a troll" or "that was trolling", then it would be possible slander. If I said those things(which I didn't) and I knew that he was not trolling, then it would be slander. Voice of All  @ ''' 16:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Slander is knowingly saying something false about someone in their absence. Your boss is quite within his rights to bring you into his office and say "I believe you are stealing, what do you have to say for yourself?" even if he is in error; they are not allowed to circulate a rumour to this affect (or even "possibly stealing" which is just a subtler form of slander) amongst others, true or not, in the absence of your being able to defend yourself. Wiki isn't a court obviously, but my implication above is that it is actually acceptable to go to Boothy's page and tell him he is behaving like a troll if that's how you feel and you should actually do this rather than raising it with other people. Granted, an oppose without comment is frustrating and you have taken the time to respond so I will move to neutral. Marskell 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will try to be more direct in the future, but discussing it with a few others(2-3) in such cases helps me get a more neutral opinion if I am upset by something the relavant person is doing. That way, if I confront him/her, my greviences will less provacative and therefore more productive. Voice of All  @ ''' 17:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose The fact that you are in WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit the former WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency concerns me as well as calling assuming boothy a troll. Job  e  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 21:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I never called him a "troll", that is just incorrect. Please read my above comments. Thank you. Voice of All  @ ''' 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral- Few edits on Wikipedia name space, and only 209 distinct pages edited. I would suggest a bit more grunt work and then I will support. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 22:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral-  per Jossifresco --Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Candidate doesn't appear to contactable be email.Geni 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I posted my ID, so that is no longer the case. Voice of  All   @  |  E  |Merit  15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Could You tell what specific articles have you written from start (major contributions)? feydey 23:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Voice-of-All(MTG)-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Use of edit summaries is 37%, 45% last 500 edits. Average edits per day is 17 and stable. --Durin 14:40, 17 October 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I will continue to participate in RfAs and VfDs along with various Community Portal Open Tasks. As an administrator, I could not only vote on AfDs, but I could also enforce the consensus once the polls close.


 * B. Additionally, I could delete relatively new (old enough that they are not just developing stubs) pages that obviosly meet speedy deletion requirements.


 * C. Reverting vandals using the Rollback feature.


 * D. Protecting articles only if absolutely necessary(severe POV disputes/trolls/nonstop vandalism from various sources).


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I really enjoyed making edits to Puerto Rico related articles, as they have a calm and onstructive editing envirnment. Doing the research and finding sources gave me a break from NPOV tiptoeing on hot topics.


 * B. On the other hand, My expansions to the Health section, among other edits, to the George Bush article were quite pleasing, as only constructive edits were made to it by other users, in spite of the fact that the page is on such a contraversial topic. I also enjoyed making other NPOV edits to contraversial pages without getting into any conflicts; this is a testimant to the maturity and reasonable nature of most of Wikipedia's regular contributors.


 * 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. My first few day here were rough as I ran into an IP troll. I removed his comment on the George Bush page, which made things get worse. I then realized that generally, it is better to just leave the comments alone, hence giving them no attention, hence I am not feeding the troll.


 * B. During my ealier time here, I also made an edited out some of Gavin the Chosen's amazingly poor grammar, causing RyanFriesling, who did not notice the ":)" in my edit summary to point errors that I made. That develped into a confict on the talk page, which soon after,was resolved on Ryan's talk page. She misunderstood that I was kidding around and I mistakenly assumed that she was trolling. So I further learned to Assume Good Faith after that(although that is admittedly one of the hardest Wiki-ideals to master).


 * 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.