Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo


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

WhatWouldEmperorNortonDo
final (4/16/1) ending 21:14 12/12/05 (UTC)

– Hi, I've been editing since November 30, 2004 (visiting the site much longer). I strongly support the values of the project, especially the NPOV principle, and I believe I can help enforce these principles fairly, while also eliminating vandalism of Wikipedia. As an admin, my major interest would be to act in accordance with the desires of the wiki community in solving (and ideally, preventing) NPOV and other content disputes. I hope that my relatively small amount of edits on the wiki will not sway you to oppose my adminship, but that you will see it not as a lack of investment in the project (I'm always here, whether I'm editing or not) but as a positive reflection on my approach to editing: conservative and measured. -- Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 21:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support
 * 1) Support, I like the candidate's light hearted style and positive attitude. In this case the Agecountitis cancels out the Editcountitis. He clearly Groks what we're all about. Does'nt seem to be an office seeker or Apratchnik, but is level-headed and has a sense of humor. True, striving for the holy grail of NPOV is every good, upstanding Wikipedian's duty...but so is vandal fighting. Which nearly every candidate lists as their top priority for wanting the mop, when they would do just as well on this score to simply ask for the RollbackButton instead. Besides, we live in an unusual world...if a horse can be a Senator, then why can't EmperorNorton be an admin? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Supportgood enough for an admin, it's no big deal. (I like your name by the way and would NEVER vote against someone because of it).Gator (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I like the cut of your jib. Dmn 03:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good name for an admin. Ashibaka tock 02:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strong Oppose Given that you were just welcomed to the encyclopedia yesterday, I'm afraid there isn't much reason to trust you with adminship. While Emperor Norton was a cuddly chap, and Caligula is an immortal hero of dark comedy, your support of these two figures isn't especially reassuring as a sign that you'll follow consensus.  Edit some, then come back. Xoloz 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Xoloz, can you explain what you mean when you say that I was "just welcomed to the encyclopedia yesterday," if you look at my contribution page you will see that my first edit was on November 30, 2004, so I'm not sure if that was an exaggeration or a simple mistatement of fact. At any rate, my interest in Caligula and Emperor Norton is their absurdity, and not necessarily any policy similarities :-) --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were welcomed Dec. 5, the day I wrote the original. Redwolf left the welcome template message on your talk page; usually welcoming happens within a month of joining, as soon as something you do comes to the attention of an established Wikipedian.  The fact that you weren't welcomed until more than a year after your first edit is a testament to your low activity level, and underlies my oppose as well. Xoloz 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the |revision history for my talk page that welcome template was added on July 16, 2005. Are you sure you weren't looking at the Template:Now *within* the message which reflects today's date and time according to UTC? Granted 8 months doesn't seem too much better on the surface, but the first welcoming message by Redwolf was sent that same month (as to why I didn't get a message after my first edits, I don't know).--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 01:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Low edit counts and low activity. (Sorry, 60 edits in one year is just way too low...) Olorin28 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Very low edit count, with only 26 mainspace edits, virtually no use of User Talk, needs much more experience interacting with other users IMHO xaosflux T/C 00:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Low edit count and low activity --rogerd 02:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to this whole thing reeking of a joke. April is 5 months from now!  Seriously, I'm not a subscriber to editcountitis, but less than 75 edits sounds WAY too low to me. Mo0 [ talk ] 03:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per above. --Aucaman 05:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We don't need more admins. 202.58.85.8 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Vote struck -- anons cannot vote at RfA. Xoloz 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Clear oppose, sorry. [[Image:Flag_of_Europe_and_Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Merovingian 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. CDThieme 18:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Get involved, show us that you care. Once you do that you will get tons of support votes, but not before.&asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Activity is to low needs more edits and experience. Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  04:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Not enough experience. No comments on talk page shows little interaction with other Wikipedians. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 21:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Inexperienced.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  06:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Far too few edits. Thue | talk 14:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose for now. Get some more experience. deeptrivia (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose I'm not usually an editcountitis person, but 63 edits is too little, and 16 in combined talk namespaces indicates little interaction with other Wikipedians. --Wikiacc (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral. Currently, you have 61 edits total for the year you've been registered.  6 Edits have been dedicated to this adminship, 9 have been to your userpage, 15 have been to talk pages.  This means that you have a total of 31 edits on the main wikipedia namespace.  About seven of those are fighting vandalism (as far as I can tell from your edit summaries).  The content of your edits is mostly good (from what I looked at), but it doesn't show enough participation and this isn't going to fair well with other users.  I suggest you instead continue to edit frequently, fight vandals, and get more involved then request adminship again in a few months when you've gotten your edits into the quadruple digits. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 01:42, 07 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Hi. You're unlikely to get much support without first answering the questions below. Also, I note that you have a total of about 60 edits - most successful nominees have over 1,000, so you may wish to consider contributing somewhat more substantially before you seek adminship. Cheers! BD2412  T 21:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Please do not delete comments made to your RfA (even though they may reflect obsolete observations - the voters can figure that out). BD2412  T 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologize for that, I was in the process of completing my profile when you posted that comment and I didn't see it when I submitted the complete profile. Sorry about that, it was accidental, and definitely not an attempt to either sleight you or to hide your comment. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite understandable. I apologize for assuming otherwise. BD2412  T 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As per BD2412.--File Éireann 21:49, 5 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. As mentioned above, my major interest is in upholding NPOV in articles through requests for arbitration as well as by taking action with persisent and flagrant abusers. In addition, I would also like to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia by encouraging articles to be falsifiable by encouraging references and original by removing copyvio's.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I don't know if there is any one article I am especially pleased with, most of my editing has taken place on talk pages because I prefer to take a consensus-based approach to editing articles and to try to make clear the issues I have with an article to avoid confusion and dispute. An example of this kind of work is my editing on Talk:Islamic_science. One example of a page that I have done (fairly) heavy editing is Stars of the Lid, which is probably a good example of at least the direction I take towards articles: easily identifiable sourcing, an objective tone, and when lacking information, leaving topics open to be filled in by more knowledgeable users (such as the discography).


 * 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. I had a dispute with an editor over the since deleted article Skinheadz, where I tried to maintain the NPOV of a heavily biased article, which the original editor took issue with. I clearly put my position forth on the talk page for the article and requested a response from the editor, but got none and the article was forced into a revert war. My approach to adminship would be along these lines, and I will make every attempt to eliminate disputes through direct communication before deletion or bans, although when forced to take these actions, I will be able to do so with avoiding as much controversy and ill will as possible.


 * 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.