Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/172

172
This nomination has been withdrawn. This archive is historical, and should not be edited.

Vote here
 * (9/14/3) ends 10:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a bureaucrat, I will act strictly according to the precedents and conventions established by more senior bureaucrats. Beyond that, I hope that it will afford me a position to advocate a way of standardizing voting across Wikipedia, to mitigate, for example, the disruption of the process of admin nominations caused by sockpuppets. (This subject received considerable attention on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, but nothing was accomplished.) Regarding my background on Wikipedia, I have been with the project since late 2002 and an admin since May 2003 ... I usually rank within the top 50-70 most active users (all namespaces)... I've written a few featured articles, along with many others that have made it to FAC. (Articles of which I'm the main author are listed on my user page, if anyone wishes to refer to my contributions before voting.) Thanks for hearing me out, 172 10:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Xed 12:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Everyking 13:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Gzornenplatz 14:29, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Stewart Adcock 20:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) AndyL 20:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC) I usually don't vote on adminships if for no other reason than that, since there is a high probability that I may be in the position of promoting or not, I prefer to let the nominations take their course without my influence. In this case, while I understand those who vote against 172 for cause (I had conflict with him myself many months ago) I saw his relationship with the community hit a low after which he has better engaged the community on many fronts. I'm not certain he "needs" bureaucratship to accomplish his stated goals, but I approve his goals and feel he is well suited to carrying them out. He is one of our best and most incisive contributors, and I believe that it is a positive to engage these top editors whenever possible in trusted positions in the community, absent evidence that he would somehow abuse the specific powers of a bureaucrat. That said, speaking for myself only as an individual Wikipedian, I feel bound to support. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I support this serious and level-headed scholar. IZAK 12:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Strongly oppose. BLANKFAZE | (что?!) 10:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly oppose. {Ανάριον} 11:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. This user previously falsely accused me of sockpuppetry after I voted a way he didn't like on VfD and RfA. At the time, I had 3-4 months' tenure and ~150 edits.  Bureaucrats are trusted to judge which voters are sockpuppets, thus I cannot support him as a bureaucrat. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 11:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Although you link this page to your statement above as evidence, it tells a different story. I did not accuse you of being a sockpuppet outright. Instead, I was merely alluding to charges that your vote was a sockpuppet meant to undermine the nomination of User:Neutrality, which did indeed attract an unusually high number of oppose votes from users whose tenures have been very short and/or from users who have not made a relatively large number of edits. Something fishy was going on, irrespective of whether or not your vote was legitimate. Thus, I stand by my talk page postings with respect to voting on Neutrality's RfA as reasonable given the information available at the time I was writing them. 172 12:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose, user currently in arbitration for defiance of policy, and regular, vigorous conflict with Foundation issues. Sam [Spade] 12:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. User has very controversial history unbecoming a bureaucrat. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:17, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * So this vote is based on innuendo? I could've voted against your nomination based on, say, age, claiming that that demonstrates a likelihood of immaturity. (After all, according to your user page, you're younger than all of my students.) But I don't base my votes on hearsay and innuendo. 172 14:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This vote is not based on hearsay. It is based on firsthand experience of conduct unbecoming. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:14, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * 1) David Cannon 23:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC). Over my dead body.  I've seen quite a bit of this user in the past.  Although a valuable editor, I think the position of bureaucrat calls for someone who doesn't allow matters to go to his head so often.
 * That's odd. I don't know who you are or even remember working with you... Ad hominems aside, if you have any specific objections to my work, please let me know. 172 04:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, we haven't worked together. But I've seen you around.  I have high regard for the quality of your work.  That said, my confidence in your judgement was severely tested by your highly emotional outburst last July or August against Muriel Gottrop (whom I respect enormously).  Yes, I know she was expressing opinions that not everyone would agree with, but she did so politely and in a way that would not offend any reasonable person.  I don't think the same could be said for you.  You hit below the belt.  I may not have said anything, but I thought a lot.  Now, I know we all have "off-days" on which we act out of character - I have them myself, and if I had not read of similar complaints from other users, I could write that incident off as a one-off lapse of judgement.  Unfortunately, however, it seems to be part of a regular pattern, and I think it wisest to give you time to show that you have learned better.  Who knows, if another six months pass with no more such occurrences, I will be happy to vote for you.  But not this time.  Sorry. David Cannon 09:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you, but your friend Muriel was the one who accused me of fascism, not the other way around. If you don't believe me, find the VfD archive yourself. As it turns out, I was the one expressing myself politely, while she was accusing a Jew whose grandparents died in fascist death campus of fascism... For your edification, this is the kind of misunderstanding that can arise if you make strong judgments about someone about whom you don't know anything and with whom you've never interacted. 172 13:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's "the kind of misunderstanding that can arise" when you make tactless remarks and only AFTERWARDS use as your defence something that nobody previously knew. What happened to your grandparents was a terrible thing, but Muriel couldn't have known about that prior to your revealing it.  In the initial debate that you were having with her, I'm NOT saying, necessarily, that she was right and that you were wrong (I regarded the whole issue as overblown); what I AM saying (and yes, I stand by this), is that she expressed her opinions politely and you didn't.  That's how it seemed to me, anyway.  Her "fascism" remark was, IMO, something of an overreaction, but it was not unprovoked.  Your own defence was NOT fair: she couldn't have known about your grandparents and probably didn't know you were Jewish (I certainly didn't know until I read that), and I found it offensive that you accused her of insulting "a Jew those grandparents died in fascist death camps," when she couldn't have known that.  I felt that such attribution of malice, to someone who could not have known, bordered on slander.  The fact that you have come up with the same defence again now raises questions in my mind about whether you have learned anything at all from the incident, and removes whatever lingering doubts I may have had about my vote.David Cannon 09:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's blathering nonsense. I had to stop reading that bullshit after the first couple of sentences. Associating anyone with fascism, especially for something as trivial as starting a page on VfD, is a filthy slander; I don't regret the way I responded to that girl one bit... Unless you have something constructive to say, or unless you don't mind being ignored, don't bother communicating with me again. 172 10:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. See Requests_for_comment/172, etc. - Nat Krause 06:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Nat Karuse's opposition doesn't bother me at all. The only time that I'd encountered this user was at Origins of the American Civil War, one of the featured articles that I'd written. This user was trying to muck up the article, which was well engaged in wealth of serious academic literature on the subject, and turn it into a libertarian/neo-confederate polemic, which had no place in an encyclopedia article. Fortunately, John Kenney and I managed to put a stop to him... I invite everyone to take a look at Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1, and examine the issue at the root of the vote above. 172 07:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't so much that you "put a stop to me" as it was that I decided I was wrong and that the discussion was not productive so I voluntarily stopped editing the article. I wonder how often you have realized you were wrong and backed down from a position?  Anyway, your response here illustrates some of my objections to your becoming a bureaucrat: inflammatory mischaracterizations of your disputes with other users; an apparent sense of ownership over certain articles; and a desire to "put a stop" to contributions from users that you don't approve of.  172, you contribute a lot of useful material to Wikipedia, and everyone should be grateful for that, but I definitely don't see how you can be trusted with any higher levels of responsibility. - Nat Krause 17:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad attempt at saving face, but the discussion in Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1 tells a completely different story. It doesn't matter why you decided to "back down" because John Kenney and I clearly explained in a way that any intelligent and reasonable editor with somewhat of a background on the subject could grasp why the libertarian/neo-confederate polemics from which you were drawing had no place in an encyclopedia article. If John and I hurt your feelings in the process, that's just too bad; this is an encyclopedic, not an online debate forum. 172 18:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Nat has no need to save face, its not him who is asking for a show of confidence from the community whilst simultaneously undergoing arbitration. IMO it might be better if you bragged a bit less about your copious violations of Civility. Sam [Spade] 19:34, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * John and I handled the dispute on OACW with Nat as civilly as he allowed us. Now, if you are able and willing to dispute the substance of the arguments made by John Kenney and me regarding Nat's proposed changes to the article, as opposed to your red herrings accusing me of incivility whenever I get in the way of your POV agenda (well-documented by User:IZAK and User:Spleeman), please see Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1. 172 19:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not about me, its about you. I don't need to investigate your interaction w Nat; I automatically assume he is correct on this subject due to my experiences with him and yourself. If User:IZAK and User:Spleeman are your idea of impartial editors, careful to accurately cite sources in a verifiable manner, that is particularly damning evidence against your abilities to effectively discern a quality editor from a POV warrior. That is relevant here, as it is precisely the job requirements of the position you are requesting. Sam [Spade] 20:04, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So the merits of the arguments don't matter so long as you decide that you like one user more than another, right? BTW, the idea that I called Spleeman an impartial editor is your fantasy (reread my comments). My comments were not based on the assumption that IZAK and Spleeman are credible. Instead, the links provided on User:Spleeman/Sam Spade speak for themselves. (My assumption is that the page histories on Wikipedia are reliable.) That aside, since you admit that you won't take the time to look into the substance of the arguments on Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/Archive 1, I have no reason to continue to respond to you. 172 20:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You think you have no reason to listen to me, because you refuse to learn. As with everyone, I agree you are an excellent contributor here. My concern is that you are arrogant, biased, and a poor judge of others. That tells me that you should be kept an eye on, and should not be revert warring, but rather making the copious additions, which you are so very good at. Now is not the time for a bureaucrat election. Sam [Spade] 23:07, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) No way. Pushes an agenda.  RickK 07:47, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Damn right I push an agenda: accuracy, proper placement, and scholarly standards, along with fighting against ethnocentrism and U.S.-centrism. This is at the root of the opposition by Sam Spade, Nat Krause, and Anárion (the clone of the far-right German nationalist Jor). 172 07:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am nobody's clone. Stop spreading lies. {Ανάριον} 07:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 08:01, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (4 days ago) 172 expressed his support for Shorne  instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians (see: User_talk:Shorne). The reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientation. I think it raises doubts as to 172's ability to maintain his impartiality. Boraczek 10:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not share Shorne's politics, but even if I did, I would have every right to do so... It is because I am impartial that I am willing to break with other editors and state when the merits of Shorne's contributions should not be reverted at random by you and VeryVerily. 172 20:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Lst27 15:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, with regret. The conflict currently going on between Shorne, VV, Gzornenplatz, Boraczek, Stan, myself, and a number of others on a multiplicity of pages relating to the Soviet Union and communism serve as a prime example of the difficulty in reconciling multiple divergent points of view on this great experiment.  Through all of this, tempers have been heated at times, with Shorne in particular showing anger and frustration.  172, who seems to show some sympathy for Shorne's position if not his views, could perhaps have acted as a mediating influence. Instead, I feel that he encouraged Shorne by calling Stan a "rude and erroneously self-righteous active editor."  Be that as it may, that's no way to settle a dispute between users of different persuasions. Mackensen 00:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to go from page to page and stalk a user, reverting his edits at random, that's your business. Just don't expect me to mediate. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee; and I don't want to be caught in the crossfire. BTW, quit inferring that I share Shorne's politics. I expressed sympathy for him given his unfair treatment, not his ideology. 172 10:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe you have confused me with someone else. The only person I went around reverting was Turrican and his IP sockpuppets, and I'm certainly not alone in doing that. Shorne and I have been discussing changes on a number of talk pages, and I have never, to my knowledge, edit-warred with him. I'm not sure what unfair treatment you refer to, as some of us have endured considerable abuse at his hands with equanimity. Please don't assume that every person who disagrees with Shorne is some insane POV revert-warrior with an agenda. Some us happen to be kindly academics who happen to insist upon proper documentation. I'd like to further note that once Shorne provided such documentation on List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, I withdrew my objection, in part (while we're on the matter, 172, I'd love your explanation for why that article remains, but you changed List of Soviet Cold War power plays to a redirect to Cold War). Mackensen 15:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose fvw 07:57, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
 * 2) I know nothing about User 172. However, his/her comments on this page and the hostility to any criticism they display render this user totally unsuited to any position of trust, IMHO. Filiocht 13:57, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:25, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) Changing vote to support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 13:36, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) At the very least, it seems to be a poor lack of judgement to place one's name forward when they are currently involved in an arbitration dispute. Also, is it true that you recently blocked an anon IP (216.20.9.22) for 204 hours? func(talk) 16:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I stand by my judgment call. I simply don't recognize my involvement in this so-called dispute, as it is not a legitimate request by legitimate users. (I admit, Lir, Rex, Plato, and Sam Spade don't seem to like me; but they've been harboring grudges against scores of users, including many bureaucrats and admins. So the best strategy is to ignore them and their games, i.e. this arbitration request, and to not feed the trolls.) Also, I did block that user. Around dozen contributions as puerile as the following demonstrated that this anon was here only to cause disruption:
 * "Well harry truman was born with an extrememly large _____. You can well imagine what the blank is but lets just say they called him the general. He was large and incharge in the bedroom. Many people have come to respect him as a president but i have come to respect him for this other reason. Thats why i am voting Harry Truman as my P.I.M.P of the century. God bless Harry Truman and nobody else." 172 16:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't dispute the vandalism. I was just my understanding that IP numbers should never be blocked for long periods of time due to the possiblity that they are often dynamically assigned to a great many people. func(talk) 18:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I think we have enough bureaucrats right now. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 23:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This User currently is in Arb Committee, however I find Abe's edit to be most excellent which causes me to be Neutral--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 12:48, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

In response to some of the comments above, I admit to having been surrounded by more controversy during my tenure than most admins. This is the consequence of my commitment to making Wikipedia into a viable encyclopedia and my willingness to fight for scholarly standards. We must be wary of privileging process over product; accuracy and proper placement and location of content are higher priorities than, say, the three revert rule. (However, editorial considerations will not play a role in my actions as a bureaucrat. I remind everyone that I have a record going on longer than a year demonstrating my ability to distinguish administrative tasks from editorial considerations. Otherwise, I would've not remained an admin since 5/03.) 172 13:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You have remained admin due to a broken system of accountability, which is now on the mend. You and other rogue sysops will slowly be weeded out, not promoted to positions of greater danger to the project. Sam [Spade] 13:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You will not be able to point to a single instance of admin abuse (wrongfully protecting, moving, and deleting pages; and wrongfully blocking users). This is just your petty grudge against me talking. Get over it. (BTW, I will ignore your comments following this posting.) 172 13:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never understood how people who are nominated for adminship or bureaucratship think that arguing with the people who vote against them will do them any good. RickK 23:44, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, I most certaintly agree with that sentiment. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 04:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non voting comment to be apreciated: I think bureaucrats *at least* should be able to understand basic grammar. Trying to make wikipedia a fascist regime is not exactly equal to calling somebody a fascist. The-Friend-Muriel
 * That's a moot point. Your behavior was inappropriate and I do not regret at all how I responded to you, or David Cannon on this page for that matter. 172 03:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I was not expecting nothing else from you. Anyway, if you want this badly, maybe you should listen to Rick's comment two paragraphs above. I wish you well. Muriel G 10:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't want this badly at all. (As evidence, I could have campaigned for this among people likely to support, but I didn't bother. I'll just find another way to restart the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_20) While I admit that it I didn't expect the polling to turn out like this, I'm nevertheless compelled to rebuke some of the stupid and malicious comments above, as they pertain to my work. 172 10:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)