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

Note this is being closed as a temporary measure and can be reopened if the reports turn out not to be true. But it ought to be closed as the deceased are not eligible to be admins. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Danny has asked directly that this RFA be closed pending resolution. ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HolyRomanEmperor[edit]

Discuss here (46/25/6) ending 14:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs) – HolyRomanEmperor was nominated for admin two months ago but failed because the RfA had to be restarted. As he is of Slavic ancestry, he is involved in Slavic-related articles, but keeps a relatively cool head in disputes, and has a good understanding of policy. Will (message me!) 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, but with some fear because of my previous nomination --HolyRomanEmperor 13:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Nominator's support Will (message me!) 14:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support He looks to be an experienced person and I think he would do well for the job. Great answers to questions below. Spelling could be improved but otherwise a great choice for adminship. --WillMak050389 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As per last time. NSLE 15:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support Great edits on Montenegro-related articles and Balkans history articles. Think he will make a good admin and resolve many of the problems here on Wikipedia. Good luck HRE. Crna tec Gora 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari 16:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. No questions asked. This support does not affect your statutory rights. Cash equivilant for this support: 0.0001p. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Seems well-qualified to be an admin. Kalani[talk|esp] 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 17:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Brilliant editor Rama's Arrow 17:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: I have always maintained that we require specialists to deal with certain issues requiring involvement of administrators with suitable aptitude, attitude and skills. He fits nicely into the job. If we want wikipedia to become a true encyclopedia, we require specialist editors as well as specialist administrators. I would have voted for him last time - but, in April 2006, I could not access wikipedia for weeks due to serious sickness. --Bhadani 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose? No way, this seems a good editor with needs of the tools. --WinHunter (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I've seen nothing but good from HRE. --Randy Johnston (‽) 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Don't let it go to your head! ;) - Kookykman|(t)e 18:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Excellent contributions. No worries at all. Afonso Silva 18:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Merovingian {T C @} 18:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support as I did last time. DarthVader 18:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as per all of them --Robdurbar 19:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good user. GangstaEB (talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problems here. Hezky! TruthCrusader 20:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Cleared for admin. --Pilot|guy 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support - per my vote on the previous nomination, have no reasons to change it abakharev 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Get the... hrm nevermind Support seriously, he seems like a fine editor who would benefit from the tools per Q1 hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, well-rounded, with great expertise in key areas. Definetely meets my standards. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, just like my vote last time. SushiGeek 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Like last time. — The King of Kings 01:05 July 02 '06
  28. Support. Kept a cool head through those last 3/4 RfAs - I sincerly hope this one isn't plauged with the same problems as your last one. --james // bornhj (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support, think will make a very good admin. -- Pravi Gusinjac 04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support, definitely will become admin. Has great edit count and has proven to be a good editor in Slavic-related topics. Good luck. Note to the nominee: get into less conflicts, that way you can earn more support and also work on your areas of editing and also get more involved with Project edits. Milo 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to understand how these Yugoslavian redlink editors who have not participated in RfA's before found this page all of a sudden w/o a note on their talk pages? Is there a solicitation ring somewhere by email or on the Serbian 'pedia? What's going on, please? - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are actually Montenegrin users by the likes of it. Pravi Gusinjac, definitely because of the "Gusinjac" term, which means person from Gusinje and Milan B. is Montenegrin because he kind of addressed it on the nominee's talk page earlier [1]. I guess they were either waiting for a Montenegrin to have an RfA ad become an admin or they probably went to ask the nominee a question, when they saw his nomination and then quickly voted and I guess forgot about that comment. Generally, those Montenegrin users are somewhat newbies, but having close to 100 edits, having looked at their contributions. Though, I think that they're probably friends who ask each other to do stuff. I guess Pravi Gusinjac saw the nomination first and then told Milan B. (Milo) over the phone, e-mail, or through instant messaging. Think about it. Crna Gora 05:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - These RfAs have turned into a saga. But none of it is HRE's fault. - Richardcavell 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I'm very sorry that you're still not an admin, despite the fact that you've done decently good work here (even if some think you have a "narrow" focus). I hope this succeeds, and I wish you much good luck. Thistheman 05:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Polite and experienced user. Good knowledge of all wikipedia areas. Give him the mop! Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 07:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks OK to me! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - great user.--Aldux 10:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. [Insert Dodgy comment that will make me fail my upcoming RfA] "Oh no not again" Support Werdna (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support ^_^ --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 16:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. Anyone who can ask to be temporarily blocked so as to equitably resolve a dispute with another editor has the proper attitude. HRE is very, very intent on being careful and polite to everyone, even those who feel that he hates them because of the circumstances of their birth - which, from our conversations, I can tell he does not do. DS 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support – Gurch 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Highway Batman! 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support like last time --rogerd 01:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, opposes simply not enough for me. SorryGuy 01:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaranda wat's sup 03:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, looks fine to me. BryanG(talk) 03:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per last time.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support as an experienced and often effective editor. Gets into conflict as a result of editing highly sensitive articles which isn't a reason to oppose in my opinion. I don't like to see factionalism but I don't ascribe blame for the slavic articles disputes to HRE. MLA 12:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per cliché #1. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per (1) sort of few WP edits, (2) block history, (3) my perception of a very narrow focus on "Slavic" topics, (4) a very high number of conflicts with other users per answer to 3 and per my experience with HRE otherwise, and (5) per the failure of this RfA, by the nominator and by the nominee, to address the Oppose voted in RfA 3a which KofKs admitted to have been partially valid - and they were. A very contentious user is going to make a very contentious sysop. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And the above reasons are not in order to importance. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues responded at User_talk:Crzrussian#RfA. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, regretfully. There is some recent incivility of concern [2] [3] [4] [5]. I also would have to question User talk:HolyRomanEmperor/IncidentLog/CrnaGora. There might be a good reason for such a log, but I am uncertain what it could be. Also, though it doesn't bother me too much since I sometimes refer to an opinion expressed on an AFD as a "vote" simply out of lack of something better to call it, this edit summary [6] is worth at least mentioning - please keep in mind it's not a vote and that an admin needs to do more than count heads. I also, on that subject, note that most of this user's AFD participation is "piling on" when there are already a ton of deletes ([7] for example). Again, there's nothing horribly wrong with that, but it isn't overly productive. I also notice this - [8] - where he changed a correctly capitalized page to an incorrectly capitalized one. This is another edit that's a bit strange [9] - addressing a single individual on an article page rather than on their talk page. I'm sorry and I don't question that he's done a lot for articles within his area of expertise ... but there are just red flags waving as far as administrative access goes. I don't like having to oppose someone who clearly has the best interests of the project at heart, but there's too much here that bothers me ... particularly the recent incivility. BigDT 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I already noted that Emir Arven is the one user with whome I cannot agree - first you must not simply take it for nothing and skim through and view all the trouble that that user had caused me and several other users. He had to be blocked - and out of solidarization, I requested a self-block. However, I see that there is nothing that I can do, no matter what I try - so I simply abandoned all efforts, and hope that there will be someone else who will be able to reach an understanding with him. Regarding the last incivility link - I strongly stand by that; I was solely defending Wikipedia's policy from ab/misuse. I adressed to that user (Live Forever) there percisaly, because it was revelant of the actual subject, and should be read by all the people that are interested in the article - and I said that I will bring the discussion with him to the talk page - thus, I honored my promise. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, if you have a lot of unresolved/unresolvable personality conflicts, that in and of itself is a problem. If other users engage in personal attacks or incivility, don't respond in the same way. That along might get them to stop or at least to tone it down - and at least if it doesn't, you won't be adding to the problem. BigDT 12:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I perfectly agree with this - however, this can hardly be applied to me, since I've actually had no unresolved/unresolvable personality conflicts except that with Emir Arven whatsoever in my year's time. I like to quote Latin, so shall I do so here: Errare humanum est.. The actual wordings that I used with User:Emir Arven might've been and most probably were a bit too harsh - but Man learns from his/her mistakes. There is not a single Wikipedian that perhaps sometimes "got over the line", to express myself (and it's actually a frequent habit of many current administrators). Back three months ago - I do not know how would've I responded to Brandt and/or Willy on Wheels. Do you understand what I am trying to say? All the best! --HolyRomanEmperor 18:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per both above. --Guinnog 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per first two opposes. Yanksox 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per CrazyRussian. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per User:Journalist User:ReyBrujo and others. — Jul. 2, '06 [14:10] <freak|talk>
    I don't assume bad-faith, but Journaist voted Neutral stating per above. — The King of Kings 15:22 July 02 '06
  7. Oppose not so much because I fear you'd misuse the tools, but mostly because past conflicts make this nomination too controversial at this time. Eluchil404 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. This is very had for me to do. Very hard. If we vere choosing editor of the month, HRE would get my support. Because his edits really enhance Wikipedia. His talk page edits contribute greatly to my perception of Wikipedia as a comunity, without him ex-Yu part of Wikipedia would lack one whole dimension of comunity (I don't know any other editor which spends so much time communicating with other editors). He provides some quality edits, that's for sure. But, unfortunately, I don't think he is ready to recieve the mop. I lurked silently his other RfAs and I didn't intervene as those were a mess and I didn't want to take side with some ugly sock puppets and POV wariors. But now when we have nice and quiet RfA, I'd like to state my oppinion. And that oppinion is that at the moment, HRE is not an administrator material (I'm not saying he never will be).
    Aaand, why is that. That's because he sometimes has problems putting his POV asside. And I feel he has a great urge to became an administrator, which combined with my previous sentence is a bit... I'd even use the word dangerous. He dropped his RfA2 on March 17 and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgrade on March 26. And then Wikipedia:WikiProject Montenegro on April 22. Both WikiProjects never lived. I cannot escape the sensation they were created for one purpose only: to support his next RfA. And I feel that if that is true, it's not a nice thing. Therefore, I feel that reason his RfA2 failed has not been resolved. (nota bene: I'm noting this WikiProject thingy not because I feel that an administrator should have a bunch of WikiProject edits (as I don't). But, since some of you do feel that, I think that creating WikiProjects just for the sake of RfA is, well, not an example of excelent behaviour)
    Well, I got a suggestion that I should make a WikiProject on Belgrade in the same manner of Perth - which I did. User:CrnaGora and I have made the Montenegro WikiProject specifically designed for our common place origin. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now to the more importatn issues. There are some interesting concerns mentioned in his previous RfAs which I feel have been overlooked by most of objective voters because those concerns were put out by POV wariors. But, I find those concerns legitimate nonetheless. Do not get me wrong, there are some really radical nationalist people here on Wikipedia. And, HRE is not one of them. But, I feel that our community would became more vunerable to those people by making HRE administrator. He himself has created some articles and made some edits which are influneced by nationalist POV. Maybe not highly nationalist POV, but sure as hell those are not NPOV (reffer to his RfA3 and RfA3a for examples. if it is really needed, I'll dig the diffs myself, but I think that's not neccesary). Apart from that, he has not shown firm hand when dealing with radical Serbian nationalists. And, this is my biggest problem with him becoming administrator. His lack of initiative when combating Serbian nationalism. He performed nice when combating Albanian POV. I congratulate to him on that. But, his actions to prevent radical Serbian nationalists are... well... hard for me to find. And I think that HolyRomanEmperor should not be promoted to the status of an administrator before he starts treating Serbian radicals equaly as Albanian ones.
    Well, I have combated Serbian nationalism greatly as well - I have had Tourism in Croatia, Dalmatia and several other fiery Croat-related articles protected from several Serbian edit warriors and POV pushers. What's more, I have created a balanced atmosphere on the article Rudjer Boskovic - solving his Croat/Serb controversy by putting the Croat and then putting the Serb alternative down to a footnote, to parallelize with Wikipedia's policy WP:Verifiability - Serbian POV was being heavily pushed over there (including by my own brother almost a year ago). --HolyRomanEmperor 18:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course, I see you have have battled User:Medule on those two articles which is fine. As I stated previously, you are not a hardline nationalist, and here I will add: you have your moments and sometimes you behave incredibly NPOVly. And as I stated previously, and as can be seen on Talk:Rudjer_Boscovich, you talk a lot, which is good. But, even there you supported the option of removing his name in Croatian language, which I do not consider to be quite NPOV. It is disputable if his father was Serb or Croat by ethnicity, and requesting that Croatian version of his name be removed could be seen as inflamatory.
    Now, let me stop here. I do not want this to descend to an argument about who's wrong or who's right. I stated my oppinion. I understand that you disagree with me and that we could discuss this until hell goes superconductive without anybody changing his position. So let me finish this by saying that you are a great guy but that my conception of NPOV and your conception of NPOV are in discrepancy. And that if comunity decides that you are NPOV enough to become an admin, I will concur and you and I will live happily ever after. --Dijxtra 21:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me repeat once more: HRE is a great contributor. I personaly think very high of him as an editor. But, I feel that he hasn't done everything that is in his ability to stop nationalism on Wikipedia. And that he should be presented with sysop powers when he displays ability to use firm hand when dealing with radical nationalists of whatever nation. I have always felt that you have to betray your nation to transcedent to NPOV. And I'm not sure if HRE is ready to betray his nation for the sake of NPOV. Holy, I hope this oppose vote of mine won't prevent you and me from collaborating in the future no matter what happens to this RfA. If it becomes successful, I will congratulate you as soon as I get online and will treat you just as I treat any other fellow admin. If it fails, I hope it won't get between you and me and that you won't get mad at me. --Dijxtra 18:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't mind/get mad in a million years. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose.This 4th nomination is rediculous. In my humble opinion HRE is one of the greatest Serb nationalist here (although that doesn't have to be the truth, that is just my impression of him). He was ready to use false info/sources in order to achive his goals in some articles. Here are some examples. He keeps replacing the word Bosniak with word Serb. I think that is his main role here to prove that some historical person from the Balkans belongs to Serbs, like Mehmed-paša Sokolović even Husein Gradaščević, native Bosniak general. In my humble opinion, he doesn't know the difference between facts and anachronism or between facts and stories or facts and nationalism, which is very important for someone who wants to become admin in such sensitive Balkan-related topics. He goes from article to article and put the word "Serb" where it should belong and where it shouldnt belong. His strategy is to make friends among Wikipedians in order to become admin. For instance he was even trying to connect Bosnian native ruler Stjepan II Kotromanić with "Serb Othodox roots" based on Serb nationalistic site called Serbian unity, that supports war criminals. It says that Draža Mihajlović, was a WWII hero. Draža Mihailović was sentenced as a war criminal and was executed in former Yugoslavia for crimes that he commited in eastern Bosnia. Draža was nazi supporter and collaborator. This site also supports Slobodan Milošević, accused for genocide. This site was even quoted by Slobodan Milosevic during the trial. Also for instance he put his thesis in the article (smth about Serb origins etc), when I asked him to provide the source that would support his thesis, he gave me the source, and when I checked it, I found nothing there.[10]
    As you can see the source was (Istorija srpskog naroda/History of Serb people, by Vladimir Ćorović), and HRE was so self-confident that he said: this is a proof that you don't even care one bit about this article; if you did, you would've read it and noticed the source;. So I checked it and found that he lied. He also had fights with Croat, Albanian and Bosniak user. So he isn't a good choice.--Emir Arven 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to not see this vote count because of the personal attacks made by Emir. — The King of Kings 00:10 July 03 '06
    I sourced everything I said. Everyone can check. I repeat, this would be a mistake to give him admin permissions because he was involved in many Balkan-related edit fights with Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians. I would like to see someone else as admin in Balkan-related topics who is not from Bosnia, Serbia, or Croatia. For instance, from Germany, France, Netherlands, UK, USA etc. These topics are still very hot and it would be disaster to have someone who is onesided.--Emir Arven 00:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then state that above. That still no reason to make personal attacks. Theres no reason to make personal attacks. Remove the name-calling and it might help. — The King of Kings 00:29 July 03 '06
    Please see WP:AGF. "I think that is his main role here ..." does not appear to be assuming good faith. Nor does claiming, "His strategy is to make friends among Wikipedians in order to become admin." Further, please realize that prefacing an attack with "in my humble opinion" doesn't make it not a personal attack. You may wish to reconsider a way of writing your comment in a less inflammatory fashion. Also, it may be helpful if you could explain (if it is possible to do so briefly) why changing Bosniak to Serb was incorrect. For those of us not well versed in geography and culture of that part of the world, the reason may not be as obvious as it is to you. BigDT 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Emir, you've got to understand, if on an article is put Bosniak, it would confuse the person if you say he was a citizen of Bosnia, which truely meant "citizen of Bosnia" back then but someone might confuse it for having the person be a Bosnian Muslim or "Bosniak" as the term is today. Here's one thing I agree with you, he shouldn't have changed Bosniak to Serb, which can hurt many people, per say you, on this issue. I'd rather he change Bosniak to Bosnian, that way it would say "citizen of Bosnia" and yet not confuse the person with "Bosniak" or Bosnian Muslim. Crna tec Gora 05:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose Per Crazy Russian. QuizQuick 23:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose for the fourth time. This nomination is getting to be absoulutelly absurd and now it is going under radar of users who frequently edit articles where Holly's contributions have been considered biased to say the least. While I have nothing personally against him I see this nomination problematic largely because his lack of knowledge or use of heavily biased sources to justify his agenda on Balkan related articles. --Dado 03:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Actually, I don't think "assume good faith" means "pretend someone has never pushed a POV and never will again". Consequently, I have little faith that HRE will be able to resist the temptation to misuse the tools. If he foreswore "Balkan" articles for a few months, and built a record of constructive contribution elsewhere, I'd change my vote. Grace Note 06:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Civility concerns. Seems like a reasonable enough candidate aside -- Samir धर्म 06:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Oppose per first two opposes. --demicx 08:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per CrazyRussian and RfA3a... There should be a rule that admin nominations can be repeated only after a year has passed. There is another thing which I consider pretty significant and which could be missed by the uninformed: the two administrators who usually deal with South Slav issues, Dijxtra and Joy, have voted here. One voted "opposed" and the other voted "neutral"! --Zmaj 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose due to civility concerns and per Grace Note. I think there are problems here that could be exacerbated by the addition of admin privs. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per my vote on the last RFA. At the time, I described it as (after some finger-wagging from Linuxbeak) a terribly bad and extremely large messy heap of trouble waiting to happen. I don't see anything having changed in the last two months to dissuade me from that. Proto///type 13:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I don't think Wikipedia would be improved by HRE becoming an admin. Aren't I Obscure? 13:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Grace Note. Grace describes very well what HRE should do to establish an ability to be neutral. I would say, specifically, 2 months. Mangojuicetalk 13:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I do not believe this user should ever be made an administrator. robchurch | talk 14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Proto. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per CrazyRussian. I am not yet convinced that this user can exhibit the calm, impartial demeanor regularly expected of administrators. Per Grace Note, more controversy-free editing time is what is required to change my mind. Xoloz 18:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is a good rule of thumb for RfAs. While I don't see any POV pushing in the last two months, and I do see lots of good work, there are some little things [11] which make me worried about his temper. Just a few days ago[12] he used Serbian on a user talk page, which runs contrary to the guidelines. In general I am worried about how he would use admin powers. However, I am pleased with HRE's handling of debates for the most part and would like to see him continue his contributions. Ashibaka tock 20:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I didn’t vote during the last nomination, because I just couldn’t make up my mind. But now I do think that HRE is a gut contributor but he/she is not ready yet to become an administrator.--Mig11 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. There was a lot to address from the last RfA, and I just don't think enough has been done. Incidentally, I don't believe for a moment that the last nom "failed because it had to be restarted" - it failed because a great deal of editors, respectable and otherwise, had a problem with HREs behaviour. It makes the nom sound, imo, extremely weaselly. Deizio talk 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. While the candidate has a lot of interaction with other users through talk pages, he only has 3% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I am afraid he will be a limited administrator who will only apply "corrections" to users in the articles where he is editing without reporting or discussing with other administrators. Also, replies to answers have been basically the same since his second nomination, even though they are outdated by now (the candidate claims Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions when someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react.; however I could not find a report in WP:AIV nor WP:AN3 from the user since March). Finally, the user does not appear to use test templates to warn users. Added some questions that may modify this vote in either direction. -- ReyBrujo 19:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above. Orane (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. Roy A.A. 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HRE was nominated three/four times in the last six months. Just two months ago, the score of the vote was 50:49:7 (and previous votes were 8/15/2, 4/6/1, 29/15/10). The current nominator says that the previous nomination failed because it "had to be restarted" - I find it hard to believe that it failed for mere procedural reasons; rather, it seems apparent that it failed because there were a whole bunch of discontents. It seems reasonable to try to figure out what the hell happened to the 49 people and their negative opinions. It would be a bit disappointing to find out that all of them are actually sockpuppets or complete morons or something which makes them irrelevant for the present voting just a couple of months later. --Joy [shallot] 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Joy. Since I was pretty involved in the last RFA, and a main factor in me leaving Wikipedia last time, I would like to comment on your statement. Well, 49 people did oppose, but there was some heavy POV pushing between Croatian Wikipedians and Serbian Wikipedians at that moment and editors decided to make a few sockpuppets resulting in 49 opposes (although the majority of the opposers were not socks). Some of the reasons people opposed last time was because Linuxbeak had to restart the RFA. The first RFA #3 had been plagued with socks POV pushing and was getting unfair at the time and it was restarted at #3a. But there were other legitimate reasons people opposed last time too. — The King of Kings 01:05 July 02 '06
    True but weren't Albanian Wikipedians like Hipi Zhdripi and I guess and think Ilir pz were involved in the conflicts on the 3rd nomination and the restarted one. They kept getting involved just like the Serbs and Croats who voted on the nomination. And true, socks were also a reason why there was 49 opposers. There was some really heavy POV pushing and also conflicts started starting up on the nominations, which cause its failure. Unbelieveable, isn't it? Crna tec Gora 06:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Changing vote to Neutral per concerns by Czrussian. Perfectly valid concerns in the past RFAs have not been addressed. Cowman109Talk 02:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per CrazyRussian and the rest. I can't trust editors who crave for adminship that much. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
For the record, I know HRE's name (the result of conversations on IRC). DS 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Username HolyRomanEmperor
Total edits 6972
Distinct pages edited 1214
Average edits/page 5.743
First edit 16:49, 24 August 2005
 
(main) 2708
Talk 1158
User 113
User talk 2626
Image 29
Image talk 2
Template 44
Template talk 5
Category 8
Wikipedia 227
Wikipedia talk 25
Portal 25
Portal talk 2
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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:
3RR violations, Intervention against vandalism, fullfilling page protection requests
I believe that wikipedia is being flooded by vandalism, and that always an extra hand is neaded. Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions when someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react. This is all understandable, naturally; regarding the unproportionally small number of admins towards (other) users; however, it is somewhat annoying as well. It is here that I would like to lend assistence by reacting as fast as possible to any violation and/or admin-required assistence (such as considering/fulfilling page protection requests, etc).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
I have a ton of edits and numerious articles written. One of my largest articles are Duklja – a South Slavic Early Medieval state on the Balkan peninsular and one of the first rulers of modern Montenegro as well as a prominent writer: Petar II Petrović Njegoš. There's also Tvrtko, a medieval Bosnian ruler and Stefan Nemanja - a Serbian one. Other good articles (in my opinion) are those of Medieval Bosnian Bans Stephen II Kotromanić, Kotroman and Matej Ninoslav or Mehmed-pasha Sokolović. History and Litteracy are my main subjects, so I am glad that I can contribute to wikipedia by adding these very little – but rich subjects that unseen pass the eyes of the world. I believe in the Historia magistra vitae est. ol' saying. Other contributions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the History sections of the articles Croats and Skadar, while I am currently rewriting the History of Slovenia. You might take a look at all the medieval figures found on List of rulers of Croatia and List of Bosnian rulers - most were written by me. I have a special interest in my homeland's (Croatia) medieval history - and this is combined with the history of the place of my origin, Montenegro, as well as my current place of residence - Belgrade, Serbia's capital - that alltogether makes me greatly interested in the "Serbo-Croatian milleu". This has also given me an interest in the History of Bosnia, but I am greatly disappointed by the amount of controversies that have come up because of the most recent Bosnian War - which could've and should've been avoided most definately (I myself was introduced into the Bosnian can of worms after creating/writing the Demographic History of Bosnia and Herzegovina article). I am also translating from the Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian wikipedias - some other notable figures whose articles I wrote are Stevan Hristić - a notable Serbian musician, or Marin Držić - a notable Croatian renaissance writer. I am not very interested in other subjects - but my "mini-edits" like removing deleted images, linking, categorizing, fixing grammar and adding some info on articles like Piracy can be found all over this Encyclopedia.
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:
Unfortunatly to admit - I have been involved in numerious controversies - but most/all of them have ended with a compromise orchestrated by - and are a long past by now. Most conflicts I have are not over editing - but I stay off the actual article and bring the discussion to the corresponding talk page. Most of my largest arguements were with people that possess a high quantity of anger and outburst it in here, or are simply plain vandals. Here is a list os some of mine most (un)famous arguements with Users in the past:
  • User:Ilir_pz - I've placed many warnings on this Wikipedian's user's talk page, and entered quitte some evere quarrels in the past - but it all eventually ended in mutual apologees quitte a nice friendship with this Wikipedian
  • User:Petrit_Augustini is another wikipedian that posted several threats on my talk page - as well as other peoples', without any reason whatsoever - he even threatened to bomb my own house
  • User:Emir_Arven, is sadly, a Wikipedian with whome I cannot find a common language - it is therefore that I have decided to stay out of his way, and hope that others will deal with him. He has been blocked due to his high level of aggressivness several times by now - and whenever I was involved in such arguements with him, I personally requested to be blocked as well out of mere solidarization. However, mutual language wasn't established, so I gave up.
  • User:Hipi_Zhdripi: this very infamous Wikipedian has vandalized and ultimately destroyed my previous nomination for adminship. He was 'blocked indefinitely because of this and previous matters three times before - once I even begged for his unblocking, trusting that things will be resolved at all cases. Aside from his rather minimal knowledge in English, his attitudes of calling me and several other peole "fu**ing" and opinions that the Serbian people should be exterminated as well as a rather frequent habit in sockpuppeteering speak a lot more about him, rather than me.
  • I unblocked him three weeks after, and everything seems to be OK with him (he hasn't been in disputes) Will (message me!) 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Bormalagurski: this Wikipedian has accused me of lying and has been somewhat rude and aggressive - but I have forgiven him now, and the (factually non-present) arguement has ended

Optional question by Winhunter:

  1. Q: It appears you have a total of 4 previous nominations: HolyRomanEmperor, HolyRomanEmperor2, HolyRomanEmperor3 and HolyRomanEmperor3a. Other than the last, can you elaborate a little bit about why you did not succeed in the other three?
    A:
Certainly:
  • First nomination: Here, I was an inexperienced newbie, and I am glad/thankful to all the people that voted Oppose - then I had very little understanding in Wikipedia's policies and most definately wouldn't be able to utulize admin privilages in the correct way. Once again, I express my gratitude to the nomination's failure. The two main reasons were 1. I didn't read many of Wikipedia's policies back then and 2. Self-advertising
  • Second nomination: I withdrew it after several comments regarding Wikipedia namespace edits. I understood that this is a necessity for a produtive Administrator.
  • Third nomination: This nomination had to be restarted, mostly because it was vandalized by User:Hipi_Zhdripi. The fourth nomination is actually an auto-restart of the third. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Kirill Lokshin:

  1. Q: Given that this is the English-language Wikipeda, do you think it is appropriate for editors to leave messages on talk pages in another language (e.g. [15])?
Essentially - no, but when a post is aimed directly for one group of people (it's actually connected to what someone had previously said in Croatian - so it's a continuation), and doesn't damage anyone at all - I think it's OK. Several wikipedians that I have met possess minimal knowledge in English - and rather communicate using German. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions by ReyBrujo (talk · contribs)

  1. Q: You seem to just copy the answers you have been giving since March. They appear to be outdated by now; I checked WP:AIV and WP:AN3 back to March, and couldn't find any report, which kind of confirms my statement. Any reason for not answering the questions again instead of using old replies?
Well, they're not outdated - I have seen just as I said quitte a few occasions - and there is no telling that it will remain silent in the future. As I said - always shall an extra hand there be needed. I have vastly rewritten those answers of old - and I fail no see why should that be wrong? I am not sure if that exposes me as a rather weak candidate for an administrator - but if it does, I will be glad to entirely rewrite the answers. However, they will just seem as plain raphrasals - because what it says know is percisely what I wanted to say. I hope that this question doesn't turn out into an occasion when a man is simply judged because of one word. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Q: I have checked some of your edits according to the (obsolete) Interiot external edit count in talk pages, [16] and chose some randomly, mostly pages where you contributed once or twice, and came with the conclusion you don't use test templates. Am I correct with this conclusion? Why, if so?
Not really - I do use them. I think that your conclusion is just a mere coincidence. But yet again - I must note here: People should not be judged because they do some things a little less often then they do other. There cannot be equalized users. That's why in real life we have proffessions, specialized only in one single type of a trade. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category