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

Lord Voldemort[edit]

Vote here (38/15/11) ending 21:13 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort (talk · contribs) – Lord Voldemort has spread his Dark Mark far and wide, with what I would consider great value. He has done admirable work NPOVing the unNPOVable (George W. Bush, for example), and substantial vandal work on that same article, and many others. He has started the promising WP:JEFTA, which is a great idea, and has been doing stub-wikifi-grunt work for quite a while. While his tenure at our encyclopedia is short when compared to geezers like Who, I feel that he has demonstrated the temperament and maturity to wield the mop.

Kate's tool has him at 2360, with an admirable balance across all of the wikispaces except for Category talk. Tisk tisk! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I most humbly accept. Although it is late in the day, and I must save the questions for tomorrow. Please forgive me. I'll get on them first thing. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support - who steals the nominators spot while the nominator is away notifying the nominated? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry. My eagerness to support him got the better of me. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support - all my encounters with him have been excellent but my main reason is he edited my user page. I admire that. Plus, my standards are met. Will make a great admin. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 21:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, I see him revert vandalism and do great work at George W. Bush all the time, and he seems like a great contributor. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. Voldy is a trustworthy character, ironically, with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I really don't understand why JETFA is being held against him. Acetic'^Acid 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Everyone else has said it all, really.--inks 03:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support FireFox ^{T C} 16:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Just edit the freakin' article I say :). I'm willing the candidate the benifit of the doubt when comes to the personal attack reform, as most of them seem to be from over two months ago. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - I've seen nothing but good contributions, and he is clearly committed to the goal of creating an encyclopaedia of the highest quality. (Further comments in the comments section). Thryduulf 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Private Butcher 21:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Great user useful in vfd --JAranda | yeah 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Yes, please. I'm happy to take the candidate's word that the personal attacks are over. Lupin|talk|popups 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Banes 06:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) I echo Thryduulf.[reply]
16. Support, those personal attacks aren't nice but they're several months ago and he has been a worthwhile user other than that incident. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Johann Wolfgang 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support the oppose reasons are ridiculous.  Grue  19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. The personal attacks, while regrettable, are far enough in the past for me, and having been involved in the Gabrielsimon incident(s), I have seen how that particular editor can bring out the worst in people, including myself. I admire the Dark Lord's work on George W. Bush and AfD. I think he can be trusted with the mop. android79 20:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support byegones be bygones. Alf ^melmac 07:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong Support even though he killed Harry Potter's parents :-)--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 07:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. The personal attacks are indeed worrying but it appears to me that Voldemort was learning to get to grips with how the community works and I trust him not to do it again (I'm assuming that there were no personal attacks after those quoted by fvw). I see no other reasons to oppose (JETFA echoes my own concerns). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - I'm familiar with Lord Voldemort as a helpful contributor at WP:FPC and have no objections. Comment: I was prompted to come and see this rfa after stumbling across what I considered to be an unfair request on a user talk page for an oppose vote here. Having read the lot, as well as several more user talk pages, I think the way LV has responded to all of this demonstrates commendable maturity and restraint ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support --Cool Cat ^Talk 22:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. support: no reason to oppose. as far as I know, adminship does not bring with it a "make personal attack or immature page button." 24ip | lolol 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support.→Journalist >>talk<< 03:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Notable objections have been raised, but what I have seen of this editor has left me with a favorable impression. I believe that Lord Voldemort can safely be entrusted with admin powers. --Canderson7 18:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, SqueakBox 23:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, the personal attacks don't add up to much, and his contributions are undisputed. Sam Spade 11:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. From his namespace span, I can see that he's dedicated at both article-writing and relationship-building. Can see that he will become a good admin. Deryck C. 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. I'm willing to trust LV. Everyone deserves a chance, especially after an apollogy for previous mistakes has been offered. Shauri Yes babe? 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support, if he continues his personal attacks, he can always be desysoped, and Shauri's trust is a good reason.--Wiglaf 21:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. Your choice of username does not inspire trust, but as a kid I used to assemble plastic models of the Wolfman and if that's good enough for a Top Gun pilot's call sign ... anyway, if you block someone wrongly, the rest of us can always unblock them, so: best wishes! Uncle Ed 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. El_C 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. -JCarriker 05:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. also, I think that there's anything wrong with your name. It's a character from Harry Potter!!! --Kewp (t) 16:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - if you pay attention to the annoucement board, you might see why me supporting his nomination might be significant (goes to make annoucement)Gimmiet 17:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support- meets my standards. The personal attacks, while worrying, seem far enough in the past we don't have to worry. --Maru (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following three votes of support were posted past the ending time.

1. Support from neutral based on intelligent, earnest, good faith confrontation of issues against. Right "disposition" proved to my mind. Marskell 22:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - if one is actively trying to look for poor editing behaviour, one will most certainly find it. The opposite holds true too - this user is willing to learn and mature, and this makes all the difference. --HappyCamper 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. STRONG SUPPORT or that lesbian crap. lol. He claims to be evil!!! I like it! Just playing : ) Molotov (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose JETFA is a perfect example of the immaturity that seems to be creeping into Wikipedia. I am increasingly seeing users make offensive comments when voting, and editing in general. In addition to the "extreme" votes, other users have been voting neutral just for the sake of voting with ridiculous comments ("Neutral until candidate answers the question" or "Neutral I have not interacted with this user"). I see JETFA as inextricably tied to this voting pattern. freestylefrappe 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I am sorry you feel that way, freestylefrappe. The reason I vote neutral on some nominations without responses is that I feel every admin candidate should make the effort to answer some standard questions; these questions serve as a rudimentary guideline for voters. If a candidate does not answer the questions by the end of the voting period, I feel that the person should not be sysoped. I only vote neutral, though, when it seems like the candidate already has garnered a large number of support votes, or if I have almost certainly made up my mind on my vote (such as this case, for example). Now, would you mind kindly telling us if you have any specific objections to User:Lord Voldemort besides your objections to WP:JETFA? Thanks very much for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong Oppose I agree, JETFA is an extremely immature sort of diversion. While User:Lord Voldemort has some strengths as an editor, his weaknesses are such that I do not believe he is fit for adminship. Add to this his history of personal attacks and he is not a good candidate. Agriculture 23:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree JETFA isn't presented in the most mature way, but it is a noble cause that I agree with, I don't see why a bad choice of title for his wikiproject should be held against him. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Look at his history of personal attacks... Agriculture 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps, as a gesture of goodwill, he might be prepared to change the title of WP:JETFA. Though the personal attacks would still be worrying. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - Although he has done good work on George W. Bush and other articles, this user has a history of personal attacks. Rhobite 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Lord Voldemort gave a sincere apology for the incident I'm referring to. I'm not changing my vote right now, but I thought I should mention that he regrets making the personal attacks and has apologized. Rhobite 19:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Is there a diff for the apology? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose, making personal attacks, and then when someone removed those attacks attacking that person is not indicative of the right disposition for adminship. --fvw* 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose: The personal attacks violate Wikipedia norms for civility and are not indicative of a potential administrator--at least not right now. Sunray 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Although admins are no more than regular contributors with a few extra buttons, they are often seen as representatives of Wikipedia, especially by new people. Because of this I cannot support someone who resorts to abuse rather than entering into a dialogue when he has a problem with a fellow Wikipedian. Also, although I believe it was created with good intentions, JETFA is, in my opinion, unhelpful. Rje 10:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose because of the personal attacks. — JIP | Talk 17:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose based on the above comments, lack of time, and low edit count.  ALKIVAR™ 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose for the same reasons as Alkivar. Jonathunder 17:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak oppose the difs shown above and other discussion of personal attacks don't look good. I'd be willing to support in a few months. Broken S 03:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Weak oppose. There is some reason for concern so I sugges waiting a few more months just to make sure. Sasquatcht|c 04:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - let's just wait a bit on this one to see how things develop re. the propensity for personal attacks. Fawcett5 12:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose as per above --Rogerd 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Administrators have to have a certain disposition. Regardless of whether he apologized for the personal attacks in question, I expect an admin candidate to have never made them at all. May support in a few months, but not now. Ral315 W_S 20:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never made is an enormous bar to set. We're not voting on Christ. Marskell 22:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Weeeak oppose, I'm slightly concerned about some of the user's behavior. --Merovingian (t) (c) 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following three votes of oppose were posted past the ending time.

1. Oppose pro temps. Don't recall having interacted with this user, but this seemed close enough to merit peering at a few links. Am concerned enough by several of the issues raised to prefer to wait a while longer, especially given the relatively short time here anyway. But seems willing (and able) to learn from his mistakes, so I'd be inclined to support at said later occasion, if that indeed continues to prove the case. Alai 05:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose No This shows very poor judgement. It's easy to apologise for something after the fact, but good judgement comes in not calling someone a Homo in the first place. I'm sorry, but the apology should have come way before this nomination. You certainly have the forgivness you ask for but I think the extra buttons should wait a while longer. Rx StrangeLove 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Calling someone a "homo" is not acceptable behavior. Xoloz 12:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral until questions are answered (see above) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Still neutral. While Lord Voldemort is a great editor, I'm voting neutral because of the personal attacks (combined with a relatively short time on Wikipedia). Because I do see that you have apologised with sincerity and have not engaged in personal attacks since, I would gladly support you in a month or two. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moved vote to neutral because Lord Voldemort apologised for the personal attacks. I'm not familiar with him enough to change my vote to support yet. — JIP | Talk 18:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hmm. This is a hard one for me. I'm not holding the issue with Gabrielsimon and Rhobite against him; he's a good contributor (accumulating more edits in a week than I get in a month, I think); and I've interacted with him on several occasions. However, I really think he needs to stick around a little longer. Three to four months really isn't long enough. Try again in another three to four months and I'll definitely support. Hermione1980 22:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral not familiar with him and concerned somewhat by the perosnal attacks reported. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. To support. I followed some of the links and it should be noted personal attacks occurred on the user's own user page. Now, this doesn't fundamentally absolve the person of attacks but I do believe in leeway on your own page. Has he launched attacks on other talk pages? I'm neutral for this reason. I don't particularly like JETFP or whatever it is, but it isn't a vote-changer. Marskell 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral I think that Lord Voldemort has reformed (although this doesn't make sense) of the personal attacks. Evidence pointing to this are things like his apology, and involvement with projects such as Esperanza. However, I am not positive, and JEFTA really doesn't seem necessary, since editing the articles is the whole point of Wikipedia. Give one more month on Wikipedia with some good, strong editing, and I will support. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral Lord makes good edits and will be a decent admin when the time is right...see you in a month or two.--MONGO 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral solely for time. Personal attacks on user pages are nasty, but they're not exactly a sign of how a person is going to interact with others. As for JETFA, am I the only one who gets it? There is an implicit criticism of those people who chalk up 1,000 edits by not editing, but rather in tagging. The idea is, "the same energy you used to tag it could have fixed it." It's a "sofixit" that reminds us that tagging it ain't fixing it. That, to me, is a gentle chiding and a very encouraging thing. To me, that looks like someone trying to make us less tagged and more fixed, which is a cause of celebration. Still, the time is too short at this point, and the interactions are still too few. Geogre 01:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral for now, but the kid's basically pretty good. Take the gentle comments in this RFA on board, come back in a month or two and I'll probably support - David Gerard 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral for the time being based upon the reasons expressed by others. Hall Monitor 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral. WP:JETFA is childish and the user has a history of personal attacks. But he is experienced. I'll remain neutral.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral as per Gerard, Geogre, Jossi, MONGO

. Hamster Sandwich 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC) #Neutral until my question is answered. --Maru (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Average edits per day at 21. Use of edit summaries at 63%, last 500 edits at 74%. --Durin 21:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last 500 article edits: 92.8% edit summaries. Only 36 times did I not use one, and 26 of those times I marked it minor, so it's not much of a worry. Just thought I'd point that out. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I hadn't heard of JETFA before, but regardless, Voldy is a trustworthy character with plenty of good experience a good attitude and active in areas where admin tools would be useful. Is that right that he's only been here since July though? Dmcdevit·t 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit as registered user was June 9, 2005. --Durin 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, I meant to say June. It just seemed to me like he'd been here longer and that's why I brought it up. Also just because I thought there might be some prior account (some of the first edits were vandal reversions and VFD). That was probably gving the wrong impression asking that and not supporting, which was what I was planning on anyway. I have no arbitrary time requirement. Dmcdevit·t 23:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had been lurking for quite some time, and thought I should finally get involved, and allow my voice to be heard. And I think the edit summary thing is fairly misleading. Normally, I do not leave an edit summary when using talk pages. Is that a requirement? Look at my use of summaries on actual article edits. I try to always use one. Thanks.--Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Use of edit summaries in non-talk pages is 70%, last 500 non-talk pages at 88%. --Durin 17:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoops, I was only counting the article namespace. Thanks for the info Durin. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand your comments regarding talk page summaries. Others have voiced similar opinions elsewhere. This caused me to modify my template that does the calculations to also show me edit summary percentages for non-talk articles. I imagine someone will convince me at some point to add in a measure for non-talk, non-self user page edits. But, I think the point is that edit summaries are important, regardless of where you are editing. "Would I vandalize my own page?" might seem like a reasonable response to that, but I don't think it is. For example, a doppelganger account could be used to make the edit to your user page. Possible doppelgangers for you are "Lord Voldamort", "Lord VOldamort" "Lord Voldenort", "Lord Volbemort" and more. The human eye, when scanning, does not always recognize these as doppelgangers. So, the edit might go ignored if all we went by was whether it was the user editing their own user page. That's why it's important to have edit summaries even on edits to your own user page. For talk pages, I feel it is important as well because vandalism can and does happen on talk pages. The vast majority of vandalism that occurs on wikipedia is done without the use of edit summaries. By encouraging people to use edit summaries for legitimate edits, we raise the bar that vandals have to jump over in order to attempt to get a vandalizing edit past the watchful eyes of RC patrol. Thus, using edit summaries for every edit, even edits marked as minor, makes Wikipedia a better place. --Durin 18:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Point taken. Will try harder from now on. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – How many Harry Potter fans are opposing The Dark Lord's" RFA? ;) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, JETFA. I don't know how this is any less mature than WP:DICK. I would be more than willing to change them name, or even disband the project entirely. I was just sick and tired of very good, capable editors tagging something with ((wikify)) or ((cleanup)) and then leaving. If you know how to tag an article, chances are you probably know how to wikify it. The backlogs to some of those categories are enormous. Every WP:COTW for the rest of the year could be Wikification, and there would still be more to do. We should try and encourage people to fix the article rather than tag them. I don't really know what else to say about it. Like I said, if it is causing problems, it would be fine to disband it. The last thing I want on WP is more conflicts. And I wish people would hear me out before they had voted oppose. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  "Don't Be A Dick" was originally a euphemisation of "Don't Be A Fuckhead". Perhaps take the "fucking" out of the title and you'll get most of your point across to more people - David Gerard 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, Don't be a dick is about users who are not being nice. JEFTA is about users who are being nice by tagging articles and now, according to JEFTA, are being lazy because they don't cleanup every thing they come across. The concept is a good idea, to encourage people to make more in-depth edits, but to exhort them to edit the "fucking" (whatever) article is counterproductive. --Kewp 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the user has a history of personal attacks and is claiming to have "reformed". As the user has only been with Wikipedia since June, I don't see how there has been any possible real demonstration of such reformation. I suggest the candidate reapply in six months given the history of violating Wikipedia's rules to give time for an evaluation of the honesty of said users reformation. At the moment, I don't see how anyone in good conscience can vote support for the candidate. Agriculture 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say that I don't have a "history of personal attacks". I do have "personal attacks in my history." I admit my faults and don't try to deny anything. And reading your edits Agri, you too have a history of personal attacks. Just thought I'd defend myself here. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be pertinent to note that Agri isn't running for adminship; you are. Borisblue 17:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I understand that. But don't you think that there is enough hypocrisy in the world? Him calling the kettle black hardly gives him the right to speak authoritatively on the subject of personal attacks. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I have more authority on the subject of personal attacks because I on occasion use them. Am I wrong to do so? Hell yes. But I know it when I see it because I occasionally make use of them. I do it because Wikipedia is broken, too many trolls, and WAY too many trolls with admin positions. Is this the pot calling the kettle black? Hell no, because I'm not up for adminship, and when and if I am, I'll oppose my own nomination. Agriculture 00:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • • A user who is not an admin can certainly make a comment regarding personal attacks of an admin nominee and have it not be hypocrisy. We have no requirement that a person who is not an admin not vote, in fact quite the opposite. User:Agriculture may have no interest in being an admin. For all we know, the person may think they are not qualified. That doesn't stop them from having an opinion on what would qualify or disqualify a person from being an admin, nor does their own behavior automatically make their comments have less standing. --Durin 17:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I understand all of that. All I am saying is that everyone should try and follow WP policy, not just those who wish to be admins. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's no angel, but we hold admins to higher standards of behavior. Borisblue 17:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know. Except for that one little incident, I think I have handled myself in a very amicable, personable way. Since then I have done nothing wrong to anyone. I have tried to be one of the friendliest, most level-headed editors around here. I am sorry if I have done something wrong. Thank you for your comments. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not Hypocritical because I'd never accept a nomination myself. If I were nominated, I'd oppose my own adminship and laugh my ass off at whoever nominated me. As an admin I'd abuse the heck out of my powers, which is why I wouldn't make a good candidate. IMHO we have plenty of dead beat admins, or admins who engage in personal attacks already, without time to observe your supposed reformation, I cannot and will not support you. Admins are held to a higher standard and the last thing we want is *another* admin who abuses their privelages and launches in campaigns of personal attacks. Agriculture 00:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, Agriculture, your comment does in fact violate WP:BEANS. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 18:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, he made a few personal attacks, but he has appologised for them and demonstrated the sincerity of his appology. So what if the excellent WP:JETFA project (that I'm about to join, having just become aware of it) is titled with a little bit of colourful language. WP:NOT censored, so why should the Wikipedia: namespace be? Thryduulf 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also was under the impression that JETFA was a play on the commonly used internet acronym RTFA. I don't think voldemort should be blamed for the vulgarity of the name. Still, I am undecided about his other edits as of yet. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• What's up with User:Łóŗď Vòļđèmøřť?--Tabor 07:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one deleted edit on the user page, that reads: "PLEASE DELETE THIS USER... I accidently created this account while trying to fix my signature... I'm not too sure what I was thinking. --Lord Voldemort 15:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)". The page was deleted by Flcelloguy with the comment "Delete per user wishes"). 11:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• A few people have commented on his username. While I don't personally care that the character he's chosen is a murderer, I wonder if there are trademark issues associated with using a character's name verbatim, rather than some sort of variant on the original name. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too had wondered about trademark or copyright issues, but an admin (Redwolf) said that it was fine, so I just forgot about it. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 14:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give up the tit-for-tat justifications, come back in a month or two, and I'll reconsider. Plus really think about a name change (hint: try Voldy). Remember, this is not about you but what you can do for the project with wider powers. Uncle Ed 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have clarified, that was what I was thinking at the time. Not currently. Thanks for your concern though. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 19:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to the amount of animosity perceived regarding JETFA, I have made a push to disband it. I do not want this to change anyone's votes, rather, I feel it is a necessary action. Please see my comments further at the JETFA page. I'm sorry to anyone who felt offended. Thank you. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 16:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: While you meet most of my standards obviously, I haven't found any gleaning of your political stances; to wit, where do you stand on Free speech/licenses/Free software an' such like issues? --Maru (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here.

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.)

Of course everyone wants a rollback button, and there was a point where I was just getting so fed up with vandalism and the time it took to revert, that I just wanted to give it all up. I would be more than willing to help clean up some of those backlogs which are in awful conditions right now. I anticipate closing AfDs (seems to be a chore some sysops won't do). I think I have shown a willingness to help people. I know I have had some problems, but I'll deal with that below.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

I am not sure there is one particular article I like, maybe Air America Radio. I think my body of work, including the many welcomes I have given out are what I am most proud of. I actually like doing some of the grunt work, and am proud of that too.

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?

Okay, and it comes to this. I am not ashamed of my past. I am, however, sorry. My past shows that I had an issue with Gabrielsimon. We were working it all out when Rhobite jumped in. I admit the attacks were childish and immature, however, the remarks about Rhobite (obnoxious, etc.) were what he had called me. Why should he be allowed to get away with it. An admin had said those things, so I figured that would be okay. But I admit I was wrong. Me and Gabe (Gavin) now have a fine relationship. There is an old saying "forgive and forget." I hope all the people opposing me because of my past discretions can do that. Since then, I feel I have shown myself as a level-headed, reasonable editor. Perhaps my thoughts here would help explain myself. Not everyone is perfect all the time. I think an editor that actually wants forgiveness should be allowed it. In the future I just won't let people get under my skin. I was quick to react in the past, but now understanding the scope of this project, think before I act. I wish the people that oppose me would have waited for my answer before they voted. Oh well, I'm doing the best I can do now.

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.