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

Number 57[edit]

Final (69/24/0); Ended Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:50:43 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you Number 57. Number 57 is in his 11th month of active editing and has amassed almost twelve thousand edits. He's written a lot of Israeli stuff and populated many electoral templates, which is an extra-thankless task. He's got a graduate degree and is an intelligent, well-mannered, and non-conflict-seeking person. I see one stinky edit war at ((Irish elections)) back in May. He has no blocks.

Having seen quality work from this user, and in the hopes that he will continue to do quality work with administrative tools, I invite you to support Number 57's candidacy for sysoppery. -- Y not? 17:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Number 57 18:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Having got burned on a CSD a few months ago (albeit following some misadvice from an admin!), I decided to brush up on deletion policy. I therefore expect to contribute to clearing the CSD backlog, as well as dealing with expired prods and closing AfDs and RMs. As I keep an eye on a lot of Middle East-related articles, I will also be able to lock articles which are developing into edit wars (although obviously not ones I am involved in).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of articles, I guess my most satisfying contributions were completing the Israeli elections series, and making sure there is an article on every party to sit in the Knesset. As Y mentions above, the majority of the elections template series is my work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Shamefully I have once received a 3RR warning, though I believe I remained civil, and that it was a genuine attempt to try and enforce the discussion's outcome (or lack of it) against someone who could be described as a disruptive editor. Otherwise I tend to stick to talk pages and try and solve disputes in a more civilised manner (see an annoyingly circular discussion at Talk:FIFA 08#Ulster Banner beside FAI league as a recent example) and am not too stubborn to change my mind on issues if people present good evidence to the contrary.

Question from User:rspeer

4. As you may see from WT:RFA, I am concerned about the growing problem of edit count inflation. Be honest: what techniques do you use to accumulate such a large number of edits? Would you do anything differently if you were not running for adminship? What kinds of edits do you make that require stopping to think about things? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don't think I have done anything to inflate my edit count - it is not something I boast about. I believe most of my edits are constructive and not minor; at the moment I am going through Category:Former Members of the Knesset and adding Template:MKs and expanding them (see my edits to Naomi Blumenthal earlier today). I wouldn't do anything different if I were not running for adminship, particularly as I was only offered a nomination just over week ago (and had not requested one)! Number 57 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Number 57 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Nom -- Y not? 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support The 3RR warning is the only concern I have. Good editor count. But there is something tell me to go netural. For now, Support. PatPolitics rule! 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support The 3RR was back in May. A review of the current talk page shows only positives. He meets my standards by a long shot. Could not find a reason to oppose. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to strong support. Like the way user comports self under pressure. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Good contributions, and having Y as a Sherpa says a good deal considering his (too) high of standards. --David Shankbone 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support because of the Oppose !vote. We need more admins willing to stand up to our nationalist factions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by that? It seems to me like a poor rationale for supporting an RfA.--DLandTALK 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wow, I wouldn't want this editor to go through RfA #58... —AldeBaer 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support as an excellent editor, with many new articles and templates, lots of mainspace edits especially. Being bold is OK. Can be trusted. Bearian 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per above. (Wikimachine 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  9. Support per nom. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No reason to oppose. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom statement. · jersyko talk 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. the user has the perfect balance of boldness, pragmatism, and civility needed for the mop. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, no big deal. Nothing wrong with this editor. Melsaran (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support i trust N° 57 and i approve Mailer Diablo's approval! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, good editor. Everyking 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. A good editor, the extra tools will be a good addition. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good editor, and I was very impressed with his calmness explaining points to other editors during the Irish nationalist edit-war that he found himself unwittingly caught up in on the FIFA08 article, as he mentions above. ELIMINATORJR 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support because none of those opposes raise objections that actually have anything to do with being an administrator. -- tariqabjotu 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - per my brief review of this editor's contributions. I have to say I agree with all the supposedly objectionable edits with the possible exception of the holiday renaming, for which I would have to count ghits to form an opinion. Why would Category:Religious Israeli settlements even exist if it wasn't for settlements? And the canvassing here is really putrid. ←BenB4 11:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposition was obviously to creation of the category :-) And however one would like to characterise the two messages, my being mentioned above by Number 57 in and of itself means that my being notified of said mention is in order. TewfikTalk 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support good editor who has so far been valuable to wikipedia. I don't think we shoudl let our personal POVs get in the way of this adminship.Bless sins 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, I've only had positive encounters with this editor up to now. —Nightstallion 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support what Siva1979 said. Acalamari 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, I've seen only good things from this editor. The counterparts of his edit history seems a bit overestimated and just not enough. --PaxEquilibrium 22:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Dedicated editor who deserves the position. Am I wrong, or is there an appearance below in the oppose section of an orchestrated campaign by a certain Wikiproject to torpedo this RfA? If so, I think there may be grounds for an RfAR if this RfA closes as unsuccessful. Cla68 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When I see opposition canvassing like this, it gives me grave concern about the validity of the opposition. When there is such clear evidence, I think it would be fair to allow those interested to look into the matter after the RfA is closed and pursue the matter.-- Jreferee (Talk) 02:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Cla68 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Truthfully, I don't know the criteria required for adminship, but has been nice and helpful to me.--LAZY 1L 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Canvassing for support is one thing, but for opposes is another, and is harmful. I see no reason why 57 shouldn't be an admin. No one is perfect, and if this request fails because of canvassing I strongly suggest running again. Good luck Majorly (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support. To be perfectly honest, I had never met this user until today when I happened across his RfA. From reviewing the edits brought forth, I see a very competent editor who is bold in making changes--this is A Good Thing. I see also something very disconcerting, the canvassing issues among those who oppose this candidate. As Majorly said, canvassing for opposition is disruptive and harmful. The WikiProject needs to stop trying to set the agenda simply because they disagree with Number 57's edits to "their" articles. Finally, I pray the closing bureaucrat takes into consideration the obvious COI's going on in the vast majority of the opposes below. ^demon[omg plz] 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I don't find much legitimate opposition. I've reviewed his talk page and archive, and several discussions in Wikipedia talk, Template talk, and Talk. He does good work in the political election series, and tries hard and reasonably to improve NPOV in one of the topical areas most subject to POV battling. He is doing good work, and giving him the admin tools would be of benefit to the encyclopedia. GRBerry 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Seems a very level-headed and intelligent editor. Resistance to organized editorial POV-pushing inevitably risks encountering organized ideological bloc-voting, as we see taking shape in the "oppose" section below, but an independent streak in a non-ideological editor is a good thing.--G-Dett 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Never came across Number 57 before but based on the comments here, the opposing comments, and a look through his history, I see no reason why he should not be an administrator. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support can't see any reason why not. Candidate has plenty of experience, including admin-related tasks, and doesn't seem to have screwed anything up since May. The oppose reasons are unimpressive, especially those which were canvassed. Hut 8.5 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support A very good editor, valuable work on Israel and politics related articles. Had several positive encounters with #57, would make a good admin. Derwig 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Slade (TheJoker) 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I just spent some time going through the candidate's talk page & edit history, on top of reading through all the comments in this RfA & following up on the links provided. My only possible concern about the candidate himself is in possible overboldness in making changes, as those DLand's oppose discuss, before a more complete discussion. But on the other hand, I support the actual changes made -- for example, I agree that Israeli settlements in the West Bank should not be categorized as being "in Israel", & I'm glad to see that there is movement to change the category's name to reflect a less inaccurate representation of the settlements' relationship to Israel. I'm favorably impressed by Number 57's ability to be calm & civil even when defending himself against accusations -- see for example this discussion at Talk:Battle of Jenin, & by all the work he's done on election templates -- a lot of repetitive thankless type of work too, which is a good indicator of how well he might wield a mop. I'm not impressed by the apparent canvassing against this candidacy by opponents, & I hope that if this RfA fails, Number 57 will consider trying again. --Yksin 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I think that he would make a good admin. The concerns raised by opposers do not worry me greatly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Rarely have I felt a need to support a candidate to offset silly opposition reasons. Normally, I'd just stay neutral here, but people attempting to get "better representation" from a specific Wikiproject is bad. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I agree with Amarkov. Also, the blatant opposition canvassing in this RfA was bad. As for qualifications, we need more admins willing to tackle the difficult areas. Obviously, anyone editing in contentious areas are likely to make edits with which others disagree. It is not clear from the opposition how Number 57 would abuse the tools and I do not think he will. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 03:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - well suited for the tools. And I say, the canvassing campaign that occured below to undercut this Rfa is nothing short of appalling. For shame, for shame. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support There is nothing raised below that makes me think this user will not make a good admin. Davewild 10:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I see nothing wrong with giving this user administrative tools. Captain panda 12:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support after deep consideration see nothing wrong now every user or editor has POV see no disruption and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 12:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I am unconvinced by the concerns of those opposed. --After Midnight 0001 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support agree with nom. Looks good to me -- Samir 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support KTC 09:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Hemmingsen 10:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Candidate is sufficiently experienced and has a good record. CIreland 11:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support This candidate is WP:BOLD and has opinions. When edits where the cause of dispute, he made amends and discussed his edits, seeking a consensus and compromise. These lead me to believe that User:Number 57 will not abuse administrative privileges, but rather use them to the advantage of wikipedia as a whole. Rami R 14:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I see that he has a huge amout of expeirence, he is bold, which is strongly supported in WP. Good job. Marlith T/C 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - plenty of experience, and I think positive changes, despite what the WP:ISRAEL cadre seems to say. David Fuchs (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Certainly, there is no reason to oppose here. WP:BOLD is very good. GDonato (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support should do fine as an admin. Pascal.Tesson 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support to cancel out one of the wikiproject carvassing oppose votes. While I never dealt with this user and I would have avoided that RFA, it's a shame that wikiprojects play a role in them. Also no indication he will abuse the tools. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I support the candidate's willingness to take the risks in problem areas rather than avoid getting involved (as seems to be so often the case with admins, I am sorry to say). I see nothing arbitrary in his edits but rather a willingness to engage and explain. --Mattisse 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. (e.c) Support Willing to fix mistakes, which is good in an admin CO2 02:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, seems good.-gadfium 04:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Why the hell not? We need more admins willing to edit controversial articles (because I certainly don't). Ral315 » 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support I share in the concerns expressed by DGG (sensible as ever) in his oppose and frankly don't think DLand's opposition to be quite as frivolous or ill-conceived as some seem to suggest it to be, but I'm convinced from a broader review of Number's contributions that he is possessed of a measured temperament, a civil demeanor, and a sense of good judgment (all of which he demonstrates with overwhelming frequency), and, with the provision that, in view of the frequency with which BB has been referenced here, Number, inasmuch as adminship is purely ministerial and as an admin acts solely to discern for what action a consensus of the community exists and then to effect such action, might want to take special care not to boldly with the tools, as surely it seems he will, because I find that I am able to conclude with a reasonable degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive, I support (this is not an RfA about which I was particularly passionate and it is one that I, on an NFL- and NCAAF-induced wiki-slowdown, might have refrained from commenting on, my inclination to support notwithstanding, but I am with Jaranda on the issue of this discussion's having perhaps served less-than-perfectly to bear out the views of the community at large [from which to apprehend whether there exists a consensus for promotion]; I continue to believe, though, that supports such as Jaranda's and mine are, as against an invocation of a bureaucrat's "discretion", the proper solution for RfAs in which other editors think canvassing to have been a problem, and I would submit there are enough uninvolved users who follow RfA that if the community thinks a discussion to have been unduly influenced by canvassing or inaccurately to reflect the sense of other editors errors may be rectified straightaway). Joe 08:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support User's contributions and answer to questions are quite good. Seems like a bold editor, but not uncivil at all, which is quite good. Kudret abi 10:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - despite being involved in some conflicts, user appears to have dealt with these sufficiently well and in a civil manner. I believe that this user can be trusted with adminship. Warofdreams talk 11:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - per DGG, user did the right think and we must promote and cherish his boldness to do the right think, and as dgg pointed out, he should stop being so defensive about it.--יודל 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support per Jaranda. You obviously have some enemies already, be prepared to make more as an admin (especially if you deal with controversial topics). Mr.Z-man 18:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, after reading both sides I feel the supporters views are far more sound. Wizardman 19:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. User has the ability to approach complex and difficult issues in a balanced manner. Opposing arguments are not compelling. CJCurrie 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I have seen very positive contributions from this user, but it would be unwise to give admin powers to someone who has, on multiple very recent occasions, made controversial and disruptive mass edits without seeking consensus. One example: Moving several Israeli holiday articles to their respective English translations - without asking for feedback at all. This action generated immediate outrage from editors of those pages, and they were promptly moved back.(Yom Yerushalayim, Yom Ha'atzmaut, Yom Hazikaron)
    Another example: Removing about 40 articles from Category:Religious cities, towns and villages in Israel and placing them in Category:Religious Israeli settlements - without any discussion - just the edit summary "rm cat - not in Israel". (one of the many diffs:Alon Shevut)
    And one more thing - it's ok for an admin or editor to have a POV - we all do. However, it's not ok for one's POV to fuel inappropriate disruptive edits like this one to Gordon Brown.--DLandTALK 19:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any harm in any of these. WP:BE BOLD. The Gordon Brown edit was not inappropriate either. Maybe it's not what I would have done, but it's certainly within the realm of the legitimate. -- Y not? 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't mentioned, but this wasn't a one time edit -- I count three reversions of the category on the article linked; I'm not sure that just calling this boldness makes sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    being bold when it affect multiple articles with politically controversial implications is perhaps a little on the reckless side. Perhaps the candidate will comment on whether he would still do such changes today.DGG (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My removal of Israeli settlements from "in Israel" categories was done to in order to comply with WP:NPOV - saying settlements are in Israel is very pro-Israel POV, otherwise why would it be called a settlement if it is in Israel? I believe my move was justified by a later discussion on the WikiProject Israel which did see a majority of editors support the move, and by the fact that one of the editors who originally opposed the move has now suggested another solution which removes "in Israel" from the wording. Also a minor quibble to DLand's assertions above - I did bring up the move of Jerusalem Day on its talk page almost a week before moving it back in April.[1] Number 57 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply to this below. TewfikTalk 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per DLand. Number 57 is a fantastic editor, but I'm concerned that he might not practice blind justice. If Number 57 re-applies in a year or so and becomes less argumentative, then maybe I'd vote for him then. --GHcool 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassed vote. diff. DLand, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. -- Y not? 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not know the different wikiprojects sent representatives to RfA. RfA is not a vote or a convention. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, Blind justice? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a neutrally worded friendly notice. It is very relevant for members of WP:ISRAEL to be apprised of this RfA, as Number 57 is an active contributor to Israel-related articles. I don't believe that I have violated policy or have anything to be ashamed of.--DLandTALK 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Friendly notices to carefully chosen sympathizers? Don't embarrass yourself any further. -- Y not? 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The patronizing tone is uncalled for, irrespective of our disagreement on this matter.--DLandTALK 21:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come off it DLand. Calling that comment to GHcool anything but canvassing is asinine. ^demon[omg plz] 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose A candidate who says they wish to significantly work in AFD and related project space areas, but who has more edits to his own RFA than any AFD needs a great deal more experience before I trust them with the tools. VanTucky Talk 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as I believe Number 57 to be a generally good editor, but my experience on the categorisation issue mention above leaves me unsettled. That is, there was no majority, and certainly not a consensus in favour of either of the two moves he carried out beforehand, and yet he edit-warred to maintain them despite the subsequent objections of several editors (myself included). The changes themselves violated Wikipedia:Overcategorization, and so what was most worrisome to me was that after accepting that the first proposal was rejected, he carried out a second proposal that violated the same policy in a different manner. I have to disagree as well with the assertion that I dropped my opposition to the second proposal, as the CfD in question is merely a hope that a venue outside of what had become an unproductive conversation might more clearly show that the problem with his proposal lay, not in politics, but in Wikipedia policy on categorisation. While he has supported me there, it is unclear to me whether it stems from any new appreciation of the policy, and whether it will impact his future actions, which is ultimately the crux of the issue for me. TewfikTalk 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassed vote. diff. -- Y not? 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this was not a canvassed vote - please read WP:CANVASS#Campaigning.--DLandTALK 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But would the user have !voted without being !canvassed? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that Number 57 referenced me in his comments above,("one of the editors who originally opposed the move") I should certainly have been informed so as to share my thoughts here. TewfikTalk 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we then inform one of the editors who originally supported the move? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tempting, but no - two wrongs (and it is wrong - DLand's actions are votestacking, not campaigning) don't make a right. ELIMINATORJR 14:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not correct. Votestacking is when the users contacted "are on the record with a specific opinion" - such as with a userbox or other categorization. Campaigning is when the users "are thought to have a predetermined point of view". I did the latter (not en masse either) which is not against policy. It's a subtle, but critical distinction. I still believe that I was justified - it's important that users who are familiar with Number 57's editing, and have interacted with him as well, are able to express themselves. I think that a lot of editors who don't follow AFD regularly would be very upset that they missed this one, should they find out that Number 57 was made an admin without their having a say.--DLandTALK 14:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I believe that contacting editors who you believe are going to vote in a particular manner is votestacking, not campaigning. But the point is that it matters little anyway, because WP:CANVASS clearly says that even campaigning is wrong, even though there are not "hard and fast rules" on sanctions. At the very least, it is discouraged. And to do it on an RfA is particularly disruptive. ELIMINATORJR 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So it would be O.K. to inform, oh 1 or 2 editors who originally supported the move? Not convassing or campaigning or stacking, just informing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like WP:POINT to me, but I wouldn't object to it. I think some other editors who disagree with my reading of policy would take issue, though.--DLandTALK 15:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd consider that as WP:POINT when that's exactly what you've already done? Words fail me, frankly. BTW, to avoid clogging up this RFA, this discussion is better continued at the relevant thread on WT:RFA. ELIMINATORJR 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologise for the perception of disruption. I was merely trying to clarify my understanding of what seemed an unusual occurence on an RfA. Again, I am sorry. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Tewfik. The POV issues in Israel-related articles are a serious concern for an aspiring admin. In addition, the aggressive behavior of his supporters on this RFA is unlikely to help. Beit Or 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose edit warring is evidence of pushing a POV, and some of the edits noticed above and supporters' justifications for them - not disavowed by the nominee - cause me to question whether the editor has the maturity and good sense not to use the tools to advance that POV. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not sure what POV you are getting at - the conflict I had on ((Irish elections)) was over the inclusion of a flag, and against an editor who is known (and has been blocked) for edit warring over flags. Number 57 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the dispute on ((tl:Irish Election)) wasn't about the inclusion of a flag, it was about the overuse of flagicons in these templates, where you argued against and reverted any editor that reduced the number of the same flag from three to one, using the reason that all the templates used numberous incidence of the same flag, the talk page clearly shows this.--padraig 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above. Very legit concerns.--SefringleTalk 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Beit Or and several other comments above. -- Karl Meier 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - a weak Wikipedia-space count and some rather rash decisions which have left others flustered have unfortunately left dark stains on this user's reputation. Once they're permanently ironed out, and you've learned from advice given here, you should make a great admin. Not yet though I feel. Lradrama 08:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The issues raised above are concerns enough for me. Jmlk17 08:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose having watched the discussion of FIFA08, evidence of pushing a POV in my opinion.--Domer48 12:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but how is pointing out that the Ulster Banner is used to represent Northern Ireland in sporting terms (which it unquestionably used to do) and requesting that people that wanted it removed to show consistency and delete the other flags pushing a POV? Number 57 12:25, 13 September 2007(UTC)
    Comment the Ulster Banner is not used to represent sport in Northern Ireland, it is used the represent the Northern Ireland National Team when they play international football, or when Northern Ireland competes in the Commonwealth games. In the case of the FIFA 08 article it was being used for political reasons to represent Northern Ireland as a country which is incorrect as it is not now or ever was the flag of that country.--padraig 12:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose PoV pushing on FIFA 08 article did not give a constructive solution just stayed with his PoV. BigDunc 12:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So "Please be consistent and remove all the other secondary flags too, not just the NI one" is not a constructive solution? Number 57 12:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    comment A little on the paranoid side dont you think every one gathering up against you. BigDunc 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Based on the somewhat over-defensive attitude here in replying to questions, I do not have confidence about the ability to deal with the inevitable criticism an admin will receive. This is not a comment about the particular views expressed in any CfD or other discussion. DGG (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if I seem somewhat defensive, but I am naturally disappointed that my RfA has been hijacked by two separate groups of editors who have objected to my attepts to prevent POV pushing. I maintain that the claims of POV against me are unfounded - in the case of Israeli settlements, I was preventing them being classified as "in Israel". The so-called POV pushing on the FIFA 08 talk page is a total fabrication - as I show above, I pointed out that the Ulster Banner is used in a sporting context, but if editors demanded its removal, they should show consistency and remove the others. Number 57 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree. This entire RfA has been a disgrace to Wikipedia practically from the start. and I suggest to Number_57 that he withdraws it and comes back in the future when hopefully a number of people can conduct themselves as befitting an encyclopedia struck per conversation with candidate. ELIMINATORJR 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just commenting that I actually agree with the Number57's edits in most of the instances discussed; that is not at least for me the issue. DGG (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per points raised above, very concerning for a sysop. --Benchat 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ['crat notice: Oppose disregarded =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)] I find it suspicious that the nomination was made just before Rosh Hashana (the jewish new-year), a three day holiday, when orthodox jews do not use computers. As the candidate has made a lot of Israel related edits, there are plenty of orthodox jews that would like to have an input.--Macallan 12 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope the closing b-crat would discount a comment such as this. Accusing the candidate of wild conspiracy theories with no actual proof gives this person's argument in this debate very little weight. ^demon[omg plz] 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow!! Incredible. -- У not? 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of my opposition, I feel that I must come out that much more strongly against this kind of conspiracy-mongering, which is absolutely out of order here or anywhere on WP. TewfikTalk 06:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose Even though this editor is quite outstanding, there are niggling issues mentioned above which make me weakly oppose for the time being. Phgao 17:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - per Lradrama. Zaxem 01:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per DLand's issues with WP:POV pushing. --Yeshivish 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per what SOMEONE ELSE DID? Omg plz... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    huh?--Yeshivish 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Revert wars on election templates in support of a consensus he has agreed with himself. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Premature nomination. Candidate has made some fantastic contributions, but this does not mean that one should get automatic admin rights, especially so soon. N57 has simply ruffled too many feathers over the past year, being 'bold' based on OR (the holiday names) and POV (settlement issues). Candidate also does not show a pervasive knowledge of WP guidelines to warrant getting admin. Needs more time. --Shuki 11:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I do not deny being bold, I don't see how my moves were "OR". The Ghits evidence [2][3][4] was quite clearly in favour of the English names. Number 57 11:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose The user's way with dealing with people with whom he disagrees is less than would be expected from an administrator. With election templates he reverted a user's contributions twice without explaining what was wrong, in his eyes, with the edits. It wasn't until I became involved that he explained to me specifically what, in his eyes, was wrong. I also saw a lack of eagerness to become an admin when someone asked permission to nominate [5]. If he tries hard to rectify the way in which he deals with disputes in the future, I would happily vote in favour. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per concerns above.Sumoeagle179 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, canvassing on behalf of this user makes me doubt the neutrality of this process. Tim Vickers 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral, canvassing obvious attempt to hinder RfA from editors who should know better. Tim Vickers 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Per edit warring --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose At its heart, an RfA is a process by which the community decides whether or not to extend a significant measure of trust in the judgement of a user. The issues raised here lead me to feel that at this point, that trust should not be extended. -- Avi 12:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Per DLand. Wikipediarules2221 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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