Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Anonymous editor 1.1 Support 1.2 Oppose 1.3 Neutral 1.4 Comments and questions

[edit] Anonymous editor

Final (60/36/5) ending 16:34 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) – Anonymous editor has been editing since May 2005 and has made over 3,500 edits, with a good balance of edits to articles and talk pages. He's an important contributor to Islam-related articles and is active in fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry on those pages. He's mature and level-headed, is willing to seek compromise, cares about our policies, is courteous, and gets along well with editors regardless of their POV. I think he'll make an excellent admin, and it's my privilege to nominate him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept this nomination. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Withdrawal: I've decided to withdraw from my adminship because I've been advised that a very large number of support votes would be needed now to overcome the oppose votes. I want to thank SlimVirgin for her trust in me and all her help and a BIG thanks to all my supporters. I feel I've made many good friends through this Rfa. To most of those who opposed, I thank you too for your thoughtful comments and advice, which I will take seriously to help myself become an editor better suited to your needs. I expect to run again for adminship in the near future, perhaps in a few months. Thank you.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Support

1. My pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Rkgerzr yrfovna fhccbeg! ~~ N (t/c) 01:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support --> shifted to Strong support as I am not convinced by some opposition votes (see my reply to Klonimus vote No 1, down there) - It's time to become an anonymous admin! -- Svest 01:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
4. Strong Support Trust the nominator and the nominee ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Support good editor --JAranda | watz sup 01:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. SupportHell yeah V/M !
   01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Support, every encounter with this user has left me with a good impression. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Awesome guy to work with. He has helped me in every dispute I have ever been in. Madhev0 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Support I just met him, but even I think he's great. --JadeManiac 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Support --Rogerd 02:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Support freestylefrappe 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Support Strong Support, even though we may disagree in some issues, he is still an excellent Wikipedian. Eagle^amn 04:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
14. EXTREME SUPPORT SUPPORT. Need I say, as per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Support and RFA cliche #1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Support 172 | Talk 06:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. The Minister of War 07:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Support - Has evolved into an editer of impecible standards with an eye on copyediting and all that other boring stuff! We need more admins like this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Yuber^(talk) 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
20. Strong Support -- Levelheaded and fair. Will make a great admin. BrandonYusufToropov 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Strong Support as per BYT. F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
22. SupportThank you. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Support on condition that the user has agreed to change their username. -- Francs2000 20:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Strong support. A good editor, fair and pretty cool-headed, standing up for NPoV — disliked by trolls and PoV warriors and their defenders, so is clearly doing something right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose Islamophobic tendencies; support Anonymous editor. El_C 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    This should NOT be a case of islamic vs. islamophobic. Unfortunately many voters on both sides seem to completely forget this. I just don't think that pov warriors should be admins - but maybe that's just me. I'm just funny that way I guess. I'm sorry for my stupid bias against pov warriors, and also vandals and the like. --Kefalonia 07:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

26. Saw his nice edits to a subject I was interested in, so Support.--The Mann 22:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
27. Support. Yeah this is a total reversal, but we had a long and civil talk over the matter, I am convinced that he has become a mature and serious editor and vandal fighter. Hopefully, he will do more of Wikipedia's custodial tasks though ;).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Support: The thing I probably dislike the most at Wikipedia is sockpuppetry, but #2 would have to be POV editors with axes to grind against others, and it looks like there several axes waiting in the Oppose column, which says to me that this guy is not afraid to get knee deep in the tough situations, which Wikipedia desperately needs in administrators. However, deleting things off talk pages and the name(anonymous sounds a bit sneaky) kind of worry me, but definately not enough to withdraw support. Karmafist 23:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
29. Support. Articles about Islam get way too contentious for me, but Anon always plays it cool. Keep up the good work. --Sean Black ^Talk 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Support - overall, I see no convincing reason not to trust him with admin powers. I've noticed this editor's contributions, they seem level-headed. I am also very uncomfortable with what I see on the oppose side - if I hadn't come here planning to support I would have been tempted just on the basis of some of the bad faith on the oppose side. Guettarda 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Strong Support - With opposition like that... FeloniousMonk 06:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
32. Support cool name choice man. --Gamer28 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Support per nom. Jkelly 19:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
34. Support. The oppose votes below have, if anything, proven that this editor is capable of editing potentally incendiary topics without bias; if Anonymous editor showed even a hint of bias in their edits, then the opposes would certainly have been accompanied by a mountain of diffs as evidence. If the best they can come up with by going through months of edits in controversal articles is a handful of reverts, then this is a level-headed editor indeed. --Aquillion 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Some diffs regarding AE's disputed behavior, has been made available for your consideration here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence -- Karl Meier 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

35. Support - Editors should not be penalized for having strong opinions and for participating in controversial articles. Will this person be a good admin. I surely think so. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. I am not convinced by the arguments against this editor below. They refer mostly to POV edits on talk pages, which is exactly where POV edits belong. The editor is good at distinguishing between his own point of view and editorital necessity, and would certainly not abuse the rollback button. Chick Bowen 04:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
37. support. It appears that any user daring deal with the mess the Islam articles are in is giving up any chance for adminship. The oppose votes below are an embarassing showcase of the gang of Islam-bashing editors that has emerged in the community (of course there are 'non-partisan' oppose votes too, there is no guilt by association here). Without people like Anonymous editor, WP would long ago have become redneck-pedia. Baad 06:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
38. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
39. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
40. support. Support and respect for this as a nomination. Unbehagen 13:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
41. Strongly support --JuanMuslim 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. I'm damned proud to be American, conservative, having voted twice for George Bush, would do it a third time if I could and I fully support the war on terror. That being said, an editor versed in Islam who is willing to make sure that articles on one of the world's great religions don't get trashed by bozos who view the actions of a relative few as representative of the entire body of worshippers is a true gift to this project. - Lucky 6.9 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
43. Support Johann Wolfgang 17:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
44. Support Ok, I've turned around. Banes 18:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
45. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. --Randy 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
47. support. --Zereshk 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
48. Gentle support. In my short time here, I've found Anon to be very agreeable and not looking for trouble (unless he's looking to CLEAR IT UP!), and IMO this personal qualifies him for the role. TheProphetess 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
49. Support Seems level-headed and able to distinguish between talk and article pages. Finding it hard to understand some of the impassioned arguments in the oppose camp. A good addition to Wikipedia. For those so worried about the wielding of his new powers, keep an eye on him: this is not a irreversible decision. Turnstep 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
50. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Much of the opposition is remarkably wrong-headed. My sense is that adminship will be advantageous both for the candidate and for Wikipedia.
51. Support. I trust him. In spite of the presence of some names I respect on the oppose list, I'm inclined to believe he'd be a good admin. Anyone who can edit Islam-related articles and remain cool-headed is fine admin material. Antandrus (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Calm, knowledgable, and not afraid to wade into the fire. Looking forward to the bureaucrat's decision. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
53. Support, I've always had good relations with anon, even when we have POV disagreements we work them out. I trust that he'd use his powers well even if I think maybe the nomination should have come a little bit later. I also want to say that he should just be careful about all of the criticism below, one can always improve themselves. gren グレン 02:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
54. Support, because of ability to argue with hostile people yet craft thoughtful text.Cberlet 03:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
55. Support. Taking into account the contentiousness of the articles where AE typically contributes, I find him reasonable and level-headed. Editors on any side in these kinds of articles tend to get labeled POV warriors by others w/opposing POVs, but in reality we need articulate editors of various POVs to cooperate together, that's what produces the best articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
56. Support. Concerned about some POV in edits, but even more disturbed by the anti-Islam comments of a number of the Opposers. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
57. Support. I've seen this editor deal with controversial discussions in an even-handed manner. It is odd indeed that most of the "oppose" votes focus exclusively on AE's religion yet the only evidence of POV that they have are his reversions. Reversions alone are not evidence of incivility and religion certainly isn't - imagine the uproar if someone argued that a Jewish person should not be an administrator because of their religion. It is clear that AE has a different view of Islam than some of his interlocutors; it is a little unfair for them to attack him for not conforming to their rather stereotypical and condescending view of what Islam is about. (It's even more bizarre to see such people claim some kind of expertise on the topic when it's clear all they have read about it comes from the likes of Robert Spencer).-csloat 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
58. Support. utcursch | talk 05:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
59. Support --Pjacobi 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
60. Support. The obvious axe-grinding by the oppose voters certainly ain't helping. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Strong Oppose one of the least cooperative editors on WP. I have very little confidence that Anonyme will not abuse his admin powers in realtionship to controversial articles involving Islam or the Arab Israeli conflict. Nothing personal, but I don't think Anonym has the personal maturity to separete his strongly held beleif's from his responsibilty as a sysop. Klonimus 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Although, I understand that you have a different point of view than I do, I still don't understand why you would be rallying people to vote against me[1], [2], [3],[4]. Your personal differences with me are fine, but these type of tactics are in bad faith. I also don't recall making any controversial edits to pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would, however, like to thank you for voting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Anonym, most people don't follow RfA very closely, and there exists a tendancy to rubberstamp approve many candidates. Since there is no real mechanism for removing admins, the initial selection is extremely important and merit's scrutiny from all wikipedian's with a possible interest. The fact that 16 oppose votes can be rallied against your adminship in less than two days, is a sign that you have alienated many people in the wikipedia comunity. Many people considder you to be a high handed pro-islamist POV pusher. Klonimus 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Furthermore, you tend to have a very confrontational editing style, and at times seem to be on a mission to purge wikipedia of anything that reflects poorly on Islam or Muslims. You also have a very annoying habit shared by several other editors on WP (Yuber, Faisal, BYT, and others) of editing by revert ([5], and many other examples)rather than seeking concensus, as such, I and many others don't trust you with a rollback button. Klonimus 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Klonimus, I am not surprised by your extreme opposition to Anonymous editor considering your extreme hatred and fear of Islam and Muslims. You are the author of articles such as The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism, Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad, Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington, and The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad. --JuanMuslim 12:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   I'm guessing your list of me, Fayssal, BYT, and "others" is only based on edit style and nothing else. Yuber^(talk) 21:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Sorry Yube, it has to do with the fact that as a class openly islamic wikipedia editors tend to engage in edit by revert rather than trying to seek compromise. You got off very lightly in your arbcom case, after in engaging in plenty of egregious behavior at Jizya.Klonimus 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Look, your reasons for voting against me are fine, but why are you trying to get others to also support this pov? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   As I have stated, I have only brought attention to your RfA to people who might be interested in it. Most people don't care about RfA in general. I personally don't care about RfA. I do care about people such as yourself, who are unsuited to being an admin, becoming an admin. You as a person have created a great amount of doubt as to your suitability to be an admin, nothing I could possibly say or do, could create the opposition to your RfA. It is only your actions, and nothing else, that have caused people to vote against you. Your claims that you are being persecuted by an "anti-Islam" cabal are themselves a sign that you are unsited to being an admin. Klonimus 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   • Okay. I just want to clarify what's happening here from a variety of fronts. (What follows is not directed only at Klonimus, but at many people.)
   • Here's what happens. We hear some variation on ...
   • "Please understand -- I'm not voting against you because you're a Muslim, rather, I'm voting against you because you (have rickets, lack maturity, haven't had enough time on WP, are confrontational, probably are a carrier of avian flu, [fill in the blank]).
   • Then someone says, "Gee, that's kind of weird, can you back that rickets thing up?", and then people who oppose this nomination start talking about how even posing the question is a sign of unfitness for the job. ("AHA! You see! He is so sensitive about the rickets accusation! The fact that you claim you are being persecuted on this point clearly demonstrates yada yada yada...")
   • Come on.
   • It should be quite obvious what's happening here. Those who imagine (and it is a delusion, friends) that every Muslim editor marches in lockstep with every other Muslim editor -- those folks are hoping to stoke as much paranoia as possible among like-minded Islamophobes, and thereby get enough votes to block this eminently qualified candidate. Why? Because he's a Muslim. There, I said it.
   • Here at WP, We will not attack a Christian as a potential admin, simply because he possesses knowledge about his religion and brings that knowledge to his work.
   • We will, however, attack a Muslim as a potential admin, simply because he possesses knowledge about his religion and brings that knowledge to his work.
   • We won't admit this outright, though. To attack him, we will accuse him of being all kinds of strange things.
   • So I've got an idea. If you think AE is biased, prone to worship of Lana Turner, emotionally unstable, prone to religious extremism, given to support legalization of cannibalism, whatever, please do us all a favor and stop rambling about it at length and just post the diffs that you believe prove your allegation. So that people who have not made up their minds about this person can evaluate your claims. For instance, if you write that you are "not convinced about the neutrality of his edits," offer evidence supporting this pattern. BrandonYusufToropov 16:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   So my claims are false, Klonimus?. But links like these say otherwise -> [6], [7], [8]. Look, voting against people because of their religious beliefs is not very good for your reputation, neither are making personal attacks against them. ;)--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Right back at you, I don't care about your religious beleifs, I care that you can seem to separate them from your relationships with article content and with other people on WP. I oppose your adminship because I don't think you would be a good admin not because you are a muslim. There would be exactly the same problem if you were a communist, or had any other other strong passion that caused you to engage in edit by reverts. Anyways the very desire for adminship shows that it would not be a good thing for you.Klonimus 06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   You claim, Klonimus, that you oppose his/her adminship because you don't think he/she would be a good admin not because he/she is a muslim. I try to believe in what you say but I can't as I read the following [9]. IMO, your claims are not being honest. Cheers -- Svest 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

   Fayssal, You seem to confuse nouns and adjectives. Anonyme, is a partisan for Islamic causes. Nowhere have I said don't vote for Anoyme because he is a muslim. Again, I find this constant claiming that I have an anti islamic bias so annoying because it is untrue. (See also Type I error,big lie)Klonimus 08:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose. Has a long history of pov-edits, text deletions, edit wars and similar. Please take a close look at his edit history. His edits in india-related articles show a sometimes extreme anti-india bias. One doesn't even need to know alot about these subjects to realize this and AE's edits repeatedly reveal his often very limited knowledge of the india-related articles he edits, which he has sometimes admitted himself. (Update: He should inform himself about the subjects before he edits, but that is one of the rather minor points.) Some of his pov edits can be seen on: Terrorism in Kashmir, Terrorism in Pakistan, Kargil War, and there have been relevant discussions on: Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan, [10], etc. I will add some details about his edits on these articles later. See talk page of this page. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence Some other cases (here I haven't checked yet) may include: Lashkar-e-Toiba, Military of Pakistan, Genocides in history, etc. As for non-india articles, I didn't check these articles, but wouldn't be surprised if he would show similar edits there. I only give one example here: In this edit he deleted a comment made by another user which showed AE "removing the DMOZ directory of criticisms of Islam from the links". Now there was a very long controversy on that article wether or not to add a link to the "faithfreedom list of links page", and the main argument against adding that was that there is already this dmoz directory on that page. Removing this (as usual without any edit summary) was rather a bad faith edit. I'm not even objecting against remoing this, but against doing this without discussion, given the disput history on that page,and of removing other peoples talk. User:Purplefeltangel got many oppose votes for "only" one day of vandalism, while this user has been known for constant pov-editing and vandalism (I think constant pov-editing, pov deletions (sometimes with no edit summary and marked minor) and similar can be a form of vandalism.) If users like him become admins would just mean that there is no standard at all for becoming admins (apart from editcounts). --Kefalonia 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Just to address some of your concerns, I have never edited India-related articles because of these accusations being addressed on Pakistan-related and Kashmir-related (a disputed territory between India and Pakistan) articles by a couple of editors. I don't see how my edits were anti-India anyways, since I was simply rewording anti-Pakistani sentiment from those pages. Others might actually call that NPOV. Over time, one-sided editors have made it so that the page becomes very biased. I would also like to point out that all the arguments that I had with the two other users on the issue have been resolved including a mediation which I self-settled. In both cases, both I and the users that I had a conflict with were satisfied. As for Lashkar-e-Toiba, Military of Pakistan and Genocides in history, I would like editors concerned after reading this to actually visit those articles and check the edits I made. Recently in Genocides in History, I even settled an edit war between two other editors. I have also removed vandalism off those pages, like I do on all the pages of my watchlist. As for the link removal of the DMOZ directory, I immediately readded after I saw that an editor had any concern, and I gave a message to her that I did not think something as minute as this needed an extensive discussion. Lastly, I am just wondering, you have only been an editor for 2 weeks now, and I have never been in a conflict with you before, is there a reason you are bringing up disputes that have already been settled? I am just wondering, but I would like to thank you for voting anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   It is not true that you have never edited India-related articles, even if Kashmir/Pakistan related articles are excluded. But I should have said South Asian related articles. That you show an anti-India bias in many of your edits can easily be seen by checking your edit history on south asian related articles. And I've been an editor for over 2 months. I explicitly stated that I didn't yet check the articles Lashkar, Military, Genocides, so here you're slightly detracting from the other articles, but I will check these articles. I'm all for npov, but you're edits frequently consist of sometimes extreme pov. P.S. I just saw your comment on User talk:Banes, so my response to this: I'm not opposing you because you're a Muslim editor, but because your edits are much too pov for me. Please don't make any unjustified accusations. (I also voted for Gren on this page who seems to me to be a perfectly good editor.) We never had any conflict till now, but that is only because I tend to stay away from edit conflicts. However, I saw many of your edits and many discussions where you were involved, and I have therefore formed my opinion on them. Again, it is over 2 months, not 2 weeks, even if this is again off-topic. I will add some examples of pov/bad faith etc. edits later. See talk page of this page.--Kefalonia 12:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Kashmir as we all know , is a controversial issue . By definition a controvesial issue has two ( or more ) different & usually opposing stories associated with it . Its alomst impossible to have a neutral article about a controversial issue , so its best to add both ( or all ) views that the opposing parties have of the matter . Here in Kashmir related articles , all of them are being edited for a long time by people who have a severe pro-indian view Now I am not saying that it shouldnt exist , ofcourse everybody loves his country . But as I have stated before , an article about a controversial subject should cite both sides of the coin . If we see the Kashmir associated pages on WP , most if not all of them dont give any clue about "the other side of the story" . So logic says , these articles are POV . The pro-indian editers on Kashmir related articles try to paint Indian views as the actual history . If by chance there is a sentence about the opposing view , the next sentence completely ridicules it . Now I am not gonna go into details here , just read any kashmir related article , it seems like Indians were just sitting peacefully when Pakistanis suddenly attacted their country and captured parts of it . And they have been killing Indians for a half century now . And Indians are still trying to cope with it peacefully . I think some space should be given to the other side of the story too . I think what Anonym does here cant be considered as POV , but the best he can do for making Kashmir articles as NPOV as possible . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Let me say this once very clear. I think that in all articles all povs should be explained, as long as the article is npov itself. So for example I think that in Kashmir articles the pro-pakistan and the pro-kashmiri and the pro-india viewpoint shuold be explained. I have nothing at all against stating the pro-pakistan or pro-islamic or pro-whatever viewpoint in a neutral way. I have no problems at all with his pro-pakistan edits but I have problems with many of his edits that I too often have felt to have a pro-confrontational, pro-bias, pro-edit-war, pro-pov-deletions, pro-false-claims, pro-war, pro-terrorist, anti-india, anti-tolerance and anti-understanding bias. I think that Klonimus is right when he says that he stopped editing these articles, though I don't htink this is a solution. And I think Deepak was right in saying that AE's dispute with Idleguy was just not "acceptable". And I agree that AE will not likely "separete his strongly held belief's from his responsibilty as a sysop." BTW, the articles on Kashmir DID already state the pro-pakistan viewpoint before AE added anything, but again I'm not objecting to making articles more balanced and neutral but I am objecting to the way that AE trys to impose his special brand of "(n)pov". His edits have included pov-additions, pov-deletions, long flame wars and long edit-wars, low use of edit summaries, false claims, unsourced claims and many more. Apart from this huge problem, AE unfortunately doesn't inform himself about the subject and issue BEFORE he edits. He only deletes what he doesnt' like, but he makes much too less effort to read, understand and inform himself about the subjects. He has sometimes admitted himself on talk pages that he doesn't know much about these (south asian) topics that he edits. Anyway, this should NOT be a case of islamic vs. islamophobic. Unfortunately many voters on both sides seem to completely forget this. I just don't think that pov warriors should be admins - but maybe that's just me. I'm just funny that way I guess. I'm sorry for my stupid bias against pov warriors, vandals and the like. I have very limited time a the moment. I will however try to find the time to write some more details on his edits in the next hours. Anyway, the best and only valid argument is just to take a close look at AE's edits, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence --Kefalonia 07:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   AE said again on User talk:Voice of All(MTG) that he has never edit india-related articles. This is not true and it is not the first time that he's not honest. He edited in Islamic invasion of India, Babri Mosque, india-related stuff on State terrorism and maybe some other. And I again agree that I should have said south asian. --Kefalonia 11:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

   There are so many double-standars on RfA's, I'm beginning to wonder. I would like to note that both sides here seem to engage in too much campaigning, and that it is not very fair to accuse only one side of it. Anon at least at campaigned at many talk pages, and even at many talk pages of users who voted oppose to reconsider their vote. (I would also like to note that there are over eleven comments for oppose votes (that is about a comment above)). And I would like to note that NOT one of my criticisms has to do with directly islam-related articles, but almost ALL have to do with War or Terrorism related articles. I personally don't care much for his edits in directly islam-related articles (like Islam or Criticism of Islam), because I usually don't edit in these articles. (That said, I still strongly think that Anon's edits in these articles should of course also be unbiased). My criticisms regard primarly these articles and talk pages (there are also others):

   • Talk:Terrorism_in_Pakistan (relevant discussion on AE's behaviour)
   • Talk:Kargil War
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nichalp&diff=prev&oldid=24988801 "A problem user", relevant comment
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonymous_editor&diff=prev&oldid=24700752
   • Talk:Terrorism_in_Kashmir
   • Terrorism in Kashmir
   • Terrorism in Pakistan
   • State terrorism:
   • Islamic invasion of India
   • Lashkar-e-Toiba
   • Genocides in history
   • Kargil War

   See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence for more details. --Kefalonia 27 October 2005

3. Oppose AE had a violation of 3RR in June of 2005, which was only four months ago. See User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#Saudi_Arabia. Then he tried to slip past the ban with a sockpuppet which was discussed User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#Query here and User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#3rr here. I think that five months on Wikipedia is not long enough to be an admin. I suggest that AE apply again in 12 months. Joaquin Murietta 08:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) amended 08:40.

   Just to be fair, it was one of my first weeks at wikipedia. Also there was no sockpuppet; I was using my normal IP address. But, I of course appreciate your concern and would just like to inform you that I have never done anything like that again and adhered to strict policy (never had 3rr again). But thank you for giving me a chance to address this concern.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   This is not very honest. There was at least also this 3RR on October 5 in Terrorism in Kashmir: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&limit=500&action=history Kefalonia

   My question to AE: In view of the problems in June, would you be willing to reapply to be an admin in a year? Isn't four months without problems, out of five months online at Wikipedia, too little time to be an admin? Joaquin Murietta 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I assure you that in my 4 other months at wikipedia, I have made more edits than most other editors. I feel I am ready for this. Everyone has problems in their first month, after that it's a rapid learning process. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   OpposePer above comments. IMO, an admin should try to avoid getting caught up in controversy and pov-editing. I do believe however that anonyme has made many good contributions which are not written from his pov. Perhaps in a few months. Banes 10:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Leaving this debate alltogether.

4. Oppose I am not convinced about the neutrality of his edits. UPDATE: Other things that concern me is that he now apparently has decided to attack the editors that is opposing his request for adminship, making claims that they are sockpuppets, or that they is somehow biased against him: User_talk:Banes#Concerns. Another problem I believe is that he apparently is not as civil as I think he should be. When rallying support for a revert war at an article, he left this comment on a Wikipedians talkpage: "Zeno gone crazy again." and he even make a false claim about a 3rr violation. [11] -- Karl Meier 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Dude, what are you talking about? You are the one tryin to go around telling your friends to vote against him. He's only asking the ones that opposed him without any reason for their reasons. He's not attackin them. You on the other hand are making bad faith edits against him trying to gather opposition. I don't think that's fair. See this [12] [13] [14]. --Madhev0 18:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't tell anyone what to vote, just take a look at the diffs that you provided. All I said was "I thought that you might be interested in this request for adminship", and that not telling anyone what to vote. What AE on the other hand try to do is to make the editors that oppose his adminship look somehow suspecious, claiming that they are eighter "biased" against him or even "sockpuppets". I am not attacking anyone, or claiming that that his support voters are anything like that. -- Karl Meier 19:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   But oddly you chose all the anti Muslim editors, many who don't know anonym I think or editors that have something else against anonym. I don't care to discuss this anymore, because it isn't my Rfa, but you know what u did and it was unfair. You should be reported. Madhev0 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The accusations of POV editing leave me concerned; I don't think that POV editors should have rollback buttons at their disposal, in particular. Also he deleted votes from an AfD last month because they were unsigned. (But I do kind of like your username.) --Idont Havaname 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oppose. Ive had many bitter confrontations with Anon. At times in order to make the article Terrorism in Kashmir neutral, he would make it more biased and would often come up with inaccurate information. Certain comments left by him on my talkpage and on the article's discussion page, clearly show his attitude of getting into disputes and starting long flame wars; the reason why Im opposing his candiature. He has also violated the 3RR couple of times and has frequently removed information from articles backed by verfiable sources. I agree that Ive made some mistakes and thank AE for pointing them out, but the manner in which he resolves his disputes (especially the one with User:Idleguy) is certainly not acceptable. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Yes, I agree we have had bitter confrontations in the past, but we have always resolved our disputes. For example, on the State Terrorism article, we had a mishap where user:idleguy was involved and wanted to insert a large paragraph anti-Pakistan which you supported. After my extensive discussion with you, you said "I have no problems with recent edits uve made to state terrorism article. Cheers", which I assume was satisfaction with my efforts to make NPOV. Terrorism in Kashmir is a very hostile article and you and I worked out our disputes in a civil manner, before other editors started intruding and you mentioned this several times. I have resolved my disputes with both you and Idleguy. Also I have only violated the 3rr once (within my first week or two of editing as I stated above). But I respect your opinion Deepak and hope that you and I can work productively in the future. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   This is not very honest. There was at least also this 3RR on October 5 in Terrorism in Kashmir: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism_in_Kashmir&limit=500&action=history Kefalonia

   Resolving disputes with you is tiresome, since you constantly revert articles. I estimate that about 5% of your edits in the main namespace are reverts.You seem not to appreciate that reverting other people's work (even if you strongly disagree with it) is insulting to people who contribute in good faith. Personally, I don't contribute much to Islam related articles anymore, because I sick of dealing with editors like youself that will just revert anything they disagree with instead of trying to reach a concensus. I personally don't think that you need admin powers in the first place, or that if you had them, you would use them with wisdom and discretion. Klonimus 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Without passing judgment on his position in each case, the comments here generally reflect that this editor has been in many editing and revert disputes. While that is not a fault for editors per se, I am of the strong belief that administrators should be involved in as few edit wars as possible & thus try to build consensus. Right now we have way too many admins involved in way too many edit wars. - Rangerdude 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose Anonymous Editor is the least competent for to be the administrator of Wikipedia. His loyalty is neither to facts nor to Wikipedia. He has an agenda and that is to censor every criticism of Islam. This editor has no understanding of fair game and impartial opinion. He is a militant cyber jihadi. With this much impartiality I personally don’t think he is fit even to be an editor of Wikipedia let alone an administrator. I am also saddened to see my suspicion about SlimVirgin being an Islamist came true. Look how she is supporting the nomination of AE. In few pages that I helped editing Ali Sina, Islamophobia and Useful Idiots, these two members worked in cahoots, while AE reverted all my postings, SlimVirgin protected his version and blocked the page so I cannot edit. Then her mediation was also biased and unfair. We have to understand that the Islamists are on a mission to impose their religion on others. There are two wasy to do that. Deciet and terror. The Muslim editors in Wikipedia are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or taqiyyah as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism. Only those who do not know Islam, i.e. the useful idiot think there is a difference. In Islamic countries Muslims kill the critics of Islam and where they can’t do that they try to silence them with any means available to them, and they work in gangs. Not only I strongly oppose the self-nomination of this utterly biased individual, I also think SlimVirgin’s position should be evaluated and revoked. We have to keep religious zealotry out of Wikipedia. These Islamists should not hold any position of authority. If they do, others lose their freedom of expression. The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam. I am not an Islamophobe. I know Islam. Like thousands of others leaving Islam, I have also left Islam and know what I am talking. Do not let Muslims take control of Wikipedia. Today, virtually all the pages of Wikipedia that talk about Islam are filled with Islamic propaganda and lies, while if anyone posts any message contrary to their view; they accuse him of “contravening ALL the Wikipedia rules” as Slim Virgin accused me. I asked her to be specific three times. She failed to do that. I urge other members and administrators to look into what transpired between AE, SlimVirgin and me, and you be the judge! Wikipedia is no more an unbiased source of information when it comes to the subject of Islam. If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Wikipedia. Muslims work in gang and support each other no matter what. The reason is that they have pack mentality. They have divided the world in Muslims and Kafirs. They see themselves as brothers and the rest of us as infidles. Some of the names I see supporting AE’s nomination I recognize as Islamists. Muslims are militant and determined, the rest are laid back an easy going. We should not accept those supports. If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show. Be warned of Islamic militancy. Be very warned. OceanSplash18:56 24 October 2005

   (As Basil Fawlty:) Other than that, though, no problems with this nomination, I assume? BrandonYusufToropov 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Comment. OceanSplash is a new editor who's had some trouble editing within our NPOV and NOR policies — only because he's new, and I'm sure it'll sort itself out soon — but his view that everyone who opposes his edits is an Islamist needs to be read in that context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   Comment - It's not fair User:OceanSplash to accuse User:SlimVirgin and everybody of bias and indeed accuse them non-stop of being islamist hooligans. What Slim did is apply the rules of notability. The issue was so simple to be resolved. A threat from an anon opening his mouth wide from an online forum is not notable to be put in WP. What we agreed about is to use the threat everywhere except the intro as per Hugo Chavez and Pat Robertson. [15]. That was the position of everyone invloved in the discussion. Later on, you lost your temperament and stated that The death threats against Sina are part of the same pattern of assassinations and hooliganism with which Muslims systematically deal with the critics of Islam. We are witnessing this hooliganism right here in Wikipedia where Muslims have taken their terrorism to the cyberspace. [16]. Nobody replied to your personal attacks. Instead, we thought that the anon citation from an Islamic online forum to be placed somewhere else [17]. You disagreed for your some fair reasons you presented and I gave up and gently asking you to refrain from personal attacks. [18]. User:Karl Meier was discussing gently and we were heading for a consensus for the second time. Late, User:Grenavitar asked you gently to refrain from personal attacks [19] and presented a link to a possible sockpuppetry [20] . User:Raul654 also intervened (he rarely do so indeed) and asked you to refrain from personal attacks [21]. Nothing helped the case. Instead you replied to Grenavitar Asking you to convince your jihadi brothers to stop is not an insult. Aren’t all Muslims brothers? Aren’t the jihadis Muslims?[22]. It was after that time that you requested an RFC and SlimVirgin took the task and protected the page after there was a suspicion about a possible sockpupptry and then explained some WP rules while protecting the page. You then suggest and question the fact about SlimVirgin protection and say This subject is exhaustively discussed and both sides have expressed their views. There is nothing else to add and I think the point is clear. [23] while she explicitly explained her action [24]. You agreed [25] and we all were happy with the concensus [26]. That was it! However, after the page was unprotected, it was just like nothing happened and we had almost to start again the process! [27]. Summing up... Where are the hooligans? SlimVirgin, Me, Grenavitar, Anonymous, Raul654? -- Svest 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

   Damn, SlimVirgin — I thought you were a Zionist militant, and here you are an Islamist militant... What are you going to do in your spare time now that the IRA's decommissioned its weapons; knit balaclavas for the UDF? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   I can't believe I missed that — that is good comedy! El_C 12:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

   "This is how fascism operates"... indeed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

   "We have to keep religious zealotry out of Wikipedia"... "The Muslim editors in Wikipedia are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or taqiyyah as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism".. "The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam".. "Do not let Muslims take control of Wikipedia".. "they have pack mentality".. "Muslims are militant and determined".. "If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show". This guy's great, where did you get him from ? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose: not ready. Tree&Leaf 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose the issues raised above are unsettling. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose: not ready (and may not be any time soon). Strong bias in many edits Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 21:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose for now. This edit summary removing a POV check tag, and with an accusation of trolling against an, erm, anonymous editor, who explained his reasoning quite well on the talk page, looks wrong to me. Some good edits, though. Also, ditch the username. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually see discussion [28]. He/she was hostile against me and all the other editors there. And they discussed the tag and their addition of offensive material after they inserted it. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

    Well yes, sometimes editors do become quite hostile. The way to deal with this is--strangely--to be nice. If someone is being argumentative, calling him a troll isn't going to make him calm down. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Yes Tony. I admit that this was a minor error on my part. However, I did proceed to encourage the anon IP to edit productively and also left the dispute before things got ugly between him/her and the other editors on the page. Thank you for the advice. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose: Per Tony Sideway; the last thing we need are POV admins with Rollback and Protect.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M<;;/font>} 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

12. Oppose: I generally have a good working relationship with Anonymous Editor and I hope I don't lose his friendship by voting against adminship. However, I do think that he is less even-handed and even-tempered than he could be. He is not yet ready to be an admin, though it may be a possibility in the future. Zora 23:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose not convinced by allegations of Islam-bias brought up by previous oppose votes (dig up some diffs, people!). Calling an anon a troll is another matter entirely. I voted against a very good editor, NickBush24 on grounds of uncivility. I'm afraid I have to be consistent.Borisblue 00:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    I feel uncomfortable about supporting with what has been brought up. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

14. Oppose, I do not think the editor is ready for adminship. --Sn0wflake 06:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Too soon for adminship; too many personal attacks, POV edits, etc. for comfort. Maybe once more time has passed. --Briangotts (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Oppose I think you do good work, but I feel I have to oppose per Banes.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
17. Oppose - per Briangotts, Greg Asche, et al. Perhaps in the future. KillerChihuahua 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose - incivility, too much POV activity for comfort. Babajobu 15:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

    After reviewing some of the diffs on the Oppose side, particularly AEs insistence that persecution of gays is "irrelevant" to article on the persecuting organization, change to Strong Oppose. This guy should not be an admin. His religion is irrelevant; his commitment to advancing his POV on Wikipedia is not. Babajobu 09:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

19. ':Strong oppose' - unless the editor does some basic courses in logic, decency, secularism, civil behaviour, the list is too long. Unless we want wikipedia to become a meeting point of all Islamic fundamentalists such people should in fact be banned. On second thoughts, it won't make a difference, because editors like him always have puppet administrators like User:SlimVirgin, who, without using whatever little intellegence they have, simply follow what these Islamists have to say. Let me repeat... although by having a double digit birth rate these people have garnered all these votes to get adminship, if such a thing happens, wikipedia's future as a reliable encyclopedia would become uncertain. Editors like him stand for everything that wikipedia stands against. Muwaffaq 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet of User:Deeptrivia - David Gerard 15:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Double digit birth rate? These people? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    I suggest you point to edits of Anonymous' similar to this or you shut up in embarassment. I am surprised your account hasn't been terminated as "standing for everything that wikipedia stands against". Baad 06:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Muwaffaq used to think quite highly of Anonymous editor. On Germen's user page, where he keeps his list of Muslim editors, Muwaffaq said of Anonymous editor: "Seems to be quite a clever guy to me ... Has probably the best developed feeling of fair play of this list." Oddly, although the comment is attributed to Muwaffaq, it was added to the page by Germen. Thanks, Dmcdevit, I misread the comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Actually, Muwaffaq seems to be a classic troll (and a vandal) who mysteriously appeared after a month's absence to vote here. He never said anything good about AE, Germen was just thanking him for reminding him about AE. In fact, I don't know why Karl Meier is soliciting votes from an Islamophobic vandal, but it is not encouraging. So much of this RFA feels like just an exercise in troll-feeding, AE has my sympathy. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

20. Oppose - Had some really awful time with this guy while editing Lashkar-e-toiba and Islamophobia. Personal experience aside, I have observed discussions involving him on many talk pages. This religious fervor was last seen only during the crusades. deeptrivia 02:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Everyone has some POV, uncivil, and bad edits in thier past, I'm sure. There just seems to be too many here. I'd be unconfortable with this user being able to delete... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Could you provide some diffs on those numerous bad edits, if there's "too many here?" Above you, there seem to be a lot of with strong opinions accusing this editor of POV editing, but I haven't seen much evidence of it. --Aquillion 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Then you haven't read the whole page yet. Scroll down. Check the talk page. By the way, I don't base my vote on anyone elses, if that's where you're heading. --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    I'd also appreciate seeing the diffs. Dlyons493 Talk 16:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    You are welcome to. See the link posted directly below this comment. You, too, should probably read the whole page, including the talk page. --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    A large collection of diffs regarding this, is available here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor#Evidence -- Karl Meier 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    Just look at the bottom part of this page. Read the links, and decide for yourself. I feel as though I'm being asked to defend my vote, which I will not do. I voted what I voted because it's what I beleive. Big thank you to Karl Meier above for linking that. Thank you all for your interest in my vote. Next time I will be sure to only put "Oppose" or "Support". --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

22. Oppose: There's plenty of contention regarding this nominee here and on this RfA's talk page to highlight that he would be contentious as an administrator. --Durin 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose - The edit wars I've had with anon editor are too many to be told here, still I'll give a glimpse. He has blatantly violated the 3RR rule many times across various articles on which his knowledge is suspect. The main reason for all these edit war could be avoided if he had read some of the sources I had mentioned. In the talk page of Terrorism in Pakistan he says "it is very likely that he made it up" when I had clearly quoted the references for a statistic provided by a Pakistani author. His bad habit of not reading a single reference unless other contributor points the exact line/page is unbecoming of a future admin. In Terrorism in Kashmir he repeatedly removed the generic POV tag to one that suited his own brand of POV, i.e stating that the article's POV was only an Indian bias which I didn't agree to. Instead of discussing the issue in the talk page, he chose to revert it to his version. Infact I was the one to open up on the talk page and adressed the statements that were supposedly biased towards India. since then I'd requested if there were any further statements that I could improve upon, but he chose to avoid them and the talk page stands as proof for that. In Kargil War too he tried to tag it as POV just because he felt that a pro-islamist view should be told irrespective of the truth. Much of the statements were already taken from the references and the sub links in the references; however until I mentioned exact webpages anon was stubborn. The disturbing thing was that he resorts to calling others as biased when comments in this section clearly shows how biased he is. Also indulges in personal attacks with statements like "Idleguy's limited ability" here to get his point across. Though I don't have issues with him currently, I'm sure if this user becomes admin then it's going to be nothing but mayhem for any new contributor with valid references that anon hates to learn about and thus deletes them first and then wages an edit war until someone points out his folly. A case of blatant bias and NOT reading references properly. Definitely not the way forward. Idleguy 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
24. Oppose - Premature nomination. I don't care what a user's religious affiliation is. His/her actions is what's important. Here, this user is trying to justify his repeated removal [29] [30] [31] of a link to an article No dancing and no gays if Hamas gets its way (The Times of London, October 07, 2005) from the article Hamas because s/he thinks the issues of Hamas' prohibition of gays and dancing are "irrelevant", then the reason morphed into "the article is too short". The link was not added by me originally but when I disagreed, I was met with AE's ad homs, bad faith, threats with future retaliations and attempts to entagle Israel into the HAMAS and gays issue. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
25. Oppose for the reasons expressed above. Silensor 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
26. Oppose. There is some uncertainty over policy expressed in the answers below - thinking only admins can make it, for example. There is also a very small no. of Wikipedia: space edits. So I think I'd prefer to see some time spent familiarising with the processes that admins get involved in before acquiring the tools to effect those processes. Editcountitis in part, but experience-seeking in larger part. -Splash^talk 01:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    And, he's been campaigning for support [32], which I don't like very much. -Splash^talk 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    While I generally agree, the timing here looks more like counter campaigning for a nomination that seemed to be slipping away for not much reason. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Two wrongs ≠ a right. -Splash^talk 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

27. Strong Oppose, both support and oppose votes (as well as the user name and links to his edits) did a very convincing job of giving me a terrible impression of this user. As an aside, I am only here because of his attempt to campaign for votes, something that suggests a cliqueish intent. Keeping contentious users talk pages on my watchlist bears strange fruit... Sam Spade 03:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
28. Oppose, not because of the smear campign (shame on you people!) but because zero to admin in four months is too quick. Six months from now, I'd probably support.-- BBlackmoor ^(talk), 2005-10-27 T 04:00:49 Z
29. Strong Oppose. This character is too controversial and has too little intellectual integrity to entrust him with the responsibilities of adminship. He sees this probably as another venue to promote bias and silence critics. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 06:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
30. Oppose, Only because he is not ready yet. PMLF 06:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
31. Oppose, he makes 3RR violation allegations on others on talk pages instead of on the proper page. Looks more interested in rallying support for his position through numbers, and disparaging the opposition, than on the merits of the issues and the rules.--Silverback 09:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • There it is again. May I ask exactly what rule he violated by asking a fellow editor (me) to take a look at a borderline case? If he had made a formal complaint, you would have attacked him for doing so erroneously. Instead, he asked someone else to take a look at the edits, and no action was taken --- so you attack him for that.

    To be honest, my friend, your track record is evidence that you are not the most suitable Wikipedia editor for this endeavour. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    Which endeavor are you referring to, Germen?BrandonYusufToropov

    • I guess if AE accepts an invitation to take a ride in a hot-air balloon, he's an exhibitionist .... and if he declines the invitation, he's a coward. BrandonYusufToropov 09:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Your statement would be more convincing, if it was AE who had mentioned that it was a borderline case, rather than just complaining about a user.--Silverback 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • The question remains: What rule did he break? And here's another one: Are you quite certain you mean to say that someone who complains about the behavior of another editor is, by definition, unfit to be an admin? BrandonYusufToropov 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

32. Oppose per above.  Grue  13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
33. Oppose Use of edit summaries appears extremely sporadic. Say a dozen in a row and then a dozen without. Also, out of 4000 edits very few in Wiki namespace. Just twelve on Wiki talk (and presumably two or three in ref to this nom). Not that you have to sit around yip-yapping but I can't be certain of familiarity with policy. Marskell 13:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
34. STRONG OPPOSE Openly admits to strong POV bias, it may seem petty, but if an editor with a, god forbid, chrsitian centric POV started pushing it into articles he'd be stripped of his admin powers in a second, yet you people don't seem to have any problem with double standards, it's like afirmative action for admins, you go out of your way to nominate a known POV warrior, just for being anti-christian--Sir.Salmon Fish^{The First} 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
35. I was going to support, because I thought he was a good editor, but once here, seeing soooo much division, I don't think he would make a great face for Wikipedia. Everybody just needs to take a breath and relax about everything. I will support in the future if everything calms down. Sorry, oppose. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
36. Oppose. He is not ready yet. Maybe in the future. Carioca 16:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. He has made many good contributions since his arrival, however, the oppose argument worries me somewhat. If Klonimus can provide an example of bad behavior in controversial topics, then I'll vote oppose. If not, then I will support. Banes 08:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Awaiting answer to my question below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Neutral I dont know. Im really confused over the issue. Anon has tried hard at times to settle his disputes with other users but at times he would also balantly revert edits w/o even reading them and claiming them to be POV just because they are against his beliefs. There are many examples for this: in this revert, Anon claims a very famous Indian media site to be a blog site. One can also notice the long edit wars he had with User:Idleguy. I purposely stayed out of it because I didnt wanna have a similar edit/flame war with Anon again! In this edit he claimed the riots in Gujarat as an act of state terrorism by the Indian govt! Anon refuses to accept his lack of information about an issue at times which really annoys me. To end, he's devoted a lot of time in making some useful contributions to wikipedia; the only reason why I am changing my vote. I do appreciate Anon's efforts to remove POV from articles but at times he removes POV from one side and adds from the other (/opposite). --Deepak|वार्ता 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thank you for your display of semi-impartiality. It will help towards the future. However, I have explained all my edits in the past and tried not to insert anything people would dispute, but I will not get into that now. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

   Changing my vote. I may support later. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I do sympathize with some concerns raised about POV issues. I also agree with Idonthavaname's concern regarding AfD process. That said, I am equally concerned that some oppose votes may be motivated primarily by a POV-battle in which I have no involvement, and no wish to become involved. I will be interested to see how user's conduct is modified in response to issues raised here. Xoloz 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. There is so much written on this that it is difficult to form a balanced judgement. Certainly some opposition appears to be POV-war influenced and some of the diffs I've spot-checked appear to be arguable either way. In no case that I've seen, has this candidate descended to the level of personal abuse of some editors that one comes across. So I'd certainly hope to be able to support in a few months. Dlyons493 Talk 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Fadix 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to neutral. The reason being that I feel unconfortable with some of the edits I've read in the talk page. I wish therefor to not take position for the time being. Fadix 00:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I'm close to a weak support. I would like to see more consistent use of edit summaries and a bit more involvement with policy. Overall, I mostly agree with the support voters and I'm rather surprised at the level of opposition. Carbonite | Talk 15:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments and questions

See talk page for other comments Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor (Please don't remove link).

Questions for the candidate
A not generic question

Would you be willing to change your name to avoid confusion if granting you adminstrative status were conditional on it?

Yes, I would have no problem with changing my user name. It will indeed avoid confusion, because many times anonymous IP addresses use my signature and sometimes I get mistaken for anon IPs (as I say on my talk page). Thanks :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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.)

A. All the chores I currently do now + more. Currently I: revert vandalism on a wide range of articles, warn users who vandalize and report them, and deal with the concerns of editors in a decent and honest manner even if they don't concern me directly. As an admin I feel I would be effective in:

• reverting vandalism (five times the rate I revert at now)
• blocking and unblocking vandal users (this should speed up because I won't even have to report them to an admin)
• protecting pages with edit warring &
• performing the Deletion and undeletion of articles.

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

A. Yes, I am pleased with the ones that I can make major edits to and not have people negate those edits. This of course means that there is a huge list of these articles, but there is also a list of article with disputes most of which I have solved with compromise and on good terms involved with the other party. I am equally proud of these and the ones I have made major edits in.

I feel privileged to be editing an encyclopedia where there is no limit to the amount of information that can be added. Here are some of my recent major contributions to articles I am satisfied with: Pakistan(for which I got a barnstar), Isa,Iblis, Moses, Halaal and Qur'an.

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. Of course. I have been in as many disputes as anyone else, perhaps more. I feel that editors voting here should note that I work in the most disputed of articles mostly, which are religion and politics. I don't think that there is anyone out there who won't find disputes on these articles. I try not to feel stressed out in such situations and help the other party involved to do the same. In the past I have solved all my disputes with the other parties and even self-settled a mediation involving me, without the mediator involved ;). To see an example of dispute solving, see the Jesus article, where I solved every dispute out of the 4 or 5 that I had with other editors. They were happy and I was happy.

4. Looking over your contributions, you don't seem to have had much activity in "policy" space. Can you explain how you think that this might impact your ability to function as an admin? 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) I thought only admins could get involved in policy making, that's probably why I refrained from contributing to policy. As an admin I will be very keen to help with policy wherever necessary or possible. I am well aware of most of these policies because of my encounters with vandalism and dealing with pov pushers. So, I feel confident that I will be good for this task. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Again, looking over your contributions, most of your contributions seem to have been fairly focused. As an admin you'd be expected to operate over a larger range some times. Do you feel familiar enough with the broader Wikipedia to do so? 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. No doubt about it. If I can deal with the most controversial articles in the wikipedia, I can deal with anything else. I would be happy to RC patrol and check out some of the problematic areas of wikipedia. Also if any editor or admin needs assistance on an article which I have some knowledge of, I will be happy to help them. Many admins focus on specific tasks like vandalism, categorizing, etc. and that is fine, but I will also be happy to focus on a variety of tasks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

6.There has been some concern about your editting of controversial (Islam-related) articles. How do you plan on using (or not using) your admin capabilities on these articles? Wikipedia:Protected page states, "[d]o not protect a page on which you are involved in an edit dispute". How do you interpret that and apply that concept to other admin powers such as reverting, blocking users, etc. (asked by gren グレン)

Well I will stick with the policy. If I am involved directly within a dispute, I will not protect the page and neither will I block the users involved, unless they are committing outright vandalism. It's as simple as that. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

7This is from Idleguy: As an admin you should have moved the following previously posed follow up question to the proper section instead of removing it altogether from here. Why was it not done? Is it because you don't want to answer them?

8 The original question following your response to Q.#2 was "If you were really interested in removing copyvio and improving said articles you should have noticed that in Pakistan there is not a single reference provided for the entire article. Some were, and still are, riddled with factual inaccuracies. Or that a good portion of the images used in that article were copyvios/unfree until I'd marked them so?"

9 One more question from Idleguy. As a future admin will you first read references before starting edit wars and accuse others of bias; can you stay cool in the face of evidence that conflicts with your personal values and allow them to be included in Wikipedia? Idleguy 03:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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.