Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alkivar 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Alkivar

Final (69/20/8) ended 07:09 November 8, 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar (talk · contribs) – Jonathan Cary has been actively contributing to Wikipedia since June 2004. Since Alkivar joined the Wikipedia project, he has successfully raised 2 articles to WP:FA status, contributed a wealth of NASA-related documents to Wikisource, and a number of photographs as either public domain or GFDL. Aside from article development, Alkivar also spends a fair amount of time interacting on AFD, RFA, and reverting vandalism. According to Kate's edit counter, he has accumulated approximately 7,000 edits, roughly 15% of which are to the project and project talk namespace. [1] Alkivar has proven to be an invaluable contributor and someone I trust would make fine use of the admin tools and with that I give him my full support. Hall Monitor 22:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Previous nominations: 1, 2

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this 3rd nomination, and hope this time that the community finds me ready.  ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Third time the charm ;) --JAranda | watz sup 23:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Support Good editor. I always take note when I see that sig. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, a very allround user and good guy, already active in admin-type stuff. I quote myself from last time round: "not a great diplomat, but I believe he has learned a lot from the conflicts he's been in, and will be a better admin for them." Come on, are we going to keep doing this until he's Kofi Annan? Bishonen | talk 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Support I'm able to overlook the past incivility if you can promise it won't happen when you are an admin. Admins are and should be held to a higher standard of conduct, they are the face of Wikipedia. Also had good experiences with his user. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   I believe my actions since my last nomination should speak to my change of conduct, but if you require a promise: "I hereby promise to not be uncivil when dealing with other users"  ALKIVAR™ 00:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Sensible. Recent conduct has been fine. JFW | T@lk 00:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. While I personally haven't been around long enough to have full knowledge of the candidate's past incivility issues, I do not believe he has shown any incivility towards others between his 2nd and current nomination. Just make sure you use more edit summaries. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Support! Has clearly learned from his mistakes. He's not Desmond Tutu, but who is? He deserves the mop, I think.--Sean Black | Talk

   Desmond Tutu is, if I recall correctly. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   Is he, or is that just what he wants you to think :) ?--Sean Black | Talk 03:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   Speaking of which, why is Shania Twain singing "So you're Brad Pitt. That don't impress me much."? It's not as if Brad Pitt can suddenly stop being Brad Pitt or anything. — JIP | Talk 10:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

   Support, and I hope he passes this one. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

9. As (twice) before. — Dan | Talk 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Support--Pamri • Talk 03:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Support freestylefrappe 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Well done, dude. You've learned how to fake it. You can return to being you when you've got the badge, hey? Grace Note 03:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
13. Support the New England Cabal. Whoops, WP:TINC. I'm surprised he wasn't an admin already, to quote a cliche. Karmafist 22:34, 31 October 2005
14. Support--Duk 04:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Support --tomf688^{talk} 04:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
16. Support, I mildly opposed the first time, but I was confident Alkivar would take to heart some editors' concerns about civility issues, and I'm happy to see that he has. He'll make a great admin. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
17. Support Has always been an excellent user in my experience. Tuf-Kat 05:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
18. I've had positive experiences with Alkivar. Having myself encountered the user that he mentions in response to Andrevan below, I think anyone would have difficulty maintaining their cool in the face of such persistence. I also applaud anyone brave enough to continue contributing to articles such as Warez despite their ridiculous level of anon-edit entropy. —Cryptic (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Support – forget the past, move on, he's human after all. And his recent posts on Tony's talk was really good. User:Nichalp/sg 07:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
22. Support I was instrumental in Alkivar's second nomination, and still think he'd be a good admin. Grutness...wha? 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
23. Support like last time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. Yamaguchi先生 08:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
25. Does my butt look big in this? — JIP | Talk 08:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
26. Not just 75% support! Energetic, scrupulous; good chap, will go far. So hand him the fairy liquid, the squeegee, and some overalls. --Hoary 11:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
27. Support, good editor, I like him, would like him to be an admin. Babajobu 12:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
28. FireFox (RFA) 13:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
29. Support long overdue.  Grue  13:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
30. NERG NERG NERG --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 14:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
31. Support. Edit summaries are not the end of the world, but please try to use them more often. Silensor 15:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. It's time. --Avatar-en 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
33. Support this time around. Don't let us down on the edit summaries! Fawcett5 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
34. Support 3rd time lucky, lets hope. — Wackymacs 17:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
35. Support three times is enough, he's proven himself.Gator(talk) 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
37. Support Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 22:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
38. Support --Rogerd 23:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
39. Support death to editsummarycountitis. ~~ N (t/c) 23:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

    I would also like to speak out loudly and clearly against this notion. Edit summaries are important, it is not ok to not use them and we should emphatically not be condoning inconsistent use of them. It makes RC patrol infinitely easier, it makes watchlisting very much easier and it takes a few seconds. Anything less than 95% isn't really good enough, imho, especially from an admin candidate. -Splash^talk 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

40. Support -- Rich Farmbrough 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
41. Absolutely. `` +sj + 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
42. Support because he seems to have improved. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
43. Support for a third time, with pleasure. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
44. support thought he was already an admin ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
45. support I don't often vote here, but when I do, I only vote No! if it's utterly warranted as no. The accusations of vote pandering are bogus. I don't expect to ever be nominated, so if we should think that voting here is pandering, why should I vote? The editor who accused Alkivar of "buttering up" should be sanctioned. There's no good faith there! Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 00:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
46. Derex @ 02:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
47. Support, go fish. —RaD Man (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
48. Support. utcursch | talk 05:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
49. I thought $USER was already one - David Gerard 17:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
50. Support - seen him plenty - being civil and a nice. See no reason to think he'd abuse his powers. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 23:43
52. Support -- Karl Meier 21:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
53. Support- no signs of bad behavior since last RfA. Broken S 07:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
54. Support: yes, Once upon a time syndrome should be modified as the time passes. --Bhadani 11:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
55. Support - after looking over the votes and giving it some thought, am going to continue with my initial impulse to support. I've never noted any incivility when I see this user around and, despite an annoyingly infrequent use of edit summaries, the overall level of involvement is impressive. - BanyanTree 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
56. Xtreme this-vote-is-too-close-not-to support. Great contributor, civility issues seem to have been resolved (and I can forgive him for that recent ALL CAPS thing) - but please, remember that everytime you save without a summary, God kills a kitten. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
57. Dangerously Xtreme Support, because I love this guy like a brother! Babajobu 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
58. Support - Nevica 21:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
59. Support. Kirill Lokshin 23:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
60. Support Fadix 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
61. Strong Support great editor - third time's a charm!--Nicodemus75 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
62. Support. I am impressed by the progress made since previous nomination which I opposed. This is an experienced editor who I do not think would abuse admin powers. Jonathunder 02:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
63. Support. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)}
64. Support for reasons well-known Rex^(talk) 19:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
65. Support per above. --Briangotts (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. a hothead sure but a dedicated wikipedian hothead BL kiss the lizard 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. I'm just stopping in briefly to support Alkivar. I've opposed in the past, but I think enough progress has been made. Carbonite | Talk 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
68. support. Yuckfoo 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
69. Missed this nom... but support. Serious and trustworthy user. And the opposes on the grounds of "not enough edit summaries" baffle me... adminship should be no big deal; and not a style-guide quiz. If this one fails, I hope Alkivar is renom'ed in less than three months. +sj + 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    Added after official close of 22:13 November 7, 2005.  ALKIVAR™ 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Has a still recent history of incivility. Strong oppose. Andre (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Moved to Neutral, see below.

• Could you please point out some examples. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• So that everyone may make an informed decision, please WP:CITE examples of your concerns between Alkivar's second nomination and now. Hall Monitor 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Oppose. The low usage of Edit summaries is bad enough, but the fact that this was already brought up on his previous RfA but didn't affect his behaviour one bit is indicative of his old I'll do things my way and the rest of you can bite me attitude that doomed his two previous nominations. Civilized behaviour is not just about avoiding calling people "morons", it's also about following the rules and customs of this community. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   you will note that the "morons" comment was left prior to my second nomination, please look at my behaviour since that point.  ALKIVAR™ 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   That's correct. To clarify, both the "morons" and the "bite me" comments were made prior to the second nom. My comment was solely about your usage of Edit summaries since the second nom, as a continuation of a pattern. Owen× ☎ 00:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose I'm a bit concerned that after 2 RFAs, nominee still hasn't learnt to use edit summaries. However credit to you for learning to be civil. I just feel that summaries are important for admins, as they have to deal with a lot of contentious stuff, and edit summaries are a good way to prevent misunderstanding and needless conflict. Also, in not upping the edit summary count it seems to show nominee's lack of regard of the opinions of those who brought up the "edit summary" objection in the previous RFAs. Admins should be sensitive to the opinions of the community, and I'm afraid Alkivar has failed to fully demonstrate this in his summary count. Borisblue 04:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
3. I lean towards weak oppose for now. User seems to lack an edit summary box and a show preview button. See Unclean animal for example of what I mean. Also seems to set fairly unreasonable standards for adminship IMO. I don't see this nom failing, so please do try and do better. Thank you. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Oppose per others. Private Butcher 19:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose edit summaries, lack thereof; RFA voting patterns, whilst on the platform Alkivar has supported most of the current candidates, but in the recent past has opposed other candidates — my conclusion is that he is buttering up the other candidates so they will support him. --redstucco 09:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   Comment: Taken literally, there seems nothing odd whatever about supporting most of one set of candidates and opposing some of another set of candidates; but what with the allegation of "buttering up", I decided to do a little investigation. June sounds like "the recent past", and I happened to see Kelly Martin among those listed as successful candidates. So I started right there, and worked forward until overcome by tedium, finding:

   • Feco, 6 July 2005 NVNC
   • Starblind, 6 July 2005 NVNC
   • Woohookitty, 6 July 2005 NVNC
   • Vsmith, 5 July 2005 NVNC
   • Craigy144, 4 July 2005 Support
   • Spangineer, 3 July 2005 NVNC
   • Hedley, 2 July 2005 Support
   • Mzajac, 2 July 2005 NVNC
   • R3m0t, 1 July 2005 Support
   • Allen3, 1 July 2005 NVNC
   • Bratsche, 1 July 2005 NVNC
   • FCYTravis, 30 June 2005 NVNC
   • Y0u, 30 June 2005 NVNC
   • Willmcw, 28 June 2005 NVNC
   • Ta bu shi da yu, 28 June 2005 NVNC
   • Sn0wflake, 25 June 2005 NVNC
   • JoJan, 24 June 2005 NVNC
   • TenOfAllTrades, 22 June 2005 Support
   • TheoClarke, 22 June 2005 NVNC
   • Grue, 21 June 2005 NVNC
   • Guettarda, 21 June 2005 NVNC
   • Schissel, 20 June 2005 NVNC
   • Grm wnr, 18 June 2005 NVNC
   • Kbdank71, 17 June 2005 NVNC
   • Sjakkalle, 17 June 2005 NVNC
   • JeremyA, 16 June 2005 NVNC
   • Kelly Martin, 15 June 2005 NVNC

   Where the meaning of Support is obvious, and NVNC is "no vote, no comment". This excludes unsuccessful candidacies, but nevertheless may serve to give a picture of the Alkivar's fairly recent voting pattern. --Hoary 09:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   1 November: 7 supports, no opposes

   29 October : 1 oppose, 0 supports

   28 October: 2 oppose, 1 support

   18 October: 2 oppose, 1 support

   17 October: 1 oppose, 0 support including the comment "oh dear god no" #[2], #which seems a little too dramatic for my liking

   15 October: 3 opposes, 6 supports

   11 October: 1 support

   5 October: 1 Neutral

   4 October: 1 Oppose

   3 October: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral.

   You have opposed 15 other admin candidates, supported 13... and suddenly when you yourself are up for the post yourself, you give only support votes. Oh and if there are any errors in my calculations, it's becuase you gave no edit summary whilst voting making it difficult to see what you were up to. --redstucco 10:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   If you look at my standards for a support vote, I look for 2000 edits and above, and sufficient time on Wiki as to notice behavior trends, people complaining of my short fuse made me pay much closer attention to that in other users. The most recent round of nominees were users with more time and larger edit counts hence I felt supporting them was apt whereas most of the oppose votes were users with 1000-1600 edits and less than 6 months on wiki, or serious temperment issues such as was indicated on Tony1's rfa. Please note edit counts/time next to my votes and you'll clearly see this is not me looking for reciprocal votes.  ALKIVAR™ 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. Nothing wrong with adding errors, unless it is deliberate. However, telling bald faced lies about it afterward is a problem. [3] [4] AlistairMcMillan 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   Alistair, the diffs you are providing are from February 2005, nearly 9 months ago. From time to time, all of us make mistakes or say things we might regret, to err is human. If this is your basis for opposition, I do sincerely wish that you would reconsider. Hall Monitor 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose, I have nothing personal against the editor, but I believe he is a tad too controversial for sysop rights. --Sn0wflake 17:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Oppose, much per Sn0wflake. I just get a off-centre vibe from this editor a touch too frequently, and I'm not clear on what has changed since the last nom. -Splash^talk 00:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I'm just not very comfortable with this candidate. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
10. Reluctantly oppose. I don't care about edit summaries, but civility is very important (comment Andre highlighted below was enough for me). Proto t c 12:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. He worries me. Not enough evidence that his behaviour has changed, especially if he still doesn't even use edit summaries. His first RfA nomination also implies to me that he would need to have a huge change in personality, the kind that doesn't happen in just 8 months, to make a good admin. Also, he didn't satisfactorily point to a dispute he has resolved civilly since his last nomination. RSpeer 15:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Civility is a must. Jacqui ^{★ 08:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}
13. Oppose. I'm not comfortable with the users edits and policies. feydey 13:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
14. Oppose — Alivar certainly is a valuable editor and has improved since the last nomination. However, the edit summary from a week or two ago leads me to oppose. While I understand his frustration, that is no reason to be impolite or rude to anyone. Not only will edit summaries like those aggravate the situation, but it will also increase the tensions. We have other ways to deal with vandals and problem-users; in addition, society is often judged by how we treat the lowest, not how we treat the highest. Continue the improvement, and I will gladly support you in the future. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
15. Oppose for now since I want to hear more comments before I decide. I'd think about it. --JuntungWu 04:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    Was this actually meant to be an oppose or a neutral? Your comment seems neutral since you dont specify an actual opposing reason. Is there a reason you are currently opposed? Do you have a question you'd like answered?  ALKIVAR™ 06:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    I am sorry but I do find your dealing with other users make me reluctant to support your adminship. JuntungWu 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

16. Oppose, user still has a tendency towards incivility. - ulayiti (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • oppose If behaviour tonight is typical, unsuitable to be admin. Uncivility still a problem. Alkivar and I were at cross purposes last night over our disagreement. We have both realised that. It was a misunderstanding. He stumbled into a very sensitive issue (the edit war from hell where I had brokered a peace deal) and didn't realise the full sensitivity. (Few would.) I didn't realise that unlike others he was trying to being constructive, not destructive. I am withdrawing my opposition and intend to support his nomination instead. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)}

    This is a revenge opposition from a user in an edit conflict with me. Jtdirl and I have sorted this issue out.  ALKIVAR™ 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

    No. A user who had not experienced you until tonight and who found themselves dealing with someone who took offence when it was pointed out that an action of theirs was contrary to the MoS and then then found themselves dealing with your tantrum afterwards on other pages. You seem to be someone who thinks that you have a right to break rules and when stopped, someone who throws a tantrum. My reaction was simple: "and this guy wants to be an admin!!! Zeech!" Am changing vote to support. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)}

17. I opposed both of Alkivar's last two RFAs, and while I'm not convinced that anything has, in fact, changed (I still see a lack of edit summaries, and I am still very concerned about this editor's ability to maintain an even temper in conflict), I am not going to bother with what is likely to be an overwhelming pass. I just hope that he does not live up to my fears and cause trouble in the long run. Neutral It seems that the problems haven't been fixed. Switching to Oppose. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC), vote changed Kelly Martin (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
18. Oppose. CDThieme 19:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
19. Oppose. For disregarding the use of edit summaries when told to do so in previous RfAs. Otherwise excellent contributor. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Change to Oppose. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    Changed after official close of 22:13 November 7, 2005.  ALKIVAR™ 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now at least. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)Moved to support Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 22:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Apparently all my incivility concerns were actually before the second nomination (I just checked), so I won't oppose, however, I still find Alkivar to be often unprofessional and at times needlessly jumpy (edit summary from 23:00, October 26, 2005 rv... what PART OF DO NOT INCLUDE WEBSITES AND MEMBER NAMES DO YOU NOT GET!?!?!?!?!). Neutral leaning oppose. Andre (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

   if you read the edit history for List of warez groups you will see that was towards User:DickyRobert who has reverted the page 30+ times under various sockpuppets, the same user who sent me threatening emails, and made legal threats against me. He had already been blocked numerous times, for reverting to a version with websites and member names that is CLEARLY indicated as do not include. You will note that I then sought out an admin to protect the page and to sort the solution out.  ALKIVAR™ 03:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Will support if he commits to using edit summaries. Neutral for now.--Scimitar ^parley 14:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
3. neutral edit summaries are a big deal for me Tedernst 15:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Like some of the other views, please work on your edit summaries. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
5. I'm not ready to support, though I see a lot of positive things. Therefore a neutral won't keep this nom from being successful. What most impresses me is that after 2 failed noms you're still plugging away and trying to make an impact here and improve yourself. On that note, please take note of the requests to use edit summaries. Why not just do it for every edit to get in the habit, even if it's only "rvv", "grmr", or "spelling"? I normally vote straight oppose for lack of edit summaries because I think they are valuable. - Taxman ^Talk 13:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
6. Tough one. Though I think that his edits to Warez were justified and I think his contributions have been great, I don't think he's done a great job of reacting appropriately. In particular, I'm concerned that he hasn't responded to Alistair McMillan's questions. It's also a little troubling that after two RFAs, both of which harped on his lack of edit summaries, he still is not doing a great job of using them, especially when his edits are as contentious as what has been brought up so far. Hopefully I'll get a chance to check back into this RFA before its closed and make a decision with more time to look into it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

   In all honesty I completely did not see Alistairs questions, I've been rather busy this past week helping a friend move from Lisbon, Maine to Augusta, Maine into a house that is currently not insulated and in need of plumbing and heating repair (and winter in Maine is approaching quite quickly).  ALKIVAR™ 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

7. After reading everything. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 05:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
8. Neutral, but with a comment. Alkivar opposed my own RfA not long ago. He certainly has the right to vote against me, and I don't hold that against him (which is why this is a neutral), but I found his reason for opposing me rather silly. His objection was that I didn't have a high enough edit count at the time. It seems like a very mechanical way to go about making decisions. I think we want admins who exercise good judgement, not those who add up numbers and see if they exceed some magic threshold or not. Looking over his contribs, I see things like many (I didn't count, but it's probably over 100) edits to List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II during a week or so this October. It certainly gets his edit count up, but in what way does it prepare him for being an admin? --RoySmith 14:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me make it perfectly clear, I dont dislike you, and don't think you make a bad admin. I just felt (and still feel that) less than 2000 votes especially for someone who does RC/Vandal patrolling seems awful low, heck I know new users who managed more than 1500 edits in 3 weeks doing just rc patrolling. I know sockpuppets with 5000+ edits! It wasnt a statement on your edit quality or your methods, I just felt it was low for someone who was an "active rc patroller".

Now as for the B-26 Marauder list, my edit count does get artificially inflated when working on it for a couple reasons: 1) It is a really long list so I generally work by editing sections not the whole page at once. 2) Because of that fact its sometimes hard to see how an image affects the preceeding or following sections, which I then have to make another edit to fix. 3) I've changed styles for the listing at least 2 or 3 times which also led to a higher edit count.

As for preparing me to be an admin, I also spend time vandal patrolling and following RC, as well as having a high level of interaction on community pages as well as IRC. It is this I believe that makes me prepared, not any one article I've edited. Does this help answer your questions better? I'd be more than happy to talk with you regarding my percieved editcountitis.  ALKIVAR™ 19:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, please improve your use of edit summaries. Overall use is 34% over the last 5,000 edits, 41% over the last 500 edits. --Durin 23:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is actually lower than mine was, but it was not hard to get up for my last hundred edits :).Voice of All ^{Talk|@|Esperanza} 23:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • EEK! I didn't realize it was quite so low, I tend to not put an edit summary on a minor edit (but I'm bad about remembering to click the "this is a minor edit" box). I promise I will work on this in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Would you care explaining what happened here and here? AlistairMcMillan 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  Kiand and I had a disagreement over when the BeOS was originally developed, as I could not find what I was looking for in my attic to back my claims I simply stopped arguing the point.  ALKIVAR™ 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• There's been a lot of dark muttering above about an alleged lack of "civility". However, I don't see much substance to these allegations. Where's the (post second nomination) beef? Moreover, some people say that Alkivar makes them feel "uncomfortable". Well, no wonder: his ORANGE name is immediately followed by a radioactive graphic: his sig gave me the willies too, at first. Should he perhaps use a more soothing color? -- Hoary 11:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's particularly hurting him. In fact, I figured that the radioactive sig was helping him; I imagine that more people remember who he is than would if he had a less noticeable sig. rspeer 05:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

    Added after official close of 22:13 November 7, 2005.  ALKIVAR™ 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Well i've spent time following RC and marking copyvio/spam, not to mention simple vandal fighting. Rollback would simply make this process easier.  ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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

A. Well i'm most proud of Colditz Castle as I did the majority of the work on that turning it into a Featured article that made the main page. I spent a lot of effort getting Graffiti through the FA process and also saw it featured on the main page.

Recently I have been working on Unclean animals (on PR now) and List of units using the B-26 Marauder during World War II (which I hope to have run through Featured Lists soon) and B-26 Marauder which I aim to have on PR for a run sometime in December. I've extensively reworked Warez (which failed its first run at FAC, but I hope to renominated in December).

I've turned several minor stubs into really good articles: Crazy Legs (diff), Rock Steady Crew (diff), Carswell Air Force Base (diff) and Richard Marcinko (diff).

I've also completely written from scratch several articles i'm proud of: Horace S. Carswell, Jr., Eli Thomas Reich, and Henry Chalfant  ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

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. Certainly, but I feel I've learned from my past mistakes, and I aim to do better in the future. As far as stress goes, I've received personal attacks from anonymous vandals, legal threats, and email threats from anon users because I tried sticking to policy in not allowing clear copyvio and webspam. Sure it bothers me, I wouldnt be human if it didnt, but I try my best to not go out and antagonize them, and give them a fair hearing even when that photo is obviously not {{fairuse}}.  ALKIVAR™ 23:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

4. Your last two nominations were rejected, mainly because the community saw 'civility issues'. Specifically, please show one or more situations where you could have been more civil in the past, and show one or more disputes since your last RFA where you have acted civilly. -- Ral315 (talk)

Well I can only think of the fact that I've had several anonymous users complain about my work on Warez (Talk:Warez#Criticism_on_Alkivar) and List of warez groups (because I keep reverting their webspam). I have tried my best to respond to each and every one of their criticisms and involve neutral third parties to mediate any significant disputes.  ALKIVAR™ 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

5a Alkivar, I have several questions which I hope you can question. First, for your signature do you use ~~~~ or do you still use {{User:Alkivar/Sig}}?

Currently I am only using ~~~~ (I believe I already had my /sig page speedied if not it can be...)  ALKIVAR™ 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

5b Second, if I remember correctly (and I may not), several users have brought into question not only the use of a transcluded signature which you used, but the use of an image in your signature. Am I correct, and if so, is there a reason the image is still in your signature? If an image in your signature increased server strain, would you be willing to replace it?

as for the image, in an IRC conversation with one of the dev's I was told the image in my sig was a negligable (sp?) load difference, but that the transclusion was bad. As such i stopped using the /sig template and use the ~~~~ instead. If another dev showed me that my sig image was actually causing a problem I would willingly remove it.  ALKIVAR™ 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

5c Finally, regarding this edit on October 27]: I know you've briefly explained the situation above, but could you clarify why you think it is OK to appear impolite to even suspected vandals? I apologize for the grilling :-), but I'd appreciate it if you could answer those questions. Thanks very much. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is ok to appear impolite to this particular user, here is my reasoning: 1) user had been blocked already by this point 6 times all for the same exact reason. 2) user had been notified by multiple admins as to why he was blocked and the specific rationale. 3) user had STILL done the same revert (and been reverted back by more than just me) with edit summaries to the effect of "please stop readding web addresses" 4) the page itself CLEARLY states at the top (in a comment only visible in edit mode) that this is not to be added and will be reverted on sight. 5) user as of TODAY Nov. 2nd is STILL making this same revert. It was simply me trying to get the point across to a very very thick headed vandal/troll. If you feel I have stepped over the line in this case I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree with you.  ALKIVAR™ 01:50, 3 November 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.