Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WITHDRAWAL

[edit]

The following message was posted after the messages below:

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)[reply]

I've closed the vote. Thank you for your gracious response, AE. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everything SV. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are a classy dude, AE. Please do run again.BrandonYusufToropov 19:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BYT. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OceanSplash's comments from the project page

[edit]

(comment Ocean was responding to) 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)[reply]

I responded to the above notes and AnonymousEditor removed it. Here is what I wrote:
Those are the exact traits that disqualify him for the job of administration. An administrator must be fair and unbiased not someone who can alienate those newcomers that happen to disagree with his personal POVs. If your idea of a good administrator is a despot, then you have a good candidate. But how can this serve Wikipedia that is supposed to present both sides of an argument without bias?
AE removed it and said "Please do not make personal attacks against me or anyone else especially in the support section." Why not dear AE? This is a place for discussion. Someone said somethig that in my veiw has to be countred. Why I should be silenced. Why you have to remvoe my postings? Don't we have people posting supporting you in the opposing section? So why no one is allowed to write opposing you in the support section. Do you see the contradition? You are not fit for the job my friend. You say don't make personal attacks. I am not saying things that do not concern us. These are things that are very much connected with the job you are seeking. If you want to be an administrator you must have the qualifications. You do not have it. If we are not allowed to explain why you are unfit for the job, what else do you want us to talk about? This is another evidence that you are not cut for the job. OceanSplash24:19 24 October 2005
SlimVirgin: I respond to you in this page so everyone can see the kind of biased person that you are: You wrote this in my talk page: “You've said here and elsewhere that I haven't explained how your edits violated policy. As I believe I wrote on Talk:Ali Sina and here, you must produce good sources for your edits, especially once they've been challenged. Ali Sina can't be used as a source (except in the article about himself), partly because he's anonymous but mostly because he self-publishes on his own website. If Ali Sina has an article published by a credible newspaper, then we can use him as a reference. Please do read our policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, if you're prepared to remove Ali Sina's material from Islamophobia, the other editors might agree to leave the rest of your material, so you should make this proposal on Talk:Islamophobia and then perhaps I can unprotect it. I'm not allowed to edit the article myself because I've protected it. All I can do is make suggestions with a view to resolving the dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)”
What is good source SlimVirgin? Isn’t that a highly personal view? Is any anti Islamic site good at all in your opinion? I hate the Quran and I don’t think that book is good for nothing, am I allowed to ban references to it because I find it disgusting? Ali Sina is an apostate and as it happens his site is the most popular site created by ex-Muslims that directly challenges Islam. Yes we have much more famous apostates like Salman Rushie. But Mr. Rushdie does not run an anti Islam site. You call faithfreedom.org site Islamophobic to discredit it outright. Isn’t that the sign of your bias? This shows that you do not regard criticism of Islam valid at all. You calling faithfreedom.org Islamophopbic is like a Nazi calling the site of ex-Nazis “Naziphobe”. Do the Christian call the anti Christian critics Christianophobic? So, why only the critics of Islam are phobic? By calling an anti-Islam site Islamophobic, you have demonstrated your bias and have no credibility to judge it anymore. Why you protected pages that I was editing only when your buddy AnonymousEditor changed them? The second time I called you and asked to protect my page because AE, with the help of other Muslims was constantly reverting it and was threatening me that if I revert three times I lose. So I came to you for help and what I got? You called your buddy AE, to revert that page and then protected it. Nice job SlimVirgin. Good bite on a newcomer eh? You took his side and denied it. I did not believe you but nonetheless I gave it the benefit of the doubt and said I hope you can prove your impartiality in future. However now we see you are nominating AnonymouEditor to become an administrator. How come? Weren’t you supposed to be impartial? If you were so much in love with AnonymouEditor, why you accepted mediation between him and me? What kind of mediation is that? Isn’t that conflict of interest? You don’t fool anyone SlimVirgin. You are not fit to be an administrator. It is time that YOU read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . I have shown that you are not neutral. If you were so much supportive of AE you should not have accepted mediation. That is bias. If I am a judge I cannot preside over a court dealing with a case involving my friends and relatives. You have demonstrated you are not fit to be an administrator and now you want to help a fellow co-ideologist so you can form a strong pack and take over the Wikipedia.
Why Ali Sina’s material from Islamophobia should be removed? Ali Sina is an ex-Muslim. Muslims can accuse others of Islamophobia but they can’t accuse an ex-Muslim of Islamophobia. That is why Ali Sina’s views on Islamophobia weigh much more than any other comment made by non-Muslims. You know that and that is why you are so nervous. I have found also quotes from Ibn Warraq. Once that page is unprotected I will add both these comments. I explained why we must have the views of ex-Muslims on Islamophobia. That is a very important piece of this story. Now you give me one good reason why we should not. Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasrin, Ayan Hishi Ali, Anwar Sheikh, and a few more are the most famous apostates today. I just made a search with "famous ex-muslims" and found 6 entries. Four of them mention Ali Sina. So who are you to say his comments should not be posted because he is not notable? You are a biased woman as I have shown above. Why should we take you as the law here? It does not matter whether you unprotect the page on Islamophobia or not. In fact it is better that you don’t so it can stand as the evidence of your bias. Someone notified me that there have been complaints about you for exact the same reason. So it is not me that is the problem; It is you! See this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Willmcw and SlimVirgin I think all those who care to keep Wikipedia neutral should take interest in that.OceanSplash22:15 24 October 2005
SlimVirgin, I am new and I have strong views on Islam. Neither of these are problems. However, you are a very biased individual. Now I see why AE called you to intervene when he and his Muslim friends ganged up against me and why when I called you, you again took the side of AE. I said I am suspicious of you and now you have proven my instinct to be true. This is now the forth time you accuse me of breaching Wikipedia policies. I asked you repeatedly to be specific. Each and every time you failed to do that? Why? Because you can’t! This is like a cop giving you a ticket writing on it, “he breached ALL the traffic laws” but fail to be specific”. I am against Islam and you are an Islamist militant. It is natural that you and I disagree. The point is, should you and your fellow Islamists be able to silence me? Is your POV more important than mine? I urge the editors and non Muslim administrators to read what went between you and I and how you acted with total bias. You removed a citation from an apostate site decrying “Islamophobia” claming “unnotability”. Wikipedia has an article on the person making that comment and there are over 200,000 pages on the Internet speaking about his site. So he is notable enough to be quoted. The reason you did not like that is because the citation was not pleasing to your Islamic taste. Then you decided that a death threat against Ali Sina should not be posted because it came from an “anonymous writers”. For your information generally all death threats come from anonymous sources. They don’t become unimportant because the issuer of the threat is not a famous person. However, you allowed a slander against Ali Sina being a fake apostate; stand even though the source of that slander is exactly the same site and forum where the death threat was issued. One statement was okay, the other was not. Why because one cast doubt on Mr Sina's credibility and the other painted Muslims as hooligans. YOu accuse me of having strong view. What about you? Aren't you a follower of Islam? Isn't that a strong view? This is how fascism operates. If people like you are allowed to take control of Wikipedia, it would be the end of this encyclopaedia. If anyone thinks I am being unreasonable, I invite him to read through all the discussions I had with AE, SV and their Islamic groupie. See the pack mentality. See how they support each other and work in group to eliminate you. Four of them call upon each other and each one reverts your contribution. You are on your own working alone. So if you try to hold onto your guns, you have broken the 3rvt rule and you are out. Keep Wikipedia free from religious zealotry. OceanSplash20:15 24 October 2005

Page Protection

[edit]

Comment - in fairness to OceanSplash regarding his complaint against User:SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin does indeed appear to have abused her admin powers under WP:PPol in page protecting the islamophobia article. The diffs on this article's history show that SlimVirgin has applied page protection there twice in the last week [1] [2]. This is problematic because SlimVirgin has also participated extensively in editing disputes on this article, having made at least 18 edits to it in the same week as well[3]. WP:PPol clearly states "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism" (emphasis original) and "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." Both of these provisions apply without exception other than simple vandalism. While some editors may dispute OceanSplash's changes on various neutrality and POV grounds, they do not fall within what is considered Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thus, SlimVirgin had no right to protect the page either time. SlimVirgin was clearly involved in extensive editing and content disputes on Islamophobia, thus OceanSplash's complaint about the method in which she protected it seems to be valid. Rangerdude 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in the content dispute on that page, and haven't done much editing of it. However, when I saw OceanSplash's objection, I unprotected it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongly representing truth won't help your position.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by SlimVirgin to Islamophobia prior to page protecting it on October 16 here:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]
  6. [9]
  7. [10]
  8. [11]
  9. [12]
  10. [13]
  11. [14]
  12. [15]
  13. [16]
  14. [17]
  15. [18]
  16. [19]
  17. [20]
  18. [21]

Note: According to WP:PPol ""Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." Also note, SlimVirgin page protected this same article a second time a few days later after the original was objected to [22]. The evidence is clear though - OceanSplash was correct in objecting to SlimVirgin's behavior as she has clearly abused her admin privileges in protecting a page where she had been extensively involved as an editor. Rangerdude 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have that slightly wrong. I first protected it on October 16 for a few hours [23] against vandalism (which any admin is allowed to do, involved or not). It was on October 23 that I protected it because of the dispute between OceanSplash and the other editors on the page, a dispute I'm not involved in. OS objected only after the adminship nomination, because he mistook my protection and suggestions on the talk page regarding how to resolve things for mediation, and he felt I should not mediate between him and AE if I was also nominating AE for adminship. Even though he had misunderstood, I unlocked the page. [24] [25] If you look at the talk page, you'll see my suggestions [26] possibly favored his edits more than the other editors' objections, though I think I was fairly even between them, and OceanSplash seemed fine with my input until he realized I was an Islamist jihadi.
However, thank you as always for your detailed input, Rangerdude. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slim - Whether you "first protected it against vandalism" or not is irrelevant to this situation. The second you began making substantive edits to the article, you disqualified yourself from page protecting it a per WP:PPol. That policy is explicit, Slim, and contains no exceptions once you've crossed the threshold into actively editing the article. Rangerdude 19:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit? It says Not only is this the preferable method... That does not sound like a policy which is "explicit" and has "no exceptions". Guettarda 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading the opening section. "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." (emphasis original) That sounds pretty explicit to me. Rangerdude 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the point isn't to just read one section or another, it's the read the whole thing. And, when you're done with it, read WP:IAR. Common sense trumps rules for the sake of rules, and Slim's approach appears to be common sense. Guettarda 05:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and if you read the whole thing WP:PPol says that Admins are not to page protect where they've been involved as editors - not once but repeatedly. Furthermore, WP:PP says the exact same thing. You can also link to WP:IAR to your heart's content, but that won't make it anything more than somebody's personal essay/rant. WP:PPol OTOH is official policy - an official policy that SlimVirgin violated. Rangerdude 17:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last response to you on this issue (though it doubtless won't be yours). Your long list of diffs is misleading, I hope not intentionally. I have never (as I recall) been much involved in editing that article. I did a copy edit and expanded the intro on October 15. [27] Before that, my previous edit was in June and involved reverting an anon. I was not at all involved in the dispute with OceanSplash. If I had been, I wouldn't have protected the page. Nevertheless, when he objected, I unprotected and asked other admins to keep an eye on it instead. End of story. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The record of SlimVirgin's contributions the Islamophobia article as found in her edits on October 15th alone may be viewed here. As evidenced by those changes, it is safe to assert that SlimVirgin essentially overhauled the entire article only a day before applying page protection the first of two times. Once again, WP:PPol is very clear that this is unacceptable behavior for an admin: "Admins must not protect pages they are engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism." "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." The policy is clear that any "substantive edits" count as involvement, which disqualifies an from imposing page protection, period. Nor is this the "end of story" as SlimVirgin claims, because she returned only a week later and repeated the exact same stunt here. Spin it any way you like, Slim, and call in all your buddies to help you, but that still won't change what you did and it still won't give you license to disregard the rules. Rangerdude 04:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't imply that I am acting on anyone's behalf - though maybe if you and your friends hadn't chosen this RfA to go off the deep end and call Slim et al. Islamists I would not have added this RfA to my watchlist and found your duplicitous edits. Maybe you should try not drawing so much attention to your obsessive vendettas and flights of fantasy, then ordinary people like me wouldn't stumble onto your nonsense. Guettarda 05:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never implied that you specifically were acting on anybody's behalf, Guettarda. In fact, I replied to you directly and in no other place did I mention or refer to you by name. In my post above, I simply noted that SlimVirgin has a tendency to drown out critics of her bad behavior by pulling in allies who ignore the evidence and respond with attacks. Whether or not this group includes you is not my call to make at this point, though I can and will note that she has done so in the past. I will also note for the record though that your characterization of my edits as "duplicitous" could be construed as a personal attack, as could the remainder of your comment accusing me of an "obsessive vendetta" etc. (please review WP:NPA). All I have done here is to introduce incontrovertable evidence that SlimVirgin extensively edited Islamophobia in the days and hours before she page protected it. Twice. And that is simply not permitted under WP:PPol, which explicitly says admins "must not" page protect articles where they have been involved as editors. I posted this documentation because it validates part of the complaint made by OceanSplash in his vote, contrary to the subsequent claims of certain other posters here. Rangerdude 16:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-Israeli reference

[edit]

Klonimus, I was confused by your comment that you fear Anonyme might misuse admin powers in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict, because I don't recall him becoming involved in that in any controversial way. I'm wondering if you're perhaps referring to the Yuber-Guy arbcom decision, and a fear that Anonyme might block Guy under the injunction? I agree that that was a very polarizing decision, and this is not the place to get into the rights and wrongs of it. But I'd say of Anonyme that, even though he and I disagreed on at least one aspect of that, we were both arguing in good faith, just emphasizing different points. I don't for a minute believe he'd misuse admin power in relation to that decision (or anything else). Was that arbcom case one of the things you had in mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basicly my opposition to Anonyme has to do with his abrasive editing style and tendancy to revert on sight rather than work with people. Independant of being a muslim, he just isn't admin material. He doesn't do a single thing on WP that requires admin powers. And by his own actions, he has shown great potential to abuse those powers when he doesn't get his way in an edit conflicts. Based on his current editing history he gets into a regular pig fights over anything Islam related, and if he hasn't gotten involved in the Arab Israeli conflict at the moment, he will do so in the future. Klonimus 20:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Yuber Arbcom case, I paraphase Charles Sumner, refering to the Dred Scott case.
I speak what cannot be denied when I declare that the opinion of the Arbcom in the case of Yuber was more thoroughly abominable than anything of the kind in the history of courts. Judicial baseness reached its lowest point on that occasion. We have not forgotten that terrible decision where a most unrighteous judgment was sustained by a falsification of history. Of course, the Community principals of Wikipedia and every principle of jurisprudence was falsified, but historical truth was falsified also.

It's probably the first case I have ever seen in which the defendant was found guilty but recived no punishment, and instead a witness to the crime was convicted and sentanced. Franz Kafka would be proud. Klonimus 20:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AE does fight a lot of vandalism and extreme POV pushing on those pages, and being an admin would help him in that regard. I became involved in watching a few of those articles during the Enviroknot chaos, and I was shocked by how much the editors there sometimes have to deal with, even without Enviroknot. It would be helpful to have an admin who understands all the issues, and so it's just a question of establishing that he'd be even-handed, and wouldn't take admin action in relation to disputes he was involved in. Is there anything he could do to reassure you on those issues, do you think? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if he recused himself from using admin powers (protect/rollback/3RR enforcement/Block) on articles related to Islam, or political conflicts involving muslims as an aggrieved party. All that said,he doesn't need admin powers to fight vandalism. He can refer vandals to WP:ANI or WP:VIP, or clean up messes himself. I might add that sometimes you have had to step in sometimes into conflicts involving Anonyme. I trust you to be neutral, I do not trust anonyme. Klonimus 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would change my vote to Support if he agreed not to use admin powers on the types of articles Klonimus describes. Babajobu 23:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Following the principals of Occams's Razor, It's just simpler if Anonyme is not made an admin. As is, there is no concensus that he be made one, so it's sort of moot. Klonimus 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The week isn't over yet, Klonimus, and people do change their minds so long as they see good-faith efforts being made. I don't feel it would be right to ask AE not to use admin powers in disputes involving other Muslims, because that amounts to religious discrimination. I also feel it's not fair to ask him not to use them in relation to any Islam-related article, because in a situation (for example) where such an article was being vandalized, it would be odd if AE had to contact another admin rather than blocking the vandal himself, even though he might never have edited it.
However, I wonder if something could still be hammered out that would make you feel comfortable. For example, I'm thinking perhaps he could agree not to take admin action in relation to Islam-related articles he's edited within the previous three months. (I'm not speaking for AE here, by the way: I'm just exploring options.) I also see you've opened a dialogue with him on his talk page, which is good, because what you say makes a lot of sense, so maybe if that continues, he might find ways to make you feel better about the nomination. Would the three-month recusal option be enough for you, do you think, or would you need something else too? Babajobu, how about you? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SV, at the end of the day, I and many other people don't trust Anonyme to be an admin. This isn't even something that you should even want. His general level of immaturity and name calling in this process also imply that he wouldn't be a good editor. No sucessful admin, has ever had 22+ oppose votes. Klonimus 04:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Lucky 6.9 springs to mind, and I'm sure there've been others. I'm struck by how different our experiences of AE are. I've always found him to be extremely civil and cooperative. I wonder if the way some of the Islam pages have been attacked puts the editors there more on edge than they would otherwise be, and that's what you're seeing. This is a common thing on controversial pages: people study every nuance of an edit to try to detect who's a good-faith editor, and it can make the editing process seem quite hostile. But I see that as connected to the dynamic created by the page's history, rather than necessarily the fault of the individual editors. Maybe this is a good opportunity to open a dialogue with each other, so that the good-faith editors can be identified (regardless of which "side" they're on), and you could join forces against the ones who only want to cause trouble. Several of the votes and comments against AE have been dodgy in the extreme e.g. how "these people" have a "double digit birth rate." The people this is directed at react by pulling up the drawbridge, and can you blame them? Editors of good faith need to take a stand against it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We're seriously discussing asking someone not to act as an admin on articles to do with the Arab / Israel conflist based on his faith because we feel he may be biased? "Oh dear god the gift to gae us, to see ourselves as other see us". Unbehagen 13:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break, it has nothing to do with "religious discrimination" or asking him not act as an admin on particular articles "because of his faith". Any admin with a very strong POV on any particular issue should have the integrity and the willingness to recuse themselves of admininistrator duties for those articles. Doesn't matter whether it GLBT rights, Russo-Polish relations, Linux-Microsoft, or whatever. Someone who would like to be an admin and who has shown generally good wikiways except for POV issues relating to a particular area should be willing to not use admin powers in that area. Hardly discriminatory. Babajobu 13:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly seems like a generally complied with policy either. Unbehagen 15:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[edit]
  • I have very limited time to go through to your edits, but I will try to list some relevant diff's and links. There were other things as well, but this probably covers some of the important points.
  • On a positive note: The comments made by Deepak leave me to believe that AE has at least in sometimes tried to discuss things and edit in a more mature way. However, I saw many discussions by AE that were not always in good faith. See the talk pages. Nevertheless this leads me to believe that AE may have the potential to evolve into a mature editor in the future. However, this only depends upon him, and I hope that he wil try to improve in the future. In trying to be as objective as possible I cannot possible state that this user is mature enough for adminship at the moment, but he may be so in the future. I hope that AE will try more to approach his weaknesses. --Kefalonia 07:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I dont have the time to check everything in detail so I'm not claiming that everything here must be blamed on AE. However, some of these edits are very questionable, ranging from deletions to false claims to revert wars etc.
So much of this evidence is false. A lot of the edits you have shown below are just him removing other peoples' pov and reverting their biased edits. I am Indian myself and I think he's on the level. All your edit summaries below give an unfair and false view of AE. On many of the articles below he wasn't changing the info, he was reverting other people's bias and then giving them reasons why this should not be included. An example is he never deleted the Sikh massacres, he actually wanted to keep it! See the other diffs. Your summaries of this evidence are very misleading and makes me wonder why u wan't to do this. I am glad to see that AE uses the edit summary tool because many others don't. --Madhev0 21:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I have to repeat myself: I dont have the time to check everything in detail so I'm not claiming that everything here must be blamed on AE. However, some of these edits are very questionable, ranging from deletions to false claims to revert wars etc. Users must go through these and other links by themselves to make up their mind. Please, if you have a comment to specific links, then add your concrete arguments under the link. The edit where I made a comment about Sikhs is this one. He deleted: About 600,000 Hindus and Sikhs lived in Lahore, a city 30 miles from what became India-Pakistan border. Only 30,000 made it across the rampaging muslim attacks helped by British Army which deployed 55000 troops, mostly muslim, to protect these migrants. On average, there were 2000 british army troops for each mile and still 19000 Hindus and Sikhs were murdered for each mile and only 1 out 20 could escape. [28] This is a deleted of a sourced statement. We all know that many Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims got killed during Partition. IF there are pov or accuracy issues with a sourced statement, they should at least be discussed on talk or countered with a another source. It is in any case a matter of fact that many Hindus and Sikhs were killed in that region at that period of time, and the deletion of such reference looks like revisionism. Then he wrote in the same edit: After Kashmiri uprising began since late 1980s mainly Muslim and some Hindu civilians have been killed and over half a million people have been driven away from their homes. This is a very potentially false claim and should be sourced. No sources, no numbers are given. I repeat, since about 1989 over 30'000 Kashmiris were killed by terrorists and more than 300'000 driven out of their homeland. So this link that you are referring to seems to contain some questionable deletions. You state: "he never deleted the Sikh massacres, he actually wanted to keep it" Please provide the link to this. --Kefalonia 09:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

[edit]

Articles

[edit]

Moving comments here

[edit]

I moved Kelafonia's evidence here because the page is getting hard to edit. I'd like to move some more comments here, so if anyone has a strong objection to that, please let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer subsections on the original vote page. In the meantime, I added a link to this page on the vote page. Joaquin Murietta 14:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that but adding sections messes up the format of another page that is linked to the voting page. Please move most of the comments here. The voting page is tooo confusing. --JuanMuslim 17:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I moved most of the comments here, but received an objection, so I moved them back, and created headers for ease of editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SV, you realize that many Pro voter's haven't seen all this evidence, Infact I doubt if anyone even looks at this disucussion page. Klonimus 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a note at the top of the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I found it. Dlyons493 Talk 17:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why you add a link to the talk page that is easily seen from the voting page. Please move all the comments from the voting section to the talk section. That's why it is there. I can see how you'd be reluctant to move the comments to another page. Maybe one solution would be to add a copy of the current voting page to the talk page including both the comments and votes. Then, on the voting page, delete all comments except for the person's vote and the person's userid. --JuanMuslim 22:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers

[edit]

I understand the rationale behind adding in subsection headers. The first attempts at this badly messed up the TOC in WP:RFA. The later revisions did much less damage. However, I do not think this is proper. This is not a pleasingly scalable change in how the TOC at WP:RFA is displayed. We currently have 17 RfAs on WP:RFA, and the rate of admin nominations has been increasing steadily for the last many months. Adding another 4 lines to every RfA (which this change sets a precedent for) would add 64 more lines to the TOC than is currently shown. I am slightly agreeable to allowing this change for this particular RfA under the condition that this does not set a precedent. --Durin 23:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durin, I don't think it'll set a precedent. This is done quite commonly on RfCs where there are a lot of comments and the page gets large. I agree it would mess up the TOC if every RfC were to have it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alongside bigotry

[edit]

It would really help restore my faith in the Wikipedia community if more editors casting oppose votes (and of course, there are exceptions) would take the extra effort to distance themsleves explictly from this RfA's (undeniably) Islamophobic and even bigoted undertones. I see editors I respect on the opposition; some editors with RfAs I supported recently, some who I never had a chance to but would, some who supported my own RfA. And I realize that people can overlook portions of text before and after the given fact, even still, this overall silence is defeaning (again, notable exceptions aside). Jpgordon said it more eloquently and concisely than I could, so I limit myself to italics which are my emphasis.

Much of the opposition is remarkably wrong-headed.

The issue should not be which POV, but whether the cadidate would ever place administrative authority and powers in service of it. I don't see any indication of this being the case here, and I'm tired of seeing AE manually revert many insatnces of simple vandalism within a considerable range of articles. Everyone makes mistakes occasionally (myself, too many to count), but obviously (obviously) AE is going to be especially careful exercizing admin powers with utmost integrity after all this, and undoubtedly, he will be watched very closely. If this RfA passes, it will be "advantageous both for the candidate and for Wikipedia," if it fails, it will be to its shame and discredit. El_C 03:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Anonyme has brought this all upon himself. Your vote "Oppose Islamophobic tendencies; support Anonymous editor." makes about as much sense as voting "Oppose totalitarian tendancies; support George W Bush". It's intellectually dishonest to support somone as admin on the basis of abstract criteria not related to being an admin. In terms of building concensus and getting along with other people, Anonyme is a miserable failure.

If he didn't constantly act so high-handed and get into so many edit wars, he wouldn't generate nearly a fifth of the animosity that he does. Think about it, have any sucessfully nominated admins ever had this much opposition?

I personally am sad that a small portion of the opposition to Anonyme's adminship seems outwardly anti-islamic, when there are much better reasons to opposes his nomination. For example there is the huge number of revert wars he gets involved with in the process of buffing articles to make them safe for Islam, or his tendancy to engage in adhomiem attacks against people he doesn't like, or his shameless justification for his abusive behavior. In my opinion Anonyme is just Yuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) lite, and just as equally unsuited to being an admin. Klonimus 04:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spending few seconds on your user page, I would have predicted with near certainty what you would have voted and this without even bothering reading your edits. Placing Chuck Morse book as reference, among other things, gives a clue of your intentions. Fadix 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you're over-using bold fonts in this RfA, I find. Which is distracting on the eyes and seem a bit self aggrandizing, even. Your charges of intellectual dishonesty on my part are unfounded, I challenge. Fadix's point about your userpage seems rather revealing to me as per your position here as well as the highly distorted, intellectually dishonest manner in which you go about to depict the situation. El_C 05:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Klonimus, you say you're personally saddened that some of the opposition to AE has been overtly anti-Islamic, but you're the editor who alerted some of those users to the vote, and you did that presumably because you knew what their views were. Try to imagine the uproar if people voted against someone because he was a Jew. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I voted against this guy because he misses the intellectual integrity to fulfill administration tasks impartially. People who play dirty tricks in order to press their POV are not suited as admin. I think this has been the motivation for the majority of people here. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 06:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Playing dirty tricks in order to press their POV? Dmcdevit·t 06:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the reverting over the Hamas doesn't like Gays or Dancing link. That's typical of Anonyme. Klonimus 08:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As some of the Islamophobes were sockpuppets, it's not surprising that they acted in concert, and perhaps not surprising that at least one of the other voters knew exactly what they were thinking. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Proof? of sockpuppetry? It's just a fact that there are many editors concerned over the influc of muslim apologetics and the related buffing that goes along with it. Remember that hamas opposes gays and dancing, and that Anonyme doesn't want you know about that. That's Anonyme in a nutshell and why he's not suited to be an admin. Klonimus 08:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have more than 2,100 edits on my name, so this bad-faith accusation won't help solidifying your point. Besides, I have been informed about your arbitrary banning of a reputable user [29] and calling users islamophobic testifies about a partisan POV which does not befit an administrator. I don't think we need more of this kind of bias at Wikipedia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 06:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have an interesting view of what counts as reputable. This is the user who talks about "these people" and their "double digit birth figures." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As long as those opinions do not negatively interfere with the quality of encyclopedic writings I personally see no problem by labelling this user as reputable. The statistically higher birth rate of Muslims is a well-established fact: six out of the top-ten highest birthrate countries are majority Muslim. It does not matter for this discussion, though. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 07:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and total fertility rates, somehow

[edit]

And Gaza, has the world's highest birth rate. 40.03 births/1,000 population (2005 est.) and a life expectancy of 71.79 years (2005 est.). Seems like a double digit birth rate to me. It's too bad that talking about things that are verifiable is no longer considdered NPOV.Klonimus 08:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza 7.4 15 1.0
Marshall Islands 7.2 17 0.1
Comoros 6.8 19 0.6
Libya 6.4 19 5.6
Maldives 6.2 19 0.3
Oman 6.2 20 2.3
Sao Tome and Principe 5.4 20 0.1
Solomon Islands 5.7 20 0.4
Togo 6.9 20 4.7
Yemen 7.2 20 15.2
qed---Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 08:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited
1 Niger 7.55 (2005 est.)
2 Mali 7.47 (2005 est.)
3 Somalia 6.84 (2005 est.)
4 Afghanistan 6.75 (2005 est.)
5 Uganda 6.74 (2005 est.)
6 Yemen 6.67 (2005 est.)
7 Burundi 6.63 (2005 est.)
8 Congo, DRC 6.54 (2005 est.)
9 Burkina Faso 6.54 (2005 est.)
10 Angola 6.42 (2005 est.)
11 Chad 6.32 (2005 est.)
12 Sierra Leone 6.15 (2005 est.)
13 Congo, Rep. 6.14 (2005 est.)
14 Liberia 6.09 (2005 est.)
15 Malawi 5.98 (2005 est.)
16 Mauritania 5.94 (2005 est.)
17 Gaza Strip 5.91 (2005 est.)
1 Niger 51.33 (2005 est.)
2 Mali 49.99 (2005 est.)
3 Uganda 47.39 (2005 est.)
4 Afghanistan 47.02 2005 est.
5 Chad 46.17 (2005 est.)
6 Sierra Leone 46.13 (2005 est.)
7 Burkina Faso 45.96 (2005 est.)
8 Angola 45.63 (2005 est.)
9 Somalia 45.62 (2005 est.)
10 Liberia 45.61 (2005 est.)
11 Congo, DRC 44.07 (2005 est.)
12 Malawi 43.49 (2005 est.)
13 Yemen 43.07 (2005 est.)
14 Congo, Rep. 43.01 (2005 est.)
15 Burundi 42.46 (2005 est.)
16 Guinea 42.01 (2005 est.)
17 Madagascar 41.66 (2005 est.)
18 Mayotte 41.58 (2005 est.)
19 Mauritania 41.43 (2005 est.).
20 Zambia 41.38 (2005 est.)
21 Sao Tome & Principe 40.80 (2005 est.)
22 Nigeria 40.65 (2005 est.)
23 Rwanda 40.60 (2005 est.)
24 Kenya 40.13 (2005 est.)
25 Gaza Strip 40.03 (2005 est.)
El_C 12:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Klonimus, what does the birth rate of Gaza have to do with AE's nomination? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I can answer in Klonimus' place: the discussion in this subbranch was not about AE's nomination but about the incorrect labeling of user Muwaffaq as a non-reputable user due to his mentioning of double-digit birth rates. It is a clear illustration of your administrative style. As I said, we don't need more gonzo-style administrators. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, as someone who opposes this RFA, and much more vociferously than I did initially, I'd like to say that I think birthrates in Gaza are astoundingly irrelevant to this discussion. And even mentioning them really does distract from the very legitimate reasons to oppose. Babajobu 09:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. SlimVirgin was dismissing Muwaffaq as a non-reputable user, mentioning those two statements of him. This is the user who talks about "these people" and their "double digit birth figures."<<quote SV I don't like users to be tarnished without reason, though. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<---------- back to beginning

I think the salient point is that there was no fathomable reason for Muwaffaq to refer to "double digit birth figures" in the explanation for his oppose vote, anyway. Babajobu 09:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, this is the sort of thing that has allowed Support voters to characterize everyone on the oppose side as bigoted. Though I suppose some of them would have done that anyway. Babajobu 09:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. He used this as a motivation which is wrong. I concur with you. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 09:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[T]his is the sort of thing that has allowed Support voters [per se.?] to characterize everyone on the oppose side as bigoted Underlining irony is my emphasis; hyperbole is all yours. El_C 10:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Baba, it wasn't this that allowed people to characterize some of the opposition as acting in bad faith. It was this, and similar comments, that defined the bad faith. (And it's worth stressing that I don't include you in that.) SlimVirgin (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, support voters (and the plural is correct, though I should have clarified that this did not mean all support voters, per se) have cited the bigotry (and synonyms) of the "oppose side" as justification for their support votes. The oppose side is not monolithic, but has repeatedly been characterized as such. I did not intend to return the favor by similarly misrepresenting the support side, though I see how my first sentence could have been read/misread that way. Slim, I have no problem with people saying "a handful of the opposition voters' comments define bad faith", but remarks such as Muwaffaq's made it an inevitability that some Support polemicists would slur the entire opposition as typified by Muwaffaq's remark. Babajobu 10:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in my vote comment was to an Islamophobic smear campaign on the part of some (some is the key word you're looking for, me thinks) oppose votes, and this was before the troll or yourself had voted. But it kept on going, is my point. A fervor last seen only during the crusades to quote one oppose voter speaking of AE. El_C 10:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it continues still. See Commodore Sloat's Support vote claiming that "most" Oppose voters cite AE's religion as their reason for opposing. He must be watching an altogether different RFA, one in which a majority of opposers have said they will not vote for a Muslim. Babajobu 11:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth "citing" what was said: most of the "oppose" votes focus exclusively on AE's religion yet the only evidence of POV that they have are his reversions, which is not at all the same thing as citing AE's religion as their reason for opposing. And I agree with AE's response as per your one or two explicit ones as summing this whole thing up via the surface, and it is more like three or four, anyway, though that's an aside. It goes deeper than OceanSplash, deeptrivia, Muwaffaq, and so on. It also relates to how some in the opposition opted to (or rather, failed to) respond to this, as my original note in this section challenges. El_C 11:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions of questions by anon editor

[edit]

This is an example occuring right here where anon editor marks blatant deletions as minor. If the vandalism alone was to be removed, then only that line should have been removed and marked as minor. But he has (as usual) surreptitiously removed my probing questions also, labelling them as pov and asking me to post them on his talk page. My experience with him shows that he removes anything that questions him on his talk page, so it would be fruitless to take the discussion there. And his masking of facts is also not a small matter and has been noticed before. I'm guessing that the user has no idea of what a minor change means. Please see Wikipedia:Minor edit to understand what I mean.

On his talk page he mentions "I simply asked all the users I have had contact with before, and I just asked them to vote". Unfortunately he didn't ask "all" the users as he didn't approach me or others with whom he has issues with, fearing that he would only receive negative votes.

I hope anon editor will refrain from deleting questions just because he feels he is guilty. If anon can't answer them, then I'd suggest he leave them blank. Please don't try to cover up questions because as a future admin it reflects poorly. Idleguy 05:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't pile on questions (read: negative comments with a question mark)in the standard questions section, this isn't how RfAs work. El_C 05:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They might be negative in tone, but that's the product of the bad vibes emanating from anon editor's (by now obvious) bias in the first place. Do you suppose I always ask such probing questions to every admin nominated? And are you supporting his sneaky vandalism - not just here but across all articles he edits - where he tries to mask major changes as minor? Please someone read the wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes as minor changes before jumping on others. Idleguy 12:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a product of your undeniable desire in seeing his nomination fail; and no, ordinarily, opponents do not get to add further questions to the standard ones. Bureaucrats do so on occasion, or the candidate may opt to include these. The standard questions (and possible expansion therefrom) are certainly not meant to be prosecutorial. El_C 12:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the trees for the forest. The issue I raised here specifically in the talk page was primarily about his marking of wholesale deletions as minor citing the example. Now how hard is that to understand? Quoting yourself "It's a product of your undeniable desire in seeing his nomination fail" the reverse can be said of you i.e. in seeing his nomination succeed you would go to great lengths to cover up facts. So pl don't act in a Holier-than-thou fashion when you have not properly seen anon editor's real face and are offending other voters with your statements.
On the base issue of questions posted in the article's question space I have not come across any policy that states that bureaucrats alone can pose further questions. The comments I believe are for this purpose and the queries i posted can be shifted to that section as seen fit. But these questions should be included here as voters can guage the candidate not based on just stale responses to mainly generic questions. Idleguy 14:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that I didn't add flattering items to the standard questions section. El_C 21:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally got a kick out of Anonyme's campagining for adminship, and then started complaining when someone else brought some unwanted attention to his adminship. Maybe we should have a pre RfA, type procedure to hammer this sort of thing out ahead of time. Klonimus 08:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment went missing too

[edit]

And it was essentially this -- I would have a higher opinion of Anon (and Wikipedia) if he voluntarily withdrew this time, waited a year, then was nominated again. There is so much controversy, mainly because Anon has only been on Wikipedia for a few months.Wyy not strive for consensus? This vote it very divisive, it is not about majority rule. It should be about consensus. Joaquin Murietta 07:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A year? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with how long he's been editing. Lots of people are promoted after three or four months. I was. This has happened because he's a Muslim who edits Islam-related articles in a way that some people, who are not Muslims, don't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite SV. It's cause he's an abrasive editor who also happens to be a Muslim. If you wear your religion on your sleave, don't complain if it gets dirty.Klonimus 08:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most of his contentious edits have been to Islam-related articles, per se. For example, his insistence on removing information on the persecution of gays from the article on Hamas does not involve a disagreement over Islam, but a disagreement over whether info that is not flattering to AE's POV should be included in Wikipedia. This is different. Babajobu 09:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It relates to the Islamic fundamentalism of Hamas as expressed through homophobia, antidancing, and other reactionary nonesense. So, he didn't find it pertinent; I, for ex., do. I disagree on the suitability of sources with editors & admins, too. El_C 11:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, El_C, come on. Of course admins will have legitimate disagreements on the relevance of some sources, but Hamas's attitudes to homosexuality and dancing are undeniably relevant to the article Hamas. The only reason to remove them is because he found them unflattering to the topic. Even his attempt to build bridges revealed a misapprehension of what Wikipedia is all about: he asked an editor something along the lines of "how would you feel if I added something like this to an article on Israel?" Who gives a s**t? If something belongs in either article, it belongs. Wikipedia articles are not communal pom-poms for the relevant communities, which can engage in horsetrading with one another as regards what goes in "their" articles. Babajobu 13:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your anti-dancing stance sickens me! Anyway, I do place a lot faith in the ability of people to draw lessons from and build on constructive criticism; I'm confident it'll prove the case here. El_C 21:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, he's not been around a wet day, and he could very well develop so that he knows how to manage his POV in a manner appropriate for admins, all of whom have POVs of one sort or another. I hope he does, and that next time I can vote Support. Babajobu 21:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this RfA and related discussions. El_C 00:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if I suddenly get real nice, I could be an Admin in four months? Hmmm....Joaquin Murietta 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am not surprised that this didn't work out

[edit]

Frankly Anonyme should have known this would have happened, and not even bothered to run for adminship. It's the same reason I don't run, I wouldn't get elected even though I have more edits, arrouse less controversies in article content (though much more in talk pages, since I use them), and have been here longer than anonyme. If you can think of 10-15 people who would be motivated to oppose your election, you probably shouldn't run in the first place.

If you want be a wikiadmin, you need to be non controversial and have a spotless record, and have a real need for admin powers. Anonyme's vandalism fighting is mostly POV warring, not real vandalism fighting, which any editor can do. Anyways WP has enough admins as is. BTW SV (or any otheradmin), could you take a look at Joeseph Sobran, and maybe protect it/warn a very persistant little vandal. Klonimus 08:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"WP has enough admins as is"? On your watchlist, perhaps. Give me ten minutes on mine. El_C 10:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found some items worthy of an admin's attention. I didn't issue any warnings/explanations or blocks because I'm on vacation. El_C 10:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to vociferously disagree with the above comments by Klonimus. It would be a great pity if we did not allow editors who face down POV-pushers to become admins. We would leave those articles to be edited only by the most indignant and those least able to write factually and neutrally. Opposing on grounds of POV-warring is fine; opposing on grounds that they have a POV is not. I have a POV. I think STBC is better than STTC, for most current real-world applications. Doesn't make me a bad admin, as far as I can tell. You need to have a very good record to pass RfA, certainly, but those opposing because they disagree with Anonymous's POV should examine whether that is at all appropriate. If, on the other hand, they have evidence of POV-warring, that's different. I'm not saying that poeple have voted for one reason or another, and note that I did not vote based on either reason. -Splashtalk 11:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anonyme, was part of the POV problem, not part of the solution in the opinion of at least 36 Voters. Klonimus 20:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... I thought I might run into the same problem that AE did... but in the end I came out with Boothy opposing me... which, well, most admins get to have that. I also think that we could use more good admins. Just about every project page has a backlog that could be done away with... speedy deletions must be done about every 10 seconds. I'm sure there is mediation to get involved in and controversy to be solved somewhere... but even just the objective things like AfD could use good admins closing them. I will say I have always disagreed with AE removing comments of personal attacks... I never remove them since it seems to reflect worse on the user who uses them and it's also too subjective, especially if you're the object. *Shrugs* I really don't know how I made it through so easily or how there's so much controversy over AE. Everyone working on Islam articles takes flack and they always will. This RfA has gotten interesting... too much tension for my liking though :/ gren グレン 11:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Anonyme is the sort of person who will revert war over an external link to the Times of London, that reports a statement by a Hamas leader, that Hamas opposes Gays and Dancing. That's not behavior you want to see in an admin. Klonimus 20:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

religion voting

[edit]

Of course, only one or two of the Oppose votes actually attribute it to his religion. Most of the rest oppose him because of his worrying commitment to advancing his POV on Wikipedia. However, you are welcome to fantasize all you want about the nature of the oppose votes. Babajobu 09:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Babajobu, no they don't and you and I both know this. Several of the oppose votes attribute this to my religion. Some of them I have never met before ;), while some others were invited and attribute this very covertly. I of course, respect the votes of a certain percentage of the opposition. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 11:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, AE, I do not know this or I would not have said otherwise. I am not lying, and do not like the implication that I am lying. And I stand by my assertion. It is simply not true that "several" of the oppose voters have cited your being Muslim as their reason for opposing. Saying that you actively attempt to institute a POV with many of your edits is not the same as saying that your religion should disqualify you from adminship. Babajobu 11:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can't expect them all to say it out loud can you? A simple check at their editing, past records and affiliations with certain users will make it clear. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m t 11:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed this issue above, please review my response in that section. El_C 11:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Baba, I think you should take into account that there were direct and indirect biases being expressed, in that AE's contributions were examined much more closely than happens in most nominations. So yes, maybe people voted against because they saw a diff or two they didn't like. But why were all the diffs being posted to the page in the first place? There aren't many editors who would stand up to that degree of scrutiny. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike his critics, AE is the one running for admin, and if he can't withstand scruity QED. Klonimus 17:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why Slim </bats eyelashes> I know I've got no hidden flaws. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to boast (but to boast), arguably moi; I doubt SS missed anything, he's a methodic investigator, after all. ;) El_C 12:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, Aaron. I was thinking more along the lines of El C. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AE says, "Several of the oppose votes attribute this to my religion." This is false. He then says that if they don't actually attribute it to his religion this is only because they "can't come right out and say it." Perhaps, but I think that Wikipedia Administrators generally do well in focussing on people's comments rather than speculating about their real or imagined biases and motivations. El C notes that Commander Sloat actually stated that most Oppose votes "focus" on AEs religion. This, too, is false. Except for a couple distasteful oppose votes, even the extremely rabid ones have focussed on AEs pursuit of what they perceive as a strong political POV characterizing many of his edits. This is utterly different from objecting to his religion, per se. For example, Jayjg has a very strong pro-Israel, pro-Jewish POV, but he is aware of this and he demonstrates good sense and good Wikipedia citizenship by not bullying people with his admin powers in edit conflicts relating to those topics. Many oppose voters, including some of the most hysterical in their comments, are concerned that AE does not have this same good sense. To dismiss them and their concerns as simple bigotry is disrespectful, inaccurate, and obfuscates the real issues in this RFA.
SlimVirgin's comments about most admins not being able to withstand this sort of scrutiny may very well be true. I don't have enough experience with the RFA process to know. Babajobu 12:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the statement was correct, only that your comment mischaracterized it. El_C 13:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you are correct that I initially mischaracterized. This was unintentional, my apologies. Babajobu 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; thanks. El_C 21:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email campaigns

[edit]

I received this email from User:Muwaffaq - I believe that email campaigns, and spam campaigns (since I have never interacted with this editor before, had never even heard of him before this RfA) are totally out of line.

From: Muwaffaq <******@******.com> Mailed-By: wikimedia.org
To: Guettarda <******@******.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2005 9:43 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail


Hi everyone, User:Anonymous editor is contesting for Adminship. Many votes in his support are by usernames created in the last couple of days, and their only contribution to wikipedia has been that vote. When I pointed that out, User:Anonymous editor deleted my comments, marking his deletions as a "minor edit", and his close admin friend User:Slimvirgin blocked me. This pair is known for misusing wikipedia policies and admin powers in the past, for example, with reference to the Islamophobia article. Kindly look into the past credentials of User:Anonymous editor, and cast your vote. Thanks Muwaffaq

I believe this vote is tainted, first by Karl Meiers campaign, and now by this. Guettarda 13:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be noted that both sides are campaigning for votes. Anon at least has done it many times, and is even campaigning at wikipedians who vote oppose. Kefalonia

While campaigns for votes have always generated more oppostion than support (inasmuch as one oppose vote cancels four support votes); correctly they are seen as biasing the vote. On the other hand, oppose campaigns, apart from having a far greater yield (given the 4:1 ratio), are far harder to nullify, since an individual user who notices them can only cancel out 1/4 of an oppose vote.

The main point though is that an email spam campaign is far worse than anything going on in Wikipedia. It's disruptive, it games the system, and quite simply it taints the whole RfA system. Guettarda 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have to assume that voter's are intelligent and will make intelligent decisions for themselves. All the campagining in the world can't create support where it doesn't exist or opposition where it doesn't exist. I might add that your implication that people are engaging in tactical voting is slightly offensive. Klonimus 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A short-timer explains why short-timers should not be Admins

[edit]

Anon should withdraw his nomination and wait one year. I made that comment and it was deleted. I also said that I would personally nominate him (or her) in a year, provided there were no RR violations. I also said that I would think better of Anon (and Wikipedia) if he withdrew. As for me, I have been on Wikipedia a very short time. I find it incomprehensible that someone can join Wikipedia, have a bunch of problems, and then become an Admin in six months. I also dislike the e-mail campaigns and religious overtones of both the pro's and the con's. Why not start some articles, have fun, contribute, etc for a year, then come back? Six months is not enough. Joaquin Murietta 14:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I became an admin in less than a year - my guess is that the vast majority of admins had less than a year on Wikipedia at the time of their RfA. Guettarda 15:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

[edit]

There's been some sockpuppetry, though the opposition is in fact far and wide. I will be striking out socks I'm pretty much certain of. Muwaffaq = Deeptrivia - David Gerard 15:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see you strike out some people from the suppoting side of the isle too, if it's not too much troble, there is definatly something fishy going on here--Sir.Salmon FishThe FirstFile:Salmon.gif 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably going to have to name some names here (i.e. I believe User X is a sockpuppet of User Y). From a quick scan of the support voters, the vast majority of them are established editors. If there is something fishy going on, it's likely not on the support side. Carbonite | Talk 15:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see someone who voted for oppose half an hour after creating his account making his first contribution. Tintin 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which one, Tintin? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Salmon Fish himself. First edit at 13.22, first edited outside user space was the oppose vote at 14.03. Tintin 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now that AE has withdrawn, I'd be interested to see if SF will stay on or disappear altogether. Tintin 17:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We should assume good faith, I think, even when it is dubious. I like the fish, too.
brenneman(t)(c) 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comment (El_C & Kefalonia)

[edit]
  1. Oppose Islamophobic tendencies; support Anonymous editor. El_C 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think your comment betrays inexperience with Wikiquette, but regardless, I'm not prepared to respond to it in this space. If you choose to move both of our comments to the talk page, I'll be willing to respond. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's a dead end. El_C 03:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently about eleven comments for oppose votes and only two comments for support votes. Is this a double-standard? I didn't want to offend you and I will reply on your talkpage. Kefalonia.>

I realize that you've only been with us for a few weeks (I, myself, didn't even know about RfA until months after joining and after already having written substantive articles from scratch — I may be as confused as you are, since there are unwritten Wikiquette rules), so I would like to emphasize that this RfA was not a representative sample. If you were to prerview RfAs randomally, what you will find is not many comments on the support section (and those few tend to be supportive jests more than anything), whereas as the oppose section almost always is coupled with comments, often time critical, lengthy exchanges (and regretfuly, occasionally bitter and hurtful ones, as was too often the case in this RfA). I responded to your comment on my talk page, but this covers some areas I've yet to touch on there. Thanks. El_C 00:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reproduction of exchanges following Silverback vote, since part took place after withdrawal

[edit]
  1. 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    Which endeavor are you referring to, Germen?BrandonYusufToropov
    • 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)[reply]
    • I think the issue is what he is is contacting the user for, mere gossip, or to request help to escalate an edit war. There are too many cliques. He certainly wasn't discussing the nuances of content.--Silverback 08:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor&oldid=1137436731"