Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anárion2

Anárion

final (17/7/1) ending 08:52, 29 December 2004 (UTC)

I would like to request sysop access for a second time. I have been editing at the Wikipedia as a logged in user since April 2004, and am one of the top 1000 editors (#434 with 2438 main namespace edits as of current revision). While editing somewhat less recently I still visit the Wikipedia daily and edit whenever I see something missing or see something I can add. I also fight vandalism when I come across it, where I believe sysop powers will come in handy, mainly to revert vandalism. To reiterate from last time: I am nobody's sockpuppet, and ask to be judged by my edits, and not someone else's. I have been involved in one edit war over Acronym, but that was solved by discussion on the talk page. Anárion 08:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. I support. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Without expressing my opinion on the truth of Gzornenplatz's allegation (which, coming from him, is quite amusing :), I will say that I don't think it matters: even if Anarion is who he's accused of being, he has been a model editor and has avoided the problems that brought his alleged former account into disrepute. If he should change his behavior upon becoming an admin, well, we have a new Arbitration Committee and some established precedents for dealing with power-abusing admins. Therefore I cautiously support him for adminship. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 13:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Agree with Charles P., well spoken. Michael Ward 19:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. I would support Anarion or Jor. Andre (talk) 21:19, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
5. Consider Anárion supported. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Geez, if this guy's sockpuppet has >2000 edits, his normal account must be User:Mav or something... ugen64 02:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Aye. --Ben Brockert 04:12, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
8. ℛyan! | Talk 04:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
9. Of course I support. He should have been an administrator last time. Lst27 (talk) 23:10, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Support. User:Chan Han Xiang 17.28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

10. Like ugen said. Anyway, Anarion is a great contributor. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. mainly opposing the unexpained opposition. sockpuppetry is not a valid accusation against a user with so many edits. I will change to oppose only if offensive edits by this user are shown. dab (ᛏ) 11:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
12. Squash 01:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
13. I don't care who he really is. If this account has been active since April and hasn't caused any trouble, I'm willing to support. Isomorphic 08:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. David Cannon 10:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC). Support.
15. silsor 12:51, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
16. Looking over the other votes, I have a strong gut feeling that I should support. - RedWordSmith 17:10, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
17. Support. No reason not to, and he's been doing a lot of maintenance. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 20:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
18. MPerel 08:51, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. See last nomination. Nothing has changed. Gzornenplatz 10:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
   • Obviously, there is nothing to change: I have not suddenly become who you claim me to be. Anárion 12:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
     • I think that should be good enough for us, to be honest. Let's stop with the unsubstantiated sock puppet talk already! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. A. D. Hair 13:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
3. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Node 01:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Agree with Gzornenplatz. 172 09:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
6. Dr Zen 10:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. Agree with Gzornnenplatz. Chan Han Xiang 19:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Looks like I would have to do extensive research to understand the stances of both sides involved here. I will remain neutral on the question. Kingturtle 06:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• User has 3596 edits as of right now. --Ben Brockert 01:10, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Can I please get some clarification as to why these people are opposing (and not giving any comments as to why)? →Raul654 07:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

  I'm with Raul. Could someone please explain what's going on here? Am I correctly understanding that some people think Anárion is Jor? If so, why do they think that, and why should I care? No one seems to be claiming that Anárion has done anything wrong under this name. Isomorphic 06:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  That's more or less the size of it. Gzornenplatz thinks Anárion is Jor, for reasons explained last time around, and Gzornenplatz, back when he was Wik, acquired a strong dislike for Jor. Wik may have had reason—I recall that Jor pushed some dubious POVs in the perennial German-Polish edit wars—but as you say, Anárion hasn't done anything wrong. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 07:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  It would be interesting to find out exactly what Wik/Gzornenplatz and his supporters (172, and Chan Han Xiang — who voted 'support', but changed to 'oppose' after I voted 'oppose' on his RFA) feel "has to change". Even if I /were/ who Wik/Gzornenplatz claims me to be, a quick scan over the arbitration committee charges against Wik show that I have never touched any of the articles he was quarreling with Jor over. (At least, as far as I am aware... I may have come across some of them occasionally. Wik has a huge number of edits.) I have no wish to get into the "perennial German-Polish edit wars" at all.

  Node ue's reason seems clear: he apparently votes against all self-nominaters, so that leaves Blankfaze, Austin Hair, and Dr. Zen. If these users could give me any clarification as to why they feel I cannot be trusted with sysops rights it will be appreciated. Jordi·✆ 11:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Gzornenplatz is currently banned for a week, which is likely why he hasn't responded. Had you self-nominated one day later (after the ban began), it would probably have passed with no objections. --Ben Brockert < 20:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

  Wik's shitlist. HTH. Dr Zen 06:44, 29 Dec 2004 (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. Asides from vandalism fighting, I will be around to help users where possible. Later (when more time available) get back working on pages like IFD.

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

A. I don't really "get" the own-an-article mood, but I am very happy with Acronym: although now incorporated into a larger article and I no longer hold the last edit, I think that the compromise Nohat and I worked out there has substantially improved the article. As well as some of the popculture articles I worked on, such as the Tolkien ones, most recently Anárion.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. The Acronym article, but I have a positive experience with it in retrospect. And there's the baseless accusation by one or two users I am apparently a neofascist, but fortunately that slander remains with those few. I deal with the latter mainly by pointing out the facts, and ignoring the implications. I expect this not to change in the future: should I get into conflict with another user there are established channels inside the Wikipedia which everyone can use, and sysop rights cannot help here, so should not be used in any case.

Anárion 08:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)