Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:10, 24 October 2005 editBrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs)7,035 edits Basil← Previous edit Revision as of 19:15, 24 October 2005 edit undoKarl Meier (talk | contribs)5,456 edits Several comments was lost -properly due to our slow servers - try to restore them. Hopefully this is for the better!Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
''' ''' ''' '''
'''(21/9/0) ending <nowiki>00:27</nowiki> October 31, 2005 (UTC)''' '''(20/7/0) ending <nowiki>00:27</nowiki> October 31, 2005 (UTC)'''


{{User|Anonymous editor}} – Anonymous editor has been editing since May 2005 and has made over 3,500 edits, with a good balance of edits to articles and talk pages. He's an important contributor to Islam-related articles and is active in fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry on those pages. He's mature and level-headed, is willing to seek compromise, cares about our policies, is courteous, and gets along well with editors regardless of their POV. I think he'll make an excellent admin, and {{User|Anonymous editor}} – Anonymous editor has been editing since May 2005 and has made over 3,500 edits, with a good balance of edits to articles and talk pages. He's an important contributor to Islam-related articles and is active in fighting vandalism and sockpuppetry on those pages. He's mature and level-headed, is willing to seek compromise, cares about our policies, is courteous, and gets along well with editors regardless of their POV. I think he'll make an excellent admin, and
Line 30: Line 30:
#'''''Strong'' Support''' - Has evolved into an editer of impecible standards with an eye on copyediting and all that other boring stuff! We need more admins like this. --]\<sup>]</sup> 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #'''''Strong'' Support''' - Has evolved into an editer of impecible standards with an eye on copyediting and all that other boring stuff! We need more admins like this. --]\<sup>]</sup> 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #'''Support''' ]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
⚫ #'''''Strong'' Support''' -- Levelheaded and fair. Will make a great admin. ] 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''

#''' Strong Oppose''' one of the least cooperative editors on WP. I have very little confidence that Anonyme will not abuse his admin powers in realtionship to controversial articles involving Islam or the Arab Israeli conflict. Nothing personal, but I don't think Anonym has the personal maturity to separete his strongly held beleif's from his responsibilty as a sysop. ] 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #''' Strong Oppose''' one of the least cooperative editors on WP. I have very little confidence that Anonyme will not abuse his admin powers in realtionship to controversial articles involving Islam or the Arab Israeli conflict. Nothing personal, but I don't think Anonym has the personal maturity to separete his strongly held beleif's from his responsibilty as a sysop. ] 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#:Although, I understand that you have a different point of view than I do, I still don't understand why you would be rallying people to vote against me . Your personal differences with me are fine, but these type of tactics are in bad faith. I also don't recall making any controversial edits to pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would, however, like to thank you for voting. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #:Although, I understand that you have a different point of view than I do, I still don't understand why you would be rallying people to vote against me. Your personal differences with me are fine, but these type of tactics are in bad faith. I also don't recall making any controversial edits to pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would, however, like to thank you for voting. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
##: Anonym, most people don't follow RfA very closely, and there exists a tendancy to rubberstamp approve many candidates. Since there is no real mechanism for removing admins, the initial selection is extremely important and merit's scrutiny from all wikipedian's with a possible interest. The fact that 7 oppose votes can be
##:Furthermore, you tend to have a very confrontational editing style, and at times seem to be on a mission to purge wikipedia of anything that reflects poorly on Islam or Muslims. You also have a '''very annoying habit''' shared by several other editors on WP (Yuber, Faisal, BYT, and others) of '''editing by revert''' ( , and many other examples)rather than seeking concensus, as such, I and many others don't trust you with a rollback button. ] 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#''' Strong Oppose'''. Has a long history of pov-edits, text deletions, edit wars and similar. Please take a close look at his edit history. His edits in india-related articles show an extreme anti-india bias. One doesn't even need to know alot about these subjects to realize this and AE's edits repeatedly reveal his often very limited knowledge of the india-related articles he edits, which he has sometimes admitted himself. Some of his pov edits can be seen on: ], ], ], ], ], and there have been relevant discussions on: ], ], ], , etc. '''I will add some details about his edits on these articles later.''' Some other cases ('''here I haven't checked yet''') may include: ], ], ], etc. As for non-india articles, I didn't check this articles, but wouldn't be surprised if he would show similar edits there. I only give one example here: he deleted a comment made by another user which showed AE "removing the DMOZ directory of criticisms of Islam from the links". Now there was a very long controversy on that article wether or not to add a link to the "faithfreedom list of links page", and the main argument against adding that was that there is already this dmoz directory on that page. Removing this (as usual without any edit summary) was rather a bad faith edit. ] got many oppose votes for "only" one day of vandalism, while this user has been known for constant pov-editing and vandalism (yes, I think constant pov-editing, pov deletions (sometimes with no edit summary and marked minor) and similar are a form of vandalism. If users like him become admins would just mean that there is no standard at all for becoming admins (apart from editcounts). --] 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #''' Strong Oppose'''. Has a long history of pov-edits, text deletions, edit wars and similar. Please take a close look at his edit history. His edits in india-related articles show an extreme anti-india bias. One doesn't even need to know alot about these subjects to realize this and AE's edits repeatedly reveal his often very limited knowledge of the india-related articles he edits, which he has sometimes admitted himself. Some of his pov edits can be seen on: ], ], ], ], ], and there have been relevant discussions on: ], ], ], , etc. '''I will add some details about his edits on these articles later.''' Some other cases ('''here I haven't checked yet''') may include: ], ], ], etc. As for non-india articles, I didn't check this articles, but wouldn't be surprised if he would show similar edits there. I only give one example here: he deleted a comment made by another user which showed AE "removing the DMOZ directory of criticisms of Islam from the links". Now there was a very long controversy on that article wether or not to add a link to the "faithfreedom list of links page", and the main argument against adding that was that there is already this dmoz directory on that page. Removing this (as usual without any edit summary) was rather a bad faith edit. ] got many oppose votes for "only" one day of vandalism, while this user has been known for constant pov-editing and vandalism (yes, I think constant pov-editing, pov deletions (sometimes with no edit summary and marked minor) and similar are a form of vandalism. If users like him become admins would just mean that there is no standard at all for becoming admins (apart from editcounts). --] 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#:Just to '''address some of your concerns''', I have never edited India-related articles because of these accusations being addressed on Pakistan-related and Kashmir-related (a disputed territory between India and Pakistan) articles by a couple of editors. I don't see how my edits were anti-India anyways, since I was simply rewording anti-Pakistani sentiment from those pages. Others might actually call that NPOV. Over time, one-sided editors have made it so that the page becomes very biased. I would also like to point out that all the arguments that I had with the two other users on the issue have been resolved including a mediation which I self-settled. In both cases, both I and the users that I had a conflict with were satisfied. As for ], ] and ], I would like editors concerned after reading this to actually visit those articles and check the edits I made. Recently in Genocides in History, I even settled an edit war between two other editors. I have also removed vandalism off those pages, like I do on all the pages of my watchlist. As for the link removal of the DMOZ directory, I immediately readded after I saw that an editor had any concern, and I gave a message to her that I did not think something as minute as this needed an extensive discussion. Lastly, I am just wondering, you have only been an editor for 2 weeks now, and I have never been in a conflict with you before, is there a reason you are bringing up disputes that have already been settled? I am just wondering, but I would like to thank you for voting anyways. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #:Just to '''address some of your concerns''', I have never edited India-related articles because of these accusations being addressed on Pakistan-related and Kashmir-related (a disputed territory between India and Pakistan) articles by a couple of editors. I don't see how my edits were anti-India anyways, since I was simply rewording anti-Pakistani sentiment from those pages. Others might actually call that NPOV. Over time, one-sided editors have made it so that the page becomes very biased. I would also like to point out that all the arguments that I had with the two other users on the issue have been resolved including a mediation which I self-settled. In both cases, both I and the users that I had a conflict with were satisfied. As for ], ] and ], I would like editors concerned after reading this to actually visit those articles and check the edits I made. Recently in Genocides in History, I even settled an edit war between two other editors. I have also removed vandalism off those pages, like I do on all the pages of my watchlist. As for the link removal of the DMOZ directory, I immediately readded after I saw that an editor had any concern, and I gave a message to her that I did not think something as minute as this needed an extensive discussion. Lastly, I am just wondering, you have only been an editor for 2 weeks now, and I have never been in a conflict with you before, is there a reason you are bringing up disputes that have already been settled? I am just wondering, but I would like to thank you for voting anyways. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Line 43: Line 45:
# '''Oppose'''. Per above comments. IMO, an admin should try to avoid getting caught up in controversy and pov-editing. I do believe however that anonyme has made many good contributions which are not written from his pov. Perhaps in a few months. ''''']]]''''' 10:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) # '''Oppose'''. Per above comments. IMO, an admin should try to avoid getting caught up in controversy and pov-editing. I do believe however that anonyme has made many good contributions which are not written from his pov. Perhaps in a few months. ''''']]]''''' 10:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' I am not convinced about the neutrality of his edits. '''UPDATE:''' Other things that concern me is that he now apparently has decided to attack the editors that is opposing his request for adminship, making claims that they are sockpuppets, or that they is somehow biased against him: ]. Another problem I believe is that he apparently is not as civil as I think he should be. When rallying support for a revert war at an article, he left this comment on a Wikipedians talkpage: ''"Zeno gone crazy again."'' and he even make a false claim about a 3rr violation. -- ] 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC) # '''Oppose''' I am not convinced about the neutrality of his edits. '''UPDATE:''' Other things that concern me is that he now apparently has decided to attack the editors that is opposing his request for adminship, making claims that they are sockpuppets, or that they is somehow biased against him: ]. Another problem I believe is that he apparently is not as civil as I think he should be. When rallying support for a revert war at an article, he left this comment on a Wikipedians talkpage: ''"Zeno gone crazy again."'' and he even make a false claim about a 3rr violation. -- ] 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Dude, what are you talking about? You are the one tryin to go around telling your friends to vote against him. He's only asking the ones that opposed him without any reason for their reasons. He's not attackin them. You on the other hand are making bad faith edits against him trying to gather opposition. I don't think that's fair. See this . --] 18:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. The accusations of POV editing leave me concerned; I don't think that POV editors should have rollback buttons at their disposal, in particular. Also ]. (But I do kind of like your username.) --] 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. The accusations of POV editing leave me concerned; I don't think that POV editors should have rollback buttons at their disposal, in particular. Also ]. (But I do kind of like your username.) --] 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. Ive had many bitter confrontations with Anon. At times in order to make the article ] neutral, he would make it more biased and would often come up with inaccurate information. Certain comments left by him on my talkpage and on the article's discussion page, clearly show his attitude of getting into disputes and starting long flame wars; the reason why Im opposing his candiature. He has also violated the 3RR couple of times and has frequently removed information from articles backed by verfiable sources. I agree that Ive made some mistakes and thank AE for pointing them out, but the manner in which he resolves his disputes (especially the one with ]) is certainly not acceptable. --]|] 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC) # '''Oppose'''. Ive had many bitter confrontations with Anon. At times in order to make the article ] neutral, he would make it more biased and would often come up with inaccurate information. Certain comments left by him on my talkpage and on the article's discussion page, clearly show his attitude of getting into disputes and starting long flame wars; the reason why Im opposing his candiature. He has also violated the 3RR couple of times and has frequently removed information from articles backed by verfiable sources. I agree that Ive made some mistakes and thank AE for pointing them out, but the manner in which he resolves his disputes (especially the one with ]) is certainly not acceptable. --]|] 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#:Yes, I agree we have had bitter confrontations in the past, but we have always resolved our disputes. For example, on the ] article, we had a mishap where user:idleguy was involved and wanted to insert a large paragraph anti-Pakistan which you supported. After my extensive discussion with you, you said ''"I have no problems with recent edits uve made to state terrorism article. Cheers"'', which I assume was satisfaction with my efforts to make NPOV. Terrorism in Kashmir is a very hostile article and you and I worked out our disputes in a civil manner, before other editors started intruding and you mentioned this several times. I have resolved my disputes with both you and Idleguy. Also I have only violated the '''3rr''' once (within my first week or two of editing as I stated above). But I respect your opinion Deepak and hope that you and I can work productively in the future. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC) ::Yes, I agree we have had bitter confrontations in the past, but we have always resolved our disputes. For example, on the ] article, we had a mishap where user:idleguy was involved and wanted to insert a large paragraph anti-Pakistan which you supported. After my extensive discussion with you, you said ''"I have no problems with recent edits uve made to state terrorism article. Cheers"'', which I assume was satisfaction with my efforts to make NPOV. Terrorism in Kashmir is a very hostile article and you and I worked out our disputes in a civil manner, before other editors started intruding and you mentioned this several times. I have resolved my disputes with both you and Idleguy. Also I have only violated the '''3rr''' once (within my first week or two of editing as I stated above). But I respect your opinion Deepak and hope that you and I can work productively in the future. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Resolving disputes with you is tiresome, since you constantly revert articles. I estimate that about 5% of your edits in the main namespace are reverts.'''You seem not to appreciate that reverting other people's work (even if you strongly disagree with it) is insulting to people who contribute in good faith.''' Personally, I don't contribute much to Islam related articles anymore, because I sick of dealing with editors like youself that will just revert anything they disagree with instead of trying to reach a concensus. I personally don't think that you need admin powers in the first place, or that if you had them, you would use them with wisdom and discretion. ] 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - ] 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC) # '''Oppose''' - ] 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' Anonymous Editor is the least competent for to be the administrator of Misplaced Pages. His loyalty is neither to facts nor to Misplaced Pages. He has an agenda and that is to censor every criticism of Islam. This editor has no understanding of fair game and impartial opinion. He is a militant cyber jihadi. With this much impartiality I personally don’t think he is fit even to be an editor of Misplaced Pages let alone an administrator. I am also saddened to see my suspicion about SlimVirgin being an Islamist came true. Look how she is supporting the nomination of AE. In few pages that I helped editing ], ] and ], these two members worked in cahoots, while AE reverted all my postings, SlimVirgin protected his version and blocked the page so I cannot edit. Then her mediation was also biased and unfair. We have to understand that the Islamists are on a mission to impose their religion on others. There are two wasy to do that. Deciet and terror. The Muslim editors in Misplaced Pages are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or ''taqiyyah'' as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism. Only those who do not know Islam, i.e. the ] think there is a difference. In Islamic countries Muslims kill the critics of Islam and where they can’t do that they try to silence them with any means available to them, and they work in gangs. Not only I strongly oppose the self-nomination of this utterly biased individual, I also think SlimVirgin’s position should be evaluated and revoked. We have to keep religious zealotry out of Misplaced Pages. These Islamists should not hold any position of authority. If they do, others lose their freedom of expression. The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam. I am not an Islamophobe. I know Islam. Like thousands of others leaving Islam, I have also left Islam and know what I am talking. Do not let Muslims take control of Misplaced Pages. Today, virtually all the pages of Misplaced Pages that talk about Islam are filled with Islamic propaganda and lies, while if anyone posts any message contrary to their view; they accuse him of “contravening '''ALL''' the Misplaced Pages rules” as Slim Virgin accused me. I asked her to be specific three times. She failed to do that. I urge other members and administrators to look into what transpired between AE, SlimVirgin and me, and you be the judge! Misplaced Pages is no more an unbiased source of information when it comes to the subject of Islam. If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Misplaced Pages. Muslims work in gang and support each other no matter what. The reason is that they have pack mentality. They have divided the world in Muslims and Kafirs. They see themselves as brothers and the rest of us as infidles. Some of the names I see supporting AE’s nomination I recognize as Islamists. Muslims are militant and determined, the rest are laid back an easy going. We should not accept those supports. If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show. '''Be warned of Islamic militancy. Be very warned.''' ]18:56 24 October 2005 #'''Strong Oppose''' Anonymous Editor is the least competent for to be the administrator of Misplaced Pages. His loyalty is neither to facts nor to Misplaced Pages. He has an agenda and that is to censor every criticism of Islam. This editor has no understanding of fair game and impartial opinion. He is a militant cyber jihadi. With this much impartiality I personally don’t think he is fit even to be an editor of Misplaced Pages let alone an administrator. I am also saddened to see my suspicion about SlimVirgin being an Islamist came true. Look how she is supporting the nomination of AE. In few pages that I helped editing ], ] and ], these two members worked in cahoots, while AE reverted all my postings, SlimVirgin protected his version and blocked the page so I cannot edit. Then her mediation was also biased and unfair. We have to understand that the Islamists are on a mission to impose their religion on others. There are two wasy to do that. Deciet and terror. The Muslim editors in Misplaced Pages are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or ''taqiyyah'' as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism. Only those who do not know Islam, i.e. the ] think there is a difference. In Islamic countries Muslims kill the critics of Islam and where they can’t do that they try to silence them with any means available to them, and they work in gangs. Not only I strongly oppose the self-nomination of this utterly biased individual, I also think SlimVirgin’s position should be evaluated and revoked. We have to keep religious zealotry out of Misplaced Pages. These Islamists should not hold any position of authority. If they do, others lose their freedom of expression. The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam. I am not an Islamophobe. I know Islam. Like thousands of others leaving Islam, I have also left Islam and know what I am talking. Do not let Muslims take control of Misplaced Pages. Today, virtually all the pages of Misplaced Pages that talk about Islam are filled with Islamic propaganda and lies, while if anyone posts any message contrary to their view; they accuse him of “contravening '''ALL''' the Misplaced Pages rules” as Slim Virgin accused me. I asked her to be specific three times. She failed to do that. I urge other members and administrators to look into what transpired between AE, SlimVirgin and me, and you be the judge! Misplaced Pages is no more an unbiased source of information when it comes to the subject of Islam. If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Misplaced Pages. Muslims work in gang and support each other no matter what. The reason is that they have pack mentality. They have divided the world in Muslims and Kafirs. They see themselves as brothers and the rest of us as infidles. Some of the names I see supporting AE’s nomination I recognize as Islamists. Muslims are militant and determined, the rest are laid back an easy going. We should not accept those supports. If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show. '''Be warned of Islamic militancy. Be very warned.''' ]18:56 24 October 2005

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

#:'''Comment'''. OceanSplash is a new editor who has very strong views on Islam, and who's had some trouble editing within our NPOV and NOR policies &mdash; only because he's new, and I'm sure it'll sort itself out soon &mdash; but his view that everyone who opposes his edits is an Islamist needs to be read in that context. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


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


'''Comments''' '''Comments'''
Line 60: Line 61:


'''Questions for the candidate'''<br /> '''Questions for the candidate'''<br />
''A not generic question''
Would you be willing to change your name to avoid confusion if granting you adminstrative status were conditional on it?
:Yes, I would have no problem with changing my user name. It will indeed avoid confusion, because many times anonymous IP addresses use my signature and sometimes I get mistaken for anon IPs (as I say on my talk page). Thanks :) --] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

''A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:'' ''A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:''


Revision as of 19:15, 24 October 2005

Anonymous editor

Requests_for_adminship/Anonymous_editor|action=edit}} Vote here (20/7/0) ending 00:27 October 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Support

  1. My pleasure. SlimVirgin 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rkgerzr yrfovna fhccbeg! ~~ N (t/c) 01:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support - It's time to become an anonymous admin! -- Svest 01:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)  
  4. Support Fadix 01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Trust the nominator and the nominee ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support good editor --JAranda | watz sup 01:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. SupportHell yeah V/M !
    01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, every encounter with this user has left me with a good impression. Titoxd 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support Awesome guy to work with. He has helped me in every dispute I have ever been in. Madhev0 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I never even knew that was him from his sig, I just knew him from seeing a million of his diffs. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support I just met him, but even I think he's great. --JadeManiac 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support --Rogerd 02:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support freestylefrappe 02:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. Kirill Lokshin 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Eagle 04:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. EXTREME SUPPORT SUPPORT. Need I say, as per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support and RFA cliche #1. Dmcdevit·t 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support 172 | Talk 06:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. The Minister of War 07:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  20. Strong Support - Has evolved into an editer of impecible standards with an eye on copyediting and all that other boring stuff! We need more admins like this. --Irishpunktom\ 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Yuber 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  22. Strong Support -- Levelheaded and fair. Will make a great admin. BrandonYusufToropov 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose one of the least cooperative editors on WP. I have very little confidence that Anonyme will not abuse his admin powers in realtionship to controversial articles involving Islam or the Arab Israeli conflict. Nothing personal, but I don't think Anonym has the personal maturity to separete his strongly held beleif's from his responsibilty as a sysop. Klonimus 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    Although, I understand that you have a different point of view than I do, I still don't understand why you would be rallying people to vote against me. Your personal differences with me are fine, but these type of tactics are in bad faith. I also don't recall making any controversial edits to pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I would, however, like to thank you for voting. --a.n.o.n.y.m 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    1. Anonym, most people don't follow RfA very closely, and there exists a tendancy to rubberstamp approve many candidates. Since there is no real mechanism for removing admins, the initial selection is extremely important and merit's scrutiny from all wikipedian's with a possible interest. The fact that 7 oppose votes can be
      Furthermore, you tend to have a very confrontational editing style, and at times seem to be on a mission to purge wikipedia of anything that reflects poorly on Islam or Muslims. You also have a very annoying habit shared by several other editors on WP (Yuber, Faisal, BYT, and others) of editing by revert ( , and many other examples)rather than seeking concensus, as such, I and many others don't trust you with a rollback button. Klonimus 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose. Has a long history of pov-edits, text deletions, edit wars and similar. Please take a close look at his edit history. His edits in india-related articles show an extreme anti-india bias. One doesn't even need to know alot about these subjects to realize this and AE's edits repeatedly reveal his often very limited knowledge of the india-related articles he edits, which he has sometimes admitted himself. Some of his pov edits can be seen on: Pervez Musharraf, Terrorism in Kashmir, Kashmir, Terrorism in Pakistan, Kargil War, and there have been relevant discussions on: Talk:Terrorism in Kashmir, Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan, , etc. I will add some details about his edits on these articles later. Some other cases (here I haven't checked yet) may include: Lashkar-e-Toiba, Military of Pakistan, Genocides in history, etc. As for non-india articles, I didn't check this articles, but wouldn't be surprised if he would show similar edits there. I only give one example here: In this edit he deleted a comment made by another user which showed AE "removing the DMOZ directory of criticisms of Islam from the links". Now there was a very long controversy on that article wether or not to add a link to the "faithfreedom list of links page", and the main argument against adding that was that there is already this dmoz directory on that page. Removing this (as usual without any edit summary) was rather a bad faith edit. User:Purplefeltangel got many oppose votes for "only" one day of vandalism, while this user has been known for constant pov-editing and vandalism (yes, I think constant pov-editing, pov deletions (sometimes with no edit summary and marked minor) and similar are a form of vandalism. If users like him become admins would just mean that there is no standard at all for becoming admins (apart from editcounts). --Kefalonia 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just to address some of your concerns, I have never edited India-related articles because of these accusations being addressed on Pakistan-related and Kashmir-related (a disputed territory between India and Pakistan) articles by a couple of editors. I don't see how my edits were anti-India anyways, since I was simply rewording anti-Pakistani sentiment from those pages. Others might actually call that NPOV. Over time, one-sided editors have made it so that the page becomes very biased. I would also like to point out that all the arguments that I had with the two other users on the issue have been resolved including a mediation which I self-settled. In both cases, both I and the users that I had a conflict with were satisfied. As for Lashkar-e-Toiba, Military of Pakistan and Genocides in history, I would like editors concerned after reading this to actually visit those articles and check the edits I made. Recently in Genocides in History, I even settled an edit war between two other editors. I have also removed vandalism off those pages, like I do on all the pages of my watchlist. As for the link removal of the DMOZ directory, I immediately readded after I saw that an editor had any concern, and I gave a message to her that I did not think something as minute as this needed an extensive discussion. Lastly, I am just wondering, you have only been an editor for 2 weeks now, and I have never been in a conflict with you before, is there a reason you are bringing up disputes that have already been settled? I am just wondering, but I would like to thank you for voting anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    It is not true that you have never edited India-related articles, even if Kashmir/Pakistan related articles are excluded. But I should have said South Asian related articles. That you show an anti-India bias in many of your edits can easily be seen by checking your edit history on south asian related articles. And I've been an editor for over 2 months. I explicitly stated that I didn't yet check the articles Lashkar, Military, Genocides, so here you're slightly detracting from the other articles, but I will check these articles. I'm all for npov, but you're edits frequently consist of sometimes extreme pov. P.S. I just saw your comment on User talk:Banes, so my response to this: I'm not opposing you because you're a Muslim editor, but because your edits are much too pov for me. Please don't make any unjustified accusations. (I also voted for Gren on this page who seems to me to be a perfectly good editor.) We never had any conflict till now, but that is only because I tend to stay away from edit conflicts. However, I saw many of your edits and many discussions where you were involved, and I have therefore formed my opinion on them. Again, it is over 2 months, not 2 weeks, even if this is again off-topic. I will add some examples of pov/bad faith etc. edits later. --Kefalonia 12:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose AE had a violation of 3RR in June of 2005, which was only four months ago. See User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#Saudi_Arabia. Then he tried to slip past the ban with a sockpuppet which was discussed User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#Query here and User_talk:Anonymous_editor/archive1#3rr here. I think that five months on Misplaced Pages is not long enough to be an admin. I suggest that AE apply again in 12 months. Joaquin Murietta 08:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC) amended 08:40.
    Just to be fair, it was one of my first weeks at wikipedia. Also there was no sockpuppet; I was using my normal IP address. But, I of course appreciate your concern and would just like to inform you that I have never done anything like that again and adhered to strict policy (never had 3rr again). But thank you for giving me a chance to address this concern.--a.n.o.n.y.m 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    My question to AE: In view of the problems in June, would you be willing to reapply to be an admin in a year? Isn't four months without problems, out of five months online at Misplaced Pages, too little time to be an admin? Joaquin Murietta 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    I assure you that in my 4 other months at wikipedia, I have made more edits than most other editors. I feel I am ready for this. Everyone has problems in their first month, after that it's a rapid learning process. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 10:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Per above comments. IMO, an admin should try to avoid getting caught up in controversy and pov-editing. I do believe however that anonyme has made many good contributions which are not written from his pov. Perhaps in a few months. Banes 10:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I am not convinced about the neutrality of his edits. UPDATE: Other things that concern me is that he now apparently has decided to attack the editors that is opposing his request for adminship, making claims that they are sockpuppets, or that they is somehow biased against him: User_talk:Banes#Concerns. Another problem I believe is that he apparently is not as civil as I think he should be. When rallying support for a revert war at an article, he left this comment on a Wikipedians talkpage: "Zeno gone crazy again." and he even make a false claim about a 3rr violation. -- Karl Meier 11:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Dude, what are you talking about? You are the one tryin to go around telling your friends to vote against him. He's only asking the ones that opposed him without any reason for their reasons. He's not attackin them. You on the other hand are making bad faith edits against him trying to gather opposition. I don't think that's fair. See this . --Madhev0 18:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. The accusations of POV editing leave me concerned; I don't think that POV editors should have rollback buttons at their disposal, in particular. Also he deleted votes from an AfD last month because they were unsigned. (But I do kind of like your username.) --Idont Havaname 14:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Ive had many bitter confrontations with Anon. At times in order to make the article Terrorism in Kashmir neutral, he would make it more biased and would often come up with inaccurate information. Certain comments left by him on my talkpage and on the article's discussion page, clearly show his attitude of getting into disputes and starting long flame wars; the reason why Im opposing his candiature. He has also violated the 3RR couple of times and has frequently removed information from articles backed by verfiable sources. I agree that Ive made some mistakes and thank AE for pointing them out, but the manner in which he resolves his disputes (especially the one with User:Idleguy) is certainly not acceptable. --Deepak|वार्ता 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we have had bitter confrontations in the past, but we have always resolved our disputes. For example, on the State Terrorism article, we had a mishap where user:idleguy was involved and wanted to insert a large paragraph anti-Pakistan which you supported. After my extensive discussion with you, you said "I have no problems with recent edits uve made to state terrorism article. Cheers", which I assume was satisfaction with my efforts to make NPOV. Terrorism in Kashmir is a very hostile article and you and I worked out our disputes in a civil manner, before other editors started intruding and you mentioned this several times. I have resolved my disputes with both you and Idleguy. Also I have only violated the 3rr once (within my first week or two of editing as I stated above). But I respect your opinion Deepak and hope that you and I can work productively in the future. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m 17:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Resolving disputes with you is tiresome, since you constantly revert articles. I estimate that about 5% of your edits in the main namespace are reverts.You seem not to appreciate that reverting other people's work (even if you strongly disagree with it) is insulting to people who contribute in good faith. Personally, I don't contribute much to Islam related articles anymore, because I sick of dealing with editors like youself that will just revert anything they disagree with instead of trying to reach a concensus. I personally don't think that you need admin powers in the first place, or that if you had them, you would use them with wisdom and discretion. Klonimus 18:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - Rangerdude 16:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose Anonymous Editor is the least competent for to be the administrator of Misplaced Pages. His loyalty is neither to facts nor to Misplaced Pages. He has an agenda and that is to censor every criticism of Islam. This editor has no understanding of fair game and impartial opinion. He is a militant cyber jihadi. With this much impartiality I personally don’t think he is fit even to be an editor of Misplaced Pages let alone an administrator. I am also saddened to see my suspicion about SlimVirgin being an Islamist came true. Look how she is supporting the nomination of AE. In few pages that I helped editing Ali Sina, Islamophobia and Useful Idiots, these two members worked in cahoots, while AE reverted all my postings, SlimVirgin protected his version and blocked the page so I cannot edit. Then her mediation was also biased and unfair. We have to understand that the Islamists are on a mission to impose their religion on others. There are two wasy to do that. Deciet and terror. The Muslim editors in Misplaced Pages are engaged in a Jihad of deciet or taqiyyah as they call it, while their borhers engage in terrorism. Only those who do not know Islam, i.e. the useful idiot think there is a difference. In Islamic countries Muslims kill the critics of Islam and where they can’t do that they try to silence them with any means available to them, and they work in gangs. Not only I strongly oppose the self-nomination of this utterly biased individual, I also think SlimVirgin’s position should be evaluated and revoked. We have to keep religious zealotry out of Misplaced Pages. These Islamists should not hold any position of authority. If they do, others lose their freedom of expression. The concept of freedom of speech is alien to Islam. I am not an Islamophobe. I know Islam. Like thousands of others leaving Islam, I have also left Islam and know what I am talking. Do not let Muslims take control of Misplaced Pages. Today, virtually all the pages of Misplaced Pages that talk about Islam are filled with Islamic propaganda and lies, while if anyone posts any message contrary to their view; they accuse him of “contravening ALL the Misplaced Pages rules” as Slim Virgin accused me. I asked her to be specific three times. She failed to do that. I urge other members and administrators to look into what transpired between AE, SlimVirgin and me, and you be the judge! Misplaced Pages is no more an unbiased source of information when it comes to the subject of Islam. If we let these militant Islamists become administrators, you might as well kiss goodbye the Misplaced Pages. Muslims work in gang and support each other no matter what. The reason is that they have pack mentality. They have divided the world in Muslims and Kafirs. They see themselves as brothers and the rest of us as infidles. Some of the names I see supporting AE’s nomination I recognize as Islamists. Muslims are militant and determined, the rest are laid back an easy going. We should not accept those supports. If you have 1000 Muslim editors, they all will support each other until they take over the whole show. Be warned of Islamic militancy. Be very warned. OceanSplash18:56 24 October 2005

Neutral

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

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A not generic question Would you be willing to change your name to avoid confusion if granting you adminstrative status were conditional on it?

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

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

A. All the chores I currently do now + more. Currently I: revert vandalism on a wide range of articles, warn users who vandalize and report them, and deal with the concerns of editors in a decent and honest manner even if they don't concern me directly. As an admin I feel I would be effective in:
  • reverting vandalism (five times the rate I revert at now)
  • blocking and unblocking vandal users (this should speed up because I won't even have to report them to an admin)
  • protecting pages with edit warring &
  • performing the Deletion and undeletion of articles.

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

A. Yes, I am pleased with the ones that I can make major edits to and not have people negate those edits. This of course means that there is a huge list of these articles, but there is also a list of article with disputes most of which I have solved with compromise and on good terms involved with the other party. I am equally proud of these and the ones I have made major edits in.
I feel privileged to be editing an encyclopedia where there is no limit to the amount of information that can be added. Here are some of my recent major contributions to articles I am satisfied with: Pakistan(for which I got a barnstar), Isa,Iblis, Moses, Halaal and Qur'an.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

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