Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:28, 18 December 2005

Izehar

(24/2/0) ending 22:34 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar (talk · contribs) – All around good friend of mine, and perhaps one of the nicest Wikipedians here. I would give him the mop, the broom and the bucket without hesitation, as he has given Misplaced Pages more than 4,000 excellent contributions since October. Help make Misplaced Pages better by making Izehar a sysop, now! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, with gratitude to Encyclopedist for his kind words. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support: Meets my one standard: Making him an admin would help Misplaced Pages. The absolutely torrid pace of edits doesn't hurt either. —BorgHunter (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Another I thought he was a admin already --Jaranda 22:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. A first rate vandal-hunter. Despite his relatively short time here, he seems familiar with policy, common practice and the Wiki culture. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. Owen× ☎ 23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Strong support - The user's gained a lot of respect from the community because of all her/his contributions and vandal fighting. I believe we will always see more from this user. -- Svest 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)  
6. Support Maybe I need to start checking Special:Listusers, but I thought Izehar was an admin! SoLando (Talk) 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support; I have frequently come across this editor on RC patrol doing useful things and following up on them. Would make a conscientious admin, I think. Chick Bowen 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support - will make an excellent janitor.--File Éireann 00:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support without reservation a hard-working, respectable contributor. --Elliskev 01:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support Everything seems to be in good order here! xaosflux /_CVU 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Strong vandal fighter. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support a very good editor and a fellow vandal fighter. --a.n.o.n.y.m 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support Great vandal fighter. Will wield a mop and bucket with pride. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
15. 1 trillion percent support Would make a great admin--Shanel 03:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
16. He is not an admin? o.o NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 03:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Strong Support. Has my full confidence. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Strong Support Its high time. Banes 07:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support would make an excellent admin--MONGO 07:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Gamaliel 07:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. <cliche>Already thought he was one</cliche> «LordViD» 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support for good article contributions and excellent vandalism-hunting. David | Talk 11:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support - because I thought I did an hour ago! And because I've had good interactions with Izehar, who has made good contribs as well as done some good anti-vandal work. jnothman 12:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - Reacted very badly with regards to User:Daniel Brandt/Daniel Brandt, boasting about being on his "black list", and about being a vandal, supported criminal behaviour of User:Vilerage, went around drumming up hostility in other users and creating problems, attacked a new user who was trying to edit an article and created major problems on Macedonia (Greece), has repeatedly falsely accused people of vandalism and engaged in personal attacks through edit summaries. I am glad that he is not an admin right now, and hope that it remains that way. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   Stop trolling. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   What do you mean? Sorry, I was just looking through the RFAs today and found this one. I voted on a few today. I know, this is only my 3rd day doing it but hey, I thought I was allowed to vote. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   He shares Brandt's hitlist with Jimbo and a half dozen or so administrators. Good company, I'd say. Gamaliel 07:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose for the lack of judgment demonstrated on the Daniel Brandt issue. Zocky 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   Strong oppose for the failure to deal gracefully with opposing opinions on this page. Zocky 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

   I also raise an eyebrow at the habit of challenging people's votes in the vote list. There's a comments section underneath. Zocky 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Many people active on this page seem to think that Misplaced Pages is some sort of a club you join to find friends and comrades in arms, defend the walls from vandals and occasionally go on glorious adventures to fight a mythical enemy. Perhaps they haven't read what Misplaced Pages is not. I find the tone of those that challenged Zordrac's vote up there and even went so far as to imply on User talk:Daniel Brandt that Zordrac is controlled by Brandt completely inappropriate for editors, let alone admins. All this about one relatively unimportant article about a person who is barely known outside Misplaced Pages, or indeed inside it, apart from the in-crowd who treats this issue as something extremely relevant, I suspect just for the thrill of it. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the only thing that this site is meant to be used for. I would like to ask people who wish to continue this boring and irelevant flamewar (from both sides of it), to do so in the blogosphere. Zocky 12:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Would you care to clarify the lack of judgement (sic.) please? Are you referring to my opposition to Zodrac's proposition that Vilerage be banned (which you concurred with). I didn't know that assuming good faith in the absence of evidence was bad. From the moment Vilerage denies doing what he was accused of and there is no evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe him. It doesn't seem like poor judgement to me. Izehar (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What absence of evidence? Go to http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html . 100% undeniable evidence there. No absence of evidence there. No possible reason to dispute it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's close to hearsay - no good, it means that I have to take Brandt's word for it. He's just saying he is (like you are) - he hasn't proved to us that he is. According to WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. He hasn't given any evidence; he just says he has evidence. Why doesn't he prove his claims? When he does, then I may support action against Vilerage. Until he does, WP:AGF applies. Izehar (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You jumped to the conclusion. I was referring to your idea that misspelling in quoting constitutes libel . Zocky

• It could constitute libel under English law. If a court were to hold that what he said would cause a reasonable person to believe the untrue negative statement, it could. I'm a law student, believe me. It all comes down the jury. I have to tell you though, IMO they'd probably dismiss it, but under strict legal theory it could constitute libel. Izehar (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• How about explaining your vote now. Izehar (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  Look, I'm not going to change my vote. Let's just say that your actions in the Brandt case do not meet my admin criteria, ok? Zocky 13:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough - as long as I know the real reason behind it (my disagreeing with you, how dare I?). Izehar (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Evidence, please? What failure to deal gracefully with opposing opinions (sic)? I'm merely pointing out the flaws in the reasoning. I never said you weren't entitled to vote whatever you want – I was just answering some issues you addressed and I must add, failed to account for. Izehar (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  Since it seems impossible to get the last word on one's own vote here without spelling stuff out in details:

  • Your involvement on the Daniel Brandt talk page, including insinuations that something was libel when you had no basis to believe that it was anything but a typo, was not helpful to the writing of the encyclopedia.
  • You seem emotionally attached to the result of this vote and contents of this page. That alone indicates the failure to understand that adminship is not a big deal and is enough reason to oppose you becoming an admin.
  • As for the evidence of not taking opposing opinions gracefullly, I'm replying to you for the fifth time, and you are still challenging my vote. Not to mention that you just claimed that I'm voting oppose because you disagreed with me. Zocky 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• That was a fair comment under legal theory and if you had taken the time to check it, I said that it is either a spelling error or a false claim about me. I did not exclude the possibility that it was a typing error. Why are you misrepresenting me? I am emotionally attached to people's perception of me after your misleading comments about me. Also, I am not challenging your vote, I am challenging your motives behind your vote. I never asked you to change your vote, only to explain it (the explanation obviously would be commented on and after that, it is up to you whether you change it). Izehar (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to be under the impression that RFA pages are intended for chatting about what we think of each other. I thought that I made it clear that the upper explanations is my final word on the matter. Zocky 14:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I currently spend most of my Misplaced Pages time on RC patrol. I also perform Cleanup Taskforce chores, have responded to Requests for Comment and have participated in Peer Reviews. If promoted, I intend to continue those activities, but to also help clearing out that immense workload on the VfD pages, attending to WP:AIV, WP:RPP and WP:AN/3RR. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. I am particularly pleased with my work on English law related articles, especially the ones that I've started and almost exclusively contributed to: Partridge v. Crittenden and R. v. Constanza. I'm also particularly pleased with my work on the article on Reform Judaism. I am of course pleased with everything I've done and if anyone would like to check, it is all listed on my userpage. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A. During my time at Misplaced Pages, I've been fortunate enough not to have found myself in any conflicts nor experienced "wikistress". All content disputes I have been in were quickly resolved with a mutually acceptable NPOV solution with no civility breaches and no petty tantrums. I hope for this to continue, but as I understand, sysop duties will entail a lot of effort dealing with some disturbed and angry users. I intend to keep calm and reasonable and hopefully I'll succeed with the application of the if distressed, walk away from the computer, calm down, then come back rule. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's hardly true. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't troll. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I don't know what your definition of troll is, but if you are referring to this one: internet troll, then I think that maybe you should read up on it first. I am merely voicing my opinion. Izehar has got in about 10 or 15 fights with unconnected issues in the past 24 hours. That's hardly "never" is it? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence, please? Izehar (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)