Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anonymous editor

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

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Evidence

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I'll add a note at the top of the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving comments here

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section headers

message: 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)
replies: text: A year? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this RfA and related discussions. El_C 00:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So if I suddenly get real nice, I could be an Admin in four months? Hmmm....Joaquin Murietta 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My comment went missing too

message: 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)
replies: text: "WP has enough admins as is"? On your watchlist, perhaps. Give me ten minutes on mine. El_C 10:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why I am not surprised that this didn't work out

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Email campaigns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A short-timer explains why short-timers should not be Admins

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 First 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: Which one, Tintin? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry

message: #Oppose Islamophobic tendencies; support Anonymous editor.  El_C 21:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Moved comment (El_C & Kefalonia)

message: #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)
thread_title:  reproduction of exchanges following Silverback vote, since part took place after withdrawal