Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:00, 7 January 2006

Juro

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro|action=edit}} Vote here] (5/10/0) ending 20:51 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Juro (talk · contribs) – I trust Juro as a very good Admin. He is a very friendly, calm editor. He also does excellent work with history articles. He's shown a strong interest in using discussion pages to work out issues and strive for neutral, accurate articles, as well as in identifying and mediating conflict. He made almost 6000 edits. He is kind and civil and I think Juro would make a good admin. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte talk 12:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination. Juro 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Very strong support - Juro is one of the users that I trust. He is a very friendly, excellent contributor. We need such Admins like him. Bonaparte talk 12:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Civilized attitude in "heated" subjects. --Vasile 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but only on the condition that you use edit summaries much more consistently. —Nightstallion (?) 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very knowlegeable and dedicated editor. Jbetak 18:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a very enthusiastic and knowledgeable contributor, with an excellent temperament. Iinag 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Too few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please answer the questions below and post the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose However I think Juro a valuable contributor, he is well known as a strong Slovak POV-pusher. I had heated edit wars with him and he made personal attacks against me (see Dunajská Streda) calling me fascist and chauvinist and making hostile remarks about my profession. I'm not over-sensitive so I not take this too seriously from a fellow-contributor but I think it unacceptable from an admin. Zello 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have all seen your edits Zello so don't push it. Bonaparte talk 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just remark that I have been also accused by Slovak editors of making anti-Slovak edits. So much for "Slovak-POV" pusher. In fact, I can be considered anything except that. Juro 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In this wikipedia, I only deal with articles that have something to do with Slovakia or its surroundings, so that nobody will know me here, except persons I was involved in disputes with. That is not a good basis for an admin candidature. Also, I tend to lose my self-control when someone repeatedly says something I consider complete nonsense. That would be another problem. Juro 22:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)" This was your first reaction for nomination. Bonaparte deleted it from your talk page 1 day later but you were right then. Zello 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to the edit Zello is referring to. — TheKMan^talk 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ignores edit summaries, ignores standard questions—not a good sign. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not enough project space edits, was fairly uncivil when requesting a user be blocked. [1] --Interiot 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until email set and questions answered. It would be helpful to hear something from the candidate other than "I accept the nomination." --TheParanoidOne 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Well-known Slovak POV-pusher, uses the word 'fascist' to discredit other contributors, qualifies content disputes as vandalism (see eg. Treaty of Trianon). Vay 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and your "collegues", who should certainly do anything else then doing edits in this wikipedia, know very well why I called you fascist, and I STICK TO IT. I only call people "fascists" when I have good reasons to do so and I recognize fascists after two sentences. That is not an insult that is a statement of what you are. Juro 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No matter how right or wrong you may be, you shouldn't be calling other users ignorant or fascist [2]. A few other things: Edit summary usage is low, and when it was used, it was to try to communicate. Edit summaries are there to help other editors figure out what your edits were about, and if you have to communicate, do it on a talk page. Also, I would also like some answers to the generic questions. (On another note, I'm concerned with Bonaparte's edit to this RfA.) — TheKMan^talk 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being uncivil is a major problem in my opinion. Also, the lack of edit summaries doesn't help. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Didn't even bother to answer the questions. Jkelly 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nice answers to the questions... and lack of edits summaries, coupled with the above users' complains about civility. Olorin28 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, inability to refrain from harsh personal attacks on users his is in conflict with suggests he is likely to use admin powers abusively. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Edit summary usage: 33% for major edits and 35% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 12:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly edit summary, monthly namespace summary. --Interiot 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

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

A.

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

A.

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.

4. What do you think of these questions?

A.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 #'''Oppose'''.  Didn't even bother to answer the questions.  [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 #'''Oppose'''. Nice answers to the questions... and lack of edits summaries, coupled with the above users' complains about civility. [[User:Olorin28|Olorin28]] 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
+#'''Oppose''', inability to refrain from harsh personal attacks on users his is in conflict with suggests he is likely to use admin powers abusively. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 '''Neutral'''