Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality

[edit]

(63/16/2) ends 04:06, 13 Oct 2004


This nomination is finished. This page is for the record only and shouldn't be changed.


This is a tough one, with a mountain of votes, but many detailed objections.
I'd call this a "popcorn candidacy"—the timer's gone off, but the kernels are still popping.
Hopefully, a 24-hour extension may establish clearer consensus.


Great contributor, he's made thousands of great edits, it's about time he gets the job. GeneralPatton 04:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am humbled. Neutrality (talk) 04:10, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. GeneralPatton 04:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. kizzle 04:38, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Lots of edits, but an odd history. Take a look before tallying votes. -- Netoholic @ 03:57, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
  4. ℛyan! | Talk 05:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Wolfman 06:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. David Gerard 11:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Strongly. One of the best contributors. 172 12:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 13:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. —No-One Jones (m) 13:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. BrokenSegue 19:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. OK, but please get a more neutral username JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. ffirehorse 22:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Without a doubt. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:37, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
  14. I support this user on a basis of his kindness and good edits, but I'd also like to make the following statement: a username should have NOTHING to do with one's request for adminship. User:Mydogategodshat, whom I have cited before, had the same problem, and that's quite possibly the most illogical reason (other than a few I've advanced, such as "this vote was disregarded") to oppose a nomination... ugen64 22:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Voting against him when your behavior isn't really spotless yourself...and then citing his USERNAME is just cockamamie. Mike H 23:15, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  16. I whole-heartedly support!! He has got to be one of the hardest working Wikipedians I have ever met!! Not to mention an excellent writer and actually has tact when dealing with others. Might I add he's quite the sweetheart once you get to know him. --Gerald Farinas 23:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. The username criticism is just silly. Gamaliel 23:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. Of course I support! He should have been made an administrator back in July. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. By all means. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. Incredibly strong support. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  21. Antandrus 01:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  22. Mackensen 05:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  23. zoney ♣ talk 10:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  24. –Andre (talk) 14:48, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  25. Fire Star 18:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  26. Support -- Neutrality's obviously deserving and dedicated. I would offer a bit of advice, though -- had Mydogategodshat become an admin, I think he/she would have had to be careful in working with religious issues (I didn't object to the name at all, and supported adminship both times). For the same reasons, I don't think Neutrality should feel forced to change his/her name, but I hope N. will consider being extra careful when interacting with new users, especially if admin powers are invoked -- despite my firm belief that N. should keep his/her name, I do feel there is a possibility of confusion for new editors. I trust Neutrality to keep this in mind, and have great faith in N's ability to be a trustworthy admin. Jwrosenzweig 20:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  27. Of course! -- Emsworth 21:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  28. Yes. :-) squash 21:10, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  29. Yes, about time! :-) • Benc • 21:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  30. What? What?! WHAT??!! He is not an admin yet??!! Strongly support.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 02:15, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  31. Have seen some of his great work. An excellent user. Also, I see little reason to be concerned about his username. --Slowking Man 05:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  32. Yes, I strongly support this nomination. David Cannon 11:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  33. ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉ 20:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
  34. Strong support. AlistairMcMillan 23:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  35. →Raul654 02:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  36. Acegikmo1 03:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  37. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
  38. Evercat 17:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  39. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 21:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  40. Jiang 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  41. Is clearly qualified if Netoholic, Rex, Gzornenplatz and Xed all oppose. Snowspinner 16:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
    What do you mean by this? --Lst27 00:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  42. Meelar (talk) 16:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  43. Graham ☺ | Talk 21:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    He welcomed me on arrival and has been friendly. I haven't followed his track record. --CloudSurfer 22:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    After reading some of Neutrality's heated and at times condescending replies to posts here I wish to withdraw my support. Cooler heads are needed for an admin. --CloudSurfer 02:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  44. Danny 10:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  45. I've stumbled across his edits fairly often. Don't see any reason not to vote yes. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 21:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  46. I've seen him a few times on IRC and on wiki, i've even had some sight problems with Neutrality, but overall he/she should be a sysop--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 22:14, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  47. Support - excellent contributor! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  48. Tεxτurε 02:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  49. Me, I like the name. Names himself after something he (and we) theoretically strive for. That's a good thing. jpgordon {gab} 04:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  50. -JCarriker 05:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  51. GuloGuloGulo 08:18, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • 140 edits, but please view their contribs when considering this vote. Not sure what to make of it, but shows history of voting on COTW and jumping into very involved discussions with very few article contribs. Pattern isn't typical for a new user. -- Netoholic @ 14:18, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
  52. I see no reason to oppose. {Ανάριον} 08:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  53. +sj+ 10:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Devoted to quality; polite; talk pages no longer blanked. Definite support. (And as much as I pride myself on fending off comma-oppression, I hate to see two opposition votes rest on style manual disputes.)
  54. Support -- Gregg 11:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  55. Support. -- Aaron Hill 11:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  56. Support. - RedWordSmith 12:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  57. Support. See my comment. – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
  58. Support, definitely. Jayjg 17:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  59. Support. I also responded to one of the Comments. Elf | Talk 01:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  60. Support Fishboy 01:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  61. Has done a lot of good work, and I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments. —Stormie 03:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  62. Support -- Chris 73 Talk 03:48, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
  63. Support -- has done good work on variety of articles, and seems to be responsible on policy. --Improv 04:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I supported him last time, but he has behaved rather erratic lately. For example, by apologizing to a third party for something I supposedly did (which I didn't actually do, and even if I did, what business would it be for him to apologize for me?). Also turns out to be far from neutral; the flags on his userpage speak for themselves. Gzornenplatz 04:31, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think flags on his user page show a lack of Neutrality. Would you have made that comment if there was only an American flag? or a Chinese one? BrokenSegue 19:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • It's not the flags themselves, they just indicate where his POV lies, and he's pushing it elsewhere. See for example Template talk:Sep11, where he tries to claim a memorial wiki can be neutral. Gzornenplatz 20:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
        • I think you are challenged in understanding this difference between being neutral on a topic and an encyclopedia presenting something from a NPOV. NPOV has to with presenting accurate information in a neutral voice. I don't think there are many people who challenge the idea that at least the people in the World Trade Center, a civilian facility attacked in peacetime, were innocents and can be described in an historical record. Do you think NPOV means that we have to memorialize the hijackers too? Or do you think we need to dig up evidence that the people in the towers may have deserved to die? -- Cecropia | Talk 02:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • A "memorial" has nothing to do with a neutral voice. This title implies sympathy right there, it's "honouring the memory", which obviously has nothing to do with presenting accurate information. The decision to set up this wiki was made in the earlier days of Wikipedia and under the direct impression of the attacks, and I'm sure everyone including Jimbo Wales realizes now that it is irreconcilable with NPOV but no one wants to admit this now. An entire wiki being POV is of course something of an embarrassment, but it's still undeniable. Gzornenplatz 03:23, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    Comment: While I think his user name is problematic, it would be ingenuous to expect editors to actually be neutral; we are expected to edit by citing factual material and present it in neutral language. Beyond that, I am expressing no opinion for or against the candidate, and I'm not arguing with your right to support or oppose anyone for any reason whatsoever. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You voted for him before you voted against him? --ℛyan! | Talk 13:17, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, yes, I was wrong the first time. It's hard work, you know. But anyone questioning my judgment on those matters may find this interesting. Gzornenplatz 19:05, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Netoholic @ 06:48, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Uncivil. Hypocritically accused me of mis-conduct in removing user page comments, yet does so frequently himself. Can't see him as being impartial in the future, particularly with those who have had negative interactions with him. Username is misleading for such a position of responsibility, as expressed in his RFC.
    • Looking back at Neutrality's behaviour on his previous nomination offers to me an explanation for Neutrality's unusual silence on this page. It's not suprising that his response to User:Noisy was so snide. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
      • You would hope if someone was going to accuse you of plagarism they would actually make sure they know what they are talking about first. The nationbynation site is blatantly thrown together just to stir up some ad revenue. AlistairMcMillan 02:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not being clear. I was responding to you. Neutrality's response is not snide. He is being accused of something that is blatantly false. Instead of just voting one way or the other, Noisy is obviously just looking for something/anything to try to attack Neutrality's credibility. Neutrality's response seems perfectly justified. AlistairMcMillan 04:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. This guy is the very antithesis of his user name in my opinion. A competent contributor but not in my opinion an admin for all the reasons already stated.Sjc 05:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. BIG mistake! Pitchka 21:26, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    Reluctantly, in light of Neutrality's apparent decision to completely ignore my comment below. RadicalSubversiv E 22:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  5. Noisy | Talk 22:07, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) Quite a turn-around in voting from the votes in Jul and Aug. I decided to see if it was justified, and found the user had made a copyvio in Geography of Bolivia. Also, not impressed with the lack of use of Show preview, which indicates an overly hasty attitude.
    EXCUSE ME?! You, sir, should apologize for your patently false claim. I take accusations of plagiarism and copyright violation very seriously. Anyone can see that the materials comes from the public domain Country Studies on the Library of Congress website [1], which clearly states "With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the Country Studies On-Line are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use." I am very deeply offended at your hasty accusation; you didn't even bother to contact me before spreading your libelous and defaming accusation. I have never used copyrighted material or plagiarized, and am extraordinary upset at this slander. Do you not have any decency? Neutrality (talk) 00:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    I have investigated this myself and Neutrality is right. The text is in the public domain. It is from the Library of Congress website link he supplied, under the "Natural Regions" section of the "Geography" section of "Chapter 2 - The Society and Its Environment". Noisy, did you even consider the possibility that the website you are accusing him of plagiarising from ([2]) may have used public domain text itself? Anyhow, the accusation you have made is incorrect, and while I'm sure it's nothing more than an honest mistake on your part, I believe you owe Neutrality an apology. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    In any case, this is still a matter of the content being copied verbatim, without even citing the source. The Library asks this and even offers their preferred citation format (which I added). Citing sources you use as reference is already policy, but to not do it when you copy and paste full text into an article is poor judgement. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
    Let's see. Your response to a mistake is a stream of invective ("An idiotic, offensive, and clearly false accusation." - Talk:Geography of Bolivia) and a demand for an apology, rather than an assumption of 'good faith' and some advice on how not to make that mistake next time. (And no, I was not "just looking for something/anything to try to attack Neutrality's credibility." Someone else's assumption of bad faith!) Hmm ... shall I change my vote? Noisy | Talk 21:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    If you had bothered to email me privately, leave a message on my talk page, or instant message me, then I would have assumed good faith. You chose to revert the edits, make a public accusation against me, and refuse to apologize. Not the best way to assume good faith. Neutrality (talk) 22:25, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
    Don't let Neuter fool you! When he was busy erasing pages that I worked on, I did try to get a dialog going with this guy, and got no response, so I'd revert the page back to an article and several days later this bozo would erase everything again and turn it into an unrelated redirect. He's going to be great! I guess he's kissed enough butts this time. Pitchka 13:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
    Oi, don't be so rude and tacky. Mike H 18:06, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I told Neutrality before that I would never support him as a sysop for one reason. This simple reason is the fact his name is confusing to new users. Otherwise, he is OK and has always been civil to me. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 02:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ditto #3. --η♀υωρ 17:19, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  8. Given the importance of the neutral point of view in Wikipedia, I can't support a username of Neutrality, let alone allowing an admin to have it. —siroχo 22:40, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
  9. oppose Rex071404 06:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Since people have asked why I oppose Neutrality, here is an example why: At Lawrence v. Texas Neutrality went out of his way to stoke an edit war and at no time did he dialog on the talk page (see Talk:Lawrence v. Texas/Archive 1). In my opinion Neutrality is a bully and a left wing bigot. He goes out of his way to team up against agaisnt conservtives editors, even when they are 100% right. Also, please look at Talk:Dedham, Massachusetts. On that article, I tried to add important details about the historical significance about Dedham Massachusetts as it relates to the Establishment Clause and frankly, I think that the non-cooperating editor there ("Feldspar") is either Neutrality himself (as an alternative identitity) or another anti-conservative editor who works with him closely to hassle people. And even if I am wrong in that, go back and check my contributions list and you will see that Neutrality has hounded me from article to article (along with JamesMLane) to the point where this wiki has become a real drag. Rex071404 04:00, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. oppose - User is likely to become another rogue admin like User:Jayjg --- Xed 11:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • While I definitely agree that Jayjg is indeed rogue (and should never have been given adminship in the first place), I strongly disagree that Neutrality would take the same path. Neutrality is honourable and trustworthy, and I value him highly as a contributor. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  11. Strongly oppose, mainly due to his disregard of the Manual of Style and habit of not giving a description of his edits. Likely to ignore consensus and act in his own interests. —Wereon 21:29, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Hasn't shown what I consider to be good judgement in fights, and hasn't been much of a good example. His POV should be irrelevant, his ways is all that matters. ...and then the handle! Tuomas 10:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. Seems to be too much stress on deleting stuff, and no one should be proud to have any involvement in driving a user away from the project. Gentgeen 09:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. He seems almost entirely incapable of using edit summaries, by the looks of his contributions. I can't trust someone who doesn't bother to explain themselves at the most simplest of levels. - 22:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
  15. uc 23:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC). This is indeed a tough call. I am impressed by Neutrality's contributions to articles on a wide variety of topics, by his efforts in securing quality photographs, and by his involvement. My chief concern is an unwillingness to discuss work towards consensus. His response citing procedural matters in the RFC regarding his username is a good example of this, since the matter has been on the minds of many in the community for some time and is deserving of discussion. I am troubled by his unwillingness to at least adopt a different sig in light of the concerns expressed. The RFC is not the only example, as there are several other legitimate matters where he has declined to respond.
    I believe he did adopt a different signature recently. Acegikmo1 23:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. His comments here alone show that when confronted by someone of a different viewpoint, he's too excitable and offends easily, for my taste. BeakerK44 01:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Welcome to WP, Beaker. You have 94 edits, by the way. Neutrality (hopefully!) 02:02, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Has also been here since Jun 1 2004. I know we have a "100 edit" guideline, but this user's contribs don't show any indication this might be a sock puppet vote. Probably just someone with a legitimate opinion. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
        • One of the points of the 100-edit guideline (IMO), which I think you don't really comprehend, is that users with fewer that 100 edits are unlikely to be familiar enough with a certain user or the project in general to form a "legitimate" opinion as to whether or not someone would make a good admin. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • This user has 94 edits. I think you are to literal on the guideline. Are you saying that 6 edits later and you'd not have a problem? -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. VV 23:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) I remained concerned with his habits of (a) reverting edits without bothering to look at what they are [3] [4], just because of the user making the edit (who may be offering a compromise), and (b) altering past comments and survey questions after the fact without making it clear history is being rewritten. (a), and his general revert-happiness, is particularly worrisome in light of the rollback button.
  2. Changing my vote to neutral in recognition of Neutrality's response below. I continue to have concerns about his approach, but I appreciate him taking the time to answer and will defer to the community consensus on this one. Neutrality: I would implore you to always make liberal use of edit summaries and talk pages when using admin powers, regardless of what you think of the personalities involved. RadicalSubversiv E 17:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. Unfortunately oppose. Neutrality's deliberate unwillingness to discuss a change despite repeated requests to do so at Talk:Orca leaves me no option but to believe his unwillingness to communicate would make him a poor administrator. Pcb21| Pete 07:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Though Neutrality has been considerably more polite than I managed to contain myself to be in the follow up debate that did eventually start. My vote should probably be discounted. Pcb21| Pete 16:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Pete, this is a close vote. Please don't be ambiguous. Please clearly support, oppose, strike out your vote or vote neutral. Thanks. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I am not certain that Neutrality is of the "wrong stuff", however I am still a little unsure. Because it is relatively easy to become an admin, but virtually impossible to be de-admined, I think it is appropriate to possibly err on the side of caution and vote against. Mine is the sort of vote that would likely change if there was a revote in a months time and all has gone well - I would write off my initial concerns as getting off on the wrong foot. Regardless of the actual percentages, I think such a cooling off period is probably appropriate in this case - with so many people (albeit a minority) expressing concerns, there is no harm in waiting. Pcb21| Pete 12:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I've moved this to neutral, because I think I was guilty of "assume the worst" before. Pcb21| Pete 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Obviously Neutrality is a hard-working contributor who's done some great things for the project. My limited encounters with him not long after he joined Wikipedia in May were less than positive (see the edit history and talk on Democratic Underground), but the contribs I've noticed from him since look good. I do see some people expressing concerns on his talk page, specifically about his blanking of comments. There's also the matter of the RFC about his username pointed to above. My concern isn't that Neutrality has done anything dangerously inappropriate, but that in my limited research, I don't see him responding to any of these criticisms or working through conflict, which is not desirable for an administrator. I'd like to see a fuller answer to Question 3 (how will you deal with conflict?) before casting a vote. RadicalSubversiv E 08:12, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this is a fair request, and I think that Neutrality should elaborate, rather than being concerned about keeping the vote tally updated ([5] [6]). -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
      • This, sir, is a cheap shot, and I find your tactics to be totally without honour. Why is it that you always seem to immeadiately follow a good, constructive comment with some snide remark or attempt to blacken someone's character? blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Not meant to be a cheap shot, only included the links to show that, since the time Radicalsubversive posted this, Neutrality has at least twice edited this page without responding to it. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
    • Regarding blanking of comments: I put a msg on his talk page asking why he had done so in one article; he in fact responded on my talk page with a valid reason why and also stated that he had no problem if I thought they ought to be replaced. I have had only good encounters with N.; I do think that he overreacts a bit (e.g., response to copyvio accusation above; previous nomination issues) but my impression overall is that his contributions are good. Elf | Talk 01:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Cecropia and I were looking at this vote (see our talk pages), and because some people seem to have very strong feelings, the two of us have informally agreed to defer making a decision for a day. Feedback is of course welcome. Pakaran. 04:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be more than happy to change my vote if Neutrality responded here to some of the concerns, or even gave some indication of what his approach to handling such criticism as an administrator would be. RadicalSubversiv E
  • Comment: This isn't a vote for Neutrality as Featured Contributer Candidate. This is about whether he would use sysop powers responsibly. As we all know, this should be "no big deal". He may sometimes be rude, and his judgement lapses at times, but looking through his history it seems obvious to me that he would use his sysop powers to improve Wikipedia. Even if I didn't like him personally, I would support his nomination. I also think people are holding him to a higher standard because of his username, which isn't fair. As he says on his userpage, it's not a claim, it's a reminder. (As an asside, Neutrality, if you changed your sig to something like "Neutrality (hopefully)" or "Neutrality (is my goal)" it might be less confusing for people.)
Also, looking over the "oppose" votes, these are the primary reasons given. (I apologize in advance if I misunderstand anyone's reasoning.)
6 users opposed primarily because of Neutrality's comments on talk pages that, while not abusive, rubbed them the wrong way. These are Gzornenplatz, Netoholic, sjc (presumably), Noisy, Tuomas, and eequor.
2 users opposed primarily because of his name. These are Sunborn and Siroxo.
2 users opposed primarily because of a lack of communication. RadicalSubversive and pcb1.
2 users opposed for what I consider the only legitimate reason (but that's just my opinion) – concern that he would abuse his sysop powers. Wereon and Xed.
3 users opposed, but did not explain why. Pitchka, Rex071404, and Tuomas.
So, Neutrality, if you can address any of these, consensus might be easier. – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I noted in my vote above about a hypocritical accusation on a formal RFC, not some "rubbed me the wrong way" Talk page comment, as Quadell has characterized it. I see no honor in that sort of double-standard and band-wagoning.
      Neutrality is the worst kind of "drive-by" editor I've ever seen on this Wiki. It is common for him to make an edit and then keep on going, without ever stopping to explain himself, even when asked. That accusation he made and his subsequent non-responses (both on the RFC and here) are a symptom of the greater problem. I can't tell you how many of these drive-by edits I personally have reversed. This isn't out of dislike for him, but for the fact that his changes have no regard for the discussions or history of the page involved. He is a very prodigious editor, being bold and all, but has not apparently felt the need to explain his changes or even to defend them. His remarkable silence on this voting page also shows this distain for conversation. No, he is not going to be a good admin, because these abilities will only widen the range of his "drive-by" antics and foster more serious discord. -- Netoholic @ 16:02, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
    • No, this is not my reason for voting as I did. My reasons are three-fold: 1) I do have a problem with the argumentative style that Neutrality displays, which seems to involve an assumption of bad faith as the first port of call. 2) From some of the edits that I reviewed, it seems that the edits are piece-meal, un-previewed, rather than thought out prior to submission. 3) There are gaps in the application of policy, such as that on the Geography of Bolivia page (as identified by Netoholic), where an attribution of the copied text on the talk page would have alerted me to the fact that the text that I found on the web through a Google text search was itself an (unattributed) copy from the U.S. Federal site. Any one of these might have been something to be forgiven, and susceptible to pursuasion that the habits could be modified. Unfortunately, the opportunity slipped through the net when my mistake was met with an assumption of bad faith and a demand for an apology. I've got a poor track record of responding to demands, I'm afraid: I'm more likely to respond to pursuasion. This user just needs a few more months on Wikipedia to learn how to deal with conflict and consider responses for just that little bit longer before jumping in. (This is particularly relevant with a sysop having the revert button.) My assessment remains unchanged. Noisy | Talk 18:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Xed and I have had some bad blood between us, and it's mostly my fault. I said some things I shouldn't have, and regret this now. As a side note, I fully support Xed's CROSSBOW and CSB programs, and plan to contribute some myself (mainly expanding historically black colleges/university stubs) and some country-related articles. Also note blankfaze’s comments above.
        • We haven't any bad blood. I was just amazed someone so unsuitable should be up for admin. Perhaps they fall for the Uriah Heep act. Also, the CSB project isn't mine. --- Xed 22:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Gz and I also have had a few differences of opinion. While I don’t think everything Gz does is correct, I think he’s a good person. His opposition, I believe, stems from a particular disagreement over Template:9/11, as well as the flags on my userpage (the latter I certainly make no apologies for).
      • I never had any problems with Noisy until this nomination, so I have no idea what the opposition vote is for. I think Noisy was extremely rude when s/he reverted my changes as a “copyvio” and publicly made an accusation that I had “made a copyvio,” when that indisputably false. As a side note, h/she has not apologized.
      • I like Eequor. Don’t know why he voted against me. Haven’t had much contact with sjc, or Tuomas.
      • Sunborn and Siroxo’s objections should be somewhat mollified by my new signature.
      • Pete is a nice guy and a good user. He objected over a minor dispute on an article about, of all things, killer whales. I’m hoping he’ll change his mind.
      • Wereon I have very little respect for, as he seems bent on changing every article to British English style. Just today he reverted a change from “AD” to “CE” without any logical reason. To be honest, I consider him a very rude user.
      • Rex071404 has had multiple issues in dealing with the community (see the multiple Arbitration Committee proceedings). He left Wikipedia, but apparently came back to vote against me. He then disappeared again. Pitchka… well, look through his edit history.
      • Finally, the most complex case, RadicalSubversive. To answer your question, I would have to say this: the best way to deal with conflict is not to get into it at all. Some pages have “bad karma” and are best avoided. Sometimes conflict is inevitable and must be faced. In these cases, it is my belief that problems are worked out multilaterally and with wider community input.
      • I don’t understand Gentgeen’s comments at all, particularly the part about “proud to have any involvement in driving a user away from the project.” I suppose s/he is referring to Rex071404, but don’t understand exactly how I had any involment in “driving him away” or had previously expressed any “pride” in doing so.” I hope Gentgeen will have a change of heart on this. Neutrality (hopefully!) 16:42, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • To be honest, all of this seems more like you're just placating. Whatever their reasons, the bureaucrats extended this vote for one day. You spent it trying to garner votes by contacting users on their Talk pages, rather than responding to these concerns here. Had you responded early on, you may have earned some respect from many involved. At this point though, I hope the bureaucrats see this for what it is. P.S. How come haven't responded to my concerns above? -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
          • I don't think Neutrality is trying to "garner" votes; rather, I think he's just trying to make a few SANE people aware that he's up for adminship. A LOT of problem users and/or sockpuppets have voted against him, and most of the other people voting against him have wholly ridiculous reasons for doing so (manual of style and username concerns). Thus, even IF Neutrality WAS trying to shore up some support votes, I think he's entitled to. Additionally, I think it's a really lousy of you to chastise Neutrality for his "unusual silence" and then, when he attempts to address issues and respond to people, call him "placating". blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • He contacted three users - big deal. Does anyone else find it a little odd that the same user who tried to bend the rules in order to make Sam Spade a sysop is so keen to block Neutrality's promotion? At the least, it shows very poor judgement of character. (Anon comment.)

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. Speedy deletion, new page patrol, and the severely neglected WP:IFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, and WP:TFD.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. It's difficult to pick just one- my Wikipedia experiences have been very positive. I'm very proud of having categorized hundreds of images by copyright status, and of subcategorizing U.S. Government images by agency. I'm also proud of being involved in WP:LI and doing lots of tagging as far as stubs and categories.
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. At various times I may have incurred the anger of various users - both right-wing and left-wing. I apologize for my lapses of judgement that I - as have us all – have done. The only serious conflict I've had was with a user that was severely disruptive. In the end the user was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee and left Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality_3&oldid=1119119632"