Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexander 007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Alexander_007

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alexander 007|action=edit}} Vote here] (8/3/1, nomination declined) ending 13:44 11 December 2005, 13:53 (UTC)

Alexander_007 (talk • contribs) – I am proud to nominate User:Alexander_007 to be Administrator! He has always been a reliable, friendly editor, contributor of countless articles. He is a real defender of people! I think he's earned his respect, and proven he's to be trusted. He's also done work with illirian articles, and it would be good to have more admins interested in dealing with these articles. I'm especially impressed at how he is very calm and intelligent when interacting with users. Judging from his contribs he will make good use of the various tools, and judging from his talk page he is more than calm and rational enough to handle the extra few buttons. What more is there to say? Let's go and vote for him!Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am not seeking adminship anytime soon, and there is no need to vote either way for me here. However, I thank Bonaparte for nominating me. Alexander 007 13:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong Support. I trust him. He is a real defender of people! He will do a great job as admin. Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - Alex (aka Decius) has been offered adminship before, but turned it down. I don't think he changed his mind ever since. That's too bad, because he would be among the best admins on the site (subjective opinion). He's not crybaby like most admins are and he's not a forum fascist either. For this reason, I don't think he's too popular among most admins. --Anittas 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
3. I remember him as Decius. He has done a good job.Juro 17:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Strong Support. He seems like a reliable person and on top of that he seems to have done a good job. I also do not agree with some people that vote against him only because X and Y have nominated them. I think we should focus on the person nominated and what they have done, despite the disagreements one may have with the person who nominated them.Constantzeanu 20:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Alexander is a capable, determined user who has edited a broad range of articles so far. His input has always been calm but informative, and he is a constructive addition to debates. I think, in terms of adminship abilities, he would use them well, and for that I support him fully. Ronline ✉ 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support.Dpotop 20:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Weak Support. Uncke Herb 06:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support - good contributions. Izehar (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. --(Aytakin) | Talk 04:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. Ambi 13:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. I opposed Ronline initially because Bonaparte nominated him, but changed my vote later because Ronline really is a good person and his philosophies are those of consensus, Wikipedia, and discussion-rather-than-fighting. After some of my experiences with Alexander/Alexandru/Decius, I truly can't say the same. Yes, he claims he reformed himself, but I'm not following that. And so far guess who two-thirds of the support votes are from -- Bonaparte, and Anittas. Now, he declined the nomination already so I don't see much of a point in voting, but I'm voting anyways. After Ronline became admin and Bonaparte found out he can't command Ronline to do what he wants as he had thought, he looked for another buddy to nominate and found Alexander was the one with the cleanest record. Bonaparte, I want to let you know right now that people can see through your attempts to gain an upper hand in your arguments by nominating certain people for adminship. And guess what, people are only likely to become admins if they are just the sort of people who will not do the things you want them to do for you. I'd not be surprised if you nominate Anittas next... --Node 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're actually worried about me clicking up with Bonaparte just for the sake of clicking up with Bonaparte---no worries. I do like to cooperate with people and work together to improve articles, but when it comes down to making a decision and taking an action, I can only trust my own judgment. I am not the type to be bought off. If I don't believe in something, I'm not supporting it. This current RfA for example: I do not support it (to quote Node: "people are only likely to become admins if they are just the sort of people who will not do the things you want them to do for you"---then by your own words, I'm likely to become an admin), though Bonaparte starting it is not the reason I reject it. My reasons for not accepting are given below, and my decision would have been the same if Dbachmann had nominated me. Now, if you oppose because you feel that I'm not a good person or because I'm occasionally aggresive, that is your choice. I am not accepting this current RfA, so you guys may vote as you feel. Alexander 007 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (and your statement about me not adhering to Wikipedia consensus is hollow; I abide by consensus when dealing with the content of Wikipedia articles, etc., as anyone can verify)

Why are you here to harass people? Isn't it enough what you do on other pages? Isn't it enough that you forced our greatest Romanian contributor to leave because of you? --Anittas 19:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that his vote not be counted since he is just a blatant vandal who makes an edit war on Moldovan language ([[1]]). So his vote will not be counted. --Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Node, this is a vote on Alexander's adminship, not on Bonaparte. If you think Alexander would make a bad admin, then you're free to vote against him, but please don't use this as a way of seeking revenge on Bonaparte. Ronline ✉ 00:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Make no mistake Ronline, this is a vote against Alexandru, not against Bonaparte. Alexandru does seem to be better than he once was, but his history on Wikipedia looks very shaky, and I think it would be better if there were more time and good edits in between him and his past. --Node 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You have no credibility to talk kid like that. After you posted your theory of "Bucharestian is a language" and made that revert war [[2]] doesn't obey with this rule. In this way what he is doing is called trolling. You lost your credibility and authority. You are alone on your position, you did not reached consensus, everybody left you. Have you considered to consult a psychiatrist?You seem pretty stressed lately. This is no offense but you seem to ignore what everybody tells you and you start speaking only stupid thing, like the above "Bucharestian is a language" . --Bonaparte talk & contribs 04:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I guess Aytakin opposes mainly because I opposed his recent RfA. Alexander 007 04:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning against: Decius/Alexandru does some good work, and is clearly extremely knowledgable, but his use of talk pages has at times been very quirky. But I am not voting against for the moment, since Alexandru has not answered the questions below yet. And I am adding a fourth question. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
   • Since Alexander has decided not to pursue this, I think the point is now moot, and suggest that we end this process. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. I agree. And there is always a next time. I have a feeling the situation will have cooled down in the future. Currently, we have this uproar involving Bonaparte and Node and the Moldovan language article spreading here, which is not fair to me, first of all. Alexander 007 07:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral I agree with Jmabel. I have never worked with Alexander/Alexandru/Decius, but his contributions do seem to confirm what Jmabel is saying. I reinserted the fourth question; Bonaparte, do not remove it. Extra questions are allowed. Izehar 20:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• As Kate's tool is down, I counted Alexander 007's edits using XL. On 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC), he had 2879 edits. Izehar 14:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think he has more edits than that. Can you count Decius' edits, too? He used that name before. --Anittas 17:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Between 06:38, 10 November 2004 (UTC) and 19:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC) the account User:Decius has made 16,902 edits. The User:Decius account hasn't been used since. What I am concerned about is that the User:Decius account is still operational; it hasn't been blocked (see Block log). Sockpupperty is frowned upon - I recognise that the User:Decius account has not been used in that manner, as it hasn't been used since the 12 October. Another issue I am concerned about is whether the User:Decius account really is Alexander 007's previous account. I cannot find any evidence of that - Alexander 007 may admit it, but the User:Decius account has not. There have been allegations of User:Decius operationg through another account, User:Alexandru at the same time (sockpuppetry) and that account has not been blocked either (see Block log). Something fishy is going on here, and I would like to get to the bottom of this before voting. If either of these accounts do belong to Alexander 007, then he should ensure that they are blocked. Multiple accounts are not allowed. In my opinion, User:Decius's edits should not be taken into consideration until solid evidence exists that he is indeed Alexander 007's previous account. I think I should also point out that some of these accounts have been involved in nasty conflicts - are you sure that Alexander 007 is up to the job of administrator? Izehar 18:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the User:Decius account should be blocked. Alexander 007 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We already been through that before, with other admins. Alex was blocked until the issue was resolved. Everything is fine now. There's no sockpuppetry. Check Decius' talkpage archives for proof. --Anittas 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alex is a cool user. He has more than 20,000 edits totally when he used also other IPs. He is very fit to this job, why do you think I recommend him? Obviously 'cause he's good! --Bonaparte talk & contribs 18:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Does Alexander really want to be an administrator? He said that he won't be seeking for adminship any time soon, and he hasn't answered the generic questions. If Alexander wants to be an admin, I shall support him.--Djordje D. Bozovic 17:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the vote of User:Node ue should not be counted since he is just a blatant vandal who makes an edit war on Moldovan language ([[3]]). So his vote will not be counted. --Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:33, 4 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: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. Are there areas where you would recuse yourself from using administrative capabilities? (For this purpose, I am not counting the convenience tool to revert vandalism as an administrative capability.) -- Jmabel | Talk 19:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A.

[edit] Statement from the Nominee

Thanks to everyone who participated, but I am not seeking Adminship at the moment. Perhaps in the future. This really came by surprise, and I'm not looking to get into this now. Before Bonaparte started this RfA, I had already filled my Wiki-schedule for this week & the next & perhaps the next after that: I have some sources on the Illyrians and Liburnians and Veneti and other ancient groups, and I was busying myself trying to figure out how to reword and work together the different sources so I can expand Illyrians, Liburnians, Illyrian languages, Liburnian language, Venetic language, Veneti, etc. In any case, while I may seek or accept adminship in the future, I have no great desire to be an admin, as it involves doing things that don't appeal to me that much anyway. And I have a feeling this current RfA would be tooth & nail, because many unorthodox things I did in the recent Wiki-past are still fresh in peoples' memories. In the future, things will be better. Thank you all, and good luck. Alexander 007 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We respect your decision. You know you have my vote.--Bonaparte talk 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)