[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe 2

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Freestylefrappe

edit

Final (38/11/3) ending 01:10 October 19, 2005 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs) – This is Freestylefrappe's second nomination (May 2005 was the first) after an earlier self nomination failed essentially to not enough edits (only about 450 at that time). Today, Kate's tool shows a total of almost 3,000 edits for those that care about edit counts. Freestylefrappe is well rounded; he almost always uses edit summaries, contributes to Wiki namespace, has made big contributions of quality to numerous articles, doesn't engage in edit wars, utilizes talk pages and is an overall asset to Wikipedia. He has been around for over a year and has familiarity with six languages. Time for a mop and a bucket MONGO 01:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept. freestylefrappe 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. Support As nominator, absolutely! MONGO 01:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support does not fit my opposing criteria. --Bjarki 02:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --JAranda | watz sup 02:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support RfA cliche #1. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, he seems to do good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Can't have too many! And doesn't seem to be an Albanian, Macedonian, Pakistani, Indian, Hindu, or Ahmadi. --BorgHunter (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. El_C 03:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Jobe6   03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support. This user once annoyed me about a joke I did to WikiFanatic after I already apologized days ago, so that rather ignored me that s/he (assume she) was reprimanding me for it after it was over. But otherwise the Frappe is a pretty good editor. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yup (I was sure he was an Albanian Hindu). Grutness...wha? 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. For sure! Banes 05:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Give him a mop`! --Rogerd 05:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Merovingian (t) (c) 07:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support would have been easier if the vote here link worked. CambridgeBayWeather 07:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. S'port --Doc (?) 07:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. --Monkbel 10:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. the wub "?!" 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Frappe does good things. -Splashtalk 12:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. utcursch | talk 13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. KHM03 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support.Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Looks to be a strong editor. Maltmomma (chat)   17:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --{{IncMan|talk}} 00:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -- (drini's page|☎) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Bring him in, boys! (And girls; no bias here.)  Denelson83  22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. CDThieme 03:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Molotov (talk)File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
  30. Guettarda 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Bratschetalk | Esperanza 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good history. Dlyons493 Talk 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Jonathunder 22:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Slac speak up! 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support -- Francs2000   22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support editcountitiscountitis is fatal.  Grue  21:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support —Wayward Talk 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Martin 09:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak Oppose. I would support, but during my RfA, this user went around to other people's talk pages and told them to vote against me. He failed to assume good faith on multiple editors parts. I do not particularly care for this type of behaviour. This should be no big deal, so I should at least vote neutral since I don't mind his contributions, but I just cannot support this candidate at this time. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose. --Scimitar parley 16:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I'd have expected this user to have been a bit more proactive in solving edit disputes, especially on articles started by him. Seems to be like he is on his own track offering little assistance to the actual issues on hand. More maturity required. Idleguy 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. I have no objections against him as an editor, and this is the first time I ever oppose a RfA; but his attitude of contacting other users who, like him, had voted against my RfA based on edicountitis in order to establish a common baseline to oppose other "inexperienced" users from becoming admins [1], dissapointed me. Shauri   smile! 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, I am sorry Freestylefrappe, but learning how important you feel edit counts to be, I'd rather see you get more experience, first. If your vote should fail, see that as an opportunity in your personal evolution as a Wikipedian.--Wiglaf 06:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He has over three thousand edits and he's been here a year. How much more experience do you think he needs? unsigned edit by CDThieme (talk · contribs)
    Since he feels that edit counts are so important that he wrote what Shauri has indicated, I really think we should give him the opportunity of building up an edit count that makes him feel worthy. He deserves that opportunity.--Wiglaf 21:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose. While I can place trust in you, I don't know if you know all the WP guidelines yet. Back in late August/early September in my own RfA, you said that "you cannot become an admin until you have made 1,000 edits". Sorry. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 23:48, 13 October 2005 (CDT)
    As I left a note below in the comments section, Freestylefrappe lost his first nomination due to a low edit count, at which time a half dozens folks then told him his edit count was too low...this is the primary reason he may have made the comments to you and to others along a similar vein.--MONGO 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha, no, see WikiFanatic's talk page and my own for an explanation. I wasnt speaking in terms of policy, I was trying to be realistic. freestylefrappe 19:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Wiglaf. Places a strong emphasis on edit counts. Andre (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "a total of almost 3,000 edits for those that care about edit counts" (emphasis mine). A rather ironic comment. Oppose. – ugen64 02:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that an ironic comment?--MONGO 05:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In regard to the last five users who have voted oppose, RFA voting style has nothing to do with being an admin. It does not reflect my experience with Wikipedia nor does it have any connection to how I will use sysop privleges. You are voting against me based on a longstanding and precedented policy of requiring a certain number of edits. Perhaps you have not seen Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards...? Or perhaps you had seen that page, but were unaware of my Userpage where I state a minimum of 1,000 edits - which, compared to the standards of many other users, some of whom are admins, would seem small. freestylefrappe 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the fact that your RfA votes usually look like "oppose, per so-and-so" shows a worrisome lack of communication. This RfA is the first time I've opposed without stating my reasons, and I did it to show you exactly how frustrating it can be to a candidate when the opposition refuses to say why they distrust you.--Scimitar parley 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Never have I once given any objection regarding your not stating your reasons. If you have a problem with voting per another user you should make a suggestion of changing Wikipedia policy. freestylefrappe 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but I state my reasons. My problem is that an admin voting should give reasons for his vote- they should adhere to the spirit, not the letter, of policy, and should realize that it can be frustrating for candidates when they see "Oppose- less than 3000 edits" and then you underneath going "Oppose, per above". Admins should be models in communication.--Scimitar parley 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, sneaky personal attack on the user page? Not nice. Proto t c 10:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And I really don't care for contributions like this, this and this - let people decide to vote to oppose/support a candidacy for adminship under their own steam. Proto t c 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As repeatedly stated, Freestylefrappe lost his first adminship attempt because many thought his edit count was too low along a similar voting train of thought as the one you did here. We all have standards either advertised or not that we follow for such things.--MONGO 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what point you're trying to make. See my comment below. Proto t c 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply informed other users that their stated requirements were not met by a user up for adminship. I neither suggested they vote oppose nor did I make any outstanding remarks. If you look at Comics' talkpage you'll notice I offered to re-nominate him after he got more experience. freestylefrappe 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would imagine users are simply able to inform themselves of how to vote. I don't like vote influencing. Proto t c 11:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Proto. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Sorry, I have to agree with Proto. The "get out the vote" campaigns show poor judgment. Garnering for "oppose" votes on user talk pages shows poor judgment, and it once became an ArbCom issue. The case here is much less severe, but it still makes me uneasy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose, as I'm not really happy with FSF's response to the criticisms above. Radiant_>|< 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, per Proto. Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either. It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin. Also, I think that people should use {{subst:test}} as an initial warning on a talk page, instead of [2], in the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. --Kewp (t) 15:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. A confrontational attitude is not desirable in an admin. Friday (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose From weak neutral, after I suddenly found this on my talk page<Please remove "not even Durin...". This is inappropriate and pointless. freestylefrappe 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)> Unfortunately, this confirms, in my mind, the concerns raised here. Much anger is there in this one. Better inappropriate and pointless than confrontational and humorless. Clearly lacks the temperment to be an effective Sysop.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Do the last 2 votes in oppose count since they were made after the deadline? I think the ending should be the 20th and not the 19th, but that still questions the last two oppose votes.--MONGO 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If so Kewp's oppose vote also has to count. He only stroke it because he thought the vote was over.--Wiglaf 06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is long established principle that all 'votes' count until a 'crat closes the debate. Same principle applies to AfD etc etc too. As long as the question is open, everyone is invited to join in. -Splashtalk 12:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then why have it open for 7 days to a set time and date if it isn't going to be followed? What good are rules like that if they aren't strictly enforced? You don't need a 'crat to close an AfD vote anyway.--MONGO 13:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • On AFD dbeates people may, and do vote after the five (or six)-day deadline has passed. The rules mean that closing a debate prematurely is disallowed, it does not forbid postponments of the closure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Then why have it read as "ending 01:10 October 19, 2005 (UTC)" Ending....are we now waiting for the "missing chads"? It matters not when a 'crat decides to close the debate part, I just don't see why votes after the time which says "ending" should count. Oh well.--MONGO 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think b-crat may ignore the votes being cast after the deadline, at least that's how I was promoted. After the voting time for me finished, I opposed some other nomination and then I got oppose vote from one of his supporters. I don't think that was counted.  Grue  14:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Generally, I haven't had a bad experience with him, but he needs to steer clear of taking sides in petty disputes. Aside from that, good work. a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm neutral on this one after reading the comments on this users behavior by Lord Voldemort, and Anonymous editor. Private Butcher 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Neutral. Changed vote from oppose. I still am a bit wary of his/her behavior (see my last vote above), but he/she has been a great sport in responding to private emails. I guess it's no big deal. Good luck, my friend. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Neutral Although I'm impressed by the contributions, there is something about this candidate's style I find confrontational and perhaps a wee bit vindictive. While I've yet to have any direct dealings with the nominee, I cannot bring myself to support.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No Jip, the parenthesis denote multiplication, so he actually speacks 4320 languages -- (drini's page|☎) 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the number in parens could be an order of magnitude - 6! = 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 720; so six (6!) could mean 6 to the 720th power. My calculator does not go that high.  BD2412 talk 03:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After going through his edit history exhaustively, I see that many of the articles he has created and or worked on would possibly be in areas that would cause friction as far as substance and following NPOV and in the few cases in which he had difficulty with this, it was months ago. But in none of those, did I notice any POV pushing, hostility, or edit warring...a pretty big achievement considering the potentially of angry debate due to the subject matter.--MONGO 20:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voters should bear in mind that Freestylefrappe's first nomination failed primarily because of his low edit numbers, hence his apparent concern over edit counts for all admin nominations.
"Even if his actions were in response to his previously being denied adminship, that doesn't mean he needs to run around ensuring that no one else with low edit counts becomes an admin either. It seems kind of immature, and isn't the kind of person who I would like to see be an admin. Extremely well put by Kewp. Shauri   smile! 13:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For any curious users: [for adminship/Shauri]. Wiglaf nominated, Scimitar is number 10, Andre is 13, Sjakkalle is 16, and Radiant! is 25. I can understand - and believe Andre, Sjakkalle, and Radiant!'s votes as legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with that RFA. Scimitar, Wiglaf, and Shauri are trying to pick a fight with me over one vote. Shauri's comment to ALKIVAR is contradictory to her oppose vote here, "if the number of edits is what matters to you, I guess I can understand". freestylefrappe 00:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm truly sorry that you think that way, Freestyle. But I know my motives for opposing, and they have nothing to do with edit count, and even less with a personal issue. In fact, if you read my argumentation, I clearly state that "I have nothing against (you) as an editor". I believe my reasons are expressed clearly, and they are closely related to Sjakkalle's: it's the "get out the vote" campaign based on editcountitis that you clearly stated you were trying to organize against other users' RfAs what I found distasteful. By then, my own RfA was over, so I was safe from it; but not other users whose own nominations were active. Furthermore, such campaigns have nothing intrinsecally bad from my humble point of view, but it's their objectives that define them; and I definetely consider reprehensible one specifically made to oppose your fellow editors' RfA. My comment to Alkivar is also misquoted: I meant that, if his criteria for voting was based on edit counts, I understood, I respected it and had nothing further to add; which is far from stating that I approve it, as I have shown by supporting other users whose RfAs were controverted on the grounds of editcountitis [3][4]. Your suggestion that I'm taking some sort of "revenge" on your oppose vote also fails to address the fact that I supported the RfAs of other users who, like you, had opposed mine, like RyanNorton [5] and Durin [6] (who later changed his opposal to neutral). It saddens me that you don't assume good faith in my motives, which I believed were clear. I also don't think for a minute that Wiglaf's or Scimitar's reasons can be questioned on that basis. I opposed you for that self appointed campaigning, but now, I should also add rude manners and not assuming good faith to that. I leave an open door for the future, and may well support you should this nomination fail; I even offer you sincerely my friendship, in case you want to accept it. But right now, I can't betray the dictates of my conscience. Shauri   smile! 11:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I back Shauri up all the way here. Learn to assume good faith and Wikipedia:civility if you ever hope to become an admin. Moreover, your conspiratory work against Shauri's nomination and your groundless assumption about a conspiracy here convinces me that it is right of me to oppose your nomination. Don't judge others by yourself.--Wiglaf 12:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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. Most of my sysop-related activities would be closing afd debates and reverting vandalism. Especially the latter as I have found my edits increasingly taken up by reverting anonymously added nonsense. I think the role of administrator should act more as a pacifier than a settler of a contentious dispute.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. John Adams' First State of the Union Address and List of Christian terms in Arabic were some of the better ones. Robert Davis of New Orleans will probably see a lot of action, and Terrorism in Pakistan has had an unusually high edit response. See also: the slightly outdated Pages I started
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. The Slavic Macedonian Culture page has generated a large amount of pov pushing, and endless moving (though this seems to have toned down to legitimate disambiguation). Most of this seems to stem not from a dispute over this page in particular, but a larger argument over the use of Macedonia verus Republic of Macedonia. Qiyamah - which I rewrote and expanded upon, triggered a series of reverts between myself and one other user, Universaliss, who is no longer active. Univ. insisted on deleting huge amounts of information, and spent his last few edits blanking the page except for comments like "F*** Islam."
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Freestylefrappe_2&oldid=1086095652"