Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Wikidudeman

[edit]

(98/32/3); Withdrew 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikidudeman (talk · contribs) - I am User:Wikidudeman and I have been on this encyclopedia for over a year and a half now and have about 19,000 edits. I have not been very active in the past month and a half due to the fact that I have been busy with other matters, however I now plan to dedicate more time to the project and thought that having the mop would be helpful in my endeavors. This is my second RFA and this time I have decided to opt out of allowing others to nominate me and simply make my request to the community personally. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My work as an admin would involve helping with numerous backlogs including CAT:CSD, CAT:DFUI, as well as helping over at WP:AN3 and WP:AFD. I would also work at WP:UAA and WP:RFU as well, though they are rarely backlogged. I would continue anti-vandalism efforts, quickly blocking obvious vandals(after warnings) or aiding in blocking vandals reported by other users at WP:AIV. Also, aside from working on the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion, I would monitor recent creations and delete pages that would qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SD after going through the necessary processes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have created a few hundred articles and have contributed substantially to many other articles. I was the driving force in bringing Anabolic steroid and Parapsychology to FA status and Homeopathy as well as Resveratrol to GA status. I have also worked a lot on the Bodybuilding, John McCain and John F. Kennedy articles. On the Homeopathy article disputes are still ongoing and will probably continue forever, however the article is currently far better than it was 6 months ago due in a large part to my efforts, though it couldn't have been done without the help of numerous others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in several conflicts since I first started editing wikipedia and I have learned many things from these conflicts. One of the first conflicts that I was involved in was at the African American Vernacular English article about a year ago. I argued in support of criticism of AAVE and mentions of Bill Cosby's criticism of it's use. From this conflict I learned the importance of discussing before editing and also learned that edit warring is ineffective. I have also been in various other conflicts in the past from which I learned to refrain from personal attacks, the importance of consensus, that deleted articles can be restored, etc. My hope is that the community will see past conflicts as the past and take note of my most recent several months of edits and see that I have learned from past conflicts.

Question from Icestorm815

4. What have you learned since your last RFA and how have you applied it to your present day editing?
A. My last first (and previous) RFA was about 5 months ago and failed primarily due to previous conflicts that had occurred several months before that. Since my last RFA I have learned even more about the importance of discussion, to keep a cool head as well as the futility of edit warring having seen more examples of it since then from other editors and the bad results that followed. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Malinaccier

5. Is your password secure?
A. 'My password is not a real word and is difficult to guess. I also have a SHA-1 commitment to my identity and someone who can verify it incase my account is ever compromised, though its unlikely that it will. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith T/C 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A.Three years from now, I would like to see at least several thousand new articles of GA quality or better, A good number of wikipedias articles improved to at least GA quality, all backlogs removed as well as a much better view of wikipedia in the general news media. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question from User:SQL:

7. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
A: It would be very valuable in fighting vandalism and I think that granting good users to use rollback would vastly improve their vandal fighting abilities. I think also that the permission and ability to do such should be revoked if abused. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be dense or something, but, let's put the question a little more bluntly. When should an editor be granted or denied rollback, in your opinion? SQLQuery me! 07:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they could be granted rollback if they have at least a month or two of experience fighting vandalism and have some experience with user scripts that mimic rollback functions. Users who have a recent history (within the past few months) of edit warring should not have the rollback capability. This is just my opinion as far as I know about how the rollback works and the situation with the request for rollback capability. I won't be granting or denying rollback functions until I know more about the situation. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Dweller:

8. How would you decide whether or not to block a vandal reported at AIV?
A: If the vandalism is minor and the vandal has received at least 3 warnings then I temp block them for a time depending on previous blocks. If the vandalism is major and only 1 or 2 warnings were issued then I may block out right for a time depending on previous blocks or the severity of the vandalism. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Rspeer

9. You say you would work at WP:UAA, so I would like to know your position on it. In what cases do you think usernames should be blocked through WP:UAA? What would you do with borderline cases? Does WP:U ever trump WP:AGF, or vice versa?
A: Obviously disruptive names should be blocked. WP:U does not trump WP:AGF. One can AGF but still assert that a specific name is not appropriate. Some names are obviously inappropiate even if made in good faith and should still be prohibited. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find your answer confusing and unspecific, so I'd like to ask a few follow up questions. You said "WP:U does not trump WP:AGF", but the next sentence makes it sound like you meant the other way around -- did you? Can you answer more directly how you would deal with borderline names? In response to your last sentence, if you encounter such a name that was made in good faith but is obviously inappropriate, what in particular do you do to prohibit it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: What I mean is that in cases where good faith is a possibility, names can still cause disruption. I was recently E-mailed by someone with the name "Eatmahass" or something like that. He said that it was short for his actual name, something like "Eaton Mahanon Assante." While this is unlikely and this user is probably a troll, there is a possibility that some people, especially non english speaking people, will come up with names that would be considered disruptive and thus shouldn't be allowed due to the possibility of disruption it might cause. I can't think of examples of borderline names though, however in such situations I wouldn't make any decisions on my own anyway. WP:UAA isn't ever really backlogged, so if I came upon a name that was obviously disruptive such as "Wikidudemansux" or "Rspeerisdumb" or something like that then I would block it, however if I cam upon borderline cases where it was not "obviously disruptive" then I would just request others look at it and discuss it and then decide. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Keepscases

10. Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Game and tell us how you would handle this situation if called upon to do so.
A.

Optional Question from Alawd7

11. What is A Neutral Vote ? How is It being Counted in the Overall Count Process ?.
--In Allah We Trust (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. In an RFA? If it's just a "Neutral" without any commentary then it should be ignored. If the commentary given is insightful and useful then it should be considered in the final decision.

Extremely important question from Radiant

14 Is your password "secure"? (as in, those six letters, full stop)? >Radiant< 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Answered above. My password has more than 6 characters. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Wisdom89

13 This was something asked of me during my first (and failed) RfD, and I felt that it was an interesting one. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? Wisdom89 (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that all administrators should be open to recall. The restrictions that I will place on the recall would be the following: 10 wikipedians with at least 3,000 edits each and 1 year on wikipedia each who have no history of legitimate blocks must agree that I should re-submit myself for reconfirmation. I will probably submit myself for reconfirmation every several months anyway, however if I choose not to, then those are the requirements that I'd set for my being obligated to. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Orangemarlin

14 Up until about 2 minutes ago, I was a strong supporter of this RfA. However, after reading User:Slrubenstein's comments below in his oppose, I am close to reversal. I think you owe it to us to explain your feelings on those edits. As you are aware, I am extremely sensitive to anti-Semitism, to holocaust-deniers, and to anything that may indicate support of fringe ideas. I respect Slrubenstein a lot, and if he has problems with your edits, that causes me concern. What were you attempting to do? What was your logic? Reading the edits and edit summaries, I don't get it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Slrubenstein has misstated my stance in that dispute as well as what I said. My dispute was with the phrasing of the sentence "Irving's status as a historian has been widely discredited". My dispute was semantical, that's all. My dispute was with the definition of "historian" and whether or not Irving could be considered one even if the vast majority of his work is hogwash. I agree that Irving's views on the holocaust have been discredited as well as most of his other views for that matter. I didn't disagree with saying that. Of course David Irving's views have about the holocaust, WW2 etc have been discredited. I never was against making that clear in the article. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For the record, I believe the holocaust did happen and that the numbers of dead are about 9-11 million. My beliefs coincide exactly with what the sources show. Not that this is at all relevant to an RFA, but I thought it might be comforting to you to know that I'm not a holocaust denier. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been having a look here at the diffs on David Irving from April of last year. Wikidudeman, could you comment on these? In particular I'd be interested to know if your stance on these issues has changed at all with time, and how you'd approach a similar dispute if it arose today. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing a POV that David Irving is not a discredited historian is just plain wrong. If there is one person any would use as an example of being a discredited historian, as backed up by numerous reliable sources, it would be David Irving. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wikidudeman before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. support —DerHexer (Talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) changing to oppose per new evidence below. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Majorly (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support - good editor willing to get involved in messy content. We desperately need both. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems like a reasonable editor. Icestorm815 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Great track and as per DerHexer and Sumoeagle179.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per the contributions and candidate's statement. Pundit|utter 23:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: For sure! - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: Yes, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — BillC talk 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good editor, won't make stupid decisions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seen this user around many times and couldn't find a reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support. Wikidudeman has the battle scars to prove that he can handle tough situations. We need more admins with his patience to work in difficult areas of the wiki. --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2008(UTC)
  15. Support. Why not? Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 01:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Thought he already was an admin support. Excellent editor, will make an excellent asset. Trusilver (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support, he should have been one a long, long time ago. Marlith T/C 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I thought you were an admin already... :) Midorihana~いいですね？ 01:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Dude Same as last time. Jmlk17 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Excellant conttributer with Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeopathy. SpencerT♦C 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Thought-you-were Support :) GlassCobra 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Mhking (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose, per Yahel; the Stormfront edits concern me greatly. --Mhking (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Great user I've had experience with. (Do a barrel Roll!) Dfrg_msc 04:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Should've been an admin a long time ago. Useight (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Yes, I like what I have seen over the months. Mop-capable editor. docboat (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strongest Possible Support Per previous interaction and an ill-considered oppose then neutral on my part at your last RfA. Pedro :  Chat  08:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I think he's made a lot of improvements since the last RfA, and I told him I would support him if he did. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Oxymoron83 09:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support no worries for me, good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Insert-cliche-here Support - {{thought he was an admin}}. Great editor, definitely a worthy candidate. --tennisman 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Most definitely yes! Harland1 (t/c) 14:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I honestly thought this was a reconfirmation - Jauerback (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. SupportSeen him around. Dlohcierekim 15:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. A WTF? Support. Huh? Rudget. 16:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. · AndonicO Hail! 17:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per my own experience and the roll-call of approbation above! Strike support pending answer to question 14 above. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support okay by me. - Philippe | Talk 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Wikidude. could clearly make use of the administrator tools, but I offer my support in the hope that he gets more involved in AIV work and XfD participation and/or closure, which he doesn't do much with at the moment. Otherwise, excellent work in the mainspace :) good luck! Anthøny 18:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Give em' the mop. Tiptoety talk 19:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - thought you were one already. Will make excellent use of the tools. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Oh, and whilst you're at it, some more support.. CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Clearly has the experience. Spellcast (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Another "I thought you were an admin already" Support Dadude3320 20:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. In spite of his nasty and unjustified attempt to get me kicked off Wikipedia (attempt, not person), this user has generally changed in an extraordinary way since the early days when I knew him around the paranormal articles. He has become a much more neutral editor, and he has stopped being a discordant influence. He has apparently been doing good work at Homeopathy (where in his early days he would have been a disruptor and sower of contention). I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools, and some reason to believe his is now a good editor. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Absolutely LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Already thought you were a mod support --Sharkface217 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Same reason as Sharkface217 Support --  jj137 ♠ 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seems like a good candidate. It's no big deal. Lawrence Cohen 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Húsönd 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose. Húsönd 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Wait, you're not an admin? I mean, I even have JavaScript that tells me who's an admin, and I still thought you were one. I guess you seemed so admin-like that I assumed you were one and forgot to check. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost missed this one. Pile-on puppy support. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC) moved to Oppose 13:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Did not support the first one. Will definitely support this one. And It is definitely a piling on, so I hope I don't crush the puppy. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - of course. He handles himself well in the face of adversity and I strongly believe he has the required skills to handle himself as an administrator. Personally, I thought his previous RfA should have passed. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    71.62.4.205 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs can't vote. I'm sorry. But it's the thought that counts, right? Lara❤Love 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, per shocking discussion below.--Filll (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Strong Support WDM proved to me he has the skills needed to be a strong admin and we need to give him the tools.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. HELL YES! Great editor! Lara❤Love 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. the_undertow talk 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, clear improvement since his last RfA. Dreadstar † 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to oppose per new information below. Dreadstar † 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support He really impressed me with his work as a moderator on the Homeopathy article. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude Jehochman Talk 11:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See Oppose. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Surf's up Almost !voted oppose because of that horrid username. Yes way. --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Yes. - eo (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support For strong efforts to Vandal-Fighting.Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 16:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Contributions history indicate to me a temperment suited for admin. Yes. M-ercury at 17:40, January 16, 2008
  59. Support, very skilled at technical aspects and extremely helpful in all my interactions with him. WLU (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose User Self-nominated</sarcasm>, but seriously their is no doubt in my mind (or anyone elses it looks like) that he will not abuse the tools. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I had been intending to support last time but was put off by the opposes so I'm delighted to see that the concerns raised have become historical. This is a great user who would use the tools wisely. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I have been pleased in my dealings with him and have many times run across the same vandals at the same time, always correctly issuing warnings and reporting said vandals. Would make a good Admin. --Alexf(Talk/Contribs) 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. -- DS1953 talk 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support, I can safely say he has improved a lot since his previous failed nomination. Spebi 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support One of the best: trustworthy, dedicated, knowledgeable and courteous. Wikidudeman regularly has gone above and beyond the call of duty in facilitating the improvement of contentious articles. VanTucky 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 200% support OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Thought you already were, and other clichés, support. Good luck with the mop, dude. Keeper | 76 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support yeah--Phoenix-wiki 22:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Shudde talk 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Seen this user around a whole bunch; always courteous, always thorough. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - He should've been on the job long ago. Enjoy the mop. Antelan talk 04:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Per world + dog. That, and Wikidudeman gave me a barnstar. Clearly I'm easily bribed. Gromlakh (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, a belated why-the-hell-did-nobody-tell-me support. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)The Transhumanist 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, Cheers!!! Baegis (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Has done some good work, could use the tools. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  77. Support. I have no problems with this user getting the tools. Daniel Case (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support MBisanz talk 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - your name reminds me of "Buddy Guy". The Transhumanist 23:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Very good editor. Captain panda 14:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Yes, very good editor. --Bhadani (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Will be okay. Acalamari 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Miranda 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Excellent track record. Tools reveals that user has the necessary experience and knowledge of policy to be a good admin - can be stern, yet fair. Good stuff. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Per past AFD encounters Corpx (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. support accurate, common sense editor. Thought he got through last time to be honest. Merkinsmum 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support indeed. — madman bum and angel 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support – Should have been adminned long ago. —Animum (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – all around good guy. While Yahel brings up a good point, I'm guessing this was some kinda weird one-off and unlikely to be repeated. Should be fine ... switching to neutral. Apparently, it was not some kinda weird one-off- Alison ❤ 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, good editor. Everyking (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Ridiculously strong support I have seen nothing negative come from this editor. Not only have I seen him around helping the community, he's made me laugh before. He is definitely the kind of light-hearted, easy-going, knowledgeable admin we need. Good luck with the tools, and let me know if you have any questions in the coming months. нмŵוτнτ 16:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support – very competent, and would be a great asset to the project as an admin. - Neparis (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, seems good. Wizardman 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - Strong contributions, involvement in various Wiki pages.--JForget 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - Good contrib history. I think his edits to David Irving are being completely overblown and do not see this user as a Holocaust denier, but one who was trying to err on the side of NPOV and include all views, but did not appropriately recognize the view as an extreme minority one. He seems to have learned from this. --Veritas (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Gigantically strong mega-super deluxe support becuz this candidate makes one very good administrator. I am very sure about that! Besides that, I think the name: "wikidudeman" (2?) is very, very cool sounding. That is why this member should be admin! Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. For the same reason ScienceApologist (Oppose, #29, below) opposes. Wikidudeman, though, I must say: judge language by it's usefulness in context -- does it efficiently and skillfully communicate what the people who speak it want to communicate? This is the only standard one should use. I was grateful for your approach to Homeopathy. But I cringed to read your views on Ebonics. Friarslantern (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Won't abuse the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. I am a little concerned about some of your edits to Race of ancient Egyptians, specificly because you thought Stormfront was a reliable source, and not an extremist source, and therefore their white surpemacist views were acceptable to be quoted in wikipedia. [1] Yahel Guhan 02:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification, I only said that Stormfront was a good source to be used to confirm their own views. I was using the stormfront website as a source for their own views. In the article it mentioned that some people believed that the Ancient Egyptians were "Nordic" and I sourced the Stormfront website as an example of such people holding such beliefs. I never said that they were a reliable resource for that being true, just that they were a source that could be used to confirm that people actually hold that belief. Of course they aren't a reliable resource in the general sense. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, you used an obviously racist website as a reliable source, whether to prove a point or not, you still believed it was an acceptable source, or you made a clear WP:POINT violation. Which one I cannot be sure, but reguardless of whether or not you actually hold those views, you made it clear that you think racist views are encyclopediac views that should be expressed on wikipedia. Your edits make that very clear. I haven't looked into your edits to most of the other pages, but from my experience with wikidudeman, and what I have seen from his contribs, it is clear to me that this user wishes to express white supremacist views throughout wikipedia, something I believe would greatly compromise the integrity of this encyclopedia, and if trusted with the tools. I also have a problem with this edit. I apologize if my comment is a little harsh, but I really have a problem with trusting those who believe white supremacist views are acceptable to be presented with the tools. I was going to provide a link to the discussion, so people could judge themselves, but it seems wikidudeman conveniently forgot to include it when he archived the talk page. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is unacceptable to use RFA as a platform to continue past content disagreements. Administrators have the same status as any editor in content issues. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Yahel Guhan. He's simply misinterpreting what my position was/is. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory they do, but that doesn't mean any editor should be trusted with the tools. Admins should prove themselves to be trustworthy, and wikidudeman has in my opinion been in way too many content disputes, where it seems to me he is promoting fringe theories and extremist views. October wasn't that long ago, so I doubt he has changed since then. It does, however look like the community disagrees with me on this issue, so although I am not supporting your RFA, I wish you good luck at this point. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the comment, it seems innocuous - WDM isn't saying Stormfront is right, WDM is saying it's a source for the statement 'some groups think the Ancient Egyptians were white'. Stormfront is one such, horribly racist, group. Given some massaging, it's a debatably valid inclusion if qualified to state that the groups who think this tend to wear pointy hats, hold lynchings and burn crosses. I don't see any of the above comments and diffs as being evidence of WDM's racism - stating that one 'race' is superior to the other is indeed racist to my mind, irrespective of who the 'race' is. And it's easy to see why he would be involved in editing multiple 'race' pages - in editing, we all click on wikilinks which take us to related pages that need editing. WLU (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Per Yahel, also, this greatly concerns me - non-crats should not be closing RFAs, except in cases of obvious trolling. This is also problematic. This RFA is obviously going to be successful ... but please, sometime between now and the time you get your bit, please take a read at User:NoSeptember's banner at the top of his page - it puts it better than I could. --B (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding your first point, the bureaucrats themselves have long allowed non-'crats to close in cases of clear WP:SNOW. Here's a sample from just the last month: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Do you feel the 'crats should no longer allow this? --JayHenry (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. That's new (within the last year, anyway). The last time I had seen it discussed, the answer was absolutely not, however, I have struck that part of my comment. --B (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I decided to actually take the time to go back over the last year and look at his comments, especially in admin-type disputes. Wikidudeman skirts dangerously close to POV-pushing in many disputes and on many talk pages, although he is good at cloaking his intentions and at "slow reverts." Having seen how dangerous it is to give admin tools to POV-pushers, I don't think the community should take a chance here. Goo2you (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide diffs? The Transhumanist 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to echo this request - I looked over WDM's contribs for the past couple days and found very few talk page postings. WLU (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Wikidudeman is not a bad editor and often works towards compromise, but I feel he often lacks the neutrality that one would value in an admin. Yahel Guhan has raised an important point. I also thought that it was unprofessional and unnecessary to bring a complaint to the administrator's notice board about the user-page of a user with whom you have had several disagreements over article content. Especially when that complaint had little substance. I said as much, in that debate, but I feel that this should be mentioned here too. Admins must know how to draw the line between personal disputes and matters that they act on as admins. futurebird (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Link to the archived discussion. WDM titled the section "Userpage soapbox, requesting some opinions" - he was linking to solicit opinions on a user who had a RFArb related to the topic on which WDM is soliciting opinions on. There was discussion, with people coming down on both sides of the discussion, which means his solicitation was appropriate in attempting to address something he found questionable, but not absolute. WLU (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Futurebird. Wikidudeman has often shown serious lapses of good judgement - for example, in the discussion of David irving. A host of sources explicitly stated that Irving (a Holocaust denier) had been discredited. Wikidudeman persistently argued that we could not use that word but indead had to use the word "dusputed" which in context was a weasel word. There are two issues here: an inability to recognize what is an extreme fringe view (that the holocauset did not occur) as such, and second, a disregard for WP:V. Verifiable sources stated that he had been discredited. This view was easy to identify (comply with NPOV) and source. Instead, Wikidudeman insisted on putting his own view in - the view that denying the holocaust is "controversial" which may be so but which is NOT what the verifiable sources about David Irving had to say. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate the diffs for this: I have scanned the recent history for David Irving but as I don't know when this occurred it would be easier if you could identify the date and post the offending edits with a link, please? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [9] El_C 11:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see merit to saying an individual's work as a historian has been discredited, which was WDM's position on how the page should be worded. It's much easier to justify and source than arguing that a person, as a historian, has been discredited. WDM's wording reads better to me as it is inarguably correct while the latter is arguably correct. WLU (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Slrubenstein. Sorry, but a POV that holocaust denial is "controversial" is not a good thing. I'm pretty saddened by reading what I've read in this oppose group. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is probably not possible because of arcane Wikipedia rules, but I think this RfA should be extended, to further discuss some of what has been brought up here. WDM's David Irving edits are at best misguided, at worst reprehensible support of racism. This is a serious lapse of judgement for someone who wishes to have the tools of an admin. In addition, as I have seen in the past with his work on Homeopathy, he misses out on the whole point of undue weight. I do not believe that WDM deserves this position at Wikipedia.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment This one edit shows how WDM does not understand pseudoscience. So if you want someone who supports pseudoscience (by not expressly supporting it, but by claiming the use of some odd NPOV statute), the WDM is your man. However, I would prefer admins who understood that NPOV does not mean pseudoscientific claims have any weight versus claims supported by a vast base of research. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. oppose per Futurebird and Slrubenstein. I've worked well with Wikidudeman in the past but this does show a general pattern he has of confusing NPOV with presenting all sides equally. These are not the same thing and I'd be worried about making someone an admin who doesn't understand that. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Slrubenstein. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Yahel Guhan and Slrubenstein. Trying to use Stormfront as a source on ancient Egyptians shows a serious failure to understand the content policies. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was an article on the ethnicity of ancient Egyptians and I was using the website to show that some people hold that belief. The belief that Ancient Egyptians were "Nordic". I wasn't using it as a source that they are Nordic, simply that there are people out there who believe that. There's a big difference. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But there's no reason that Stormfront should be given the time of day in that article. If there is a meaningful source that advocates that point of view, fine, but Stormfront is offensive racism that has not business being linked to from anywhere except its own article. That Stormfront advocates a particular view is unimportant in the writing of an encyclopedia article. --B (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I've changed my vote (at this late date), having read the other "oppose" comments and looking more closely at some recent and past discussions involving Wikidudeman. I hadn't realised just how many discussions on subjects dealing with race have included his dubious involvement. As I mentioned in my "neutral" comment, I'm skeptical about his judgement, but I have two new points that have persuaded me to change my vote. The lesser point is that, in mentioning conflicts he had been involved in, Wikidudeman only cited the AAVE conflict, and not any others - not even quite recent/ongoing conflicts, leaving the impression that such events were well in the past. The more disturbing point is a profound contradiction: that Wikidudeman has worked strenuously over more than a year to restrict the inclusion of parapsychology, homeopathy and other pseudo-science content in Wikipedia (an orientation I can agree with), while at the same time working quite strenuously to include content from racist and deeply misguided sources as though they are on an equal footing with authoritative sources. Surely any "information" from Stormfront is of far less value to Wikipedia than the work of most homeopathy advocates... (The views of Stormfront have absolutely no relevance to the question of the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, for example.) Reviewing the David Irving discussions was both a reminder of the wretched AAVE saga, and a further confirmation that Wikidudeman doesn't or won't understand NPOV and its bearing on different kinds of sources. I still believe he is a much improved editor, but I can't believe that someone with such faulty judgement and perception would be a good administrator. Pinkville (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that I think Wikidudeman is pushing a racist agenda, but that he doesn't seem to understand that his comments at numerous articles on the subject of race are based on far more deeply pseudo-science sources than any of the pseudo-science he's argued against at homeopathy, et al. That's too great an error in judgement/perception on such a critical issue for an administrator. Pinkville (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per above, and my past interactions with him have been far from encouraging. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I'm sorry but he's just digging himself deeper and deeper with this Stormfront thing, in his response to SV. WP articles shouldn't give time to the opinions of people on unreliable, fringe internet sites. To suggest we need to mention some wild POV just because some random forum does speaks to a misunderstanding of the fundamentals of NPOV. --W.marsh 03:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Sorry, per above, especially Slrubenstein. Húsönd 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose; I'm sorry, but per Yahel above, I have to withdraw my prior support. The Stormfront edits and explanations concern me greatly, and do not sit well with me at all. --Mhking (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Slrubenstein -- Y not? 05:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per futurebird and Slrubinstein. It is not that I think this editor may not be a good admin one day, but that what I have read on both sides now makes me somewhat uneasy about the judgment exhibited by the editor and I am unwilling, at this point, to extend a blanket trust to the editor. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Slrubenstein's concerns are deeply troubling. And I Already had concerns about being needlessly argumentative, not facilitating calm. El_C 09:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose. For all the reasons noted above. I can't escape the feeling that the WDM's relative quiet recently is mere politicking. When I examine his votes and opinions in matters at ANI and the ArbCom his old pattern hasn't changed. His relentless, stubborn POV pushing in the face of widely accepted facts/sources provided to the contrary. His staunch and ongoing support of rogue admins behaving badly -- which does not bode well for his conduct should he become one. Further, he demonstrated at Talk: Afrocentrism an utter lack of understanding of what exactly POV is. Rather than ask for citation of relatively well known facts, he branded the information POV pushing and deleted relevant and accurate article content. Disingenuous edit notes while deleting, again, relevant and accurate text. Such conduct in an admin is unpardonable. Adminship? Absolutely not! deeceevoice (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per futurebird and Slrubinstein. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I suggest withdrawing the request and then addressing the concerns calmly and allowing time for discussion. If the confusion can be resolved, a new request can be made and I would consider supporting it. Jehochman Talk 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I agree with Jehochman. New information uncovered above is very disturbing to me, in spite of my strong respect of WDM for his work on Homeopathy. Please withdraw this RfA and do not start your adminship under a cloud. Explain the circumstances fully so we can have no second thoughts. Few if any events in history are better documented than the Holocaust. Someone who was or has been a holocaust denier and purports to be a serious historian has a lot of explaining to do, and their biography should be handled with extreme care on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, per EL C, Jeochman and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, per above concerns. Dreadstar † 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, per new found evidence. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per above. Legitimate concerns have been raised. There's no way he should be promoted this way, regardless of the vote count. Friday (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Mainly on attitude. I've re-read the David Irving discussion, and it's not just the question of wanting to say "he is discredited as an historian" vs "he is a discredited historian" To deliberately raise a distinction like this when it would have been clear any reasonable person that it was going to produce anger and disharmony seems to me like arguing for the sake of arguing, and very close to deliberately provoking drama. DGG (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, this wikidude is cool guy to be honest i like him and he will be admin. don't you forget! Besides, he'shippie!Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose this time. However, WDM shows he probably can be a good admin, if he addresses the points raised above, especially those about NPOV and POV. I'd say retract this RfA and give him time to show that he can heed the criticism of his peers. Then, he can reapply.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. oppose I thought I'd stay out of this but I looked at the David Irving talk page discussion and I have to agree with DGG. - TwoOars 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose While we need admins who are willing to fight against pseudoscience, we need them to be able to call it for what it is without waffling. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Yahel Guhan and Slrubenstein [10] [11]. Stormfront being used as a reliable source for information about the Race of ancient Egyptians shows a lack of insight into policy. To put it mildly, their views are just opinion (pov). Links to racist site have no place except their own article. The David Irving talk page discussion tells me that this candidate is argumentative to the point that they will not be fully open to compromise.--Ѕandahl 18:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per Slrubenstein. I am sorry, but your comparison that "he is discredited as a historian" with "I could find 50 sources that claim George Bush is an Idiot, Moron or Retarded" was unhappy. There is no way to compare these things, because idiot, moron or retarded are personal attacks and discredited historian is not. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I like Wikidudeman, but I had some doubts about his judgment given some of his calls related to pseudoscience. Couple that with the David Irving thing and the comments above and I'm more uncomfortable. I just don't get the impression that he realises what the problem is. I'm going to err on the side of caution and vote to oppose. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral I have real reservations about Wikidudeman being an administrator, reservations that go back to the discussions at AAVE (Talk:AAVE/Archive 3, Talk:AAVE/Archive 4, Talk:AAVE, AfD/Ebonics). I've had a bit of a look at some of his recent posts (going back to last November) on potentially contentious subjects (Afrocentrism, for example) and I'm reasonably satisfied that he is now conducting himself in a helpful and appropriate manner in contrast to our earlier involvement of about a year ago. I can't say I fully trust Wikidudeman's judgement, though, nor that he will follow an argument as carefully or successfully as he ought, but my reservations are not strong enough now to oppose what appears to be a fait accompli... that he will become an administrator. I wish him all the best and continued WP success, and I congratulate him on making some important positive changes. Pinkville (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - pending diffs from Goo2you. Gets it right most of the time. Changed to support. The Transhumanist 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Switching to Neutral - per Slrubenstein - Alison ❤ 01:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Switching to Neutral per various concerns raised above. BLACKKITE 15:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I could careless about your personal opinion but what Slrubenstein is saying, IMO, is that you're not fully understanding WP:R and WP:NPOV. I don't think it warrants an oppose though, so I'm neutral. Mønobi 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wikidudeman_2&oldid=1252115999"