final (36/4/5) ending 21:51 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Bogdangiusca (
talk·contribs) – I nominate Bogdan because he has contributed a large variety of articles on Romania-related topics, particularly in the fields of lingustics. He is also friendly, fair and displays the conduct of an administrator. Ronline✉05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - I know Bogdangiusca and I trust him. His huge contributions proves a very decent, calm and friendly attitude. He is a man that won't make compromise to lies. He is by far the best of us and he was always our model. --
Bonaparte talk08:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - I thought he was already an admin. If not, that's strange. He's the best Romanian contributor on Wiki. --
Anittas15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - One of the few times I don't even have to wait to hear how the candidate answers the questions. Probably our single best contributor on Romanian-related topics, and a veritable role-model in terms of his behavior. --
Jmabel |
Talk03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - The candidate knows his domain of competency really well and is one of the Romanian contributors without a hidden agenda.
Dunemaire10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't know how much you know about our editors, but Alexander has done some great work, too. Bogdan is not so great communicating with other members. Interaction with other members counts, too. Some of us have also done some good work. Sure, Bogdan might be the best, but not by miiiiilllleeeeessss. --
Anittas21:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Bogdan has done the most thus far for the Romania-related articles, and he's done his share for Wikipedia in general, but I agree with Anittas that Bogdan needs to work on his communication/interaction skills. Also, I almost don't want to bring this up because it may be seen as a low hit to a User I otherwise support, but his English often requires a steady level of copy-editing (grammar mistakes common). Sorry. I just had to bring this up, because some people are exaggerating Bogdan here. None of these points however are serious enough to warrant an oppose vote.
Alexander 00707:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Please understand that the number of edits doesn't imply whether a person is ready for adminship or not. I did more edits in 9 months than Bogdan did in 3 years. Some people make slight changes in grammar, or edit categories, or just revert - and have astonishing number of edits. We should concentrate on Bogdan's behaviour and interaction with other editors and not on the number of edits he has. I believe that any admin should participate actively in such comminity affairs as AfD, RfA, etc. I don't think that I've seen Bogdangiusca doing this kind of job recently. The more's the pity. --
Ghirlandajo09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually, there are more Romanian admins than the Russian and Polish taken together, although I daresay the coverage of Romanian topics here is not up to the level of either. We don't see Romanian admins at work that often, that's why many people doubt if they really exist. --
Ghirlandajo11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support. I've met him a couple of times before, and I'm surprised to learn that he's not an admin, yet. Careful with sources and balanced in behaviour. --
Lysy(
talk)21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Bogdan is a great (and knowledgeable) user in a difficult area, and with basically the only oppose votes being from two nationalists and the new Boothy, I'm most definitely compelled to support.
Ambi03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Upon reviewing Bogdan's contributions, I change my vote to weak support, although the fact that he is ardently supported by certain trollish creatures still nonplusses me. --
Ghirlandajo08:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose - I know that Bogdan has done many positive contribs in WP, however some of his comments on other users (and some times other countries) when he dealt with conflicts at Balkan topics force me to vote against his adminship at the present time. I may be wrong, but I cannot believe that he is ready to become an admin. If his adminship is accepted, I wish that he'll avoid such comments on the future, and I hope that he'll try to be as neutral as possible. If his RFA fails, and in the meantime his actions prove that those were isolated, and perhaps unfortunate, insidents, I'll vote supporting him, at his next RFA.
+MATIA☎23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, I know what you're talking about: about
Template:Macedonian naming dispute. I didn't wanted that template simply because it was against our policies and it would had set a bad precedent. Anyway, the decision against it was eventually made by a community consensus, not only by me.
bogdan00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I was not thinking anenst that when I 'voted' in his favour. Former Yugloslav Republic of Macedonia might sound ridiculous, but Former Ottoman Province of Greece does not sound excessively better. I do not desire to sound like a partisan of "
political correctness," but we should attempt to be 'neutral,' if only as not to confuse people. Personally, I usually dislike that policy and may occasionally be tempted to write of things as I would like for them to be, but I suppose that that would inaccurate to do so 'here'. --
Anglius03:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The difference between FOPOG and fYRoM is that fYRoM is an acronym used by UNO, IMF etc due to the name dispute with Greece (note: I'm a Greek editor, and I believe that the two governments must work it out). However I want to be an optimist for Bogdan and I know that he has done a lot of work at WP.
+MATIA☎12:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't know about anti-Romanian but I can firmly assert the Ghirlandajo is not an anti-Semite as I have seen many of his edits. As per this, I think he is unlikely an anti-anyone else. I further assert that "do not feed trolls" is a wise rule that he has stated. In no way this affects the my opinion of the personality of Bogdan or Bogdan's suitablity for Adminship, which I will likely support. --
Irpen19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
That article was not written by me. When I found, it was unsourced and POV and I tried to fix it. Ghirlandajo argued that because it is POV, it should be deleted and I was against that, because lack of neutrality is not a valid deletion criterium.
bogdan20:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Ghirlandajo is known to be rabid in these situations, as seen in his dealings with Polish Wikipedians, etc., unless I'm mistaken. He's quick to call out "nationalist", but the term may equally apply to him. And his behavior toward Romanian Wikipedians is overall abrasive.
Alexander 00720:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Please watch your tongue. You are the first to call me a nationalist, I believe, and I find it quite funny, as my nationalism consists in occasional changing "annexed" to "liberated", just to underline the POVishness of certain phrases. "My behavior toward Romanian Wikipedians" is limited to several contacts with the subject of this nomination, when he
attempted to deny Khotin Massacre, which may be compared by some to the
Holocaust Denial. I tend to keep aloof from Romania-related topics on purpose, because the level of discourse I've seen in the articles on
Transnistria,
Moldovan language, etc. is below criticism. We made Ronline an admin in the hope that he'll moderate the counterproductive discourse, but so far I have not seen any improvements. --
Ghirlandajo09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
While AndriyK's behaviour was frequently disgusting and caused the whole community to rise against him, I find the edits of some Romanian editors even more disturbing. On looking through Bogdan's edits, I see him a more moderate editor, although not very active nowadays. I may change my vote against him after additional consideration, however. --
Ghirlandajo09:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This is not Ghirlandajo's RfA to begin with. Besides, the comments above by Annitas and Bonaparte are obviously trollish and IMO totally undeserved. I am upset to see that trollism gets from articles and talk pages even to RfA. Let's close the issue. Ghirlandajo voted as he saw fit and he had a right to do so. Whoever has a thing or two to say about it, take it to his talk or go to an RfC or whatever. --
Irpen22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
After three years of wikiediting and some 15000+ edits, Bogdangiusca should have enough skill to perform admin duties. I can't see your point. --
Ghirlandajo21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral Don't know user very well, and certainly have no wish to become involved in nationalism disputes where I know nothing, but I agree that answers to questions are spare.
Xoloz19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Answers are too short to gain any perspective on the what the user will do if he becomes an admin. I know it's no big thing, but not signing his own comment left me with a sour taste in my mouth.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral as well, in agreeance with other Neutral votes. I think what makes me leery in this case, and hesitant to vote Accept, is the lack of general goodwill I've seen from some voters so far in this vote. Becoming an admin requires a consensus, and I will not make a decision to join or oppose consensus if I have to wade through the muck in order to get there. Furthermore, I do not currently have any opinion on the issue of nationalism and I fail to see how it should apply here when we're trying to focus on the merits of the candidate. --
Vortex16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Comments
I am glad that he accept it. He is a good man. We all trust him and his edits are strong. He is a very ambitious man. He knows what he's doing, and he's doing. "Il n'y a que de vivre; on voit tout et le contraire de tout".
Bonaparte talk20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The behaviour of User:
Ghirlandajo is almost inacceptable. Look at his remarks on almost every vote! He cann't refrain himself of not being out of line. My advice is for him to refrain himself with this approach.
Bonaparte talk11:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Do you two think you could maybe get a room and lock yourselves away there? That way you'd have some privacy for your lovers' quarrel, and people wishing to genuinely comment yea or nay on Bogdan's RfA can do so without the distraction of
User:Bonaparte and
User:Ghirlandajo sniping at each other.
fuddlemark (
fuddle me!)
11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
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. Well, since I edited mostly on Balkans topics I had a few conflicts, but I always tried to stay cool and dig up more information and sources on the subject instead of simply quarreling.
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.
final (36/4/5) ending 21:51 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Bogdangiusca (
talk·contribs) – I nominate Bogdan because he has contributed a large variety of articles on Romania-related topics, particularly in the fields of lingustics. He is also friendly, fair and displays the conduct of an administrator. Ronline✉05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - I know Bogdangiusca and I trust him. His huge contributions proves a very decent, calm and friendly attitude. He is a man that won't make compromise to lies. He is by far the best of us and he was always our model. --
Bonaparte talk08:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - I thought he was already an admin. If not, that's strange. He's the best Romanian contributor on Wiki. --
Anittas15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - One of the few times I don't even have to wait to hear how the candidate answers the questions. Probably our single best contributor on Romanian-related topics, and a veritable role-model in terms of his behavior. --
Jmabel |
Talk03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support - The candidate knows his domain of competency really well and is one of the Romanian contributors without a hidden agenda.
Dunemaire10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't know how much you know about our editors, but Alexander has done some great work, too. Bogdan is not so great communicating with other members. Interaction with other members counts, too. Some of us have also done some good work. Sure, Bogdan might be the best, but not by miiiiilllleeeeessss. --
Anittas21:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Bogdan has done the most thus far for the Romania-related articles, and he's done his share for Wikipedia in general, but I agree with Anittas that Bogdan needs to work on his communication/interaction skills. Also, I almost don't want to bring this up because it may be seen as a low hit to a User I otherwise support, but his English often requires a steady level of copy-editing (grammar mistakes common). Sorry. I just had to bring this up, because some people are exaggerating Bogdan here. None of these points however are serious enough to warrant an oppose vote.
Alexander 00707:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Please understand that the number of edits doesn't imply whether a person is ready for adminship or not. I did more edits in 9 months than Bogdan did in 3 years. Some people make slight changes in grammar, or edit categories, or just revert - and have astonishing number of edits. We should concentrate on Bogdan's behaviour and interaction with other editors and not on the number of edits he has. I believe that any admin should participate actively in such comminity affairs as AfD, RfA, etc. I don't think that I've seen Bogdangiusca doing this kind of job recently. The more's the pity. --
Ghirlandajo09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Actually, there are more Romanian admins than the Russian and Polish taken together, although I daresay the coverage of Romanian topics here is not up to the level of either. We don't see Romanian admins at work that often, that's why many people doubt if they really exist. --
Ghirlandajo11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support. I've met him a couple of times before, and I'm surprised to learn that he's not an admin, yet. Careful with sources and balanced in behaviour. --
Lysy(
talk)21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Bogdan is a great (and knowledgeable) user in a difficult area, and with basically the only oppose votes being from two nationalists and the new Boothy, I'm most definitely compelled to support.
Ambi03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Upon reviewing Bogdan's contributions, I change my vote to weak support, although the fact that he is ardently supported by certain trollish creatures still nonplusses me. --
Ghirlandajo08:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Oppose - I know that Bogdan has done many positive contribs in WP, however some of his comments on other users (and some times other countries) when he dealt with conflicts at Balkan topics force me to vote against his adminship at the present time. I may be wrong, but I cannot believe that he is ready to become an admin. If his adminship is accepted, I wish that he'll avoid such comments on the future, and I hope that he'll try to be as neutral as possible. If his RFA fails, and in the meantime his actions prove that those were isolated, and perhaps unfortunate, insidents, I'll vote supporting him, at his next RFA.
+MATIA☎23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Yes, I know what you're talking about: about
Template:Macedonian naming dispute. I didn't wanted that template simply because it was against our policies and it would had set a bad precedent. Anyway, the decision against it was eventually made by a community consensus, not only by me.
bogdan00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I was not thinking anenst that when I 'voted' in his favour. Former Yugloslav Republic of Macedonia might sound ridiculous, but Former Ottoman Province of Greece does not sound excessively better. I do not desire to sound like a partisan of "
political correctness," but we should attempt to be 'neutral,' if only as not to confuse people. Personally, I usually dislike that policy and may occasionally be tempted to write of things as I would like for them to be, but I suppose that that would inaccurate to do so 'here'. --
Anglius03:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The difference between FOPOG and fYRoM is that fYRoM is an acronym used by UNO, IMF etc due to the name dispute with Greece (note: I'm a Greek editor, and I believe that the two governments must work it out). However I want to be an optimist for Bogdan and I know that he has done a lot of work at WP.
+MATIA☎12:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't know about anti-Romanian but I can firmly assert the Ghirlandajo is not an anti-Semite as I have seen many of his edits. As per this, I think he is unlikely an anti-anyone else. I further assert that "do not feed trolls" is a wise rule that he has stated. In no way this affects the my opinion of the personality of Bogdan or Bogdan's suitablity for Adminship, which I will likely support. --
Irpen19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
That article was not written by me. When I found, it was unsourced and POV and I tried to fix it. Ghirlandajo argued that because it is POV, it should be deleted and I was against that, because lack of neutrality is not a valid deletion criterium.
bogdan20:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Ghirlandajo is known to be rabid in these situations, as seen in his dealings with Polish Wikipedians, etc., unless I'm mistaken. He's quick to call out "nationalist", but the term may equally apply to him. And his behavior toward Romanian Wikipedians is overall abrasive.
Alexander 00720:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Please watch your tongue. You are the first to call me a nationalist, I believe, and I find it quite funny, as my nationalism consists in occasional changing "annexed" to "liberated", just to underline the POVishness of certain phrases. "My behavior toward Romanian Wikipedians" is limited to several contacts with the subject of this nomination, when he
attempted to deny Khotin Massacre, which may be compared by some to the
Holocaust Denial. I tend to keep aloof from Romania-related topics on purpose, because the level of discourse I've seen in the articles on
Transnistria,
Moldovan language, etc. is below criticism. We made Ronline an admin in the hope that he'll moderate the counterproductive discourse, but so far I have not seen any improvements. --
Ghirlandajo09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
While AndriyK's behaviour was frequently disgusting and caused the whole community to rise against him, I find the edits of some Romanian editors even more disturbing. On looking through Bogdan's edits, I see him a more moderate editor, although not very active nowadays. I may change my vote against him after additional consideration, however. --
Ghirlandajo09:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This is not Ghirlandajo's RfA to begin with. Besides, the comments above by Annitas and Bonaparte are obviously trollish and IMO totally undeserved. I am upset to see that trollism gets from articles and talk pages even to RfA. Let's close the issue. Ghirlandajo voted as he saw fit and he had a right to do so. Whoever has a thing or two to say about it, take it to his talk or go to an RfC or whatever. --
Irpen22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
After three years of wikiediting and some 15000+ edits, Bogdangiusca should have enough skill to perform admin duties. I can't see your point. --
Ghirlandajo21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral Don't know user very well, and certainly have no wish to become involved in nationalism disputes where I know nothing, but I agree that answers to questions are spare.
Xoloz19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Answers are too short to gain any perspective on the what the user will do if he becomes an admin. I know it's no big thing, but not signing his own comment left me with a sour taste in my mouth.--May the Force be with you!
Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Neutral as well, in agreeance with other Neutral votes. I think what makes me leery in this case, and hesitant to vote Accept, is the lack of general goodwill I've seen from some voters so far in this vote. Becoming an admin requires a consensus, and I will not make a decision to join or oppose consensus if I have to wade through the muck in order to get there. Furthermore, I do not currently have any opinion on the issue of nationalism and I fail to see how it should apply here when we're trying to focus on the merits of the candidate. --
Vortex16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Comments
I am glad that he accept it. He is a good man. We all trust him and his edits are strong. He is a very ambitious man. He knows what he's doing, and he's doing. "Il n'y a que de vivre; on voit tout et le contraire de tout".
Bonaparte talk20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)reply
The behaviour of User:
Ghirlandajo is almost inacceptable. Look at his remarks on almost every vote! He cann't refrain himself of not being out of line. My advice is for him to refrain himself with this approach.
Bonaparte talk11:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Do you two think you could maybe get a room and lock yourselves away there? That way you'd have some privacy for your lovers' quarrel, and people wishing to genuinely comment yea or nay on Bogdan's RfA can do so without the distraction of
User:Bonaparte and
User:Ghirlandajo sniping at each other.
fuddlemark (
fuddle me!)
11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
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. Well, since I edited mostly on Balkans topics I had a few conflicts, but I always tried to stay cool and dig up more information and sources on the subject instead of simply quarreling.
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.