Final (37/0/1) ended 13:49 2 December 2005, 13:40 (UTC)
Ronline (
talk·contribs) – I am proud to nominate
Ronline to be Administrator! He has always been a reliable, friendly editor, contributor of countless articles, I've seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics. He is also sysop at Romanian Wikipedia. He is a good researcher and very good defender of the truth. Let's go and vote for him!
Bonaparte13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Support- Like I said in nomination, I am strongly support his nomination. He's very helpful, nice, and will help with a lot of things!
Bonaparte talk &
contribs
Support. I know his good job as a sysop on the Romanian Wikipedia. This argument counterbalances the nominator and the bad timing. --
AdiJapan17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. His responses to the baiting, probing, irrelevant questions below demonstrate that he has the proper temprament for being an admin.
ZacharyS20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Cool-headed user in many hot disputes. I would like to ask Ronline to promise to fill the
edit summary more often though. And about the nominator, I suspect Bonaparte's motivation is to have a friend with big stick at certain controversal articles, but I don't think Ronline will fall into that trap.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Having not been involved in the apparant conflicts, I'm going to side with the majority on this one. This user shows promise, and promise should always get a chance to prove itself. --
Martin Osterman03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I believe he is fair, rational and doesn't resort to ad hominems. I expect him to continue to be so once he's elected. --
Chris S.07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - He is the right man for the job! --
Dacodava
Support: I don't know the candidate from Adam's Off Ox, but no one could fake tolerance and fair mindedness through all the inappropriate questions below. Holy smokes, but that takes some equanimity.
Geogre12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. However, for the record I would like to show that I am pretty sure that Bonaparte has ulterior motives here. --
Node01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems like a good editor, and he did a nice job handling the questions below. I don't really care about the source of the nom, since it's not germane. -
Colin Kimbrell03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Ronline's able and common-sense mediation in the matter of the anon Romanian contributor with a prediliction for unjustifiably augmenting Romanian stats demonstrates he's made of the right admin material.--
cjllw | TALK03:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I like Ronline. He is a good person, and deserving of adminship probably. But as Zserghei and Iulian U. said, the fact that the nominator is Bonaparte makes this request suspect. If this RfA fails (which it probably won't), I would vote "support" in a new RfA later if the nominator's motives were less suspcious. Now, if it didn't look like this RfA was definitely going to win, I would truly consider a "support" vote because it's Ronline we're talking about, but since it looks like it is with or without me, I'm just registering my opposition here more as a matter of principle. --
Node19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Good points. I am aware that you had your share of verbal abuse from certain people at certain articles, but it was precisely there that Ronline had a moderating influence. That is to say, keep in mind that this is not a vote for Bonaparte to be an admin. :)
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose On the basis of the user to question 6 (which I've just taken the liberty of correcting the numbering of by hand). Please review
Wikipedia:Protection policy and
Wikipedia:Blocking policy, fix your answer to be in line with these, and I'll be glad to review this.
Alai 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Changing to abstain, following (iterated) modifications to answer, with which I'm now completely happy, pending a closer look at candidate's contribs/developing an actual substantiative opinion.
Alai05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
We are supposed to be judging the candidate here. In my view the nominator should not come into it. If you have a dispute with Bonaparte that is fine, but this is not the place to bring it up.
Raven4x4x09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I know. I would like to make it clear that this also applies to a negative vote, not necessarily a neutral vote. Voting against a candidate because you have differences with the nominator (but nothing against the candidate) is totally unfair to the RFA in question. If you have doubts on the candidate feel free to ask him questions.
=Nichalp«Talk»=17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but I also feel that who the nominator is does matter to people. For example, if I don't know a person who is being nominated personally, but I do know and trust the nominator, I will tend to give the person nominated a little more credit. Similarly, unsigned nominations and nominations by anonymous IPs tend to raise the bar of my giving them a support vote, and I tend to subject those people to closer scrutiny. I don't think I would ever negatively discount a person based on the nominator however, which is what the above appears to be doing. So (in a very roundabout way!), I am agreeing with you: any oppose votes based solely on who the nominator is should be discarded or at least heavily discounted. Glad to see the above are nuetral votes. :)
Turnstep19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Comments
I think Ronline would be a good admin, but the fact that Bonaparte is the nominator makes me wonder what his intentions are. I don't want my Support vote to endorse Bonaparte's stance (see
Talk:Moldovan language).
IulianU.14:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC).reply
May I suggest that
User:Anittas treat this as an RfA and not a Senate confirmation hearing. The questions and insinuations below are ridiculous and have no bearing on this nom.
Marskell15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I would be willing to work against vandalism in all of its forms. However, I'd also like to help with requested moves and things like that, the only an administrator can do and that people sometimes wait too much time for!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I've contributed mostly to the Romanian Wikipedia and I haven't really been a content contributor - I've mostly been involved in organisation, planning, stuff like that. I'm really proud, however, of the
Caile Ferate Romane article. This isn't my article, but I was one of the major contributors that brought it up to featured status. I'm doing that with Bucharest now, but there's still some work to go :)
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. Yes I have, for that matter. I've been involved in a dispute at the Moldovan Wikipedia, and I've tried to deal with that in as neutral a way as possible. The only thing I believe in more than neutrality is communication - without direct, reasonable communication, everything fails. I've also been involved in the
Moldovan language article, which has been through some tough times lately. There, I've tried to stand for the truth, to prevent both sides taking things too far on their own way. In the future, I hope to maintain that. Mediating conflict is one thing I really enjoy doing, if only because it achieves a sense of social justice and constructive stability. Have any users caused me stress - yes, but I've never sought to aggrevate conflict. If there's one thing people must learn at Wikipedia, is that we should try to talk to each other in a nicer way.
Ronline07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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 (37/0/1) ended 13:49 2 December 2005, 13:40 (UTC)
Ronline (
talk·contribs) – I am proud to nominate
Ronline to be Administrator! He has always been a reliable, friendly editor, contributor of countless articles, I've seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics. He is also sysop at Romanian Wikipedia. He is a good researcher and very good defender of the truth. Let's go and vote for him!
Bonaparte13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Support- Like I said in nomination, I am strongly support his nomination. He's very helpful, nice, and will help with a lot of things!
Bonaparte talk &
contribs
Support. I know his good job as a sysop on the Romanian Wikipedia. This argument counterbalances the nominator and the bad timing. --
AdiJapan17:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. His responses to the baiting, probing, irrelevant questions below demonstrate that he has the proper temprament for being an admin.
ZacharyS20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Cool-headed user in many hot disputes. I would like to ask Ronline to promise to fill the
edit summary more often though. And about the nominator, I suspect Bonaparte's motivation is to have a friend with big stick at certain controversal articles, but I don't think Ronline will fall into that trap.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Having not been involved in the apparant conflicts, I'm going to side with the majority on this one. This user shows promise, and promise should always get a chance to prove itself. --
Martin Osterman03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. I believe he is fair, rational and doesn't resort to ad hominems. I expect him to continue to be so once he's elected. --
Chris S.07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - He is the right man for the job! --
Dacodava
Support: I don't know the candidate from Adam's Off Ox, but no one could fake tolerance and fair mindedness through all the inappropriate questions below. Holy smokes, but that takes some equanimity.
Geogre12:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. However, for the record I would like to show that I am pretty sure that Bonaparte has ulterior motives here. --
Node01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems like a good editor, and he did a nice job handling the questions below. I don't really care about the source of the nom, since it's not germane. -
Colin Kimbrell03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Support. Ronline's able and common-sense mediation in the matter of the anon Romanian contributor with a prediliction for unjustifiably augmenting Romanian stats demonstrates he's made of the right admin material.--
cjllw | TALK03:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I like Ronline. He is a good person, and deserving of adminship probably. But as Zserghei and Iulian U. said, the fact that the nominator is Bonaparte makes this request suspect. If this RfA fails (which it probably won't), I would vote "support" in a new RfA later if the nominator's motives were less suspcious. Now, if it didn't look like this RfA was definitely going to win, I would truly consider a "support" vote because it's Ronline we're talking about, but since it looks like it is with or without me, I'm just registering my opposition here more as a matter of principle. --
Node19:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Good points. I am aware that you had your share of verbal abuse from certain people at certain articles, but it was precisely there that Ronline had a moderating influence. That is to say, keep in mind that this is not a vote for Bonaparte to be an admin. :)
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
23:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Oppose On the basis of the user to question 6 (which I've just taken the liberty of correcting the numbering of by hand). Please review
Wikipedia:Protection policy and
Wikipedia:Blocking policy, fix your answer to be in line with these, and I'll be glad to review this.
Alai 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Changing to abstain, following (iterated) modifications to answer, with which I'm now completely happy, pending a closer look at candidate's contribs/developing an actual substantiative opinion.
Alai05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)reply
We are supposed to be judging the candidate here. In my view the nominator should not come into it. If you have a dispute with Bonaparte that is fine, but this is not the place to bring it up.
Raven4x4x09:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
I know. I would like to make it clear that this also applies to a negative vote, not necessarily a neutral vote. Voting against a candidate because you have differences with the nominator (but nothing against the candidate) is totally unfair to the RFA in question. If you have doubts on the candidate feel free to ask him questions.
=Nichalp«Talk»=17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but I also feel that who the nominator is does matter to people. For example, if I don't know a person who is being nominated personally, but I do know and trust the nominator, I will tend to give the person nominated a little more credit. Similarly, unsigned nominations and nominations by anonymous IPs tend to raise the bar of my giving them a support vote, and I tend to subject those people to closer scrutiny. I don't think I would ever negatively discount a person based on the nominator however, which is what the above appears to be doing. So (in a very roundabout way!), I am agreeing with you: any oppose votes based solely on who the nominator is should be discarded or at least heavily discounted. Glad to see the above are nuetral votes. :)
Turnstep19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
Comments
I think Ronline would be a good admin, but the fact that Bonaparte is the nominator makes me wonder what his intentions are. I don't want my Support vote to endorse Bonaparte's stance (see
Talk:Moldovan language).
IulianU.14:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC).reply
May I suggest that
User:Anittas treat this as an RfA and not a Senate confirmation hearing. The questions and insinuations below are ridiculous and have no bearing on this nom.
Marskell15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
A. I would be willing to work against vandalism in all of its forms. However, I'd also like to help with requested moves and things like that, the only an administrator can do and that people sometimes wait too much time for!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Well, I've contributed mostly to the Romanian Wikipedia and I haven't really been a content contributor - I've mostly been involved in organisation, planning, stuff like that. I'm really proud, however, of the
Caile Ferate Romane article. This isn't my article, but I was one of the major contributors that brought it up to featured status. I'm doing that with Bucharest now, but there's still some work to go :)
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. Yes I have, for that matter. I've been involved in a dispute at the Moldovan Wikipedia, and I've tried to deal with that in as neutral a way as possible. The only thing I believe in more than neutrality is communication - without direct, reasonable communication, everything fails. I've also been involved in the
Moldovan language article, which has been through some tough times lately. There, I've tried to stand for the truth, to prevent both sides taking things too far on their own way. In the future, I hope to maintain that. Mediating conflict is one thing I really enjoy doing, if only because it achieves a sense of social justice and constructive stability. Have any users caused me stress - yes, but I've never sought to aggrevate conflict. If there's one thing people must learn at Wikipedia, is that we should try to talk to each other in a nicer way.
Ronline07:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)reply
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.