Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson

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.

Pmanderson[edit]

Final (43/33/4) Ended 00:00, 2006-08-19 (UTC)

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) – I mask my signature with Septentrionalis; this started as a misunderstanding, and since then I've usually had too many edits to change. I notice that Requested moves and the X for discussion pages are often backlogged; I'm willing to help out. I have had adminship suggested to me by a user now on Wikibreak, so this is not entirely a self-nom. Septentrionalis 00:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd be interested, I'll nominate you. I like your work, especially on Phaistos Disc. Cheers! --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC) [1][reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my nomination Septentrionalis 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Primarily helping to close whatever's backlogged, although I do check my watchlist for vandalism, and will deal with persistent vandals as AIV would.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes; I was involved in a disagreement at Democratic peace theory, before I knew the dispute resolution tools, and frustration drove me to be sometimes less than civil. I did two things;
  • I learned dispute resolution to the extent of requesting arbitration,
  • I walked away from the article (except for occasionally cheering on those editors who are now attempting to clean it up), and I will go back after a while and see what they've made of it.
I have since interacted with some users who are now banned, and some who have engaged in personal attacks. I have, when necessary, used the dispute resolution methods, and I will do so again. I hope any stress has not been visible on Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 00:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Pmanderson (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 126 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 12, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 7, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 36.98% Minor edits: 66.67%
Average edits per day: 47.03 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 390 edits): Major article edits: 86.31% Minor article edits: 74.07%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 0 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.1% (5)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.42% (71)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.14% (1207)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 0 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 13.82%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 8.12% (406 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.14% (7 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.12% (6 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Page moves: 3.54% (177 edit(s)) (94 moves(s))
Page redirections: 0.7% (35 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.2% (10 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1646 | Average edits per page: 3.04 | Edits on top: 8.6%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 24.66% (1233 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 4.06% (203 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 7.3% (365 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 60.34% (3017 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 37.78% (1889) | Article talk: 32.18% (1609)
User: 0.82% (41) | User talk: 7% (350)
Wikipedia: 13.8% (690) | Wikipedia talk: 6.6% (330)
Image: 0% (0)
Template: 0.86% (43)
Category: 0.4% (20)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.56% (28)
Username Pmanderson
Total edits 15074
Distinct pages edited 3959
Average edits/page 3.808
First edit 20:02, May 1, 2004
 
(main) 6457
Talk 4506
User 317
User talk 1060
MediaWiki talk 1
Template 98
Template talk 64
Category 82
Category talk 27
Wikipedia 1803
Wikipedia talk 659
Support
  1. Extremely strong support, way past my standards. Just one condition though, please check the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Your edit summary usage is just a bit low. —Mets501 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed; although I wish it only prompted me when in article space. Septentrionalis 03:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per above. Michael 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support but please use edit summaries more. I always check a candidate's first edit, yours was a single word that greatly improved the paragraph. Also cogent to judging a candidate is the edits of which you are most proud, yours say a lot for your values of preserving usable contributions, while stabilising the text... sometimes hard to do both. Pedant 01:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, my first edit was to the sandbox. DarthVader 01:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. DarthVader 01:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - my experience with this editor has always been good, and no evidence they'll abuse the tools. Thanks/wangi 01:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support - Has the makings of a good admin. I can clearly see that my support is in good hands. Best of luck! --Nishkid64 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I have always had good experiences with this editor, his contributions are very positive, and I'm sure he'd use the tools responsibly. TheronJ 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support I like the honesty in Q3 and his learning from the experience to hone his dispute resolution skills. These skills will serve him well as a potential administrator, as an administrator must be extremely level-headed and often very patient. The numbers speak for themselves of course, but his answers are what make me confident in his abilities and happy that Wikipedia could have what I think will be a great new administrator. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Long overdue. Put edit summaries more often though. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Wikipedia will be a slightly better place with this ascertively NPOV editor as an admin. Themindset 03:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. While I don't like some of the edits brought up by Ultramarine are (I have no problems with others like the last one), it is quite a while ago. On the positive side is much good work. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, good, experienced, dedicated editor should make a good admin abakharev 04:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - seems like a good user that is unlikely to abuse the tools. Kalani [talk] 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Hoopydink, TheMindset, and the ever-sensible VofA, and consistent with my RfA criteria. Joe 05:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "Insanely Great" Support per above. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - I know Pmanderson as a user who has great merits in upholding academic standards and NPOV on controversial issues, and I trust him to deal responsibly with the admin tools. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 15,000 edit count support Computerjoe's talk 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Total support don't always agree with the guy, but i trust him to make a wonderful admin. --heah 09:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Per all. --Kbdank71 11:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Merovingian - Talk 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have no problems with supporting this user. Thε Halo Θ 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good work! :) NCurse work 16:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Proficient Wikipedian who has demonstrated policy knowledge and other strong qualities from the start. --Gray Porpoise 20:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Dolive21 20:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Fredrik Johansson 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak support. I have seen this user out and about and have seen pleasant things; concerns are worth noting and I expect this candidate will do exactly that. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Jeffklib
  30. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I'm pleased to support this excellent and thoughtful editor's application to become an admin. Deb 11:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Cleared for adminship. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Someone put the tally from 27 against to 274 against. Those who engage in dirty tricks must really dislike him, and any enemy of those people is ok in my book. Carmen Chamelion 14:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned user as confirmed by Checkuser. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Some P. Erson 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support He has taken the time to do the time-consuming process of book research, especially the thankless task of making sure that people's sources say what they claim. This is something we could use more of. I trust that he will refrain from using his Admin powers in any controversies to which he is a party, not just DPT, combating manifest vandalism aside. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Edits are spread out across the namespaces very well. Your edit count scares me. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Switching to neutral due to civility concerns. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I have more edits than he does. Would you vote for me solely because of that? --Cyde Weys 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't looking solely at edit counts; that was an afterthought. Read it again carefully. I said I like how the edits are spread out across namespaces. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I would not vote for you after this comment, Cyde. Super King 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I've always liked his way of dealing with controveries.--Kwame Nkrumah 19:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: seems like a great bloke. Thumbelina 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - per all above, and some below :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:48, 14 August '06
  39. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. User:Angr 17:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above Super King 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned user as confirmed by Checkuser. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support to be named later. User To Be Named Later 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet of banned user as confirmed by Checkuser. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support because if s/he chooses to remain incivil, s/he can be desyssopped and turned into a laughingstock, which I'm sure s/he doesn't want :) — Deckiller 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support per above and below. Attic Owl 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indented - indef-blocked and suspected sockpuppet of existing user - David Oberst 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support. I believe Pmanderson to be one of the best users I've had the fortune of meeting; an incredible knowledge, and a firm hand on hot issues. Lately, for example, I've greatly appreciated his careful eyes on the banned User:Iasson's socks, a particularly disruptive user that through his many socks attempts to infiltrate many subtle and not clearly visible errors, many of which would have remained without Pmanderson.--Aldux 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: I do not know him personally, but so many have supported him so he must be better than most of us! Please do not charge me with herd mentality. --Bhadani 17:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moderate support per, to name three, Deckiller, Bhadani, and Gray Porp; inasmuch as, though a few edits are disconcerting (though, FWIW, many of those adduced infra are, IMHO, altogether fine), I am quite sure that the candidate would not, as an admin, abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, by acting in areas with the relevant policies of which he is insufficently well-versed) the tools; and, generally, consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me...I think you voted twice. See #15. I am indenting your vote. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching that; it's apparently the second time I've double-voted this week. My apologies, my bad. Joe 20:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Does not play well with others. Several personal attacks: "It would be uncivil to speculate whether he is a liar or a lunatic."[2] "Mr. West appears to have had a life other than Wikipedia for the last two weeks; Ultramarine does not have this excuse." [3]
    Note that his statement above is misleading. The Arbitration Committee has found that he has participated in "sterile revert warring" and he may be banned for up to a week if repeating this on the Democratic peace theory article and another article.[4] I find it troublesome that he does not disclose this.
    I also question his repeated attempts to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he deletes every sourced advantage of liberal democracy while keeping many claimed unsourced disadvantages.[5] Or this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House, now in Freedom in the World 2006.[6]. Or this, which seems to be deliberately misleading complaints of copyright infringement in order to remove pro-democracy arguments.[7] Or this, where he even argues that Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download should not have any article about democracy.[8]Ultramarine 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Almost all those examples are over 8 months old, and have been explained. And the last example he is simply giving an honest opinion, hardly something for which one should be censured. Themindset 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Several are from June this year. Extremely few Wikipedia editors have been found guilty by the Arbitration Committee and he is one of them. Today, he chooses to not disclose this, instead misleadingly stating "I walked away from the article". Is this an editor that should be trusted to be an administrator?
    Ultramarine and I are under the same constraint, not to revert each other sterilely on two specific articles; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine. Neither of us is "guilty" - or perhaps both are. Septentrionalis 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not requesting to be an administrator. If I was, then I would give full disclosure when answering the above questions.Ultramarine 13:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is also dubious that he has walked away since he has continued to edit the article and talk page extensively until two weeks ago and as he states above he intends to return when he gets the administrative powers.Ultramarine 04:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misquotation. I have walked away from the article. I have responded on the talk page to the statements of Ultramarine and others; I have made, I believe, two edits to the actual text of the article since April, and now that other editors are dealing with it, tags are not necessary. Septentrionalis 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have continued to edit the talk page extensively until late July and have insisted on keeping tags stating factual errors without explaining why. Fortunately, other editors have now arrived and agreed that is inappropriate. We now, finally, have a good factual discussion using arguments from the literature, greatly improving the article. That you left when this happened is your choice.Ultramarine 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editing tactics: edit warring in order to insert tags stating factual errors but refusing to give any examples or explanations, citing books bur refusing to give page numbers so that the claims can checked (the Arbitration Committee noted that this is not allowed in the above case), stating that problems with article might be found if reading long lists of books and articles and demanding that someone else should read and check them, and bad faith attempts to delete articles (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Rummel and the comments.) I seriously doubt that a person retorting to this in order insert his original research will be a good administrator.Ultramarine 04:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. STRONG OPPOSE. I have serious complaints about Pmanderson that are recent--all summer 2006 )the most recent was Aug 11 2006). He has seriously interfered with Alexander Hamilton repeatedly attacking and reverting edits, primarily to ridicule Hamilton's anti-slavery position. It seems ideological more than anything. He has not been concilatory but aggressively hostile in insisting on his own positions. He has removed quotations from leading scholars, for example, because he decided based on his original research those scholars were wrong. I strongly oppose giving him Wiki authority. Rjensen 04:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Pmanderson's only edit to Alexander Hamilton today; I don't see how it could be a problem. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But he has done lots of edits on the page in the last couple of months. --Salix alba (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can second this; I've seen Pmanderson having some massive ownership problems with articles, and he usually "wins" simply by out-lasting and out-wikilawyering the other guy. Wikipedia thrives on consensus-seeking, not "It's my way or the highway". I'm afraid of what might happen with him in his disputes if we gave him the tools to protect pages and block people :-O Cyde Weys 22:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you have taken the "My Way Or The Highway" approach in this statement here[9], Cyde. I don't see how you're trying to build "consensus" with this user here. Carmen Chamelion 15:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per all above --Masssiveego 09:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Opppose per Masssiveego (just kidding :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'm sorry, but that's funny. - Taxman Talk 02:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose as per violations of WP:NPA. People who lose their temper are not qualified for adminship. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Ultramarine.  Grue  18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seriously strong oppose - I've had run-ins over the course of several months with this user and it's never been pleasant. I was originally involved with him as a mediator in which he really wasn't helping. Then he went on to become a userbox wikilawyer, making all sorts of inane statements. And then most recently he was doing the same thing except with cross-namespace redirects, making more extreme statements like how getting rid of cross-namespace redirects means we'd have to get rid of all redirects. He even tried to dismiss me as trying to impose another uniformity on Wikipedia. Gahhh. All I've ever seen from him is poorly-reasoned hyperbole and personal attacks of a passive aggressive behavior, coupled with the hypocrisy of calling out other people for incivility. --Cyde Weys 22:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose userbox wikilawyering, too addicted to rules and process --Doc 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per above concerns. Doesn't seem like the user is familiar with WP:IAR, or point two and three of WP:TRI for that matter, which are in my opinion the most important things of understanding for an administrator. Cowman109Talk 22:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above (switched from support).Voice-of-All 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose mainly due to negative impressions of this editor formed while Arbitrating the extensive and irritating dispute he had with Ultramarine over the "criticisms of communism" article. While not a terrible editor per se, I would not trust this individual with the mop. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Kelly Martin and Cyde -- Samir धर्म 01:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Error on my part, I've confused you with another editor. My apologies -- Samir धर्म 03:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per above concerns. -Royalguard11Talk 01:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Kelly Martin's concerns. Metamagician3000 01:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Unfortunately, I believe it's likely that this user would misuse admins tools (though I doubt he would abuse them). Aren't I Obscure? 02:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tony Sidaway 02:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Doesn't have what it takes.[reply]
  15. Oppose. I agree with Kelly that Pmanderson isn't necessarily a bad editor, but I feel that his approach to discussion is overly confrontational and can tend to be unconstructive. I am also concerned that given the tools Pmanderson's Wikilawyering might inadvertently go too far, as has happened with admins in the past. Rje 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Per Cyde Weys and Kelly Martin. Zaxem 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Cyde. Kimchi.sg 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above. Dryman 14:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above, and the small amount of advertising of this RFA elsewhere e.g. [10] --pgk(talk) 15:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Incivility has been alledged by numerous users above. The advertising (per pgk) is against the spirit of these debates. Ifnord 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above. Dmn € Դմն 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Sorry, but too combatitive for my taste. Also, I strongly disagree that edit summaries only need be used in article space. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per above. Wikipediarules2221 22:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per various concerns above, and 1FA. -- Миборовский 05:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, not just because of the dispute with Ultramarine, but because of my observation of Pmanderson's editing elsewhere, Iit is my opinion that he is not at all a bad editor, but one who has too much of a propensity to edit war rather than negotiate or to be too inflexible or short on AGF, personalizing the issue. A good editor, but he has a ways to go before adminship. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. as per above TruthCrusader 09:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose all of the above. Republitarian 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - per civ concerns -- Tawker 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - per incivility. Needs to chill. :) Dlohcierekim 05:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - Please do not take this as a reflection on your article work; as irriating as such fights can be, they are useful (but I wish you'd do them somewhat more effectively); however, as someone who does such fights, I think it would be better for Wikipedia if you were not admin - I think we can still find enough people to handle the work you said you'd like to help with, although the offer is appreciated. Again, please don't take this as an attack on what you do here, just as a sad consequnence. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per above.--cj | talk 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. I have participated in multiple discussions and polls with this editor, and in general my impression is positive. However, I occasionally find it difficult to communicate with this individual, and have seen some questionable or difficult to understand edits [11]. These, plus some of the other concerns outlined above (especially by Cyde) combine to make me reluctant to approve adminship at this time. --Elonka 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, but why do you find that edit disconcerting? At least to me, it seems quite clear.--Aldux 11:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose, although I would certainly reconsider on a future application. - David Oberst 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral for now. If it was not for the on going spat with Ultramarine over Democratic Peace Theory it would be a clear support. Some of Pmanderson actions there have not been the most constructive, but it is a controversal subject and many other editors have crossed swords with Ultra as well. It raises concerers about how Pmanderson will be able to work with the more challenging editors and sutuations, which is really what the task of an admin seems to be. So I have a couple of questions:
    What is the most difficult situation you have manged to sucessfully resolve, and how?
    The anon POV pusher on Phaistos Disc, who was certainly Rose-Mary, and quite possibly Iris-meister. She had a dynamic IP, and attempted to use it to evade 3RR. (All this may be seen on the archives of the talk page.) I (and others) kept track of the reverts, requested CheckUser to establish that this was in fact a 3RR violation, and made the case for 24 hour blocks and semi-protection. Eventually there was a six month block and an IP block. In the meantime, dabachmann and I wrote Proto-Ionians describing the theory that Rose-Mary wished to advocate. Septentrionalis 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you seperate your personal beliefs from your administrative duties. How could we be reassured that you would play by the book?
    I believe very strongly that admin powers should (except perhaps in extraordinary cases) express the consensus opinion of editors. Any admin action which is above the level of control of patent vandalism should either be the evaluation of documentable consensus, or should be noted at WP:AN or WP:ANI, normally before it is taken. (If an editor is making a series of personal attacks, or blanking multiple pages, block and then document at ANI; but that is unusual.) Septentrionalis 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you approach persistant POV pushers and or awkward users such as User:David Cruise, and User:JanWMerks?
    I have only heard of David Cruise indirectly; I don't know JanWMerks at all. Please give sample pages. In general, I would request sources, read those sources, and when (as is likely) the sources do not support their position, I would show why not on Talk. If that did not work, I would attract the attention of other editors, by Current Surveys or Mediation. Septentrionalis 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you needs these tools?
    • To clean up the backlog on WP:RM and other accounts, and to do private editing (deleted articles are sometimes good data for new articles on the same subject). I would not use any admin tool on Democratic peace theory; I would not trust my own impartiality. Septentrionalis 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    --Salix alba (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Take the image out of your signiture and I'll change vote to "support", till then I'm undecided. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain; I don't use an image. The red flag and the reference to Hanlon's law were Scaife's signature when he wrote the text quoted; I believe he has revised it. My sig has always been text. Septentrionalis 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, i must have seen a different signiture (i.e: somebody else's). Changed to support. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neu questions need improving, and user needs to calm down a bit. I still see this user as a possible admin in the future if they stay around long enough.--Andeh 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral moved from support ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: Good edits spread across namespaces, but civility is a concern. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replies

Ultramarine's depiction of himself as unjustly accused of plagiarism results from his editing the abstract of his source 

the transformation of
Summary: Conventional wisdom has long assumed that economic liberalization undermines repressive regimes. Recent events, however, suggest that savvy autocrats have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter. Washington and international lenders should take note.

into the following text of Liberal democracy

Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Some evidence suggests that savvy autocrats may have learned how to cut the cord between growth and freedom, enjoying the benefits of the former without the risks of the latter.
This seems to be deliberately misleading. The sentence had been rephrased. Yet Pmanderson continued to complain, as he does now, using the old text and ignoring the new. See [12]Ultramarine 12:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Rjensen:

  • A third party, who agrees with him on other issues, thinks he has a simplistic and hagiographic vision of Hamilton.
  • He has used sources carelessly and quoted them selectively. (See Talk:Alexander Hamilton and its archive,
  • He engaged in repeated personal attacks (See Wikipedia: Requests for comment/Rjensen and its talk page for some of the evidence.)
    • I have not, to the best of my recollection, responded with more than I have said here. If anything will show that eight months ago was an aberration, this should. Septentrionalis 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I am being opposed for an unwillingness to use WP:IAR. Surely it is desirable that some admins perform utility functions without attempting to blaze new policy? (One of the existing policies is against wheelwarring against those who do IAR; and I would follow that one too.) Septentrionalis
No, you are not being opposed for an unwillingness to use IAR. YOu are being opposed because you have consistently opposed others using it. You insist on adherence to 'rules' even where the results are not to the benefit of the encyclopedia: for defending userboxes by lawyerisms and for putting process ahead of product. --Doc 14:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say that i, personally, discount anything surrounding the userbox fiasco when making decisions on who would be a good admin and etc. People were very upset over all of that, on both sides, and it certainly didn't bring out the best in wiki editors. Lots of people were very upset that these were deleted out of process, and felt that that was a big enough issue--ie, enough people opposed the deletions--that process should have been followed to a tee; lots of users felt strongly that they should have been deleted as they were, and that it was a perfect example of the uses of IAR. With the strong feelings aroused on both sides and the lack of any consensus over the validity of all that went down, as I said, it seems best (to me) that that fiasco is not something we should use to judge a candidate's worthiness of a mop and broom. Just my two cents . . . --heah 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about userboxes. It was a fiasco - and best put behind us. But, userboxes aside, people who believe that 'process should be followed to a tee' and get 'very upset' when process isn't followed, have fundamentally misunderstood wikipedia. Until such people demonstrate that they do, they must not be allowed to become admins. Some people who previously held the opinions you mention, have changed and become great admins. If candidates show an understanding of where they went wrong, I am willing to support them, regardless of their checkered history. --Doc 00:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be confusing me with someone else. I do not believe that process should be followed to a tee; I believe it should be followed unless there is some outstanding reason not to; and I would administer in that spirit.
I was never "very upset" that process was not followed over userboxes; I simply did not, and do not, see that not following it was either urgent or successful. I have supported IAR on other issues; I supported Tony Sidaway in one RfC, for example. Septentrionalis 02:53, 14 August 2006 (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/Pmanderson&oldid=1147968886"