Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redux

Redux

Final (19/1/0) ending 22:30 July 28 2005 (UTC)

I have been around for over a year now, and have made 3,039 edits (according to Kate's Tool) up until this point. I am not as active as some great users who have recently been given Adminship, but I feel I could contribute further to the project if also given Adminship. My user page contains the details about how long I've been here, some of my interests, etc. Feel free to visit. My contributions were mainly to contents of articles, but recently I've started being more present in such forums as the Village Pump and VfD, as well as checking the Recent Changes listing more often. Hopefully, I will be increasing my level of participation in those areas. Redux 22:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Not applicable, self-nom. Accepted.

Support

1. Unconditional support.  Denelson83  23:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
2. I've seen a lot of good contributions from Redux over a long period of time. I am glad to support. Acegikmo1 00:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Support I think Redux will be a trustworthy and friendly admin. He (or she) made a lot of edits. And the edits are very high quality.--Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 02:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - Redux is a valuable, polite, and friendly contributer who would make an excellent admin. Hand him the mop! Sango123 02:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - I worked with Redux on many issues, including the Brazil Wikiportal and various Barnstar awards. He is great to work with, great to know and gives great insight on many issues. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Support.  Grue  07:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Shanes 10:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
8. 200% Support - one of the very few who listens and tries to work in cooperation without being rude. wish you all the luck and all the best Antares911 13:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. Does good work and knows the Wikipedia policies. His work on Barnstars also shows his dedication to the recognition of others. --Deathphoenix 13:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. Devotion to civility is admirable, and a willingness to apologize when he goofs is equally valuable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. JuntungWu 05:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Intelligent user. Deb 11:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
13. User:Merovingian (t) (c) 12:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
14. Emphatic support. 172 | Talk 19:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Poli (talk • contribs) 22:11, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
16. Support -- helpful friendly user, always willing to communicate with other users. ∞Who?¿? 21:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
17. Support, Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, Thunderbrand 02:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
19. Support; thanks for the work on Brazil topics and for explaining your previous conflicts with other users. --Spangineer (háblame) 15:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Redux has shown too much undesirable traits to be trusted with any power over others. I remind that he has not even promised anything about refraining from admin actions on behalf of "his friends". His own admissions already say much about his past behavior - and there has been no apologies from him to persons he insulted or abused then. Redux has sometimes, but however repeatedly, made personal attacks and used abusive foul language. And Redux has repeatedly made accusations of sockpuppetry when he must have understood that there were no more than one username in use (he then tried to fabricate an allegation of another username, baselessly). Redux has shown himself a possessive nature - one of the examples is him putting a WIP tag into an article, keeping it days (also continued when reminded that the tag is intended for only 30-180 minutes, not longer), and reversed a valid edit by another, when such had been made over half a day after Redux' installation of WIP tag. Redux has even shown some paranoia and certain querulous nature. (Wonder if anyone would really give him admin powers here, after all such behavior.) Arrigo 22:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

   Here since July 6, offensive comments like [1], hmmm ... Perhaps your vote should be treated as badge of honor for Redux. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

   Well Pavel, if you want to support Redux who has shown himself to be a supporter of that continuous cut-and-paste mover Antares... Cut-and-paste moves are not accepted here (and after so many repeated cut-and-paste moves by Antares, certainly deserving clear words, as more lenient wording somehow has not got understood), or are you making changes to that principle? Arrigo 09:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Redux has shown himself to be biased when it comes to the Maria Olivia Da Silva controversy (he claims that she is 125 years old and proven...no scientist in the world has made that assertion). In addition, it seems that his only goal is self-glorification, which is not a good reason to give him more power.66.64.156.146 05:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Unregistered users cannot vote in the RfA. I don't really understand your indignation though. I only added an entry to the article, naming a source that provided proof of validation. There didn't seem to be any controversy there, otherwise I wouldn't have added the name to the list. No one said anything about it in the article's talk page either. I'm more than willing to discuss it there. If the evidence I provided is insufficient, I don't have any problems with removing the entry from the article. Please, assume good faith in situations like this. All I wanted was to help out. Regards, Redux 05:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• Kate's tool says that Redux made 3042 edits, with 1681 on articles--Exir Kamalabadi | Contributions 02:03, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• To make everybody's lives easier, I'd like to say that I'm a "he". I should have said it sooner, thanks Exir. Redux 02:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Arrigo is (or used to be) the anon I talked about in my answer to question 3. The description is accurate, since he still posts anonymously regularly, under the IP address. Naturally, he is entitled to his opinion about me, but I can't really respond to a personal dislike from someone that has caused problems with several users. I have said, however, that I did loose my patience during my exchanges with him on account of his aggressiveness (but not as he claims), and this particular tone of Arrigo's has been acknowledged by several users thus far. As I said, this was not to my credit, and I have since taken myself out of the equation. Let this be the end of it. Redux 23:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Redux, you wrote below "..who was very aggressive and ironical in his comments. I did loose my patience, which is not to my credit."
Could you please give us verbatim examples (and not only your own interpretations) how, i.e in which words, that commentator was aggressive in comments towards you before you "lost your patience". Arrigo 00:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

This is really not the place for this. As far as what happened between us, we both made mistakes. I've acknowledged mine and I do regret them. As far as I am concerned, this is all behind us. If we can't work together, it's best for the community that we at least don't disturb one another's work in the project. This is what I've been trying to do. My report in the Village Pump was to get further assessment of what appeared to be a serious problem. From my very first comment, I said that I could not confirm it, since I lacked the means, which, of course, left clearly open the possibility that what I thought could be happening might not really be happening. If that was the case, all the better! It would not have happened if you had not been contributing under a registered account and an IP address simultaneously, as Choess explained to you in your user talk page. I understand, however, that things between us were left on less than good terms. I admit that, as a more experienced user, I could have done a better job at preventing this from happening. For not having done that, I am sorry. I thought some about it since our last exchange, but for what happened, I believe I've become a better contributor. If you have any concerns about any possible action of mine against you when (or, at this point, if) I become an Admin, you can rest assured you have nothing to worry about. As I said in the last part of my last answer, I will not, ever, use Admin tools in any issue with which I'm involved personally, directly or indirectly. For the sake of transparency and trustworthiness of Administrators' operations, I would not be the indicated person to use those tools in issues involving you. People could request that of me, but I'd refuse and ask them to address someone else on the issue. At the most, if requested, I would give my honest opinion, and if it happens that you are right, you can be certain that I will go right out and say: "Arrigo is right on this one". Does that address your concerns? Redux 01:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My concerns are addressed when you remain as non-privileged user. You can refrain from applying for adminship. Remember that of us two, you are the one trying to have a position which I feel you unsuitable to. I think I am quite objective in this - my opposition does not come from any personal fear, it comes from my experiences of your nature. If you are now having a better day, we must look forward to you having again bad days. It belongs to the pattern of your behavior.
As to the question I posed, I think there will be found out that you used very foul language without anything such that you could present here legitimately as provocation - after all, your possessiveness IS against wikipedia principles. I asked for authentic verbatim samples for (1) to give others opportunity to assess those samples objectively (I do not want to be the one to give interpretation), and (2) even offered you the possibility to pick up samples.Arrigo 02:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way. Your concerns are noted. Perhaps one day you will find out that I'm one of the good guys around here. What happened between us was unfortunate and, hopefully, will not happen again. Redux 02:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. My main areas of interest would be VfD, dealing with vandalism, copyright problems (for both text and images), 3RR issues and mediating and, if necessary, applying the rules applicable to personal attacks issues. As an admin, I'd be willing to get involved and try to defuse conflicts. I've had great mentors in the art of staying cool.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I've contributed to many articles pertaining to Brazil. My intention is to expand the coverage we have on the country. I am the creator of the Brazil Wikiportal, which I also maintain and update regularly. I am also proud of my involvement with the Barnstars on Wikipedia project — I also empower the Kindness Campaign by awarding Barnstars whenever I find a worthy recipient. My motto is "credit where credit is due" (corny, but true).

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. Anyone who has been around as long as I have is bound to have been in a couple of conflicts. The most recent one I had was with an anon user (now registered, I believe) who was very aggressive and ironical in his comments. I did loose my patience, which is not to my credit. But as soon as I realized where things were going, I took myself "out of the equation", as we say. A couple of days back, I ran into evidence that seemed to point to the anon and another user being involved in a rivalry that seemed to include sockpuppets and impersonations. I reported this on the Village Pump, in order to get a broader peer assessment of the issue. I did it being as impartial as possible, but giving my views on what appeared to be happening. The anon didn't like it, and wrote some personal attacks in the IP talk page. I have not responded, and nor do I intend to. Rivalries are not why I'm here. All I want is to advance the project. Another time, a frustration due to a very insistent vandal led me to criticize another user who did not deserve my words. I admitted the mistake and apologized to the user in his talk page. I have also apologized to another user for allowing myself to be dragged into an unpleasant discussion with an anon on said user's talk page. And if ever I mess up again (I'm only human), I will apologize again, that's part of the learning process. Here's something I will vow: if given Adminship, I will never use Admin tools in any issue that I happen to be involved with personally (hopefully, never again). If it's the case to get an Admin involved, I will contact someone else and ask for an opinion, or make my case in the RfC or some other appropriate forum. I am very serious about this: Admin opperations must be transparent and spotless. I realize the responsibility I'd be taking on. Other than that, I often defuse misunderstandings and potential issues by being polite and explaining thoroughly my reasons on talk pages. That's how I'd prefer to deal with problems: talking it out politely and in a civil manner. That's what I intend to do, always.

The self-nominated candidate, Redux, has written (in User talk:John Kenney): "Spoken like a true paranoid. Who do you think you're fooling dude? Rambling on will not change anything.... Redux 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)" - It is possible that Redux' eagerness to have sysop powers derives from his "frustration" over not succeeding to impose his will in that indicated case, due to also technical reasons. 217.140.193.123 11:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)