Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SqueakBox

SqueakBox

final (1/8/6) ending 20:26 July 29, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) - An experienced user with nearly 8000 edits, and overdue for adminship. Has an established record of fighting vandalism (has two anti-vandalism barnstars to his credit), and knows how things work around here. Fawcett5 01:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

SqueakBox 01:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Not accepted. In the light of one sockpuppet and many criticisms, mostly from unknown people, I withdraw. Wikipedia is not a place for persoanal attacks and this seems to be an institutionalised one. I can clearly be more powerful and effective not being an admin, and will ciontinue to challenge trolls and POV warriors wherever I find them. Please, no more negative comments or attacks. I am here to write an encyclopedia, and I can clearly do so most effectively by not being an admin. I will remove any comments made from this moment. Please direct yourself to the talk page SqueakBox 20:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox has withdrawn his RfA. Therefore, this RfA is no longer live. As requested by the candidate, please refer to the talk page for any further comment. Thank you. Redux 21:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - I've seen his work all over the site and wonder why he isn't an admin already. However, I would like him to explain how, as he states on his user page, he "elevat(ed) His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia to the status of Almighty God" without violating NPOV. --Idont Havaname 02:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

   Easy answer. As I said on the talk page Selassie I is now clearly better known as the Rasta God than as the long dead Ethiopian politician, and that needed reflecting in the opening paragraph, and in the article as a whole, which now has a section on him and the Rastafari. I also said I rescued Solanan from being cast in the role of the devil. I felt Solana's life events were being used to prove he is the antichrist, whereas I was merely examining the undoubted religious beliefs held around Selassie I in an upfrontg and encyclopedic manner, while not trying to prove from his life events that he is God , SqueakBox 03:00, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

2. User:Merovingian (t) (c) 04:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

   Support You've got more than enough edits. You plan to fight vandalism, which is the point of becoming an admin. I lend you my full support. Ryan 04:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

   Voted changed to Neutral due to new information brought up by Rhobite. Ryan 06:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

3. Support Solid work, especially in fighting vandalism. Redux 05:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Support More than qualified. Thunderbrand 05:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctantly oppose. Squeakbox has been involved in a couple nasty conflicts with POV pushing users. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but his approach to these conflicts has caused them to escalate. For example he posted notes on Cumbey's blog, escalating his dispute with that user. Squeakbox sometimes brings animosity upon himself, such as a couple weeks ago when he said to another user, "Fuck off Nazi scum" [1]. Granted, he removed his personal attack within minutes but the user found it in the page's history and continues to harass SqueakBox about it. You've done great work on articles but I think you need a thicker skin to be an administrator. Rhobite 05:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
2. Unfortunately oppose, for his over-zealous attempt to delete Afro-Latin American and Afro-Mexican articles and his attempts to block any edits to improve these articles when they were on VfD. Also his handling of conflict at the Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero ("Stop talking bullshit" and comments about "left-wingers" [2]). Like Rhobite, it's mostly about the thicker skin, he's a hardworking fellow though, I admit it and has good intentions. --Vizcarra 05:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

   Comment. I don't believe you have any legitimate complaints over the way I dealt with the Afro Latin articles, whereas your reaction to my Vfd's (doing it to honour my partner) etc was not acceptable. Users who attack other users for legitimate Vfd's are a wikipedia problem, IMO, SqueakBox 16:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

   • Reply, Actually, I do. With no intentions to create controversy and an endless discussion. My complaints were that you propposed Afro-Latin American for mild objections: 1. You didn't like the name ("not appropriate for black latinos"), 2. A copyvio (that never existed), unsourced statistics (that you removed either way). You later added that since we didn't have a articles about Latin Americans and having one about Black Latinos would be "rascist", and you added the following remark in your profile] "Here she is described as an Afro-Latin American, though I have put a Vfd on the article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Afro-Latin American".
   • But before putting Afro-Latin American in VfD you redirected the article and dumped the contents of the sizeable Afro-Mexican article into Afro-Latin American with no explanation as to why and no comment in the talk page. Therefore, you actually VfD the contents of two articles with just one vote when Afro-Mexican did not have statistics, and there could not have been a copyvio argument because it was well sourced so the only argument left was that you didn't think the name was appropriate. When I later on reverted the #redirect you reverted my edits and re-instated the #redirect with again no explanation and no comment in the talk page. When I re-instated the article and asked you not to revert my edits you said ["I already have a Vfd. I would argue that readers can already read this at Afro-Latin American". After I added more sources to Afro-Mexican you went and put a VfD in it claiming "Article has been merged into Afro-Latin American#Mexico. There is no article for Latin Americans so there is no no reason to separate this group out, let alone have several articles about them. If Afro-Latin American survives it's Vfd it should be merged, otherwise deleted SqueakBox". And there was not a single delete vote for it. --Vizcarra 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

   I still don't think you have any basis for criticising my actions or insinuating, even when I told you you were wrong, about supposed motivations of mine. You still seem extremely angry that I put a Vfd on both articles, and seem to think you and I having a disagreement makes me in the wrong for somehow opposing you, SqueakBox 18:11, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

3. Oppose per rhobite and vizcarra gkhan 07:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
4. Must oppose given his unfortunate behavior re Rastafarianism and elsewhere. Pushes his own POV in the name of NPOV, and gets downright childish when he doesn't get his way. A.D.H. (t&m) 07:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

   Can you give an example of my alleged POV pushing, SqueakBox 17:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose. User appears to believe writing "fuck off you Nazi troll" can be described as "mild in comparison". I am not confortable with the way this incident was handled. Dmn / Դմն 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose. Absolutely not. Has an agenda - came to Batpedia and tried to set up Haile Selassie and Javier Solana as gods (see contribs). Admittedly, that encyclopedia is full of bullshit (it's a Wikipedia parody of sorts), but he apparently thought it to be serious and said at one point, "The article is too pro Solana to be legitimately at Wikipedia. I used the basic frame (which I had put a lot of input into over there), but frustrated at not being able to express my own point of view at wikipedia I rewrote it." Andre (talk) 16:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

   Comment. That is ridiculous. Batpedia has nothing to do with wikipedia, and as anyone who knows it knows, it is not a serious wiki. It is a gay porn site run by Fundamentalist Christian anime-obsessed crack-addicted termite-farming leprechauns who are physically incapable of telling a lie. Indeed the standard of my articles there was in accordance with the standard of all the other articles there. Why has this comment been made? Nothing wrong with expressing POV outside wikipedia, while having a POV is a fundamental right. The comment you gave about being frustrated at not expressing a POV shows I was not expressing my POV in wikipedia. This is a complete misnomer, and of course I did not think batpedia was serious. Yes, it is a parody. Can you actually give a reason for your strong opposition based on my work at wikipedia instead of this obscure rubbish about rubbish, SqueakBox 17:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

7. Oppose. After reading arguments on both sides, and seeing examples of racism in some edits, i must say no. Removed due to my misunderstanding of the circumstances. Scott

   Note this is this editors only edit. Please back up ridiculous rascism charges. Rascism is something I truly hate, SqueakBox 18:31, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

8. Oppose. I was supporting him initially, but after seeing his not-quite-civil and definitely not NPOV replies to the oppose votes ("it is not a serious wiki. It is a gay porn site run by Fundamentalist Christian anime-obsessed crack-addicted termite-farming leprechauns who are physically incapable of telling a lie."), and the arguments presented in those votes, I will now switch my vote to oppose. --Idont Havaname 19:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

   It is a gay porn site run by Fundamentalist Christian anime-obsessed crack-addicted termite-farming leprechauns who are physically incapable of telling a lie. is how the main page of Batpedia describes itself, SqueakBox 19:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Changed from Support to Neutral after reading the comments from Rhobite and Vizcarra. Ryan 06:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
2. I'd really like to support, because SqueakBox's edit record is so good, but I can't given his inflammatory handling of POV disputes. Sorry. --Scimitar ^parley 14:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral, for the reasons listed above.  Denelson83  15:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral. Squeakbox obviously knows about the Wikipedia procedures and giving him the rollback button would certainly help his anti-vandalism efforts. However, his record of conflict is troubling. I'd support in the future if he handles conflicts better between this RfA and the next (if this RfA fails). --Deathphoenix 15:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral While I'm not 100% opposed, I changed if after reading the above comments. Thunderbrand 16:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
6. Neutral Changed my vote, as per Thunderbrand's comment. I'm open to changing it back to support, depending on how the discussion above is handled by the candidate. Redux 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• SqueakBox's edit count using Kate's tool shows 7886 edits. --Idont Havaname 02:28, 29 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. Clearing backlog on 3RR, Vandalism and Incidents pages. Using rollback for vandalism, especially on the 1339 pages on my watchlist.

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

A. Javier Solana. IMO this article was seriously POV'd to reflect a belief that he was the antichrist. It was that article and Rastafari movement that I cut my teeth on. I am particularly proud of my contributions to articles on Honduras which is where I live.

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 been in conflicts to the point of being threatened by 2 different users. Both POV warriors in my opinion, who could not handle my editing their work (at Javier Solana, and at Abortion with a chap who was desperately inserting the lack of father's rights into the opening paragraph). The best way to deal with threats is to tell people about them, and that is how I have dealt with them. Lower levels of stress at wikipedia are best dealt with by going and doing something else.