Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Termer

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Termer

Nomination

Final (13/34/7); Originally scheduled to end 10:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate. --Deskana (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Termer (talk · contribs) – Termer is a user who mostly contributes to articles related to Eastern European, especially Baltic history. He has shown himself as a competent user who has necessary restraint when dealing with difficult disputes. Though editcountitis is fatal, I'd add that he has around 7,400 edits, as an average 6 edits per page. He has started 48 new articles. As of now, there are very few Eastern European sysops, and as far as I know, User:Renata3 is the only administrator with Baltic background. I am sure that providing Termer with administrator's tools would considerably ease fulfilling maintenance tasks (coping with vandalism, deleting-undeleting etc) in the particular sphere. User:Miacek (t) 10:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Accept.--Termer (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think all reasonable opposing comments that keep coming in have been very clear about it. I should have put at least minimum effort into this RfA after accepting the nomination. Instead I even didn't bother to look up the policy about non-free images of living persons. Which was basically already a second chance given to me here after throwing in an answer to Q1 that must have spoken for itself: this guy must be in the wrong place at the wrong time. So the message has been fair and clear: you better take it seriously if you want to be taken seriously.

Many have suggested coming back here after some time. I'd just would like to be very clear about it, I never have and would consider nominating myself. So I'd only accept new nominations in the future from anybody who has either opposed or voted neutral this time. Please keep in mind that I never had ambitions to become an administrator, that my personality might not fit what's expected from an admin in the first place and any other valid concerns that have been brought up during this RfA.

Thanks for everybody for their input, I think it was a valuable experience for me and sorry to the nominator User:Miacek and anybody who voted for me for letting you guys down. I hereby would like to withdraw this RfA. thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A:First of all I agree with Jimbo Wales that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal* and in case the commuity is going to trust me with the tools, most of all I intend to keep doing what I've been doing lately. That would include hopefully bring solutions to "ethnic and cultural edit wars". Which I've been successful with in several cases, one mentioned below, there are some listed at WP:CCN.

How else would I use the tools? I like the things to be well organized: Anything that an IT professional would call 'poorly structured' goes against my nature. So for example I expect the admin tools help me doing clean up work that would need to be taken care of in regular basis etc in the area that I've been active. Also I'd intend to semi-protect any articles that suffer from IP vandalism as needed basis. Since there have been some serious problems with some hoaxes and sockpuppeting covering some subjects on Wikipedia I have helped out with. (that has also been the actual reason I was nominated I think). having the tools would make the tasks somewhat less tedious I think, so that's why I accepted the nomination. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Probably the DYK articles which I "created or substantially expanded".

B: Probably spotting one of the somewhat amazing hoaxes in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Estland , still preserved by User:JJJ999 for the fun of it.

C: Probably helping to stabilize Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 after it was put on probation by the Arbitration Committee.

D: Probably fighting vandalism by keeping an eye on articles created and occasionally reverted by a known sock puppet master. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bloomfield

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: one of my latest failures has been calling Irpen a patterned Russian nationalist POV editor in my edit summary after he/she kept removing a sourced fact from an article. [1]. The differences were resolved by finding a compromise and with my apology.

B: The prolonged discussion about inclusion-exclusion of external links in the Film infobox has been a content dispute I've been involved with. It's very boring, the latest on it is available at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contested_admin_edits_to_high-visibility_template where I have summarized my understanding of the issue.

C: taking things personally was my biggest flaw during my early days of editing. I've been blocked for 24 hours once for it and learned my lesson: if things get too hot, it's better to get out of it because things cool down eventually and then reason can be applied to anything, even to the most controversial subjects.

Optional question from Cyclonenim (talk · contribs):

4. Can you explain your absolute absence from Wikipedia during Febuary, March and April of this year?

A: Sure, a part of it had to with the fact that I was changing jobs, I was moving from LA to Midwest. Anybody wishes to check on it, that all my edits on Wikipedia came from LA until February and starting from April or so, from Midwest, feel free to check on it, I don't mind.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Townlake

5. Could you please expand on your answer to Q1?

A: No problem. Moved the answer up there.--Termer (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Ironholds (talk)

6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A:a non-free photograph should not be used in any circumstances in my opinion.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the question; in what circumstances may it, by wikipedia policy be used, not what do you personally think. Ironholds (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Fair use? That it's OK to use a none free image in case a fair use rationale is added to an image for each article?--Termer (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to give you hints as to the answer (that defies the purpose of a question) but again, I'll simplify it. Are there any situations where policy allows a non-free photograph of a living person to be used on Wikipedia? Ironholds (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The only way any non-free images can be used on English Wikipedia is if the image illustrates the subject and fair rationale is given. I 'm not aware of any policies that would treat articles about living persons any differently once it's about none-free images. In case a none free image illustrates the person who is the subject of the article, there is WP:NONFREE that covers the question.--Termer (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Foxy Loxy for giving me the right answer on this one. I must admit, I do much more often rely on common sense rather than written policies. And that's what common sense told me first, that non-free images about living persons should not be used. And I'm sure there is something written down for everything, but in case having an access to administrator tools is about wikilawyering, you're right on target with your comments Foxy Loxy down below there, being an administrator would be absolutely nothing for me if that was the case.--Termer (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Foxy Loxy ^Pounce!

I have noticed that your edit summary usage in the main space is at 99% for major edits and 32% for minor edits, I find that to be an O.K. (the minor edit usage is a potential problem) number but would like to ask you the following questions regarding the edit summary.

7. Why is an edit summary important when editing?

A.I usually add it just to inform anybody who comes after me what I've changed in an article.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

8. Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial?

A.I think so.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

9. As an admin, would you commit to turning on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in your preferences or maintain a 99% or above edit summary usage?

A.Not necessarily, I haven't turned it on yet because I do have the habit adding edit summaries. Unless it's about minor spelling mistakes etc when I'm used to just click on "minor", + I never use edit summaries for discussion pages.--Termer (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Ironholds (again)

10. Could you explain why you feel edit summaries are not needed for minor or discussion-based edits?

A. I think it doesn't make sense to add edit summaries when an actual minor change is a click away available at (last) diff. The same goes for discussion page edits, it just doesn't make sense to me comment my comments on talk pages with additional edit summaries. There is the difference with major changes in article bodies, when I think it's a courtesy to the next editor whoever happens to come next, making it easier for him/her to find the changes that may have been spread all over the place that the previous editor has made--Termer (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So you do not think that edit summaries are useful for minor changes? What if that minor change bollockses up a template, and the user has to search through 30 unmarked minor diffs to get to the one he wants? Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, whether or not you are admin material is based heavily on your policy knowledge and communication in talk pages and other meta-space edits. Without any edit summaries here, it was tedious (as I noted below) to go through these edits. While you might disagree, I'm pretty sure this is weighing heavily against you in this RfA. Tan | 39 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me be very clear about it once more, in case this RfA is based heavily on my policy knowledge, or being an admin in general is mostly about knowing the wikilaw, I would not be interested having access to the tools. Because I only consider it reasonable to edit and get involved with subjects that I am competent in. And there are probably many policies that I never have heard of and do not even want to know about. Everybody should stick with their area of competents, nobody can be good at everything and in case a requirement for adminship is knowing every bit of the policies, you have opposed me for the right reasons.

Now, edit summaries for minor edits, in case it helps you to figure out what has gone wrong after 30 unmarked minor edits, I can't relate to that. I think it would be equally tedious to go through comments for minor changes. I think if things have gone wrong it would make sense to go back to the last good version. And finding it out which one exactly was the last good version, it's easier to check it out from the edit diffs.--Termer (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So you are in effect saying that you expected the community to not weigh possible adminship on a robust and thorough policy knowledge? I would agree then that I opposed for the right reasons. Tan | 39 16:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I have "a robust and thorough policy knowledge" in areas I've been active with that in fact have helped me to stabilize a number of articles that have mentioned here in several occasions. In case you think that I do have a lack of policy knowledge in areas I've never touched in Wikipedia, you're correct. Either this is the right reason to oppose the RfA, that is your decision. --Termer (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin candidates are not expected to have complete knowledge of every wiki-policy ever, no, especially in areas they don't focus on, but you are expected to have a general knowledge of most of the core ones, including image policy. We don't expect you to know the legal status of a free-use photograph taken of a 3D piece of artwork in the United Kingdom (can't be used, btw) but knowing what is and is not acceptable fair use is not something massive to ask for. Arguing that it isn't needed for "areas you have been acted in" is silly; example, then. You are promoted and everything is fine and then an image turns up at your "area of the wiki" with iffy copyright status or a messy fair use rationale. It falls within "your area" but you don't know the relative policy; what do you do? Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I do believe I do know the related policy that you questioned, in fact I've provided one for File:German_Soviet.jpg. Please let me know if you think that I've got it all wrong. Regarding knowing about "a free-use photograph taken of a 3D piece of artwork in the United Kingdom", than that is something related to what I do for living and I would not need to rely on any WP policies that would touch the question. That was the reason I suggested the use of non free images of living persons is not allowed in Wikipedia. Once you can create an image of any living person by yourself and release it to PD, using non-free images in Wikipedia doesn't sound like a reasonable thing to do.--Termer (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Termer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Termer: Termer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Termer before commenting.

Discussion

• Noticing the controversial places this user works in now, and (apperently, from Q1) wishes to work in, I think giving the tools could prove problematic. Though I realize this isn't a valid rationale for Opposing, it's still enough to put me off.--Koji† 23:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest the candidate read WP:ADMIN and revise his answer to #1. miranda 00:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, per WP:AGF. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. No time to review this candidate thoroughly, I'm off to bed. I'll assume good faith until the morning since I can find nothing immediately alarming. That said, I am a little concerned about the nominator, who has only been a member since November. Further look into the nominator has revealed no immediate issues, either. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

   Incidentally, what's the point of you asking him to explain his "absence" from Wikipedia? What kind of reason would actually make you oppose someone for taking a Wikibreak? rspεεr (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Can't sleep. Why are you so sure that their answer to that question will make me change my mind on my support? It's curiosity, extended absolute absence (with no edits whatsoever) is a little confusing from an otherwise very active editor. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Indeed, and something I'm quite interested to find out. The purpose of questions is to understand more about the users attitude and experience, not to find a reason to oppose (although an oppose may come on the back of a bad answer to a question). Ironholds (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Why the hell not. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak support due to awards on userpage, one block being several months ago, and for good argument in the lone AfD we both participated in. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   So your support is for a pair of completely subjective awards and performance in a single AfD. By "good argument" I'm assuming "keep".. Ironholds (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   My support is for a combination of receiving some awards (had to work well or impress someone), assuming good faith since the lone block was months ago, and for making a detailed argument and for discussing with other editor, i.e. not some drive by "per nom" of "it's cruft" non-argument and not even a "keep per the above," but rather much more thought out and explained rationale. "Keep" would just be a vote. It's the substance, the argument begind the "vote" that matters. Given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodyRimShot , etc., I hardly care what the term in bold is whether it's keep or delete as I agree with both options depending on the circumstances. The reasoning and logic behind the stance is what matters most. And I saw from the candidate an effort to explain and discuss Termer's stance. Now, obviously a number of others have some concerns about this editor, but my personal experience with the candidate is not negative and I would in such instances prefer to give the candidate the benefit of the doubt so that Termer is not outright discouraged from this experience. Clearly the opposes are gaining momentum anyway; and hey, it's the holidays, so someone might as well offer some encouragement. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Please note that both awards were awarded by user Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!}, who has been banned [2] for a year from Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior.--Dojarca (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Noted. Thank you for pointing that out. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Just to set it straight, only one award has been been awarded by the user. The second one was a result of a vote by the relevant project.--Termer (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for the clarification! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Samir 06:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   While this is a point more usually applied to opposes than supports, Requests for Adminship is not a vote, similar to AfD. The strength of your "vote" is based on the reasoning for it. Could you provide reasoning for your support? Ironholds (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Can we just assume he agrees with the nomination and trusts that the user will not abuse the tools. An oppose should be explained, not a support. Garion96 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for the request for more information. As Garion96 says, I agree with the nomination listed above and have no concerns. In general, that is what supports on RfA's have always meant. -- Samir 19:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

6. User:Miacek (t) 09:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC) As the nominator (see above). --User:Miacek (t) 12:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   See above. Ironholds (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Oh right, sorry! Perhaps I should redirect WP:D'oh! to my userpage. Ironholds (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Weak Support Candidate works in a contentious area, but the opposes use a combination of edits from over a year ago, edits by other users and edits where the candidate is being civil in a dispute, I actually take that as quite reassuring. The answer to Q1 is not ideal and if this was a self nom I would oppose for it, but as candidate has been nominated a Q1 that implies to me that Termer doesn't quite know what he/she has let themselves in for does not trouble me unduly. Weak because the block is less than a year ago (though only by weeks) and I don't think we've had a commitment not to use the tools in areas where Termer is perceived by some to be partisan. ϢereSpielChequers 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. The candidate just about single-handedly resolved a very long running, intractable and dare I say bitter (resulting in an ArbCom case) content dispute regarding the article Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940. Termer is a great moderating agent and would be an asset to the admin crew. Martintg (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. A good editor, but there is little chance an Estonian editor will be allowed to pass and become and admin.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yep. Sadly, you seem to be right :( And we know that many problems Eastern European users face are related to the fact that sysops we encounter are usually techno freaks from the US, with not much knowledge of humanities.--User:Miacek (t) 13:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'd like to hear more on this. Why would someone from Estonia be put at a disadvantage? My opinion for example was based on my own review and the valid points raised by others. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   It's a long story. Very briefly, there's an active community of people identifying with the long-gone Soviet Union on Wikipedia, and they see Estonians as hostile people not paying proper respect to the Soviet glory. Last year, after the Bronze Night riots, these people harassed Estonian editors on ethnic and cultural grounds until most of them drastically reduced their involvement, and about half a dozen eventually left the project altogether (User:Sander Säde, User:Alexia Death, User:Erik Jesse and several others -- see, for example, this bogus RFCU). Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think its an overkill by -Piotr, generalizing things like that. Since it's only can be relevant regarding content opponents I've had who have opposed the nomination below. There are some arguments below that may be valid, the arguments that I'd summarize, "you should have gone to the Admin school before accepting the nomination" and "after you've done that come back in 3 months or so". Well, let me be very clear about it, in case the majority of people think that having an access to sys tools is first of all about graduating from the admin school first that looks like has been prioritized below: I can tell you now, being an admin would be nothing for me. I'm not interested in knowing every bit of the wikilaw since I only have contributed and intend to contribute to the subjects in the areas I'm competent with. That would automatically exclude anything that has to do with non-fee images and living people for example.etc. So, the bottom line, the people who have opposed me for such reasons have done it because in their opinion an admin candidate should have such and such qualifications beforehand. And that's fair enough as far as I'm concerned.--Termer (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   The difference between a cynic and a normal person is that the cynic has experience. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I tend to watch out for opposition that is based on ethnic etc. grounds, or otherwise inappropriate opposition, and will try to support such candidates when they are ready, as I will do here in a few months. I know many others do just the same. And I think all the crats know to discount such votes in borderline cases. DGG (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I too try to mind obvious discrimination in any form, and work to defend against it. However in my opinion that's not an issue here. If it is then that is sad, and I'm unfortunately not catching on to it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Allegations of national bias in an RFA are always inflammatory and should not be made easily, without providing explicit and detailed evidence as pertaining to this RFA specifically. I see no evidence that some kind of a grand anti-Estonian conspiracy is responsible for the oppose !votes in this RfA. On the contary, most oppose !voters are RfA regulars, many of whom are admins themselves, and who, I am sure, had little or no interaction with the candidate or with any Estonia-related articles before. Both Piotrus, who is an admin and is the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case revolving largely around WP:BATTLE ethnic issues, and Διγουρεν, who has just two months ago come off a one-year ArbCom ban related to ethnic controversies and using Wikipedia as a battleground, should really know better than to throw blanket accusations of national bias in an RfA. The candidate's response to Piotrus' post was much more commendable. Nsk92 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

10. Support. Termer has ruffled some feathers, but it's because he's always been trying to do the Right Thing -- even in face of vocal opponents. Good judgement and courage of action, not begging mercy from trolls, are the qualities that make good administrators. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support The quality of his contributions seems much more impressive than the rationales of the opposers. Nick mallory (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support because I see nothing wrong with him. The fact that he was blocked, even if that was a long time ago, really scares me; but I think he is fine and good to go! K50 Dude ROCKS! 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. We need more good administrators who are familiar with Eastern Europe subjects and controversies. He is also a good content editor.Biophys (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The answer to Q1 is absolutely not sufficient, sorry. — Aitias // discussion 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose - sorry, but, at the moment, your answer to Q1 doesn't make a lot of sense. Hoax articles are usually listed at articles for deletion, so being an admin doesn't change anything. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I know of a few redirects that get turned into hoax articles every so often. Deletion isn't really justified because it was a valid redirect, but page protection is difficult to obtain because the reverting is low intensity. Martintg (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose I don't like the tone of his responses. Naming the editor he is had a conflict with in the response to his question is a cheap shot. Seems prone to conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose for now, may change if the answers to questions turn out nicely. Strong Oppose Looking at his talkpage archives (difficult because of the way they are done) shows (as wehwalt says) an editor prone to conflict. While it may be a issue to do with the area he edits it does not reflect well on him. Looking forward to the answers to questions. Additional: After recieving answers to the questions I and others posed I am extending my oppose to a Strong Oppose. The amended answer to Question 1 is not sufficient, and his answer to my question shows a user who answers with personal opinion rather than policy; not something I'm a fan of. Ironholds (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   As he works in a sphere where several edit-onflicts have occurred, it is not entirely surprising that he has been involved in conflicts. As a moderating force, in fact. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 09:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I can vouch for that. For example, Termer's effort at cleaning up Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 singlehandedly ended the persistent edit-warring that had plagued the article for many moons -- edit-warring so severe that even the ARBCOM failed at it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe so, but his answers to the questions and the discussions concerning them (see Q9, for example) mean I'm staying where I am. Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose - The answers to the questions concern me, as Aitias pointed out with Q1, others raise eyebrows. I can't remember the last time I opposed either. — Realist² 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Regretful oppose - Per Ironholds, Wehwalt, and Aitias. — neuro^(talk) 02:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong oppose Tremer has a long history of incivil behavior especially in articles related to Estonia.--Dojarca (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Please cite some diffs for this very strong charge. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks NuclearWarfare, I was just about to ask for the same thing, I think it is a serious allegation and in case I've done anything wrong, I'd like to know about it, when, how etc. exactly has it happened?--Termer (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   • Revert-warring in attempt to remove the 'NPOV' tag from a havily disputed article Occupation of the Baltic states under meditation at that time [3] (along with other editors:[4], [5])
   • Participating in revert-warring trying to remove 'Disputed' tag from Holodomor denial [6] (along with other editors: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16])
   • Revert warring in attempt to remove 'Unbalanced' tag from Soviet historiography: [17], [18] (together with other editors: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23])
   • Revert-warring against a user who tried to provide arbitration enforcement (see this evidence: [24])

   There are also strong POV issues with Tremer:

   • Advocating expulsion any modern Russian and former Soviet points of view from Wikipedia (especially relatad to Baltic politics) on the basis they were produced by "totalitarian or semi-totalitarian societies"[25][26].
   • Advocating Soviet sources should be separated from all other sources on the basis the USSR did not belong to "Western civilization" [27]--Dojarca (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I completely disagree with your interpretations. Separating the Soviet POV and any other POV-s in those controversial articles has been proven to be the only way to stabilize the subjects. I'm familiar with both POV-s an that has helped me to stabilize a number of related articles. But in case you think this disqualifies me from this RfA, that of course is your decision.--Termer (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   PS. And I still think that WP:Tag team is not an acceptable way to approach controversial subjects and would stand against such editing pattern like tag spamming by editors who refuse to give any positive input into the articles any way I can. Instead of tagging, any alternative POV-s should be added to the articles according to WP:NPOV--Termer (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   WP:Tag team isn't an advised way to approach any subject; it is POV-y and meatpuppetry based. That's kind of stating the obvious; "gee, I don't care what you guys think, I don't like the idea of sockpuppets!". Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks Ironholds for spelling it out for me.--Termer (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

8. Weak Oppose I get that the block was 7 months ago, but still it's a block.--Iamawesome800 03:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   So nobody who was ever blocked should be allowed to become an admin? What happened to assuming good faith, and assuming that it is possible for people to change. I daresay you are not the same person you were seven months ago; it is ridiculous to say that a user (or anyone) can learn nothing in that period of time. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I believe that if the block was a year ago I would just forget it but since it was still in the last calendar year, I just can't ignore it.--Iamawesome800 20:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Nebulous, but after reviewing contributions (an incredibly tedious task given the lack of talk and project space edit summaries), a "net positive" is not very evident. There is too much of a chance of drama and conflict. Also, not enough depth of project experience. Tan | 39 04:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Sorry, but not ready yet. No admin has to know every detail of policy at the start, but some rudimentary knowledge of the main points of image copyright policy is essential even for those who won't be working there much. And some other answers similarly show a less than adequate understanding of the role. I suggest some wider-ranging experience over the next few months. DGG (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Too many concerns. Not ready, primarily. Garden. 08:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose I hate to do it as the user is a decent contributor, though that does not automatically mean they'd be a good admin. From reviews of the edits noted above and further the comments placed by others and his replies to them on his talk page display (to me) the type of attitude I do not want to see in any more admins. Sorry mate. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Termer's incivility – combined with quite the shaky answer to Q1 – drives me to oppose. Sorry, Termer. Hopefully, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Termer 2 will pass by July or August. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 11:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Weak immature editor, plus constant incivility. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    "Constant incivility" Oh sure, he's not been exactly the nicest person at times, but haven't we all? I'm sure he would be a great person to meet, and he has been incredibly constructive. Weak and immature is a personal attack; this is why RFA sucks. I hate to badger people but this oppose is really pissing me off. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Not that it matters, but I agree Eddy. I'm sure the 'crat will not consider such an oppose (attack in my opinion). Regardless the damage is done, and it is shameful. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose Termer, I am sorry for this, but despite your large edit count, your questions are not indicative of someone who would be suited for adminship. I feel that since I do not often oppose candidates, I should explain my actions:

    1. Your answer to question one, to start with, was not very detailed, even now that you have expanded it, I feel that it is inadequate. In question 1 you said So for example I expect the admin tools help me doing clean up work that would need to be taken care of in regular basis etc in the area that I've been active, this is getting very vague, if your just going to be doing uncontroversial things like moving over redirects, that is fine, but this could potentially get to be a very big problem if you're going to start using blocks and page protection in articles you edit. I feel that the tools should be kept far away from areas that you have been active as a contributor, or else a user can quite quickly develop a conflict of interest.
    2. In question 3 you named an editor and referred to them as a patterned Russian nationalist POV editor, even if this were true, this is a blatant example of commenting on the contributor, not the content, which would be unacceptable as an administrator. Even if you apologized on his/her talk page, you just insulted the user in that answer, potentially opening up another dispute.
    3. In question 6, you don't seem to understand that question, but even when it is rephrased, you claim I 'm not aware of any policies that would treat articles about living persons any differently once it's about none-free images, this is not true, in the policy you quoted (WP:NONFREE) it even says right here, that non-free images should not be used while the subject is still alive. Normally I would think oh, well, there are a lot of policies, maybe the user didn't notice that one, but you actually linked to the policy, a policy that you have clearly not read properly. As an administrator, you need to be aware of policy, or at least, be willing to look up relevant policy before making judgments, that question was a perfect situation in which that skill should have been demonstrated, but it wasn't.
    4. In question 8, I asked Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial? and you replied I think so, that reply is not indicative of the clue that an administrator needs. It is very important to include an edit summary when a controversial edit is made, you need to explain your actions and possibly link to discussion showing that you have consensus for the edit in question.
    5. In question 9, you said that you would elect not to turn on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option and went on to say that you do not provide edit summaries for minor edits or on discussion pages. I believe that, even with a minor edit, an edit summary is still important, something simple like "ce" for copyediting or "fix sp" for fixing spelling go a long way to hleping other users understand what you have done without viewing the diffs.
    6. Finally, as previous users have brought up, past actions are a good indicator of future conduct, and currently, your actions are not, IMHO, compatible with those required to yield the tools. Work on your edit summary usage, read up on policy and WP:NPA and come back in a couple of months, I will be very willing to make the past past. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 12:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Hi Foxy Loxy, I appreciate your straight to the point comments, and admit that the things you consider necessities for a sys admin do not almost play any role among the things that I'd consider to be important. Lets put it this way, in case in the end the majority of people agree with you, that would be a clear indication for me that I'm just not fit to be a sys admin on Wikipedia. Not everybody have the necessary qualities that the community is looking from an admin, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm good at certain things but that doesn't mean it fits with what's needed from an admin. Despite the majority oppose at this time I'll keep the RfA running until the end of it since I think I'm getting some valuable general feedback out of it. Thanks again!--Termer (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    You don't think No Personal Attacks, allowing editors to easily review your work, the ability to make firm decisions and to avoid conflicts of interest are things you'd consider to be important? Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

16. Oppose. On one hand the candidate has an impressive article-writing record, which counts for a lot in my book. On the other hand, there are several reasons for reservations, at least at this point. The initial answer to Q1 was really strange, raising questions about how well the candidate understand the role of an admin. Part A of the answer to Q3 is also somewhat concerning, in view of the recent date of the event mentioned there. A rather bungled response to a rather basic copyright question (Q6) also adds to the overall impression that the candidate is not sufficiently familiar with policies and guidelines as of now. Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose I don't oppose often, but I am not convinced by the answer to the questions. Especially the non-free (fair use) one. Also I see too much wikilawyering on Template talk:Infobox Film although I might be biased there since I made a comment or two on the opposing side of Termer. Garion96 (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose. It is a sad fact of an admin life that a thorough knowledge of policies and guidelines is often more important than "common sense". Putting an equal sign between adherence to the policies and wikilawyering, as the candidate seems to do when answering Q6, is a sign that it's too early to hand in the admin tools. I may be willing to re-consider this in a few months if an improvement in this area can be demonstrated and no other serious concerns surface.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, December 22, 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose. I have some previous experience with this editor and he tends to be very agressive in topics related to Estonia with a preference for referring to fringe scholarship and fringe views to further his agenda (see e.g. Talk:Varangians and Talk:Oeselians). I don't trust this editor's grasp of Wikipedia policy and I definitely wouldn't trust him with the tools.--Berig (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Accusing your content opponent in such horrible crimes may be somewhat understandable if you run out of reasonable arguments. however, how would your accusations be relevant here since administrators are not suppose to use the tools for their advantage in any content disputes?--Termer (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Shouldn't != wouldn't. It's all about trust and the ability to represent the community, not just the technical side of things. — neuro^(talk) 18:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    PS. Other than that I can promise everybody that I remain very aggressive towards any use of ethnic or racial slurs on Wikipedia. No matter if it concerns the Estonians [28] or the Sami [29] or anybody else.--Termer (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Please, don't try to change the topic Termer. You and I appear to have very different ideas of what constitutes a "slur" and we could probably discuss it ad infinitum. The point is that I do not trust you and that I think it would be a big mistake to hand you the tools. Moreover, do you really think that you increase my trust in you by manipulating the readers with this diff here, while hiding that the move you show was my suggestion?--Berig (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    whether you trust me or not with this is not an issue. That's your decision and none of my business. What is my business though is your reasoning here that question my intentions and your statements that label me, basically call me a "fringe theorist with an agenda". However, thanks for providing the diffs, I just included some more so anybody who wants can make up their own mind and see if your reasons given have any actual basis or not. And finally I don't think I would need to prove to anybody that using administrator tools against your content opponents is a very bad idea. --Termer (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Whether I trust you is very much the issue here Termer. An RfA is all about trust.--Berig (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Again, that's completely fine that you don't trust me, I have no problem with that. The only thing I'm saying that please do not call me a "fringe theorist with an agenda" but use some reasonable arguments instead! Thanks!--Termer (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Do not pretend that I have written statements that I have never written, Termer. It is not going to increase your credibility here.--Berig (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    I have nothing to hide nor do I have any reasons to "increase my credibility here". It seems you have accused me of "referring to fringe scholarship and fringe views to further his agenda". Maybe it's just me but it seems like a serious accusation. If I was an admin it almost feels like someone who should be blocked for good from editing wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    So now you agree that I had not written what you claimed that I had written. I merely stated my deep concerns about your behaviour and the sources you refer to, as in this case.--Berig (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    are you saying that by "referring to fringe scholarship and fringe views to further his agenda" doesn't say that someone who'd do such a thing would be in fact a "fringe theorist with an agenda" etc. My mistake then, please use WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard in case you suspect anybody misusing Wikipedia in such a way.--Termer (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    Points made gentlemen. You're both slightly going round in circles. I could be out of line, but this discussion has gone a wee bit off topic and to me doesn't necessarily help your RFA. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

20. Oppose. Answers to questions do not show me the editor is ready yet. Also, please use edit summaries more consistently. Jonathunder (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. User's intent seems to be in the right place but it's abundantly clear that the policy knowledge just isn't there. It's true that one doesn't have to know every policy, but if a user is unwilling or unable to look up policies to answer RfA questions, that doesn't give me confidence that the user will do so when making admin decisions. Oren0 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose per civility issues. I'd recommend withdrawal and a good while. Please remember to read up everything CIV related and follow it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose Just to make it easier, I agree with neuro. Good luck. America69 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Normally I would do a neutral instead of a snowball oppose if the candidate's support drops below 50% but Foxy Lexy showed that you made personal attack right in the heart of this RfA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose Sorry, but I wait a little while. I recommend withdrawing and wait another 4-6 months.--Pookeo9 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose. If you want my vote when you run again, I'll need to see evidence that you are letting impartial people make the difficult calls involving articles you care about and involving people you consider your opponents. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

    I just had to comment on this one. I never had trouble finding consensuses with my "opponents", sometimes after most difficult discussions, as long as I had to deal with, I like the way Dbachmann has put it: "provided they are intelligent and have a certain minimal social competence". And I have no idea what do you mean by "impartial people"? I haven't seen such a thing either in real life nor in Wikipedia yet.--Termer (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

28. Oppose for now per answers to various questions and resulting discussions. I don't mind admins who aren't familiar with all policies when their RFA starts, but admins who either can't or won't do the research to find the answer to a policy question raise issues. With possible rare exceptions, even admin candidates who don't plan on doing much policy-enforcement should know how to find and interpret the existing policies. Even though this editor didn't look like a WP:NOTNOW candidate early on, as of now, that's what he is. The candidate should consider withdrawing and deciding if he really needs access to the tools. If he does, he should familiarize himself with just what is expected of an administrator and educate himself accordingly. Also, some other opposers have mentioned civility issues. I didn't even look into this, I'd already made up my mind based on the questions. If you have civility or other issues, please address them before throwing your hat in the ring again. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 07:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    Everything said is fair and clear, just that pr WP:NOTNOW Note that some editors prefer their RFAs to remain open, even if clearly failing, as the feedback is useful. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

    PS. On "deciding if he really needs access to the tools" I indeed need to do some thinking before making any decisions about submitting again in the future. On one hand, there is too much in this that I'd never care about. Like doing homework on subjects that do not touch me at all. On the other hand the hoax article that I mentioned above was just recreated by the master of fake countries: [30]. Now, sure, I took care of it for now [[31]] and listed it for semi-protection [32] providing evidence that we are dealing with persistent vandalism. But guess what, the guy probably didn't have time to go though the links and declined the request. After dealing with such things for more than a year, you kind of get tired of explaining it over and over again and again. And at one point you just realize that should I really care about it, it's easier to create new articles and submit those for DYK and be happy about it instead of trying to clean up this mess and compromise the WP:CIV because of it from time to time.--Termer (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

29. Oppose per Q6 & Q10. Leujohn ^(talk) 10:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose, I don't expect a prospective candidate to know policy back to front. Hell, I don't, and I don't think that many other admins do either. I do expect though, that when quizzed on something they're not familiar with, they'll take the time to look it up and understand what the current policy is before answering. The responses to Q6 and Q10 are illuminating, in this regard. Civility concerns are the icing on the cake. Sorry, but I can't support you right now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC).
31. Oppose. I feel sorry whenever I have to oppose but I cannot support an editor who makes obvious mistakes. Common sense is good but to be an admin you need to be able to look up policy and guidelines you do not know, e.g. the answer to Q6. And I find it disturbing that you think edit summaries are just something that is optional, thus potentially creating more mess willingly. (Lankiveil edit-conflicted exactly what I wanted to say...) Regards SoWhy 10:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose - I see no evidence of article work, and I don't feel you're ready. ayematthew ✡ 12:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose. Termer has generally good contributions, but does not appear to have a good enough grasp of policies & guidelines. I don't expect (potential) admins to know every policy. However I do expect them to be able to find relevant policies/guidelines when the need arises and act accordingly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose primarily based on the questions and answers, but that's the only reason, currently. If you keep up the good work you're doing and try again in 4 months I bet you'd get it. rootology (C)(T) 17:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral It is difficult to overlook the candidate's positive contributions to the project, but the answers to the RfA questions wind up raising more questions. I can switch to Support pending clarification on those questions. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Good editor but per answer to Q1, doesn't really indicate what Termer would use the tools for. Will reconsider after clarification. Matt (Talk) 03:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I had a big stink over hoaxes a while back, and frankly, only extreme hoaxes should ever be deleted on the spot. If the candidate thinks being an admin means he can simply delete pages he believes to be hoaxes without the support of an AfD, this could be quite problematic. However, I see nothing else negative about this candidate, so I'm willing to reconsider following answers to other questions. Thanks, and best of luck! DARTH PANDA^duel 03:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral. contributions a plus, behaviour (admittedly in a difficult area) is not. I'd recommend getting a short controversial article up to GA to show balance as a start and a three month delay while doing this. Need to show can keep a cool head and negotiate. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Insufficient understanding of policy for an admin to have. I don't see this passing, and if it does not, I would suggest reading everything up at WP:ARL and having a good look at WP:ADMIN to learn what role administrators are expected to have on Wikipedia. Great article editor, but you just do not have enough knowledge of policy. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Recommend withdrawal in light of the concerns raised and volume of opposition at this time. Townlake (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
7. This may be my first neutral: I see evidence that this RfA is itself becoming a mild ethnic battleground. There is an oppose voter who I have in fact advocated blocking, but your own behavior here makes it difficult for me to rally to your side. POV pushers, and in particular tendentious nationalist POV pushers are the bane of this project. The. Bane. They are what makes us a joke. Personally, I abhor them, and find it hard to respect those who give them the rope to hang themselves. Lord knows I've lost my calm with many of them, and to no benefit to this project. As admins, we must maintain our cool. When we lose it, it undermines our ability to act credibly. I'll support you if I see someone who can take the hits, and remain calm, while pursuing the academically accepted NPOV. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Battleground? I don't think so. I doubt if editors with a POV in the Baltic area are making a significant difference in this RfA. Termer's own words are causing enough concern that I think the community is telling him to go back and come back again in a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   Noted... I'll amend to "very mild ethnic". As an Irish-American raised largely on a diet devoid of flavor, my threshold for mild is very, very low. With that in mind, the emphasis of my neutrality is for the reasons you specify. I just don't want to give an outright oppose, but wish to encourage Termer by suggesting the adoption of a less aggressive stance. I say this as an admin who on occasion has taken an overly aggressive stance, and in those instances it was to my own detriment, and completely undermined my ability to use the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   RE:Hiberniantears"while pursuing the academically accepted NPOV" has always been problematic because Wikipedia's 'fundamental model for editorial decision-making' is not 'academically accepted NPOV' but 'Consensus among Wikipedia editors'. therefore the reality is that the best that can be done about NPOV is, like I've already pointed out above: to list conflicting perspectives and not only according to WP:RS but whatever nationalist POV a group of editors involved might happen to support. That's the reality of every day Wikipedia from my experience.--Termer (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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.