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

Ikiroid[edit]

Final (83/3/2); Ended Tue, 15 May 2007 17:22:09 (UTC)

Ikiroid (talk · contribs) - Ikiroid is exactly the user one would look for when appointing an admin. He is a frequent contributor to working on backlogs, and does RCP, his duties would surely be assisted if given adminship. Ikiroid is an extremely responsible user and has been a member for almost 18 months, making his first edit on 10th November 2005, and many more since. He also maintains good usage of edit summaries and marking minor edits. I am aware that others are going to make further statements, so I will not say too much more. It is with honour that I hereby give my nomination for adminship to Ikiroid. Seivad 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Миша13: It is my pleasure to co-nominate Ikiroid (talk · contribs) for adminship. He's been here with the Project for quite a long time now (registered Nov 2005) and has been a great asset to the community. As an editor, he specializes in topics related to linguistics and is an active member of the WikiProject on writing systems and a maintainer of Portal:Language. The nominee has also an impressive move log, which shows he's already using the available tools in the full potential. Apart from that, Ikiroid also does some vandalfighting on the side (easy to spot by looking at the most recent contribs). This shows that Ikiroid could greatly benefit from the new buttons. To further stress the nominee's versatility, one can have a look at his full edit count - numbers do not lie, ladies and gentlemen - this guy has 10 Portal talk: edits! ;-) While there, make sure you notice the how the edits are well-distributed across all namespaces.

Ikiroid is a very communicative person (more than 1/3rd of edits to discussion namespaces), active in XfD discussions (making valid points: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]; even closing: [6]). When communicating, he's always very polite, civil, reasonable and level-headed ([7], [8]).

The first RfA failed due to lack of experience, but that was more than half a year ago. For the past months, Ikiroid has been coached for adminship by Shyam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and it is my opinion that he's as ready for the job as one could be. The mop and bucket are long overdue. Миша13 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conomination from Shyam Ikiroid is a fine and well-estabilished editor and understands all the policies very well. This comes to know to me during admin coaching to Ikiroid. He asked very amazing and interesting questions during his RfA, which exhibits his curiosity towards the project. He made many major edits to the Wikipedia. Some of them are on different pages as follows, Abjad, Alphabet, Brāhmī script, History of the IPA, Phoenician alphabet, Proto-Indo-European phonology, Romic alphabet. His best contributions are related to Writing systems Project where he is one of the most significant contributors. He is very active in recent change patrolling and quite active to revert changes and warn the users who remain active in vandalising. Some example diffs of RCP with warnings are listed here: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Some of the facts, quoted by Ikiroid on the coaching page and examined by me, are listed here:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: In terms of XFDs, I'd like to spend some time closing discussions at WP:AFD, WP:TFD, and maybe a little at WP:MFD. I've spent a good deal of time in deletion discussions in the past, and I've also closed a few obvious "keep" and "merge" discussions (see [17], [18], [19], [20], among others). Misza13 was kind enough to list some other discussions too. I'd like to spend time trimming down the infinite backlong at C:CSD, it seems these days that there are always at least 200 pages listed there, and many of them are often G1 or G3 cases which don't require a second thought before removal. I'd also like to work on blocks at WP:AIV, I am familiar with blocking times and policies and have made over 50 reports to AIV. I spend anywhere between one-third and one-half of my edits on reverting vandalism, and I already have had AIV on my watchlist for 10 months. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Shyam has already done a very good job of covering the work I've done, so I'm just going to add some more here. Most of my work on wikipedia pertains to cultures and languages, and I am one of the chief contributors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems. I created Peter Stephen DuPonceau and added the majority of the information to it [21], as well as Carrier syllabary, which has been completely written and referenced by me [22]. I've also cleaned up and referenced International Phonetic Alphabet (some work includes [23], [24], [25], and [26]) and I was one of the editors who worked on bringing it up to good status. So far, I have made 97 edits to it. I also helped User:Ndsg bring Gwoyeu Romatzyh up to featured status. While my work there was more guidance and copyediting, I did create the image at the top of the page that illustrates the spelling system. Recently, I have done some work on Phoenician alphabet and Sinhala alphabet. I consider expanding the encyclopedia equally as important as maintaining it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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: Inevitably, every editor runs into issues while working on wikipedia. There are a lot of disagreements about style and perspective which are often quickly resolved through compromise and explanation, but certain issues escalate into conflicts when the editors divide themselves into camps and refuse to budge. The two notable conflicts that I think should be mentioned occurred on the pages International Phonetic Alphabet and Death. Both happened last year, the former in February and March and the latter in August. The one pertaining to Death was over whether or not Abortion should be noted on the page, and it degraded into a full-out revert war between a number of editors including me. The discussion thread related to it can be found here. The second dispute was related to the usage of American English in International Phonetic Alphabet. Unlike the other dispute, this one only involved about four or five article edits to the article related to the dispute. I filed an RFC, and User:Angr eventually worked out a satisfactory solution and changed the sample image at the top of the article, which was one of the main sources of controversy. I really do believe in the idea of assuming good faith, and I approach any discussions or disputes with a positive opinion about the other editor(s). If necessary, I am prepared to use WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:MC, or arbcom if the situation gets bad enough. I realize that involved editors like myself often cannot see beyond their dispute, and that third party intervention is often the best path to take. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from falsedef
4. A lone editor has taken it upon himself to continually delete large portions of uncited information on highly trafficked article, without discussion. Other editors are continually reverting the deletions. The lone editor has excessively exceeded more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. What actions are appropriate in response to the excessive deletions and reverts? Please note down any Wikipedia policies that guide your decision. falsedef 05:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Good question. All of that would actually depend on a variety of things. If the user was already familiar with WP:3RR and had done this before, I would block the user(s) according to WP:3RR, protect the article, and set up a discussion about the content dispute if there wasn't already an ongoing decision. In the case where no one has done any communication and the editor in question does not have a history of being difficult or incivil, I would warn the user and provide a link to the 3RR policy and encourage them to join the discussion on the talkpage.
I would watch the page and keep a sharp eye on everyone who was talking, and be prepared to warn and/or block for personal attacks. If the discussion has already started, I'd simply note my act of protection along with doing everything else mentioned before. Regarding content: If it's a BLP article, I'd keep it out. If not, and the information is noncontroversial, and the editor is removing it for citation reasons, I would add it back in with an unreferenced tag and perhaps some ((fact)) tags. If the information is controversial, I would keep it out. Meanwhile, I would try and find information within the already-existing references for any notes about the topic in question, and perhaps do a google search to find more sources. Aside from the references, there would probably be a controversy about adding the information itself, even properly cited, so I would tend to that on the talkpage too. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)
Optional question from SlimVirgin
5. Hi Ikiroid, I actually came here to oppose you over the posting of the Hivemind link (mentioned below in the oppose section), but after seeing your very gracious apology, I'm hesitating. Still, I have a concern. Your apology suggested that you immediately wished you hadn't posted the link. This reminds me of your response during your first RfA, when several people opposed you because you'd offered support to a banned user who was an administrator of an attack site, a site that was outing Wikipedians. You responded to their criticism by saying that, having supported the banned user, you quickly wished you hadn't, and that you only did so because you weren't fully informed about the situation. I have to tell you that some of our most troublesome administrators are people who rush into situations without having fully informed themselves, and so I'm worrying that you will have a tendency to do this. My questions are: (a) What is your opinion about the posting of links to attack sites on Wikipedia? (b) Are you willing to commit yourself here to making sure you fully investigate the background before offering support to banned or blocked users, particulary if they're users who have tried to out Wikipedians? And (c) will you also commit yourself to taking into account the point of view of those users' victims too, rather than just extending good faith without thinking of the consequences? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Well, I can understand your reservations and concerns. I will try to address your questions and the issues you raised here, although I apologize in advance if I ramble on or get off topic. Nowadays, it is really rare for me to jump into a situation without being familiar with the issue, and I often will read through a thread on ANI and then decide to say nothing at all.
The comments made by other admins on Blu'ds talkpage during his first block were removed, and I was unable to view them. I was under the impression that he had civilly been trying to work out things, I didn't know he had responded by saying "Fuck you" after repeated warnings. My primary impression of the situation was based off of this userbox debate, where it appeared that accusations against him came out of nowhere. I now know that there were multiple issues both on and off-wiki during that period. But at the time I didn't know of that, and my awareness of the project namespace pages that discussed such things was virtually nonexistent. I saw his talkpage protected during a block, which I saw as sealing duct-tape over his mouth. I didn't know he could email the admins, or that he had been making such an extensie amount of attacks. Fast-forward a few months, when Linuxbeak suggested unblocking Blu, and Blu renounced WR and apologizing, I made an assumption of good faith and decided to support it. I was now aware of all of the issues at hand, and I figured that the considerable amount of support for the unblocking had reason. Blu was unblocked, reblocked, unblocked again, and then he violated parole. Still, he repeatedly made statements that he cared about the encyclopedia, so I kept my support. After he was rebanned, he resorted to attacking editors again and again, making my belief that he had changed totally and utterly wrong, and putting the reputation of my judgement between a rock and a hard place. It made me become much more careful before commenting on anything, especially after it was brought up in my last RFA and I discovered how bitter the whole thing really was. My involvement and attitude with the encyclopedia had already been gradually becoming more serious, but the scope of this issue made me reevaluate the way I did things. In my mind, Blu Aardvark wasn't out to destroy any articles, policies, or portals on wikipedia, which has been postulated here. The issue was civility, and he went out of his way to sabotage the feelings and reputations of other wikipedians (which justifies a ban anyway).
You asked how I would evaluate a problematic user. Well, I would look over their contributions and those of the accusers, and I would try and find where their dispute began and all of the places in which it occurred. If any of it pertained to off-wiki matters, I would follow any evidence I could to the sites outside of the encyclopedia and see as much as I could without violating anyone's privacy. I would assume good faith with all of the parties: keep in mind that the possibility of a mutual misunderstanding exists, while still being prepared for a situation in which everyone involved is guilty of wrongdoing. I make a point of trying to understand everybody's position all of the time. I really believe that everyone is built on goodness deep down, even if it becomes obscured or covered by some other desire.
And finally, the question of linking attack sites. When I linked the particular page in question, I treated it like a diff link, not even considering the link to be malicious. I have read the MONGO arbitration and the wikipolitics connected with ED and whatnot brought with it. I support removing links to all of these attack sites. I can only really see a possible exception in encyclopedia articles that require a link in order to inform the reader, the only examples which I can think of at the moment would be the pages Daniel Brandt and possibly Criticism of Wikipedia. I do not think they belong on userpages, talkpages, or project pages, and that any site which makes personal attacks at an wikipedia editor should be removed.
I hope I covered everything. Please feel free to ask for clarification or further information about my position on these matters. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, Ikiroid. I very much appreciate your detailed response. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ikiroid before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Strong Support -well if Misza13 approves..so do I..----Cometstyles 21:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support without a doubt. (I was close to offering to nominate him once, and then it occurred to me that I couldn't possibly write a good nom statement, so I didn't.) Picaroon (Talk) 21:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - say no more. Good luck! The Rambling Man 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely I have seen nothing but great things from Ikiroid. He's an excellent editor in whom I have the fullest confidence regarding the tools. Everytime I've ever seen Ikiroid interact with someone, it's been in an intelligent, kind way. He's the type of person to whom we need to give the mop. -- Kicking222 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support what the...? You aren't one?! Good grief. Majorly (hot!) 21:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Only good will come. JodyB talk 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, per above. --Phoenix 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Why not :)? Matthew 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support as co-nominator. Миша13 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support You've come on a long way since your last attempt in July '06. A good candidate for the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Shows common sense, consistent in warning vandals and has good contributions. What more do you want? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Much better -- Y not? 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support Looks like a great user with great nominators. Acalamari 23:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support This happens rarely...but...you're NOT an admin!?!? Great candidate, definitely deserves the tools. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Absolutely. Good edits, lots of namespace work. What took you so long to get nominated?--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Excellent editor. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. support interacted with him a year ago working on some template... have seen him around since then in various places. Seems fine. --W.marsh 00:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seen good work from this user.--Húsönd 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks like a great user that'll be a great administrator. — Wenli 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Ya rly. Great user, fly on. ~ Arjun 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. --Spike Wilbury 02:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hrm, thought he was already an admin I've seen Ikiroid all over the 'pedia and assumed he was already in possession of a few extra buttons gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support inasmuch as I thought him to merit support last time and since nothing at all has transpired since then that would make me any less confident in his fitness for adminship. Joe 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support What else can I say? This user is great! Gutworth 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Excellent candidate; I, too, was happy to support last time. Xoloz 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support, as a co-nominator. Shyam (T/C) 06:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Yes, it is going to be a support here. Jmlk17 08:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Default support. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support That was one thorough nomination. the_undertow talk 09:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. No problems here. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-09 10:33Z
  32. Support Seems like an excellent candidate, here cince 2005, high edit count, definitely can be trusted with the tools. Good luck! Regards - The Sunshine Man 12:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support, Excellent contributor. Вasil | talk 13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I'd have nominated him myself if I'd known he wasn't one already. Thought he was. Moreschi Talk 15:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support excellent and strong candidate. —Anas talk? 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, excellent user. Terence 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support! Long overdue! Go Iki! :) Phaedriel - 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support — Xy7 16:09, 09 May 2007
  40. Support "I hardly endorse this user or event". See no problems here. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Yep, looks great. Go for it! - Alison ☺ 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support obviously, excellent candidate. Prodego talk 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support appears to be a very strong candidate. JavaTenor 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No oppose yet, so I´ll support. ♠Tom@sBat 23:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support like before. G.He 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - sure, why not? Contributions look good, solid understanding of policy, demonstrated need for the tools. Philippe 06:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. No problem, good luck and good work.Carlosguitar 09:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Sounds like a plan. >Radiant< 09:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support I may review the intention but not the action. I believe posting the attack site mentioned in the oppose votes was a mistake but i can't punish someone for that because their intention was not to harm. So i vote support. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I am not opposing in order to punish. I don't think that not being an administrator is meant to be a punishment. It's extremely unlikely that Ikiroid posted that link because he got pleasure out of the thought of more people being stalked and distressed and terrorized. There are a lot of very good, very nice people who simply shouldn't be administrators because they're immature, or because they have very poor judgment. Musical Linguist 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with ML. I oppose not because I suspect malice, but because I see lack of judgment and sensitivity to the plight of attacked individuals, both of which are qualities that are crucial for an admin. Crum375 16:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Wikipedia needs experts! Ikiroid is what we need! --Deryck C. 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Well experienced editor with good edit summary usage. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie
  54. Support: the opposition to him, I feel, is being blown out of proportion. I don't believe that he supports 'vicious and vile attackers;' he merely tries to reason with them. Ikiroid seems like a kind, communicative member; he has my vote. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I think this user is an excellent contributer and I think he would make a good admin. I am also impressed by the answers to the questions and also the reply to the opposition. The evidence been presented against him does not convince me not to support. Camaron1 | Chris 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - We need experienced admins. the_undertow talk 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you already voted in support. --tennisman sign here! 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I see nothing that leads me to believe that this user will abuse the admin tools. Frise 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support As always, my criterion is whether making someone an admin would improve the project.--Runcorn 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. The user is clearly qualified for the task. While he has erred, I do not believe his errors were made in malice, and making him admin would be a great benefit to the project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. support While the opposers do raise very good points, I think Ikiroid has learned from those early mistakes and will not make similar mistakes again. The user is otherwise highly qualified. JoshuaZ 01:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per 10 portal:talk edits. Seriously though, Ikiroid's contribs look good and he seems to have the necessary experience. I trust Misza13's judgment. I do understand the opposition from Musical Linguist - posting the link was unfortunate and a little thoughtless. But I think the lesson has definitely been learnt and is very unlikely to be repeated. WjBscribe 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. This is a user I am familiar with and would trust with the administrative tools. The oppose !votes border on dehumanizing, and that is sad. RFerreira 06:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Seems like a good contributor, who would benefit from the tools. Sensible and trustworthy, and able to learn from mistakes. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per answers and candidate's strong overall record. The concerns raised by the opposers are legitimate and significant, but appear to be isolated incidents unlikely to be repeated. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support: Plenty of experience and user's edit summary usage is excellent. I am also impressed by this user's answers to the questions and the fashion in which he works. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 22:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I see no problems here and since adminship is no big deal... — MichaelLinnear 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, good editor. Everyking 06:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per Everyking. Captain panda 13:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support concerns voiced by opposers are legitimate, but the mess-ups seem to be few and far in between. You're a great editor overall, and can be trusted. – Rianaऋ 15:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Weak support despite the reasons outlined in the section below. The two concerning incients are the post to BA and providing a link to the attack site. After reviewing the circumstances of both, I view the former to be an instance of excessive AGF ... probably ill-advised, but not an instance of inappropriate behaviour on the part of Ikiroid. The latter incident is more serious, but I believe that it was just an honest mistake. I think that Ikiroid linked to the site as a reflex more than anything: when posting on discussion pages, editors generally link to the policies, diffs, and pages noted in their comments so that others know what the comment is about. The "weak" part comes from the wording of Ikiroid's comment: "you have shown many wikipedians that not all banned users lose faith and walk away". If a user has merited a ban, I think we would want them to walk away, especially when that user is someone like BA. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support His strengths, set out by his nominators, greatly exceed any minor defects.--Holdenhurst 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Keep up the great work! Defrosted 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. support this person to be a administrator very trustable yuckfoo 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - has my trust —METS501 (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - no serious problems. Walton Need some help? 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Y to the E to the S... --Infrangible 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support As nom (sorry for the late support - I have been pretty busy!) Seivad 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support I've read the opposes and I feel that this was an honest mistake by Ilkiroid, he should not be hung for it. I think Ikiroid will make a fine administrator, and I think that his only problem may be that he assumes good faith too much - but I think that's more of a credit to him. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, high time. Conscious 11:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Rettetast 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, user is independent. I like! Abeg92contribs 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. PeaceNT 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Changing to support, after reflection. For one thing, Ikiroid's behaviour compares very favourably with other people who have done similar things and have then posted about liberty and censorship, and how the community should be involved in deciding whether or not a site is an attack site. For another, I feel that just as the admins whose passwords were recently hacked are less likely to have weak passwords now than those it didn't happen to (because of the shock of being blocked and desysopped, among other reasons), I think — I hope — that Ikiroid will, as a result of the issue raised here, be more likely to be sensitive towards victims of stalking and of outing than if this had not happened. (Ikiroid, please don't let me down in this.) I am generally not impressed with apologies that are made in the middle of an RfA, as I can never be completely sure that they weren't made just to gain an extra vote or prevent an extra opposition. In this case, I do feel comfortable that the apology is sincere, and that the "offence" truly was the result of a moment of thoughtlessness rather than an attitude that we should be allowed to link to these sites and that the danger to victims is exaggerated and their distress unimportant. In no way do I want to imply that Ikiroid is supportive of stalkers. I'm less familiar with the Blu Aardvark issue raised by Crum375, but hope also that Ikiroid has learned from it. Musical Linguist 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I think anyone who supports one of our most vicious and vile attackers ever, who would love to destroy the project, and who posts links to an attack and 'outing' site, should not become an admin here. Crum375 12:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The first case happened over a year ago, and it was brought up and discussed in my last RFA. I have done nothing similar of the sort since, and I have made a concious effort to avoid excerbating any more sensitive situations. The second case was an honest mistake, a case of bad judgement. I regret doing it, I really do. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "The first case happened over a year ago" - check your math. "I have done nothing similar of the sort since" - my point is lack of judgment coupled with carelessness and lack of sensitivity to victims - both examples, the latter very recent, demonstrate the same basic problem. I do think you are sincere; my concern is that you don't seem to think about consequences of your actions. Crum375 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, with regret, especially as I'm on good terms with some of the people supporting.I'm not familiar with Ikiroid, and can only recall noticing him once. A banned editor who engaged in researching the private lives of Wikipedians who wish to remain anonymous, and who put their names, dates of birth, workplace details, and photos on his website, exposing them to the risks of real life stalking, took down his harassment pages temporarily, while negotiating with the foundation. Then, in a fit of pique over the removal of a link on Wikipedia to the index page of his website, or perhaps using that as an ostensible reason for something he intended to do all along, gave an ultimatum that he would publicize the names, photos, etc. of Wikipedians unless the link was restored within twenty-four hours. When the deadline had passed, the banned editor uploaded the personal details of Wikipedians to his website again, and, I'm sorry to say that Ikiroid actually posted a direct link to that particular page here on Wikipedia, telling the community that the page was up again. One could argue as to how much harm was done — was anybody made aware of the URL who didn't already know it? But it would certainly have been more than sufficient to have simply said that the webpage was back up, without actually linking to it and enabling more people to find out easily what the names and work details are of anonymous editors. A potential administrator should have the sensitivity to consider how violated, helpless, and vulnerable some of the victims felt, and should have been extremely unwilling to add to their distress unless he could argue that Wikipedia would be seriously harmed by not having that link available for everyone to look at. I have dealt gently in the past with innocent, inexperienced editors who, while trying to help, posted something that might identify an anonymous editor. But a potential administrator should be aware of the arbcom rulings on Links to attack sites and outing sites as attack sites, or, if not aware of those actual rulings, at least aware, through decency and common sense, of the principle behind those rulings. Musical Linguist 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a really bad choice I made. I didn't realize it until the link was reverted a minute or so later, and I got a sinking feeling in my stomach. I want to express my sincere apologies for doing this, please understand that I had no intention of siding with the attack site or breaching the privacy of any wikipedians—the discussion thread concerned the particular site in question, and I felt that it was necessary to inform those involved. It was a mistake: as you mentioned, I could have done this just as easily by simply stating the site's status without a link. I am not the sort of person who disreagards the feelings of others, or their privacy for that matter. I am not a malicious person, but this is my fault. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the apology, and fully accept it. Unfortunately, there have been some administrators (a very small number) who have increased the distress of victims, by removing semi-protection from a talk page where personal details were being posted, by making a fuss about and drawing attention to a discreet deletion of an article which had been created for harassment purposes, by rolling back a victim of serious (police-level) real life stalking who had removed her (banned) stalker's post from a talk page, and much more. I am far from convinced that you, as administrator, would fit into that category, but would need to think about this for a few days. Musical Linguist 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After a lot of reflection, I am changing to support. Musical Linguist 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Apologising for a "bad choice" is well and good, but you still made the bad choice! I'd rather give it a couple more months to see whether you can avoid any more "bad choices". Grace Note 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Per musical linguist. Sorry but I just cannot support you after reading that. Like the user above me said, after some time without any bad choices, I would be happy to support. Wikipediarules2221 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Comment nominee seems versed well enough in policy, but should review WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, especially in terms of adding "back in with an unreferenced tag and perhaps some [citation needed] tags." A better alternative would be to move the information to hidden comment tags or talk space. Since WP:V is a core content policy, I'm posting in neutral to what would otherwise be in support. falsedef 23:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you mean—WP:V is our most important policy (in my opinion) and we can't slack off on sources. In most cases, I would remove the questionable information. As the Burden of Evidence section reads, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source...". Uncontroversial information which is not itself being challenged should be kept, but I have seen cases where editors remove widely accepted facts from articles like, say something such as Apple or Hebrew alphabet (traditional topics, these two aren't real cases) for the sake of referencing, even though they agree with the facts. For the sake of those people reading up on the topic, secure information should be included (fact tags or not). Eventually, though, we need to reference everything. I have found that much older information added to articles a couple years old often lack citations while still being accurate. An example would be Alphabet#Types, a section completely accurate (I have sources for the section that I haven't added yet) but it has no citations. This information goes back about two years, and was refined and expanded by a lot of respected editors like User:Kwamikagami. Should it all be removed, or commented out? No. But I agree with the notion that BLPs should be strictly combed and sourced, as well as controversial topics and contemporary groups and organizations. WP:V should be used everywhere, but I'm an eventualist about it when there isn't a question of accuracy or a possibility of lawsuits. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of the example I gave, where content is currently under scrutiny (even if seemingly benign), readding the unsourced information would likely not be acceptable at all. This is even the case for your listed examples. In the case I described, the lone editor has followed Jimbo's motto of "aggressively" removing unsourced material from Wikipedia. This is no suggestion by me that all unsourced material should be removed in the disruptive way I presented; however, more care should be taken to respect the lone editor's removal of unsourced material, even if such material seems true or sound. falsedef 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I think the judgement issues are there, but I can't oppose because of the apologies. I mean I'd support George Bush's administration more if they'd apologize. The wikipedia watch link sounds like you didn't look at it before posting. And the Blu Aardvark stuff, well that guy after years still causes trouble and he's so cocky that he'll post his real name all over the place, and his phone number too, and his answering machine has his voice that sounds like a 10 year old girl (the guy's in his 20s) that you'd never think is the same guy who online is one of the most vicious and vile attackers ever. SakotGrimshine 07:42, 12 May 2007 (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.
Category