Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HolyRomanEmperor 2

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

HolyRomanEmperor

Final (4/6/1) ended 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor (talk · contribs) – HolyRomanEmeror is a fantastic editor with over 4,000 edits. His work has made me satisfied. His works include the country of Duklja and some of the rulers of Duklja from the Vojislavljević family. I think he is one of the best editors in Wikipedia for the history of Montenegro and some of its rulers. Since his unsuccessful campaign to become administrator a while back, I believe now he will be able to become an administer and have wide recognition throughout Wikipedia, now that he has over 4,000 edits and all. CrnaGora 03:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support CrnaGora | Talk 03:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) I support him for being a great editor and all.
2. Support - from my past interactions with this user, I think he would make a good administrator. Valid concerns have been addressed, but I don't feel they are significant enough to oppose (or be neutral). --Latinus 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
3. My vote. Axiomm 20:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support This user's contributions make him worthy of admin. Since when is project namespace work a requirement of adminship? --mmeinhart 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Very light project namespace work (under 40 total edits to project and project talk)... just not enough participation for me. While a cursory glance reveals an impressive edit there, in that case (two weeks ago) he nominated an article for AfD and said to keep it even as he was nominating it for deletion... suggesting an unfamiliarity with process. Furthermore, some troubling civility issues quickly jumped out: "The user is intent on hating anything that has a prefix "Serb-"" [1], blocked just 2 weeks ago [2]... just don't feel comfortable that this candidate would make a good janitor, sorry. --W.marsh 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose Lack of project edits suggests unfamiliarity with process. Diversify a bit, and I'll be happy to support in a few months. Xoloz 16:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per the serb hating comment. I know it's bloody hard to have these things come back and bite one on the bum, but to me the comment is too recent to be easily discounted. Hiding talk 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Too low in project namespace to support at this time.--Dakota ~ ° 21:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Although I don't put stock in edit counts, a combined 45 edits to Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk just isn't enough. --BWD ^(talk) 21:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per low Project edits. Prodego ^talk 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - will support in a couple of months or so assuming further usage of edit summaries and further Wikipedia: namespace activity. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Please could the nominee or the nominator provide a link to the previous RFA. I'd do it for you, but it should be one of you guys doing it. Proto||type 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Nominee's first RfA. --Durin 16:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I didn't think that high project edit summaries are a must-have for adminship. Appearantly, I was wrong if what Xoloz says is correct. I will remember that in the future. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• The 2 weeks ago block was my idea. An arguement was being led and I asked that both the other party and me to be blocked, merely out of solidarization with the other party. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, I thought self requested blocks were completely against policy. Did I miss that change? Hiding talk 21:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, there was a discussion between me and and another user. I asked an admin to act as a mediator, and according to the compromise, he blocked the two of us until he could deal with the matter himself. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I admit that the sentence mentioned by W.marsh was indeed clearly my POV error. However, before entirely judging it, you have to oversee the situation of the usage (note: Not trying to justify it). --HolyRomanEmperor 16:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Edit summary usage: 95% for major edits and 66% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• See HolyRomanEmperor's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I have always wanted to assist the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I believe that wikipedia is overwflown by vandalism, and that always an extra hand is neaded. However, my reversion of vandalism by now is minimal at best; and I think that adminship would greatly assist me in this. Additionally, I have seen quitte a number occasions that someone (including me) reports a 3RR violation or a vandalizing annon; and it takes quitte a lot of time for the admins to react. This is all understandable, naturally; regarding the unproportionally small number of admins towards (other) users. It is here that I would like to lend assistence by reacting as fast as possible to any violation and/or admin-required assistence.

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

A. I have a [ton of edits] and numerious articles written. One of my largest articles are Duklja – a South Slavic Early Medieval state on the Balkan peninsular and one of the first rulers of modern Montenegro as well as a prominent writer: Petar II Petrović Njegoš. Other good articles (on my opinion) are on Medieval Bosnian Bans Stephen II Kotromanić, Kotroman and Matej Ninoslav or Mehmed-pasha Sokolović (please mind this last one – an arguement is lasting on its talk page). History and Litteracy are my main subjects, so I am glad that I can contribute to wikipedia by adding these very little – but rich subjects that unseen pass the eyes of the world. I believe in the Historia magistra vitae est. saying. Other contributions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the history sections of the articles Croats and and Skadar, while I am currently rewriting the History of Slovenia.

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

A. Unfortunately I have to admit: long ago, I was involved in several disputes. In the conflicts, regardless of the fact if that I turned out correct in most cases, I have acted a little too harsh on several occasions, particularely towards fellow-wikipedians that lead the arguement with me. However, that was a long times ago and I have worked hard to undo the previous over-extensions of my person. I wouldn't say that some users have caused me stress. Surely, some annons that unadvertable push their agenda without any explaination and/or conduct vandalism can be annoying, but I practise self-control. The farthest reach of my stress, I believe, was on the talk page of the Mehmed-pasha Sokolović article, when I said ...this getting a little frustrating... and I am a little ashamed of that. However, one must read up the discussion before judging this (note: I am not attempting to justify that which I said). In the future, I am poised to deal with these kinds of issues the same way I dealt with them like before – through compromise. Occasions are the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where I inserted both alternitives of a Bosnian Medieval King's title's translation. I am currently orchestrating a compromise on the already-mentioned Mehmed-pasha Sokolović article.

---

I'm henceforth dropping this nomination. Evidently the Project thingy is a serious issue. I will attend to it soon enough. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The above 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.