Today: Tuesday 15 June 2021 , 7:59 am


advertisment
search


Requests for adminship One Salient Oversight

Last updated 18 hour , 10 minute 31 Views

Advertisement
In this page talks about ( Requests for adminship One Salient Oversight ) It was sent to us on 14/06/2021 and was presented on 14/06/2021 and the last update on this page on 14/06/2021

Your Comment


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

One Salient Oversight

final (6/4/2) ending 09:16 30 March 2005 (UTC)
I am nominating myself for admin - something which I never really wanted until recently. I have been editing and contributing to Wikipedia since February 2004 and am one of the top 1000 editors. Please go to my userpage and you will see that I have created a fair amount of articles, and many articles of great detail.
Writing and editing has been my major work here. However, quite recently, I have had to deal with a user who has made veiled threats against me and was subsequently banned for his actions. Now he is back - why? I have no idea (I thought he had been banned but has managed to turn up again). Moreover, I have seen a few ordinary contributors having to deal with unreasonable and rude people, and who feel like quitting as a result. This should not happen. With my contacts at Wikipedia, I should be able to help anyone with these problems, rather than sit back and wait for a sysop to magically appear.
If you look at all the edits that I have done, as well as the debates I have engaged in, you will find that I am generally fair, respectful and more than willing to change my mind if proved wrong. Like all of us, I sometimes fail to treat others properly, but I am usually more than happy to eat my words if I've done the wrong thing.
Like everyone, I have my own biases and beliefs. A cursory look at my contributions will reveal that I am an Evangelical Christian who is highly critical of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement. But if you look at the content of what I have written, you will find that I always try to write in an NPOV manner, and always try to back up any arguments with external links. Obviously my criticism of the P/C movement results in my own study of certain aspects of the movement, including simple historical, theological and sociological facts. All these I have used to create articles. Please feel free to check them out.
--One Salient Oversight 09:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please find below examples of what happens when I am in debate with people over articles. Note that some of these things show how imperfect I can be! Some also show me changing my mind.
  • Talk:Hubbert_Peak/archive1
  • Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship / Archive 1
  • Talk:Charles Grandison Finney (I was then User:neilinoz)
  • Talk:List_of_born-again_Christian_laypeople#Infamous_people_categorization
  • Talk:Flinders Island
-- One Salient Oversight 12:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support
  1. David Cannon 00:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC). I support this user. I think his NPOV credentials are impeccable. As a Pentecostal myself, I keep a sharp eye out for anti-Pentecostal POV, and would not be slow to spot it. If this user hadn't stated his personal anti-Pentecostal beliefs here, I would not have known it. He does a better job of hiding his POV than many who have been sysops since Adam was a cowboy (and don't forget, I'm saying that as someone whose personal POV is the opposite of his). Support him strongly.
  2. I've had very good experiences in working with him (we both edited in articles relating to actress Hunter Tylo who is a born-again Christian). I support gladly. Mike H 02:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support I do not believe in a self-nomination and a sponsored-nomination, they are both the same. I have not seen this user do anything bad and trust that he or she will use admin powers to good use. Squash 05:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 19:41, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. I note from experience the difficulty in being a Christian Wikipedian, and would characterize many of the religion articles as third-rail issues that frequently lead those who touch them to burn out on conflict. In contrast, "Salient"'s efforts have been factual and evenhanded. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. I found One Salient Oversight useful both in terms of information about Christianity and how things work at wikipedia when I was encountering problems with a Christian who I felt was putting very strong biases into Javier Solana; he was supporting me the self confessed non-Christian who actually didn't want any subtle religious elements coming into what should be a straightforward political article. I haven't read any of his edits; I would imagine he could make a quite contentious admin, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. --SqueakBox 02:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Heavy POV is unsuitable for adminship. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. As far as I can see, does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 08:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. No summaries given for edits. Pavel Vozenilek 22:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for now, no edit summaries, subtle religious POV, unconvinced on whether he really changes his mind as claimed. zen master T 00:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Would probably make a fine admin. However, banning users is dirty work, and a heavy POV--even a controlled one--does not lend itself well to such matters. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 02:28, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  2. By your criteria, Scott, many of not most present sysops would have to be fired. I know many who express strong POVs privately, as well as on their user pages. To apply your criteria would disqualify many of our very best admins. David Cannon 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. True. I guess it just strikes me that OSO wants adminship specifically to ban users he's been having problems with. I'm certain this isn't the case, but the heavy POV combined with the desire to ban problem users makes me a little uneasy. -- Scott eiπ + 1 = 0 04:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. agree with both Scott and David. banning users, and the implication seems to be, banning users that annoy OSO, not intervening in disputes he has no interest in, as the main motivation for a self-nomination made me hesitate to cast my vote. dab () 08:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral for now, until I do more research about this POV thing. --Lst27 (talk) 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comments
  • User:One Salient Oversight has 2481 edits, 1558 to the main namespace. – ABCD 16:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Questions for the candidate
    A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
    1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

    A. Investigating abuses by users; mediation between warring users; banning users who deserve banning;

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

    A. Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief, 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Charles Grandison Finney, Abortion and Evangelical Christians, Accommodation, Sydney Anglicans, Ride (band), Expository preaching. I am the major contributor to all these articles ie I wrote the majority of the text. They are good examples of my writing, and show quite clearly how I am able to put aside any POV in order to write a good article.

    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 will deal with it in the future?

    A'. Most users I get on with famously. Only those who threaten me and start calling me names are the ones who get my goat up.


     
    Comments

    There are no Comments yet




    last seen
    Most vists