358:. Seems like basically a good person who tries to add good content to WP, but his articles are often VfDed or speedied, particularly as neologisms, which suggests he needs more time to get used to WP before adminship. Also, a nomination by an anon/new user is worrying, though I'm not sure it should be considered a sock--there'd be no reason for it, as self-noms are allowed. In addition, responses to the questions below indicate that Sam is only interested in editing and creating articles, neither of which need admin privileges.
669:
might get harassed by a request for de-adminship - I can't elaborate further because I have to go pummel another troll on RFA." If there were no policy against personal attacks, I would use take the words "hypocrite" and "some of you", combine them, and make a meaningful sentence. The meaning of this
103:
It's unlikely you'd get a straight answer (if you got an answer at all) out of
Samurai if you asked him if he wanted to end this prematurely. I concur with Radiant; this is just a personal attack magnet and probably a bad-faith nomination. If it needs to stand, though, I guess policy is policy...
476:. Sockpuppetry, unauthorized closure of VfD, and a slew of absurd contributions. Erratic to say the least. I think he's shown a rather selective lack of comprehension and deserves no good faith presumption at this point, but of course even that presumption would not sustain this nomination.
707:
I have a user page now (albeit only a stub). I have been editing
Knowledge for some time, but never found it necessary to create a username, until some individuals decided that it was "vandalism" to make a RFA nomination as an anonymous user. Since anonymous users are considered second-class
726:
As stated above, this was only one of the reasons. As an anonymous user, I was accused of "vandalism" for creating perfectly sensible redirects, due to the stererotypes of anonymous users. I created an account to avoid the stigma attached to anonymity. Being accused of "vandalism" for a RFA
563:
has variously used "GoofyGuy" and "TheSamurai" in his signatures, but there are no other usernames, except for some anonymous edits before the creation of the
SamuraiClinton username. See Uncle G's analysis in the RfC I linked above for more on the anonymous contributions.
139:
to his nominator suggests he is not interested, and it is unfair to expose a user to the scrutinizing criticism of an RFA when he does not wish to seek the position. Any user is free to strike or remove this comment if
SamuraiClinton accepts his nomination. β
516:
SamuraiClinton's contributions to date do not yet indicate a good understanding of
Wikipedian consensus, or good technical skills with respect to editing or following procedure. He should not be proposed for sysop until he is generally regarded as a reliable
300:. Needs to do more edit summaries; idiosyncratic behaviour described in RfC suggests that SamuraiClinton is still getting the hang of Knowledge operation. Answers to questions below seem to indicate a lack of interest in adminship anyway. --
91:
Yes, SamuraiClinton should get his 7 days, just like everybody else does. He has a right to enjoy a proper RFA, regardless of how much opposition he has recieved. Unless of course, he consents to this RFA being closed prematurely.
851:
has not declined the nomination (despite my request to him on his talk page) and has even answered the questions below. I'm not sure what to make of it but that implies acceptance of the nomination to me. β
423:
1) The user should explicitly support his nomination 2) I'll never vote for a user who has a blank user page. A little info on himself would go a long way in gaining the trust of the community.
188:. There are many other reasons to oppose Samurai's candidacy, but this one is close to my heart (close enough to not even wait for Samurai to even say if s/he desires the adminship).
959:
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?
78:, and 3) in danger of becoming a personal attack magnet. To me, there seems little reason to continue discussing it. Are there any objections to closing it prematurely?
781:
SamuraiClinton currently has 1160 total edits: 954/23 to articles/talk, 93/3 to
Knowledge/talk, 41 to User talk, 26/8 to Category/talk, and 11/1 to Template/talk. β
212:. SamuraiClinton either does not understand the concept of consensus or chooses to ignore it when it doesn't suit his needs, as evidenced at the VfD discussion for
521:
which at this writing he is not. Generally speaking I would not think people should expect to be appointed admins while they have an active RFC criticizing them.
746:
596:
581:
452:
315:
209:
290:. Nothing personal, mind you. Sam is currently the subject of a rather lively request for comment on behavior that can best be described as idiosyncratic. -
998:
826:
As a technical note, I wouldn't characterize an anon nominating someone as "vandalism," but the nominator should have noted the policy stated above that:
213:
66:
SamuraiClinton is a prolific contributor with a strong interest in participating in the
Knowledge community. I think he would make a fine administrator.
715:
Color me naive and/or conservative but a person who creates a user account for the primary purpose of nominating someone for Admin also troubles me.
338:. SamuraiClinton is eager to contribute, and full of good intentions, but he has made a fair number of blunders. He needs to settle down a little.
928:
318:). I also have very great reservations about the motives of the nominator. Finally, his answers to the candidate questions are not very good. --
314:. SamuraiClinton might be a good admin some time in the future, but right now he simply lacks the maturity and common-sense required (see the
626:
the nominator with rotten vegetables, since luring
SamuraiClinton into being pummeled seems to have been the only point of this exercise. --
237:. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. This is part of how one communicates with other editors.
812:
980:
269:. I believe that an Admin needs to exhibit a sincere and helpful state of mind. This can not be expressed in words but in deeds. I
657:
Come on, guys. If a vote is like 0-10, there's no reason to keep voting with simply more damaging remarks. And anyway, isn't this
30:
17:
670:
hypothetical meaningful sentence shall never be known, because, as you all know, there is a policy against personal attacks.
208:. (I'll take the answers to the questions below as an implicit acceptance of the nomination.) Many reasons are listed at his
436:
745:
Color me naive and/or conservative but I still feel that this nomination was made in bad faith since the candidate is on
595:
Color me naive and/or conservative but I still feel that this nomination was made in bad faith since the candidate is on
832:
Agree with IMeowbot. This nomination is a bad idea which smacks of deliberating trying to get
SamuraiClinton pummelled.
448:
277:
has this potential but is being influenced by others. Too bad. Be yourself and grow. Stupid me if I'm wrong on this.
152:
From his answers to the questions below, I infer that he does accept the nomination and so withdraw the note above. β
965:. Well, people send me messages concerning bogus contributions, but still; I have superior intentions for Knowledge.
885:) has only about twenty edits. It seems likely that he has other accounts as well; maybe a sock check is in order?
856:
156:
144:
945:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
924:
808:
305:
398:
one with which to trust with administratorship at this time. It's lt's nothing personal, it's just business.
882:
804:
872:
Even the name is similar. I think it's just about time we put a stop to this farce once and for all. -
853:
153:
141:
979:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
198:. Too suspicious nomination. No edit summaries, no answer to candidacy and seems to be conflictive. --
319:
189:
848:
569:
560:
543:
539:
391:
301:
274:
227:
178:
132:
109:
97:
48:
864:
This whole thing is getting more and more suspicious. Android seems to think an a new user named
889:
631:
525:
411:
82:
487:
865:
820:
765:
739:
720:
615:
589:
430:
135:
accepts the nomination or somehow indicates that he is interested in pursuing adminship. His
74:
By the comments below, this nomination seems to be 1) doomed to fail, 2) toeing the line for
786:
701:
674:
554:
402:
281:
260:
244:
243:
Holding vote. It appears this user is not seeking adminship (see note by Knowledge Seeker).
238:
828:
Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.
923:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about
903:
899:
800:
728:
709:
644:
490:
381:
75:
67:
550:
of this user's contributions before voting. Any other aka names that I should look atΒ ?
873:
662:
565:
359:
339:
291:
223:
105:
93:
992:
886:
627:
522:
408:
199:
79:
844:
840:
833:
816:
761:
735:
716:
611:
585:
477:
426:
329:
182:
451:
and regard SamuraiClinton's contributions as not malicious, the points raised in
782:
698:
671:
666:
551:
399:
278:
256:
973:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
641:
378:
892:
414:
85:
456:
349:
56:
902:, imho. LevelCheck's action unbecoming of what wikipedia is all about.
390:. Sorry for screaming but this vote is not difficult. I've looked into
983:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
689:
Color me naive and/or conservative but a nomination for Admin by a
937:. Just editing articles and creating new ones that come to mind.
59:
847:: this would appear to be a bad-faith nomination. However,
122:
Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here
377:
Specious nomination. The nominator should be censured.
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
915:
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
796:
708:
Wikicitizens, I chose to no longer retain that status.
220:
217:
186:
136:
881:
I must point out that LevelCheck's anonymous account (
455:
clearly indicate he's not yet mature for adminship.
394:contributions and have decided that this person is
661:the reason why half of you guys voted against
255:, per all the above; no need for repetition. β
453:Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/SamuraiClinton
8:
348:, all my reasons have already been said.
870:who slammed himself on his talk page.
486:, because of reasons stated above. --
7:
727:nomination was only the last straw.
999:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
760:more negative comments about him.
610:more negative comments about him.
24:
734:Ok, I'll agree with that reason.
328:. This is an absurd nomination.
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
447:. While I'm still prepared to
1:
898:this is a blatant eposide of
55:Final (0/18/5) ending 23:13,
929:administrators' reading list
911:Questions for the candidate
789:) 01:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
316:Request for Comments on him
263:) 01:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
1015:
230:00:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
88:11:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
895:11:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
836:05:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
797:SamuraiClinton's comments
742:03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
731:02:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
723:01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
712:01:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
704:00:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
592:03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
572:00:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
557:00:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
441:19:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
417:11:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
384:23:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
374:18:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
352:13:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
322:05:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
131:Please do not vote until
112:04:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
100:20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
70:23:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
976:Please do not modify it.
906:02:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
876:06:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
859:06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
823:01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
803:previously edited under
768:06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
679:22:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
654:12:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
634:02:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
618:06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
528:12:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
510:00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
480:08:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
470:18:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
405:00:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
342:08:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
332:07:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
308:03:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
294:03:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
284:02:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
247:00:45, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
241:00:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
202:23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
192:23:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
159:02:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
147:23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
40:Please do not modify it.
951:. Well, some probably.
868:is his own sockpuppet
31:request for adminship
883:User:63.173.114.137
849:User:SamuraiClinton
561:User:SamuraiClinton
542:the same person as
133:User:SamuraiClinton
546:? I should review
200:Neigel von Teighen
181:almost never puts
677:
648:
580:since user is on
449:assume good faith
360:Andrew Lenahan -
1006:
978:
854:Knowledge Seeker
799:, the nominator
675:
652:
649:
646:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
469:
465:
462:
459:
440:
372:
369:
366:
363:
216:(in particular,
154:Knowledge Seeker
142:Knowledge Seeker
42:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1005:
1004:
1003:
989:
988:
987:
981:this nomination
974:
650:
645:
506:
503:
500:
497:
494:
491:
467:
463:
460:
457:
424:
392:SamuraiClintons
370:
367:
364:
361:
190:Oleg Alexandrov
148:
52:
38:
35:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1012:
1010:
1002:
1001:
991:
990:
986:
985:
969:
968:
967:
966:
954:
953:
952:
940:
939:
938:
925:administrators
913:
908:
907:
896:
879:
878:
877:
862:
861:
860:
824:
805:63.173.114.137
790:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
697:troubles me.
681:
680:
655:
635:
621:
620:
619:
575:
574:
573:
540:SamuraiClinton
530:
529:
511:
481:
471:
442:
418:
406:
385:
375:
353:
343:
333:
323:
309:
302:TenOfAllTrades
295:
285:
275:SamuraiClinton
264:
250:
249:
248:
203:
193:
183:edit summaries
179:SamuraiClinton
170:
169:
161:
160:
127:
125:
124:
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
51:
49:SamuraiClinton
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1011:
1000:
997:
996:
994:
984:
982:
977:
971:
970:
964:
961:
960:
958:
955:
950:
947:
946:
944:
941:
936:
933:
932:
930:
926:
922:
919:
918:
917:
916:
912:
905:
901:
897:
894:
891:
888:
884:
880:
875:
871:
867:
863:
858:
855:
850:
846:
842:
839:I agree with
838:
837:
835:
831:
830:
829:
825:
822:
818:
814:
813:contributions
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
791:
788:
784:
780:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
748:
744:
743:
741:
737:
733:
732:
730:
725:
724:
722:
718:
714:
713:
711:
706:
705:
703:
700:
696:
692:
691:Not-logged-in
688:
687:
686:
685:
678:
673:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
643:
639:
636:
633:
629:
625:
622:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
598:
594:
593:
591:
587:
583:
579:
576:
571:
567:
562:
559:
558:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
534:
527:
524:
520:
515:
512:
509:
489:
485:
482:
479:
475:
472:
466:
454:
450:
446:
443:
438:
435:
432:
428:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
383:
380:
376:
373:
357:
354:
351:
347:
344:
341:
337:
334:
331:
327:
324:
321:
317:
313:
310:
307:
303:
299:
296:
293:
289:
286:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
262:
258:
254:
251:
246:
242:
240:
236:
232:
231:
229:
225:
221:
218:
215:
214:Autosexuality
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:
175:
174:
168:
167:
166:
165:
158:
155:
151:
150:
149:
146:
143:
138:
134:
130:
123:
120:
119:
111:
107:
102:
101:
99:
95:
90:
89:
87:
84:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
50:
47:
43:
41:
36:
32:
27:
26:
19:
975:
972:
962:
956:
948:
942:
934:
920:
914:
910:
909:
869:
866:SuperDude115
843:(above) and
827:
792:
757:
753:
750:
695:No-Page user
694:
690:
683:
682:
665:? "Oh dear,
658:
642:Comrade Nick
637:
623:
607:
603:
600:
577:
547:
532:
531:
519:contributor,
518:
513:
483:
473:
444:
433:
420:
395:
387:
355:
345:
335:
325:
311:
297:
287:
273:think that
270:
266:
252:
234:
233:
205:
195:
172:
171:
163:
162:
128:
126:
121:
65:
54:
53:
39:
34:
28:
667:User:Ugen64
245:Jonathunder
239:Jonathunder
904:Kingturtle
801:LevelCheck
729:LevelCheck
710:LevelCheck
68:LevelCheck
874:Lucky 6.9
845:JuntungWu
834:JuntungWu
795:Based on
751:will only
749:and this
601:will only
599:and this
340:Sjakkalle
292:Lucky 6.9
94:Frazzydee
993:Category
927:and the
900:WP:POINT
684:Comments
624:Bludgeon
544:GoofyGuy
523:Dpbsmith
437:contribs
76:WP:POINT
57:22 April
841:Zzyzx11
817:Zzyzx11
762:Zzyzx11
736:Zzyzx11
717:Zzyzx11
663:WP:RFDA
659:exactly
651:)---^--
638:Neutral
612:Zzyzx11
586:Zzyzx11
578:Abstain
566:android
533:Neutral
514:Oppose.
478:Postdlf
427:Nichalp
330:Firebug
224:android
164:Support
137:comment
106:android
890:adiant
783:Korath
699:hydnjo
552:hydnjo
526:(talk)
484:Oppose
474:Oppose
445:Oppose
421:Oppose
412:adiant
400:hydnjo
388:OPPOSE
356:Oppose
346:Oppose
336:Oppose
326:Oppose
312:Oppose
298:Oppose
288:Oppose
279:hydnjo
267:Oppose
257:Korath
253:Oppose
235:Oppose
206:Oppose
196:Oppose
185:, see
173:Oppose
83:adiant
793:Note:
756:cause
606:cause
488:Lst27
129:Note:
62:(UTC)
33:that
16:<
821:Talk
809:talk
787:Talk
766:Talk
740:Talk
721:Talk
702:talk
672:ugen
632:Meow
616:Talk
590:Talk
570:talk
555:talk
538:Is
458:Vlad
431:talk
403:talk
379:Rick
306:Talk
282:talk
261:Talk
228:talk
219:and
110:talk
60:2005
931:.)
815:).
754:has
747:RFC
693:or
628:iMb
604:has
597:RFC
582:RFC
548:all
396:not
368:bli
350:Rje
222:).
210:RfC
995::
957:3.
943:2.
921:1.
893:_*
819:|
811:|
764:|
738:|
719:|
676:64
640:--
614:|
588:|
584:.
468:Ω
439:)=
415:_*
371:nd
365:ar
362:St
320:FP
304:|
271:do
86:_*
37:.
963:A
949:A
935:A
887:R
857:দ
807:(
785:(
758:d
647:@
630:~
608:d
568:β
507:)
504:k
501:l
498:a
495:t
492:(
464:V
461:M
434:Β·
429:(
425:=
409:R
382:K
259:(
226:β
157:দ
145:দ
108:β
98:β
96:|
92:-
80:R
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.