Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IvoShandor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

IvoShandor[edit]

Closed as consensus not reached by Cecropia 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC) at (61/31/4); Scheduled end time 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IvoShandor (talk · contribs) - An excellent user who approached me in April for admin coaching. We decided to put off an RfA until May/June so here it is. He writes articles and is one of the most prolific DYK contributors,[1] he's written 10 good articles and see his userpage for loads more stuff he's done. His talk page is inundated with thankyou's and barnstars. Since September 3rd last year (9 months for the lazy people) he's been making Wikipedia a better place. I think he's a great candidate who has the knowledge and patience to help out wherever necessary, giving him the bit just extends his ability to help. James086Talk | Email 13:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Wizardman: I originally tried to get him to run for adminship a month ago, but he declined, deciding to wait until now. He does a lot of great work over at WP:GA, writing article and getting them to GA status, participating at good article review, etc. The 12K edits don't hurt either. He's also part of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. This combined with his participation in DYK has really shown that he understands the project. The more admins we have to update DYK the better, so he definitely has a need for the tools.--Wizardman 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by «Snowolf How can I help?»: It seems that IvoShandor has now finally accepted a nom ;-). There is nothing that I can add more to what James086 & Wizardman has already said. «Snowolf How can I help?» 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. IvoShandor 14:09, 5 June 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: Well, just throughout the course of editing and working in places like peer review and GA I come across a lot of images that claim fair use but don't quite make the grade. I have also come across articles I could have deleted, but not as much as images I think I could be useful cleaning up backlogs in the speedy categories for articles and images, eventually I would like to become involved in closing AfDs and have had some experience in discussions there too. In addition I intend to help out at DYK, updating the template and such.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have a lot that I think are well done. Rock Springs Massacre is just a touch away from an FA nom, I think it's a good article and several other users have significantly contributed to it via discussion and edits. I have brought several articles to Good article status. Lately I have been working on some of Frank Lloyd Wright's works in Illinois, I find it especially fulfilling and think that several of the articles are well done (of course they could be expanded). In general I have done a lot for WikiProject Illinois and the National Register of Historic Places WP, but my contributions run the gamut, I have a sub page of stuff here. I take a lot of pictures too and add them where I can. (Commons gallery, not all of these are in articles yet but many are)
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: Yes, unfortunately. A conflict over an article I was probably too close to (DeKalb, Illinois) stands out prominently. User:JazzButcher and I didn't see eye to eye and I lashed out him, badly I might add. (diff) ( I am User:A mcmurray btw - for full disclosure). Anyway, I snapped one evening, editing, well, not sober. I don't do that anymore (nor did I do it before that night), that was bad and I felt bad, I apologized to the user, who was fairly good spirited considering the nature of my comments. I ended up temporarily unwatching the page as well. I awarded him a barnstar and never really saw him again on the encyclopedia.
That was in February. Since then, I haven't had any conflicts and have been civil even while being involved in heated discussions that resulted in personal attacks against me, but I take things in stride now and don't let the Wiki ruin my day, ever. In short, I learned well from my uncivil behavior. While I realize that some may oppose based on that incident my actions since (and before really) speak for themselves and I hope you will consider that and my body of work over one trip up.
As for future conflict, I intend to deal with it in a civil manner. My entire approach changed because of that one incident, I no longer feel like so much is at stake because things here are only temporary and discussion goes a long way. For example, I have found that most of the time it never even becomes necessary to report vandals because the warnings work. That "final warning" stops a lot of vandals right in their tracks, I like solving things in that fashion because it really does leave me with a good feeling. The whole purpose of the project is upheld better that way.

Optional question from Gaff

4.You wrote, on the Cow tipping talk page, "pop culture references are trivia and thus don't belong in an encyclopedia article. They add nothing to anyone's knowledge..." I responded in disagreement, but unfortunately never got a reply. It seems you grew frustrated by some other editorial inanity and left the page altogether. I can think of situations, this being one, where pop-culture references are informative and do in fact belong in an encyclopedia article. Can you elaborate on your position regarding pop-culture references?
Yeah, those shenanigans over there. No disrespect meant to you by not responding. The deal is, I think that for that page the pop culture items serve no purpose, there must be literally thousands of pop culture refs to cow tipping, in that particular case they served no purpose and the article would be better without them, just my opinion. Sure they have there place, it really depends upon the article and the nature of the references in pop culture. IvoShandor 05:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Anonymous Dissident

5. Many of the opposing votes are due to your lack of civility in this situation. What should you have done in that situation, per WP:CIV?

Of course, now this is too obvious, at the time, overcome with anger and frustration it was not. Clearly, personal attacks accomplish nothing, I should have known better. I should have simply assumed good faith, calm, rational discussion goes a lot further. If I felt myself getting angry or frustrated (which I did in the lead up to this) I should have stepped away and let others handle it (which is ultimately what did happen). I have said before that it was both a bad attack and wrong, if I cannot make up for it with 12,000 other civil contributions then so be it, I only want to help the project and if that isn't clear from my body of work here then it probably never will be. Regardless, the behavior was inexcusable, but I cannot believe an isolated incident is enough of a reason not to trust me with the admin tools/mop. IvoShandor 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from AldeBaer

6. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
  • As said, I too started out as a reader, for months, really a couple years before I ever made an edit. One of my favorite pages is still List of literary terms, just because it is literally hours and hours of interesting reading. I also distinctly remember being drawn into the Wiki for many hours via Portmanteau and Spoonerism, good times to be sure. Exploding whales never fails to make me laugh and I have stumbled across many articles randomly that I enjoy, I have a list on my user page of the top five or six. IvoShandor 11:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in case you didn't check, or anyone for that matter, here is the short list of articles I was either amused, flabbergasted or amazed by their subject matter.
Carbon tax - Cheshire Mammoth Cheese - Hemoptysis - More cowbell - Penis Plant - Sedlec Ossuary - Santa Maria della Concezione dei Cappuccini.

IvoShandor 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Optional question from ^demon[reply]

7. What is wheel warring mean to you, and how would you react to an admin attempting to wheel war your decisions?
  • Discussion, it is simple to stop wheel warring, (and it is of course when Admins challenge each others decisions and engage in what would be an edit war for a admin-less user. It's much more disruptive because of the types of actions admins are allowed to take. Anyway, by first approaching the user and the approaching others that might have an interest consensus can be established and wheel warring avoided. Just because someone disagrees with and reverses my decision doesn't mean I should automatically do the same to them. IvoShandor 11:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from TonyTheTiger

8. Can you explain your username change?
  • It was for privacy reasons. Do you require any further explanation? If so let me know and I will respond in an email. IvoShandor 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • For those voting oppose per Gaff's diff, Ivo basically said that he made a mistake back then on Q3, I believe that he has clearly learned from this mistake and improved since then. Keep in mind that's it's been three months since that one isolated incident.--Wizardman 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: "Gaff's diff" was brought up not by me, but by IvoShandor. He outed himself on this issue, which I think shows a great deal of forthrightness. I support this user's adminship, having encountered him in editing other pages and found him quite civil.—Gaff ταλκ 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to ask a question of the community (ie, anyone and everyone); how long would it take for the incident to "blow over". It has been 3 months since and 6 months previously without a scent of incivility. This was a once off and I think it has been long enough since, not to overlook it, but to realise there is no pattern. 3 months is enough for me, but what about the community? James086Talk | Email 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One mistake is all it takes for an admin to go to far. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? There are back up procedures for handling admins that "go too far." There really is nothing to suggest that IvoShandar would go "too far", aside from this isolated incident that happened months ago, as a user, not an admin...—Gaff ταλκ 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that, whatever justice happens to be, this rfa will soon be in the hands of a bureaucrat. Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would opposers be soothed by a breathalyzer that could be hooked to IvoShandor's computer that prevented him from editing while intoxicated? This device, once sensing alcohol on the editor's breath, could then commence to ROK the intoxicated editor's SHIT, thereby making it impossible for such a situation to ever occur. This user admitted this up front, and a trend that I am seeing at RfA is that we are telling users to be dishonest in this process, do not say what you think and don't honestly answer the questions. If a person can't support this RfA because they genuinely feel there will be incivility issues, then that is fine, but this user should also be commended for his honesty and potential opposers should consider his honesty. daveh4h 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Exactly. MastCell Talk 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)As a note, I could have attempted to hide it, if I wanted to. I chose not to. It is likely, had I attempted to hide it, I may have slid through without it being noticed, I have had a user name change since that incident (for unrelated reasons). But I brought it up, apparently worth nothing, but I still I did bring it up, no one else. IvoShandor 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. It's kinda sad that had you gone at lengths to hide that one day you would've passed with flying colors. Instead you fess up, which should actually show that you learn from mistakes and are honest, but people can't put that one bad day aside even though we need more admins. I stand by my nom even though it's not gonna pass.--Wizardman 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom.--Wizardman 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support since I already thought he was an admin. -N 23:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - has done excellent work at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The incident described in Q3 appears to be a one-time incident and an aberration. All other user talk edits have been polite and helpful. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate as he's confident he can be trusted with the tools (added on 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  5. Support as one of his nominators. James086Talk | Email 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support User seems to be ok for adminship although I wonder about the diff Gaff provided. Captain panda 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support People on here do tend to hold people to too high of a standard, when they should go by the saying "don't throw rocks in a glass house". One incident in 12222 edits. Lets see, if I do my math right that would make 0.0001% that he made a mistake. I can guarantee that most people that oppose for this reason have had incidents in their past also. Mistakes happen, and you move on. Now if you listed off 10 incidents of the exact same nature, then I might reconsider.--Kranar drogin 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I've thought about the comments that I made in the neutral section. I think there is way more good in this editor's record and that this editor will do well as an admin (provided no more wiki-ing while drinking...)—Gaff ταλκ 02:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just remember: Wikiepdia is not that important!—Gaff ταλκ 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, excellent contributor to Illinois related articles, NRHP articles and excellent GA reviewer. I believe that a lesson has been learned by the response to Q3 above. I fully trust that IvoShandor will not use the admin tools for "bizarre rituals, intended to bring about the end of the world". --Dual Freq 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support and a disapproving look to the opposers for digging up one incident upon which to base an oppose. Welcome to the American Political System, where if a person messes up one time, it makes the inelligible to hold a position for anything. It's unseemly that such an accomplished and dedicated editor has one moment used against them, as if their over 12,000 edits count for naught. This simply is becoming a problem on Wikipedia. It keeps good editors shut out, and imparts a self-righteousness unto the already-ordained. Glass houses, indeed. This sort of attitude is becoming a problem on Wikipedia. Give the guy a break. --David Shankbone 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Somewhere between weak support and support - per the above. The support is weakened by the first oppose, but I still support because I dont think that a single mistake he made back in February should ruin his chance at the mop in June. If he has learnt his lesson about civility, then there is no reason he shouldnt be given the mop. Anonymous Dissident Utter 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support There does not seem to be a pattern of incivility or irresponsible behavior, and the editor seems to have learned from their mistake. I trust that we shall have no further instances of editing while intoxicated? Carom 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never would again, never did before, big mistake, what can I say beside sorry. IvoShandor 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, the only reason people are opposing is one diff that would've gotten lost if the candidate didn't point it out himself. So he's a little less than perfect, but also pretty honest. Every other contrib I looked at seemed good to me. - Bobet 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. The diffs raised are very concerning. But given that it seems to have been an isolated incident, the candidate has taken appropriate steps to apologize and make amends, and the candidate was open about it and has given an explanation, I will support. Zaxem 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. One mistake (am I very wrong to find it funny?) should be assuaged by the clear contrition and promise not to edit Wikipedia in an unfit manner again. Neil ╦ 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I will support even though the comments are an embarrassment. I do note that he has apologized here for the remarks and it is true that there is no pattern of such conduct. Intoxication is also no excuse but I think enough time has passed and the contributions prove, that this user can be trusted. JodyB talk 11:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I first met Ivo when s/he provided a very helpful peer review on a list I was working on. We have had some interactions since, all very positive. I know the backlog at WP:PR and appreciate all Ivo's work there and elsewhere. While I do not excuse the JazzButcher incident, I think it should be seen in the perspecvtive of its isolated nature, IvoShandor's apology and candor in pointing it out above, and relative to IvoShandor's many positive contributions before and since. FOr me the many positives outweigh one negative. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. (Changed from neutral.) Although I was initially concerned by the diff cited by many of the opposers, it is important to me that it was the candidate who brought it up and has "repented". Looking through the other contributions and talk (I've left these below in the neutral section), I see many positive contributions, a great attitude, and a firm grasp of policy combined with judicious application. I think the project will be best served by making him an admin. Bucketsofg 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support candidate repented for what seems to be his only mistake. BH (Talk) 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I've encountered Ivo many times over the course of the months i've been doing stuff in the GA process, and the diffs being used in the oppose votes below couldn't be more out of character than if someone had actually hacked his account in an effort to have fun spewing random vulgarities at people. Alcohol can make anyone in the world do stupid things, that's probably why drunkeness is a sin anyway, but more to the point, as far as i've seen, the below diffs probably couldn't be more out of character for Ivo even if Ivo had been trying to be out of character while not being drunk. Homestarmy 16:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support. The personal attack diff is very, very disturbing. However, I do not think this user will make the same mistake again. But a word of warning: If you hold your status as an admin over someone in a similar fashion, I will support your immediate desysopping. Abeg92contribs 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - The attack was discouraging, but his response calmed a lot of my fears. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - What we have here is a good editor who's gone through the process of becoming such via making certain, shall we say, blunders along the way. As someone with similar and worse actions in my editing history, I can understand where he's coming from, and commend his enthusiasm for standing up to what he is, was, and has been. Let he who is yadda yadda yadda, something about stone... --Agamemnon2 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Exceptionally brilliant editor. There was one error in the past and s/he has already acknowledged it. This shouldn't be a problem at all. Peacent 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support Civility is essential for me, but the candidate has a great edit history and deserves credit for pointing it out up front. I'm pretty confident he won't act this way again. Just keep the wine coolers in the fridge from now on, okay? KrakatoaKatie 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support While the quoted comments mentioned in the opposes were a bit bad and the profanities were excessive, it was several months ago and he later apologized, and I think if he just toned it down to unvulgar complaints and a sole vulgarity of "I WILL FUCKING ROK YOUR SHIT" with the intentional misspelling, that would be better and it would seem less nasty and more silly. I also must point out that SlimVirgin who started the opposes also did a thread elsewhere (related to the Runcorn socks) saying that some people will keep all their incivilities on just one account and then make a new account that only does vandal fighting and avoids conflicts so when it gets nominated for adminship it has a clean record and SlimVirgin says that sort of thing is bad and it's better to see how people handle disputes then having them hiding them. IvoShandor got in a dispute and then later apologized. I don't think that's too bad. Also, IvoShandor, I think, is a pretty light-hearted and funny guy. He made this very humorous comment here that I loved so much I put it on my userpage. SakotGrimshine 23:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support based on a strong history of civility despite the clearly problematic lapse. -- DS1953 talk 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support The National Register of Historic Places WikiProject wouldn't have gotten nearly as far without his tireless efforts. He does lots of work on Illinois articles in general. I've seen him be nothing but civil, friendly, and amazingly helpful. The only reason I have for wishing him not to become an admin is purely selfish. He'll have less time to work on the NRHP Wikiproject. Yep, don't wanna share, but I have to look to the greater good, and he'd do wonders as an admin, imho. :) -Ebyabe 01:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support You are quite fit for a mop. Gdk411 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I must admit, the below diffs are a bit worrying (despite the fact that I had a little chuckle reading them). But his judgement was obviously impaired if he was intoxicated, so why not let that slide? I feel that, looking at his contributions and otherwise perfect civility record, they outweigh the negativities of that lapse. Support from me—arf! 05:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support If the one instance of severe incivility had ever been repeated I would oppose. But there is no pattern of ill-temper, rather a one-off and uncharacteristic blemish to an otherwise energetic and productive record. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools - aforementioned incident does not affect ability to use tools, and behavior since that incident shows a high level of maturity that there isn't a huge concern of the incident being repeated. PGWG 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support IvoShandor appears to have apologized for his mistake, and regrets his error. I believe he will not make that error again, as he knows it is harmful both to the project and the users, as well as to the person it was directed at. That incident was from almost four months ago, and IvoShandor seems to have changed for the better since then. Acalamari 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Sorry, I don't think "I was drunk" is really a good enough excuse. I don't think there is a good enough excuse. I wouldn't hold it against you forever, but for now I think I have to oppose. (switching to support) Actually, on second thoughts, I'll go ahead and support you anyway. In my short time as an editor here I've been tempted to lash at people myself (though I haven't) and well, everyone makes mistakes. The fact that he brought it up himself and admits that there are no excuses for it makes me respect him. Kamryn Matika 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support A fine user that would make a great admin. All this judging over a single incident (with nothing to suggest it's more than an one time incident) is IMHO pretty lame. --Bjarki 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Stong Support. Three months, six months or a year is not enough to make an incident such as the one described here blow over. However, five minutes of typing is not enough to make three months, six months or (nearly) a year of strong, valuable editing and contribution disappear. IvoShandor remains an exceptional editor, despite those one or two dodgy diffs. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Clearly that single grossly uncivil and offensive edit was absolutely unacceptable. But it is the only unacceptable edit that I see in 12,000+. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.--Anthony.bradbury 23:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I am confident that he would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. A Full "yeah read me" Support While Ivo is definitely asking for some friendly ribbing, I don't want his RFA to be sunk by this one incident (1 edit out of 12,000 a 8.333333e-5%). However, in the future please don't drink and edit again. But if you do I WILL F***ING ROK YOUR SHIT. Best of luck on your RFA, I hope others will take the long term view and see the benefit of you being an administrator. --MichaelLinnear 06:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Changed to support after examining more of the candidate's contrib history. I trust you have learned your lesson and apart from that one multiple incidents, you seem to be a good user. Maybe we can arrange an off-wiki drunken shouting tournament one day, to release wiki-stress, how about it? —AldeBaer 10:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Seems to have made amends for past incivility, understands what the tools are for. —Ocatecir Talk 23:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. A long, positive record vastly outweighs one incident of incivility. I am concerned about admins who genuinely do not respect the importance of being civil to others, and that is something I can only judge by an extended history of behavior—certainly not by one drunken night. Everyking 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support ROK on ~ Infrangible 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. One bad night in nine months and two bad edits out of 12000 shouldn't preclude you from becoming an admin. I will also note that you made no attempt to hide your mistakes or the reaction to them (you chose to preserve them in your talk page archive). Your honesty makes me want to trust you. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. support I believe this guy has done well. One bad night should not keep him from becoming an admin. Politics rule 04:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support This editor is a great contributor - and he will know better than to log on when he is intoxicated after he becomes an admin. One mistake - even one as silly as the example given - does not create an absolute oppose for me in this RfD. --VS talk 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support, while the civility issue raised below is upsetting, I believe all in all you'd be a decent admin (and I liked your answer to my question). ^demon[omg plz] 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not see how you can just ignore his incivility issues. First of all, he made multiple incivil comments, second of all, they were recent. I could see supporting him now if he only made one bad comments or if he made as many bad comments a year ago, but he made 3 recently. It is important for an admin to be civil.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those three though were basically in the same timespan, where counting them as one is acceptable. As for recent, that's up to interpretation, alas 3 months isn't enough for many.--Wizardman 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Don't editors that come here to RfA with squeaky clean records make you nervous? Maybe just a little? Well, they do me. This editor has came to this RfA and admitted his mistake, hoping you'd understand it, and instead he's told he should have kept that to himself. I don't want to send that message. His honesty is commendable and his contributions look great. daveh4h 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support His contributions are numerous, and of high quality. His honesty is refreshing. One mistake is nothing; if we removed admins on the same basis we appear to refuse admitting them, then we'd be admin-less in a year. --Haemo 08:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support not only because he has a record of being a good editor, and an excellent writer, which is exactly what we need around here, but he was very honest in his full disclosure. I would prefer to have an admin who admits mistakes rather than hides them. If he had hidden the mistake and someone had told me about it, then this would be a strong oppose. But, the conclusion to all that rambling is that he has contributed significantly, made one isolated mistake, and learned from that, so I think he'll do an excellent job as admin. Also, I agree with Haemo on the admin-less point. Peace, Neranei 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a good writer doesn't make someone a good admin. It wasn't him who pointed out his incivil edit. Epbr123 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not reading - it was IvoShandor who pointed out the edit (at the very beginning above in the questions), and this has mentioned numerous times in this discussion. Please pay attention. Thanks. --David Shankbone 16:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. Forthrightly presenting one's mistakes is a plus; don't take that away from IvoShandor. MastCell Talk 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong moral and actual support. My first instinct was to oppose based on The Diff. But it's not so much what you do; it's what you do next. IvoShandor admitted his mistake and apologized. That goes a long way. Admins make mistakes, and they get annoyed. Do we want an admin who is willing to admit and attempt to correct his mistakes, or one who circles the wagons and responds defensively? Few, if any, admin actions are irreversible; the problem isn't bad admin decisions made in the heat of the moment, but unwillingness to admit a mistake. Anyone with 12,000 edits is going to have some whoppers, but I'm impressed both with the full disclosure in Q3 and the apology he made at the time. I can't, in good conscience, oppose someone for one mistake in 12,000 edits, which they immediately recognized and attempted to correct. This is an example of how we're potentially excluding people who would make good admins (based on a Supreme-Court-confirmation-style approach to one diff out of context), and why keeping a low profile and making only non-controversial vandalism reverts is an effective way of gaming the RfA system. I don't want that to be the case. MastCell Talk 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. He's a good editor, and anyone with enough integrity to show one of their own mistakes when asking for a "promotion" says a lot. SU Linguist 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support on the basis that responding to criticism and being critical is not the same thing as being incivil. Admitting one's own mistake is the sign of a good user. Too many people hide being the Good Faith and Civility shrouds in order to avoid criticism themselves, so to admit a fault shows maturity, and that is what is needed in an admin - even if one time he got a little hot under the collar - after all, we're all human, aren't we?
    — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I am very impressed in my dealings with IvoShandor. My most frequent interactions with him have been at WikiProject Chicago's section for Newly Created Pages where I as the Project Director review new pages for minor tweakings and at WP:GAC where he as a reviewer has been active in many of my GAC nominations. He consistently produces high quality new pages at the intersection of our project and his WP:NRHP interest. We at WPChi are quite fortunate to be the beneficiary of his geographic placement because he does great work on local National Register of Historic Places listings. At GAC he provides detailed feedback that helps people interested enough in improving the project to nominate articles for GAC to continue improving the project after the conclusion of a nommination. His feedback is among the best of the reviewers I have dealt with at GAC. You can see that I know of what I speak on this matter because I represent 2 of the 3 formerly failed GACs that have become GAs from his review pool. In general, I trust his opinion and would trust his judgment with more extensive powers. One thing I would like to see from him is more detail on his affiliation with WP:LOCE (possibly a separate page documenting specific involvement). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak support. Weak, because of the diffs; support, because I believe there won't be a repetition. I should add I've seen IvoShandor around GA and he's a productive and valuable editor there. Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Obviously The Incident is troubling. My gut feeling is that he's learned his lesson and won't do it again. And everything else about him is positive. Herostratus 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per the three nominators, their descriptive paragraphs of IvoShandor's contributions to the project says it all. Smee 06:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  58. Support Having interacted well with this user in the past, I believe he will do well with the tools. He has been an asset to the GA process, and I think that he has learned how to handle himself better and wants to continue to improve Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've met several admins who are a lot less civil than IvoShandor. Epbr123 10:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. support - ivo has shown consistent commitment to improving multiple areas of wikipedia as outlined above. my observations of ivo's activities at WPChi, NRHP, and GAR have been nothing but positive. ivo's high level of responsiveness and assistance is impressive. ChicagoPimp 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I add my support. There is not much else I can say that has not already been said in support of Ivo. I feel the user can be trusted with the tools (and who here honestly has not had one or two slip-ups while editing Wikipedia)?--Ozgod 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Sorry, but the diff [1] pointed out below by Gaff is a bit worrying. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment also seems to be from IvoShandor. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not voting or anything but Id like to point out that that comment was made the same night as the comment Ivo Shandor mentioned above and under the same drunken circumstances, so I'm hoping it would be considered the same one-bad-night kind of incident--SebastianBean 03:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So the moral of the story is what, not to log in to Wikipedia while intoxicated? -- Phoenix2 (holla) 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the moral for you is not to focus on one incident to condemn an accomplished editor who shows no pattern of such behavior. That's a little harsh, don't you think? I don't really see the value in fishing through a person's edit history looking for something to damn them, and then jumping on it with an oppose. You got anything else, or is that all? It's pretty unfair, Phoenix, and unbecoming to rush to judge. --David Shankbone 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record Gaff didn't point out the diff, I did, above in my questions. Simple oversight I am sure. IvoShandor 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks, Mr. Shankbone, for jumping on me when it is not simply I that thinks this is a big deal. Your argument was rendered useless anyway, since the candidate brought it up himself. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the rush to judge over one mistake bit. Still very apropos. --David Shankbone 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Until we have an explanation to those diffs. --ST47Talk 00:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He pointed that diff out himself and gave an explanation on it in the same sentence in question 3. Please try to pay attention. - Bobet 09:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose "Cursing like a sailor" at a fellow Wikipedia shows anger problems, immaturity. An expletive here and there is one thing (and is still not good), but those diffs are disgusting. Xoloz 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per diff presented below and that by Jazz above. That is seriously concerning. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above diffs - unacceptable for an editor, let alone an admin. Crum375 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose civility is extremely important for administrators. Prodego talk 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now. This diff concerns me greatly. The arguments have been made about civility, but that this was also just one incident, etc., etc., but I was upset by something else altogether. In the comment, in attacking the spammer, IvoShandor asserts "I am an established user and your a fuck, so fuck off." This makes me think he believes his status as "an established editor" makes his interpretation of policy more valid. I can only surmise he will view adminship as another title or status-level rather than just a few more tools, which is all it is. GoodnightmushTalk 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Suppose that's enough proof for me. As long as adminship is just a few more needed tools then I can't oppose. GoodnightmushTalk 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really cannot surmise anything from one incident, regardless you are enititled to your opinion and thanks for taking the time to comment here, as far as status goes that's not why I am here. I sincerely think I can help out the project, status means nothing around here and regardless of the outcome of this RfA I have established myself as someone who can be trusted on the Wiki, either way you go thanks. IvoShandor 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this aid your decision: [2]. That was April 10 when he approached me for admin coaching. We agreed to put it off until June because there was definitely a problem then. "Oh well, it's not that big of deal, adminship, I mean. Maybe I will just forget about and keep working on the project as I have been." This doesn't indicate that he thinks of admin tools as a status level. Thanks, James086Talk | Email 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't worry much about civility, but "you got the guts to change some shit on wikipedia but ill fuck your ass up", et al. are clearly not acceptable. Drunkenness is not an excuse, nor is "it happened 3.5 months ago". Ral315 » 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment You may all be correct, but there is no pattern of this incivility, and he was intoxicated at the time. I think that, whether it be incivility to a lesser extent, or a couple of images that did not have a fair-use rationale, or a copy-vio, every user has made their mistakes. IvoShandor is unfortunate - that little piece of his history has been dredged up from the talk archives and used against him as one of the only current catalysts for opposition. I bet other people who have been promoted to adminship have simply been luckier, their little mistakes not found amongst the masses of good and well-meaning edits. People have to decide - will they let this small case of incivility ruin IvoShandor's Rfa, and any of his later chances at the mop? Or will they let it go and give the guy a chance? Anonymous Dissident Utter 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As I said, I expected many opposes because of the diff I pointed out, but I am not here to make excuses. I messed up but it was once. One time, my pattern of behavior outside of that one incident has been good and I go out of my way to help even those I disagree with. I would also note that I was the one who pointed out the diff in the interest of full disclosure. Of course, you are all entitled to your own opinions. IvoShandor 05:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I do consider it helpful that you pointed it out yourself, and give you credit for that. Provided that it doesn't happen again, and that you make sure you don't edit while intoxicated again, I'd be happy to support next time around. Ral315 » 18:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Civility and No personal attacks are important policies for an admin. --Dark Falls talk 06:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose That diff presented and discussed here is enough reason. Jmlk17 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - That dif mentioned was 3 months ago. I would wait 2 or 3 more months before considering him for adminship. A single edit shouldn't remain an indef "block" from becoming an admin, but this was too recently, in my opinion. Od Mishehu 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose As an admin you will have to deal with angry people, frustrated people, clueless people, even downright stupid people. I cannot support with the worry that you will react in that same way to the myriad of people who will come to your talkpage/inbox asking about your administrative actions. Honestly, if I saw that on my talkpage, it woulda scared the crap outta me. Riana ⁂ 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I can't support, but you did bring it up yourself. That much should be admired. Riana ⁂ 14:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose I think the diffs above show your inability to keep cool and remain civil, as well as to not make personal attacks, it was completely out of order to use bad language to the user, I wont be able to support in any other future RfA's of yours for at least 6 months. The Sunshine Man 17:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Fuk, man! Shit! I am opposing, and if anyone don't like it, they can come down to Jersey and CONFRONT. -- Y not? 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously Do you think that there is an appropriate amount of time after somebody loses it, dealing with a spammer or blatant vandal, that they can become an admin? Gotta admit that I was blown away by those edits, before I reviewed the user's other contributions. —Gaff ταλκ 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure. Maybe not for this. If the user can fly off the handle like this - I don't think I can ever support. -- Y not? 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An attitude like that (adios, good faith!) will ensure that I'll never support you for adminship. Yeesh. One mistake in 12,000 otherwise thoughtful and valuable edits and the poor guy is pilloried. No wonder we're short of admins. We create our own problem. Neil ╦ 09:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IvoShandor blew his top in dealing with a blatant repetitive vandal. Its an isolated blemish on an otherwise impressive record. I think its unfair to put that much weight on it, saying that you can never support. —Gaff ταλκ 07:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is not so much an issue of reward for 20,000 productive edits as it is an issue of trust. What I am saying is I cannot trust the judgment of anyone who is capable of making a post like that. This is a matter of strict liability for me, so any alleged drunkenness doesn't really make a difference. To give you another example, I make a point of opposing people who have been guilty of seriosu WP:BITE violations. Same deal. Ordinarily civil people are allowed to have moments of incivility, but this is completely indefensible. -- Y not? 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gimme a break, surely everyone here has lashed into a profanity laden tirade at someone, somewhere, sometime in their lives, sheesh, you should hear the couple down the block, they're both still alive, surprisingly. I don't know if the content matters so much as it was a personal attack, the person in question just laughed it off, seeing that I was obviously impaired. It wasn't the end of the world then and it isn't now. IvoShandor 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Y, I think you are way off here. Everyone is capable of being drunk and launching into a tirade, and it reflects not a thing on their character. I strongly disagree with the way you are posting here, damning a person who has given a lot to Wikipedia and had a moment of lapse. I don't believe your religion allows you to take such a high-and-mighty judgmental tone, and throwing around legal jargon stretches all realms of propriety. I take strong exception to the gleeful judgment that you are passing on this person. Frankly, I find people like you the reason why it is so hard to get good people to put themselves forth for a position of authority and public service. Find one moment when they lapsed, and they are nothing but that moment in time. That is the whole of their sum. Unacceptable. --David Shankbone 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged on the legal jargon. :) As to your substantive point, look, I am appreciative as anyone of people who contribute productively to Wikipedia, but that does not mean I think that 100% of those people are suitable for adminship. Lots of people thought I was unsuited for adminship at my second RfA, and I don't think any of them would deny that I am "a person who has given a lot to Wikipedia". -- Y not? 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NYC JD (Y's previous name) page is missing with no deletion log and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Y]] is not there, either. I checked Y's contribs and they're missing before Feb 22, 2007 which is about the time he became admin. Strange. It seems all his contributions and logs before becoming an admin have vanished. They're not on NYC_JD, either. SakotGrimshine 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh don't inquire. I am a secret cabal-approved sockpuppet. Anyway, at the time of my sysopping a public announcement was made. And, as my userpage plainly states, anyone with a sysop flag could see it as well. But if you insist, email me and I'll tell you. -- Y not? 04:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this comment made me crack up. LOL! Kamryn Matika 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too! --MichaelLinnear 06:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I am not confident in your ability to converse effectively, which is so important for those with the admin bits. Daniel 06:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I've never opposed anyone on civility grounds. But there are limits. No, sorry. I'd say 6months of good behaviour and maybe the slate can wipe, but not now.--Docg 12:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that a difference of a month and a half could provide any reasons to change your opinion, seems rather arbitrary to me, it's fine to oppose but what difference would another month and a half or two months make? IvoShandor 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything else besides "No"? IvoShandor 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per issues of civility & keeping his cool. —AldeBaer 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Oh, what the heck. Changing to support.
    Issue. One issue, not issues. Once. Of course you can oppose, but there aren't any "issues." IvoShandor 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, issue, sorry for that. —AldeBaer 00:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Every editor has moment(s) of forgetting civility for whatever reasons. The diffs provided by SlimVirgin are so far over the top and too recent to forget. Then add in other actions that either border on or cross over to personal attacks and uncivil behavior, it's just not acceptable. Orangemarlin 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the nom pointed out that diff, not SlimVirgin originally. PLus, what "other actions" do you mean? I only see that one bad night.--Wizardman 01:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Making personal attacks is not a quality that I expect to see in any administrator. If those diffs were ~1-2 years old, then that'd be a different story. Please try again later. (→zelzany - review) 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Incivility among administrators is intolerable. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Better head to Arbcom then, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. --MichaelLinnear 06:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. While incivility by administrators is a Bad Thing, I tend to think it's rather less of a big deal than most people do. If I'd had one beer too many, I might tell some particularly noxious vandal to go fuck himself. (Certainly it's a lot shorter and easier to type than many alternative utterances that are unquestionably acceptable.) I hope I wouldn't, but I might -- and it's language used by even such an, um, respected and beloved public figure as Dick Cheney. But that's one thing. By contrast IvoShandor goes into a diatribe. He seems disturbed. Maybe it's a fluke; I hope so, for his sake. If nothing like it were to occur till next year, and if his sober persona were to keep on doing a good job, I'd vote for him then. -- Hoary 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think RfA is the place for your psychological opinion, please don't stray off topic. IvoShandor 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarify: Meaning this: He seems disturbed. IvoShandor 13:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Not enough edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam or Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. --209.172.41.76 19:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm removing this oppose, as you must have a registered account to participate in RfAs. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I hope you really have learned from the unfortunate incident in February, but it is still too soon to ignore what I consider very problematic lapses. I will happily reconsider at a later time. Best wishes. Eluchil404 20:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose- Per WizardmanOrangemarlin.
    Thanks for pointing out the diff I pointed out at the start of this. IvoShandor 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose, for the apparent sarcasm, incivility, and tone, in that comment. And yes, I just took that diff from the beginning of the RfA, I didn't dig it out. Cool Bluetalk to me 12:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand IvoShandor's frustration over how several people are pointing out this diff as if he hadn't brought it up himself and as if that fact (his being straightforward about that incident) didn't make any difference (which it very much does!). At any rate, not a good reason to change to strong oppose, and not a particularly civil response on your part, either, Cool Blue. —AldeBaer 13:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes it is frustrating because implies that nothing else I have done or said has absolutely any bearing on this proceeding. It seems this entire RfA is about one past mistake, reminds me of a presidential campaign in the United States. Cool Blue, you can strong oppose all you want but it won't change my frustration with this entire RfA, but if that's what you call incivility, then wow, everyone of the users who have passed RfA must have halos over there heads, regardless thanks for taking the time to comment. IvoShandor 13:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if it's frustrating you, but I've changed my oppose reason to WizardmanOrangemarlin's, but see there's my tone issue again. "Cool Blue, you can strong oppose all you want but it won't change my frustration with this entire RfA, but if that's what you call incivility, then wow, everyone of the users who have passed RfA must have halos over there heads, regardless thanks for taking the time to comment." Cool Bluetalk to me 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? I'm confused why you're opposing per me, as I didn't oppose. Unless you're supporting per my oppose which doesn't make sense.--Wizardman 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant Orangemarlin, sorry Wizardman. Cool Bluetalk to me 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (undent)That is how I feel, it's not uncivil, it's not attacking you, but if your opinion and reason for opposing more forcefully is that the statement has tone problems then it is my opinion that there is no way anyone can live up to your standards. Perhaps I illustrated said point with slightly more colorful and descriptive language but I don't see that as a tone issue, nor as a civility issue. Perhaps I am wrong. IvoShandor 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look... I know you're having a frustrating time with this RfA. I'm just saying that maybe you should just edit mainspace for a little bit, come back in three months with no subsequent conflicts such as that, and you'll be fine. I'll support you then, if nothing's changed. You'll have to deal with a lot of people that you'll be unhappy with at times, such as JazzButcher, (or me!) that you don't necessarily agree with. Maybe you could join the kindness campaign, or help out at the help desk to show that you care about the community as a whole. Please understand that I'm trying to help you. Cool Bluetalk to me 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just one incident, months ago, he shouldn't be forced to do busywork to redeem himself. --MichaelLinnear 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - I'm concerned with civility. Show us you can stay calm and polite while editing and then come back in a few months. Majoreditor 02:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It happened in February, so that's several months right there, not to mention all the time before that lapse. Clearly he does just fine at staying calm and polite while editing, and he seems to be handling all the unwarranted opposition in this RfA well. I don't think there's anything he needs to prove. Everyking 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. We've all lost our cool sometimes but those are pretty harsh diffs - it's also too recent to show it wouldn't happen again. Sophia 06:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. May go Sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! --MichaelLinnear 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? —AldeBaer 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per the civility issues, which won't come as a huge surprise to those who keep an eye on WP:GA/R. No heckling please. Johnbod 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean here with the reference to GAR, I haven't been doing much at all with GA-anything in awhile and don't recall any confrontations when I was, none at all that I can even hazily remember. And the civility issue is still the only issue, no issues. Thanks for taking the time to comment though. IvoShandor 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose per the civility issues. Epbr123 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Oppose You can't be admin and do that. --~ Wikihermit (HermesBot) 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Oppose per civilty issues. Miranda 06:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Moderate Oppose I do not regard the judgmental clique of WP:GA as helpful to Wikipedia; it is particularly bad training for adminship, which should be the opposite. I suspect this is what Johnbod means above. Without that, I would regard one civility issue as unimportant. User is also supported by some editors whose judgment I do not trust; so I cannot trust him either. (Moderated in deference to Mike Christie's judgment). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong oppose per user's apparent failure to understand that reasonable people can be offended by things that he obviously does not understand [3], among several others. The entire username saga is extremely sad, but IvoShandor did not help with his repeated assertion that there's nothing wrong with someone claiming to be a pimp. Corvus cornix 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All that diff points out is that I believe there is a vast difference between the popular usage and meaning of the term "nigga" and the term "pimp" and there is. You obviously didn't read that discussion as the user in question asserted that it was not his intention to "claim to be a pimp." I never, NEVER, asserted that it was okay for someone to claim to be a pimp, that's absurd, wrong and hurtful to me. Thanks. IvoShandor 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I looked at that diff. I find the reasoning for this "oppose" vote disturbing. Some people are offended by the word "pimp" and by the notion that others would, jokingly or otherwise, call themselves pimps. Others aren't. It's imaginable that one side in this argument has a lot more reasoning on its side than the other. It's imaginable that everything that IvoShandor has said about it is wrong (although I doubt this). But I find nothing offensive or even inappropriate about either what he has said or the way he has said it. ¶ I'm more alarmed to think that anyone thinking of either throwing their hat into this RfA circus or allowing somebody else to do it for them would have to avoid even polite expressions of ideas that might offend some people, somewhere, even within entirely proper (and indeed somewhat formalized) discussions about alleged offensiveness. ¶ Or maybe I'm wrong and the overwhelming majority of WP editors want to allow only (a) agreement with or (b) acquiescence to any claim that anything has offended anyone. -- Hoary 09:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Corvus, this is a disturbing oppose. Ivo held a civil discussion but disagreed with an editor over a User name. You are now stating you oppose him because you do not like his opinion. This is completely antithetical to what Wikipedia stands for, and I am disturbed by your effort to punish him because you disagree with him. You state on your User page, "I got off to a bad start (although I was never blocked), and want to start over again. Consider this my new Wikipedia life." Not a good way to start a new life. I think you have some soul-searching to do. To the rest of the opposers, I find your oppose based on one diff in 12,000, one that this editor himself pointed out as a momentary lapse, to be equally disturbing. Shame on you guys for your judgmental focus on one moment in time. No wonder we can't find admins. We have the Saint Squad acting as if what Ivo did is akin to drunk driving or "strict liability" (a legal concept typically applied to pill manufacturers who poison people, or those commit statutory rape). I'm a little disgusted by the attitudes shown on this page, and I know I'm not the only one. --David Shankbone 11:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you genuinely think your attitude is doing Ivo's candidacy any good? In terms of Wikipedia standards, what he did is comparable to drunk driving. I chose not to oppose over it, but it's far from a ghastly sin to believe that someone capable of drunken fits of obscenities once is capable of it more than once, and far from unreasonable to want longer than three months for a probation period. Reining in the shrill "How dare yous?" would make this (for the moment) fencesitter a little less disgusted himself.  RGTraynor  12:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivo's candidacy is already sunk, and if you are to vote against him because of my disgust at the judgmental hate hoots found in the oppose section over one brief, fleeting moment, then it says more about you than it does about myself of Ivo. Read w:Don't be a dick. It's very appropriate to this discussion, and the moral indignation expressed by those who find one drunken edit to be the whole of Ivo's Wikipedia sum. --David Shankbone 13:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If "you" means RGTraynor, you're targeting the wrong person: He's already voted: Neutral. -- Hoary 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, yes, I've read WP:DICK. I think David should take it to heart.  RGTraynor  14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's taken to heart. I'm n not the one comparing a one-off drunken rant to an act that costs lives such as drunk driving. Let's not take Wikipedia that seriously and keep what we do here in perspective. Drunk driving costs thousands of lives. A drunken edit has rubbed people the wrong way. Comparing the two goes to the heart of being a dick. --David Shankbone 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Dignity is germane to an AfD discussion. And there are two instances deserving of such a discussion for the editor being considered, per SlimVirgin and Corvus cornix. The standards should be higher for admins. --Fire Star 火星 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well well, I must be missing something. As I see it, there's one instance. While it's serious, I'm in no mood to pontificate further about it. As for the one pointed out by Corvus cornix, there's nothing to it. Ivo said something that offended a particularly sensitive soul. I hope you don't hold admins and admin candidates responsible for offenses endured (or imagined) by particularly sensitive souls. Certainly I don't. -- Hoary 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your opinion that there is nothing to it. Mine is different. In my opinion, declaring oneself a pimp is (knowingly or unknowingly) flying a flag declaring acceptance of violent sexual supremacy in order to intimidate. People so intimidated (or wishing to intimidate) may consider that "cool" but I feel otherwise. --Fire Star 火星 14:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose
    Support One mistake? And a damn foul one at that. I notice you apologized without it being dragged out of you and without putting any of the blame for your behaviour upon the other party.[4][5] That qualifies you as an adult in my book--and ditto Katie's comment above. KP Botany 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) And, Hoary, you can stop with the personal attacks like, "particularly sensitive soul," as Ivo got enough jabs in telling me I was being "politically correct" and insulting me in other ways--neither of you know anything about me. If Ivo wants to be part of the "gang up on any editor who questions an administrative abuse of process gang" so be it. But not with my vote. It's amazing how many times and places bashing me is required to cover up User:Chrislk02‎'s calling me a troll, removing my commentary, and closing the RFCN so I couldn't respond--it's time to stop. KP Botany 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How many different forums are you going to use to complain about the WP:RFCN case about User:ChicagoPimp? It seems like this RFA for IvoShandor has become a laundry list for all sorts of unrelated debates. What's next, an argument about the amount of influence that Louis Sullivan had on Frank Lloyd Wright or on how much McKim, Mead and White slavishly copied from Henry Hobson Richardson? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do the supporters of IvoShandor have to take it upon themselves to repeatedly make personal attacks on those who oppose this nomination? Corvus cornix 16:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral Until I can better understand this [6]. Looks like a rather intense personal attack only a couple months ago. Even as an isolated incident, this is concerning. Seems a little too hot headed & fly off the handle-ish for an admin. I'll look at this more and consider any responses before finally deciding my vote. —Gaff ταλκ 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear that this is a neutral vote. I may very well change to support, as this user has made significant contributions. This looks like a fluke from an editor frustrated by a spammer who is no longer even active. —Gaff ταλκ 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing of it is, is people are just looking at that, and not the whole of what went on. From an IP user who kept putting it up, to the that guy just ignoring all of our reasonings for why what he wanted to put up wasn't notable. It isn't like he just was like, I am going to go off on this guy here. It was something that was building over several weeks, and it just happens. Instead of focusing on one incindent, look at what he has done! Has created from scratch sever GAs, many many DYKs. I see this happen on many people's nominations. People that oppose focus on one issues, and they stick with it instead of looking at what the person has done as a whole.--Kranar drogin 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to support.—Gaff ταλκ 03:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment: Like I said, no excuse for that behavior, regardless if it was a spammer who did nothing else, eveyone deserves to be treated with civility, I screwed up, but it never happened before that and hasn't happened since. I don't know if there is anything else I can say to explain this, obviously I was angry and frustrated and acted rather immaturely. For that I am sorry, but I can't change it, just try to explain. IvoShandor 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Comment (for now). (change to support). Like many others above, I'm concerned about the civility diff. But looking back at the history of this page, I think it is to the candidate's credit that he is the one that brought it up, took responsibility, and committed himself to not repeating. I will be looking over the user's other contributions, but unless I find other examples, I think that this becomes a time for us to think about WP:FORGIVE. Bucketsofg 12:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments. (1) His exchange over a problematic user's block (User_talk:Hesperian/Archive_18 and User_talk:IvoShandor/Archive_Apr_2007#Aurora) make me think better of him: he is doing his best to WP:Assume good faith (or, when it is impossible, the best faith possible). (2) This discussion about image-policy suggests to me that he is sensitive to correct application of image-use policy and diplomatic about the way he brings problems to people's attention. (3) The testiest I've found is in Talk:Rule_of_Rose, where he gets frustrated by incorrigible spammer with a COI. Bucketsofg 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I really hate to let so much hang on couple of poorly made edits, but civility and cooperation are in my opinion paramount to a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Since there seem to be no further outbursts of this kind it does appear that the candidate has likely "learned their lesson" and I am unwilling to oppose on that diff alone, but the severe incivility of said diff makes me want to wait a little longer and be 100% certain the candidate can retain a level head. Otherwise your contributions look good, keep up the good work and in a couple more months I would happily support. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral You are a great editor but you have had way to many civility issues. If you go a year without civility issues I would be happy to support you. Sorry.--James, La gloria è a dio 02:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again the user only had one civility issue, two comments made on one drunken night to one user he had been having a problem with for a long time and there have been no other problems related to his civility.--SebastianBean 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral The civility issue pointed to above is just too severe too overlook at this time. With a few more months without further problems would enable me to support then. Davewild 11:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is though as has been stated above, how are a couple months really going to change anything? The same stuff would be brought up then, as is now.--Kranar drogin 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few more months would demonstrate to me that it was just a one off incident and could be trusted to be a civil admin, at the moment on balance I believe he would be but am not sure enough to support at this time due to the severity of the incident. Davewild 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using the excuse of being incivil because you were drunk is just as good of an excuse as "I got in a car accident because I was drunk." If you can go a year without being incivil then it I would forgive and forget this but this is far to recent.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh brother. IvoShandor 06:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this to an auto accident are two totally different things. Not only that, but a drunk accident like that lives with you for much longer than a year. What would a year be. Nothing to people. I still feel that people are just using this as en excuse not to accept someone that has contributed to the wiki community extensively.--Kranar drogin 07:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are and it's a good excuse. Epbr123 10:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)I still don't agree that Ivo's one mistake is the same as [7], but that is just me I guess. I would agree that it is a good excuse IF it was something constant. I do not agree when it was one incident that has happened since he has been a member on the Wikipedia.--Kranar drogin 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a good excuse but it's part of the incident, to claim that alcohol doesn't impair judgment would be absurd. Kranar's right in the fact that if I was an alcoholic this would be a better excuse (still a crappy one at that) but I don't want to excuse my actions and I am not an alcoholic. IvoShandor 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral: The editor's accomplishments are manifest, and I'm no knee-jerk civility hawk, but that was an outrageously egregious incident, and I think the co-noms let him down by suggesting that three and a half months is anywhere near soon enough to live it down. Beyond that, two things. First off, I'm troubled by the presumption that adminhood should be some sort of prize for being a diligent and accomplished editor; if that was the case, let's just bag the entire RfA process, award points per 1000 edits or every GA/FA, and just give you admin tools when you hit 100 pts. Secondly, the vehemence of the editors telling Oppose voters that they have no right to judge Ivo for that incident is getting just a bit thick. People Oppose in RfAs on far flimsier grounds than drunken bursts of obscenities.  RGTraynor  01:09, 12 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/IvoShandor&oldid=1147988483"