Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Apollomelos

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

Apollomelos

edit

final (6/20/1) ending 21:35 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This contributor is an exemplary member of the Wikipedian Community. As of May 15 the current logs indicate a total of 1,001 edits, many of them being major additions on topics ranging from Homosexuality, Taoism, Hijras (India) to Salt Lake City, Utah over a time span since late 2004. Sifting through the talk page I have read many comments that reflect the utmost civility, always listening to other users and addressing their concerns in a fair fashion, often with the bravery to address highly controversial topics in society where it is common for politics to blur knowledge. This user has kept politics aside and produced very informative pieces for all. While on occasion a few additions have contained misperceptions, it can be expected on such highly politicized issues and this user quickly addresses any concerns. I found his communications with user Dbachmann especially meaningful to characterize him: "Apollomelos, I agree with most of what you say, and I daresay I have known most of it, too. I appreciate you have really researched the subject, and I obviously consider you a good-faith editor." Globeism 21:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I graciously accept. :) However I highly doubt I will garner enough votes since many Wikipedians seem to consider homosexuality "shocking, overt and explicit", judging from the amount of vandalism that occurs on those articles which is probably why I do not know of any gay administrators, they would lose their mind dealing with it. Apollomelos 11:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Globeism 21:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. One of the good guys, working well on potentially contentious subjects. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Essjay 11:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support on the grounds that, despite writing on highly controversial topics, he remains calm when dealing with possible vandals. Relatively low edit count disguises considerable editorial contribution. I don't think the suggestion that gay editors are less likely to be made admins has much mileage (I suggest myself as a counter-example), more that editors who contribute on controversial subjects are more likely to face opposition to any adminship bid. Dbiv 22:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, I feel that this editor has worked as fairly as possible on a subject that some will never accept, and has dealt fairly with those that have questioned him. Although I would suggest to Apollomelos that just because some admins choose not to edit articles on homosexuality, or say that they are on their userpage, it does not mean that there are not some gay or bisexual admins. Rje 23:47, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 12:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. oppose. (1) Apollomelos writes with a definite POV and a definite agenda. I do not see Apollomelos wanting to compromise. (2) Apollomelos is lackadaisical about edit summaries. (3) IMHO, Apollomelos likes to shock people with overt and explicit content. Kingturtle 07:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please cite where I have a POV, I would like to resolve it for you. To my knowledge none of my articles have NPOV notices on them. Also I would like you to elaborate on your definition of shocking, overt and explicit. Best wishes. Apollomelos 11:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What first comes to mind is your efforts to get the Image:18thcenturylesbian.gif onto the oral sex article. Tony Sidaway removed it and you re-added it immediately. that just seemed awfully over-eager. Or your attempt to get Image:Greekanal.jpg on anal sex (an image which has since been deleted). Or your attempt to get Image:Rape scene - Utagawa KUNIYOSHI.jpg onto rape. The Anome (a respected admin) called that image a "trolling picture." In my mind, this is a running theme - that you like to provoke with content. Kingturtle 01:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information artwork is not pornography. I only added that picture once, you make it seem like I did it a billion times. And the greekanal image I deleted myself because it was a forgery. I delete images when there are actual reasons. If artwork can be considered pronography what next? The deletion and censorship of the sculpture David? Or "Statues Gone Wild: Your Favorite Pieces of Art like you have never seen them before"?! Apollomelos 12:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't put words in my mouth. I never called anything pornography. What I am questioning are your motives for support the images I've already listed. Kingturtle 01:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Will support in future if editor does some more editing, leaves more edit summaries, and removes the chip from his shoulder. Didn't know his sexual orientation before and don't care about it now—can't see why he thinks it's relevant to his adminship nomination. I am concerned that this non-issue will come up in his administrative duties, if he thinks it's appropriate to mention in his acceptance. There are at least two self-identified queer wikipedians on the list of admins; I presume that there are probably many others who just don't think sexual orientation is any of our damn business. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you state I have a chip on my shoulder, because I acknowledge that I contribute to highly controversial topics? Furthermore I am not sure how your tirade is relevant and I ask you to see Wikipedia's policy on civility. It is not my sexual orientation that is relevant — I never said it was, what I mentioned was in reference to my contributions on homosexuality articles which is, indeed, appropriate. I think you are very confused and this is a misunderstanding. What does your statement that my sexual orientation will become an issue if I were an administrator imply? From my reading of your comment it is you who seems to believe it is an issue not me, so please do not chastise. If you have any other concerns, let me know and I can address them. I think you misinterpreted the reference to my additions on homosexuality articles. And I do think to be fair you must admit there is much vandalism against homosexuality articles as well as queer Wikipedians. I could see your point if I mentioned my sexual orientation and it did not have anything to do with my edits, but I primarily edit homosexual topics and I take it you hate Pride Parades. :lol: Apollomelos 20:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to your nomination acceptance, before you edited it. It seemed to suggest a bias among Wikipedians against gay administrators. Responding to homophobic criticism is one thing; preemptively accusing the good faith readers of your RFA is another. Going looking for conflict is not a helpful trait in an admin.
    For what its worth, I quite enjoy Toronto's annual Pride parade, and I'll continue to oppose an adminship candidate who thinks throwing around veiled accusations of homophobia—even in jest—is an appropriate response to criticism. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    One question where did I use the term homophobic to describe your comments? Do you assume often that people are stereotypes? Apollomelos 12:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you get "stereotypes" from? You seem to be really reaching and reading much into something that isn't there, which makes me believe you're trying to get a fight out of people who aren't very much interested in it. So you're gay. Big whoop. We all know; let's move on. Mike H 17:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for now, other than dealing with vandalism on watched pages I see little evidence for participation in other community things like peer review, vfd, RC Patrol etc--nixie 10:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Don't mind sexuality, don't like bad attitude. Grace Note 10:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for same reasons as KingTurtle --Cynical 13:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for reasons stated ably above. Personally, I like Mrs Patrick Campbell's remark about not caring what people do so long as they don't disturb the horses in the streets and while I've not had interaction with the candidate, his presumption of bias by the community at large bothers me. PedanticallySpeaking 17:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I've thought about it and I can't support, for reasons already stated above (if I said it again, there would merely be an echo in here). Mike H 17:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. How can he make a generalization about Wikipedians in general just based on the vandals he's dealt with on controversial pages? I agree with Ten, he seems to be looking for fights in a molehill/teapot (use whichever metaphor you find least annoying). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:53, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Per the users above. You need more community involvement and learn to assume good faith with other members of the community. Most people don't hate gays. Bratschetalk random 20:36, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose for all the reasons above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Never in all my wikidays have I seen someone shoot themselves in the foot so badly during their own admin nomination! Implying that your voters have an anti-gay bias before they've even voted is bad enough, but the completely non-sequiter "I take it you hate pride parades" to TenOfAllTrades was way out of line. Before you accuse me of being homophobic, I'm not, and in fact I spent much of yesterday morning adding to the Bruce Weber article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Get real. And before you get my stamp of approval, take a look at this. Scott Gall 07:35, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Agree with User:DropDeadGorgias and Andrew Lenahan. —Lowellian (talk) 16:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose on several levels. First off, I'm Christian, and I frankly don't appreciate this. "Christian Hate Sites"? Please! Give me a break here; that's screaming "neutrality dispute". We are NOT "gay haters" (or at least I'm not) and I take my faith very seriously; in fact, I'm considering joining a seminary. Does that stop me from having at least five friends who are openly homosexual or bisexual? Nope. Assume good faith! Secondly, you DO seem to have quite the agenda here. I will not vote for an admin that is pushy, has a bad attitude and doesn't assume good faith! Linuxbeak | Desk 01:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    It is you who is not assuming good-faith and yes, copying text directly from God Hates Fags is vandalism and it is a Christian hate site. There are hate sites in all context, in no way did I say it was limited to Christians as you make it seem. Apollomelos 02:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to Apollomelos the text you refer to was copied mostly verbatim from godhatesfags.com, which does fit the definition of a Christian hate site. Rhobite 04:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I'm concerned with Apollomelos' responses to several of the comments made here. Admins should be levelheaded when dealing with others. --Kbdank71 19:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I'm definitely concerned with some of the responses here. We're supposed to assume good faith and Apollomelos seems to be doing exactly the opposite. --MikeJ9919 19:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC) (Hmm...I have no idea why my vote and the one immediately above are on a separate numbered list. I'm still learning wiki-formatting, but there doesn't seem to be anything unusual. Anyone interested in fixing the problem, though, is more than welcome to do so.)[reply]
  17. Self-fulfilling prophecy - you say you won't be promoted because of your agenda, and because of irritation to that statement, you won't be promoted. Too bad; if you hadn't said anything, you might have had a chance. Oppose. --Golbez 19:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. By all accounts, an abusive user with an agenda who does good work when it suits him. I could see him being the kind of admin who would block someone for disagreeing with him on an article. Harro5 04:19, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Lack of wikiquette and wikilove per, above evidence concerns me. That said he wouldn't be the first admin that was defecient in civility, but I see no need to increase the number especially in light of the POV concerns posted above. - JCarriker 09:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose – if the person doesn't care to mention a bit of him/herself, how is s/he to gain the trust of the community?  =Nichalp (Talk)= 18:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're too late - Apollomelos did have a very useful user page but had it deleted when he left wikipedia, probably a result of some of the oppose comments here. David | Talk 23:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, honestly. Apollomelos is a big boy. No one forced him to leave. Mike H 23:08, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Mike H 02:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC) I think the whole rant about homosexuality and gay administrators is a bit too gratuitous. I'm gay and I'm an administrator...I know many other gay administrators, as well. Again, I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm all Meh about this. Too bad there isn't a Meh vote. I'll look over the contributions and change my vote accordingly.
    I would support, no doubt A is a good faith editor, and we've had a few reasonable discussions. He does seem to be able to compromise. I've been annoyed by his "pederasty" image names, but that's rather unrelated with admin privileges. What prevents me from supporting is that he doesn't seem to stand up under pressure very well. in fact, his behaviour in edit disputes, in my experience, can border on the hysterical. An admin needs to take abuse from trolls without any effect on his blood pressure. That, and seeing his "field of interest" and his "in your face" homosexuality (I don't care about people's orientation, but A's is impossible to miss even if you distractedly try to stare in an unrelated direction), he will be exposed to rude people and trolls aplenty, and I'm more comfortable to have him remain unarmed with "the mop & truncheon" in these situations. dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 1080 edits, first edit at 23:33 on Dec 27, 2004. Occasional edit summaries, no edits marked as minor. Seems to attract a bit of controversy. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:28, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The controversies are mostly because of the homosexual topics. Such topics invite vandals and bigots to cause havok. Kingturtle 07:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is apparent. But being an editor who attracts controversy can be detrimental as an administrator, in that the editor's administrative actions are more likely to be questioned, and that the temptation for inappropriate use of powers is higher. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:54, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apollomelos double spaces new sentences. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:54, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I am quoted in Appolomelos' acceptance comment, I feel the need to respond. (1) I do not consider homosexuality shocking; (2) My use of the words overt and explicit were in reference to images (see my comments above); (3) I don't think there are at all many Wikipedians who consider homosexuality "shocking, overt and explicit;" (4) there are a fair number of gay administrators; (5) the gay administrators I know haven't yet lost their minds. Kingturtle 11:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The user's user page wikilink is now red, and he wishes to speedy his talk page, as he has stated he is leaving the project. Mike H 21:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an absolute tragedy. Apollomelos was a valued contributor, certainly eligible for adminship, who was nominated by someone else for adminship and made one ill-judged remark which led to a whole load of abuse. Perhaps some should have assumed good faith of him, but it's too late now. David | Talk 23:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was quite eligible for adminship...if he hadn't accused others of ill will without even knowing them, and then picking fights with others where no ill will was present. Believe me, read through this vote again and you'll find there was more than one ill-advised remark. He kept digging a hole further and further. You are supposed to be on your best behavior during RFA, and I for one don't feel sorry for him. To assume good faith of him, he needed to assume good faith of us first, which he obviously did not. Mike H 00:54, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • I hope he eventually changes his mind and comes back. Kingturtle 02:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's unfortnate, I wish I could have supported, but I saw no alternative given his behavior here. I might have supported without the attacks; maybe he'll come back someday. -JCarriker 06:03, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
            • 'Assume good faith' is not dependent on reciprocity. Apollomelos' expressed belief that Wikipedians would never support a gay admin may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy but that doesn't mean it was reasonable to oppose him for it. I would have hoped we might have surprised him by a generosity of spirit rather than confirmed his views. David | Talk 10:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That sound everyone is hearing is the world's smallest violin. I am unhappy to see him leave, but honestly, if he can't pull the rainbow-coloured wool from his eyes long enough to realize that he doesn't have to be on the defensive all the time, particularly at a time when he's supposed to be gaining support instead of nailing himself to the cross, then perhaps this is better, for his own sanity. We have no use for martyrs here, both in his comment on this vote, and the fact that he's leaving because everyone opposed him (of course, HE had nothing to do with it, it's only our homophobia). I do hope he will eventually return, though. --Golbez 23:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
              • I don't mean to sound rude, but I think that's a loaded comment. If you're implying that those who opposed him because he said that we would never support a gay administrator, I think you're mistaken. One administrator, User:TheCustomOfLife, is also homosexual, yet many users, including myself, support his adminship. It's not that Wikipedians hate gays or would never support a gay admin. What I'm seeing from the opposes are that this user does not assume good faith, nor does he try to compromise. We are not opposing him based on his sexual orientation. I would hedge that 98% of the voters, myself included, don't give a flying piece of you-know-what over that. However, when the user in question makes this seemingly irrelevant piece of information an issue, that's when the bells and whistles start going off. As one voter stated above: Don't mind sexuality, don't like bad attitude. Linuxbeak | Desk 16:53, May 22, 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.)
Anything I can help out with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Currently my favorites would be:
I have provided in-depth information and spent considerable time researching, many late nights taking notes from textbooks and such.
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?
Yes. One such instance is a user who was issued a hard ban by arbitration and continues to defy it because he can with the rotating AOL IP addresses. He constantly vandalizes and adds disinformation along with copy edits from God Hates Fags. Among credible users I have not had a single person feel negative about my edits, sure there have been questions, but I always resolve them to a satisfactory level for them. The Wiki fails when it strays from knowledge to editorials.
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/Apollomelos&oldid=1086096378"