Meta:Requests for adminship/Anonymous Dissident

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Anonymous Dissident edit

Josh, known as Anonymous Dissident has been very active here lately. He's done a lot of cleanup work, including creating new templates, copyediting and other general maintenance. He also comes across bad pages, and vandals (which he asks me to delete and block, over MSN), and I think he's trustworthy enough and familiar with our policies to perform admin duties.

I accept, and thank Majorly for nominating me. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. Majorly (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Support Thunderhead 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support AD's good, though his recent activity on WM:RFD (specifically, nominating pages for deletion that otherwise could just be tagged with {{historical}} [which admittedly is rather minor] and not properly tagging the nominated pages with {{RFD}}) is just barely concerning. However, I've interacted with AD a few times on en.wp, and he takes constructive criticism well, which is crucial in my book. EVula // talk // 04:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that really was my mistake about tagging the article for deletion. I just somehow forgot that part of the process. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --.snoopy. AKA dario vet · (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I checked the contribs a couple of days ago as I could see this one coming :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support all the dissidents--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Thogo (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless he publicly withdraws his saying "I suppose, but I guess pressing the delete button is just as easy. ", instead of tagging {{historical}}, and change his mind. I think this attitude is one of the worst ones for meta sysop candidates. --Aphaia 12:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not really what I meant. What I meant by that statement was that the article was historical; it had no further use, so it just sitting there and being obsolete was just the same as not existing at all. Do you see what I was really trying to say? I didn't actually mean to appear trigger-happy. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you claim historical articles should not exist on meta? That is the opposite idea, in my opinion, the way this wiki has served to the community at large. In other words, if it is what you mean, to delete historical things because it IS historical, so I think I should strongly oppose you. --Aphaia 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. I think that some of these pages can provide good historical contexts that we can look back on today. Deleting historical things for the sake of it is pointless, I just think that some pieces of historical material serves no purpose here, even in that historical context, considering some of the changes made to the Meta project itself. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What are your criteria on whether something serves any purpose or no? Hillgentleman 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Aphaia and as well as for creating a couple of templates such as {{humor}} and essay's which I believe serves no purpose to Meta..--Comet styles 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a humor category with 92 articles. Saying there's no purpose to a template is simply incorrect. Also, you oppose per Aphaia, who believes old out dated pages should be kept. Yet, you don't like the idea of AD's much more relevant up to date essays? I thought they were excellent, personally. Majorly (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally find Power illusion to be a very well-written essay that addresses a major issue on wikis. EVula // talk // 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm... that is one of the main things that meta is supposed to be for. Cbrown1023 talk 21:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mainly due to what Aphaia pointed out above "I suppose, but I guess pressing the delete button is just as easy.". Trigger happy admins are not something which I appreciate and maybe it was a good intention but uncalled for..--Comet styles 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cometstyles, Please note that the comment was a reply to the previous comment, that it cannot be easier than to tag a page with template:historical. I disagree with the comment of the dissident. Pressing the delete button too hastily may complicate matters for the future, whereas a tag is easily reversible. But comparing ease is different from showing eagerness.Hillgentleman 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marbot 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Trustworthy. Acalamari 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely trustworthy. I find the opposes a bit silly. Giggy\^Talk 07:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I saw this coming :). Carbon Monoxide 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nishkid64 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wholeheartedly per my statement at w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anonymous Dissident 2. Melsaran 19:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed: Anonymous Dissident is now a sysop. Majorly (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]