Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

GeneralPatton

edit

final (43/9/4) ending 03:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) It is an honor to nominate GeneralPatton. He has been here for several months and has shown himself to be an excellent, even-tempered editor. GeneralPatton is active in implementing and proposing policy and often can be found on the IRC channel. I strongly feel he should become a sysop. Neutralitytalk 03:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I humbly accept. GeneralPatton 03:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. Neutralitytalk 03:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support Strongly. Arminius 03:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mhmm. ugen64 04:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gentgeen 09:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Previous comments were several months ago. Users change their minds. Patton is a good user. Snowspinner 21:36, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  6. I think people can change, especially in concern to their early days at this project. I've seen a lot of good out of GeneralPatton, and I think he'd make a fine admin. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ambi 00:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Antandrus 00:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) Support. Likely to be a very fine admin.
  9. He may be a disputant on and off, but he knows how to deal with those disputes in a calm, collected fashion. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:24, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  10. Nicholas 01:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. I don't vote here all that often, but Patton has my wholehearted support. He's a trustworthy user who has done a lot of good work here for a long time. →Raul654 03:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Mike H 05:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Tuf-Kat 05:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Cribcage 06:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  15. IZAK 08:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  16. Easy descision. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  17. Has been polite when I have observed him; I see no reason to oppose. Johnleemk | Talk 17:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  18. Support. 172 18:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  19. Yes. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 21:29, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  21. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  22. Danny 01:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support. Seems like a good user. - Vague | Rant 04:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support. func(talk) 21:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  25. Xtra 23:19, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  26. Good nomination. I don't really care about the comment he made over four months ago. Adminship should be no big deal. --Lst27 (talk) 02:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  27. I am confident that GP has the project's best interests in mind. He has been extremely active in metawork (e.g., policy), and communicates admirably well for a non-native English speaker. --Slowking Man 03:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  28. Support. Friendly and courteous user who seems actively interested in wikipedia policy. CXI 04:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  29. Support. Duk 05:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  30. Support. Has been very helpful when I've hopped on IRC with a question about arbitration. Rex 06:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  31. Support. I've been intermittent touch with Patton for several months, in which I have seen him grow from someone who I'd be wary to give adminship to (like the general he's taken the name of, he was a bit brash and impulsive), to someone I feel can be trusted with the duties and responsibilities of administration. His more recent contributions have often centered around adding hard to find details (always with a source) and often attempting to remove the POV in articles which usually generate them naturally. Oberiko 13:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  32. Support. Euphoria 18:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  33. Support. Proteus (Talk) 19:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  34. You have my full support. We would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia by denying such a helpful and dedicated user admin powers—Trevor Caira 21:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  35. Absolutely (I thought he was already). I'd like to note that the username thing is selectively enforced–that, or no one realizes I named myself after August von Mackensen (granted, that was sixteen months ago). I do agree that he should take Lupo's advice. Mackensen (talk) 04:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  36. Support Profoss 23:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  37. Support. Guanaco 02:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  38. Support. +sj + 03:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  39. Support. Dori | Talk 03:37, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  40. Support. Rhobite 21:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  41. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 23:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support. I checked a number of his edits, his interactions with other users and grilled him over them on irc. I could find no current flaws, so he has my support. He then answered some truely tough questions from me, and gave me his opinion on a hypothetical scenario. His answers were very much to my liking, so that earns him a strong support. Kim Bruning 01:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  43. Support [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Last we talked, the devil told me the temperatures in hell were still unseasonably warm. Everyking 06:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Is there some incident that we should know about when deciding how to vote? Please shed some light for us if you can, I know I'd certainly like to know the reason why this candidate would invoke such a response so I can evaluate in view of all the facts. Shane King 06:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. My first and only experience with the General has not been good: apparantly he got Image:Vaginal syphilis.jpg deleted without any process (that I have found), he then uploaded the same image at Image:Vaginal syphilis(disturbing image).jpg without any comment or description. He has replaced small thumbs in the Syphilis article with links, disregarding former discussion (or making any comments himself) and not using the "edit summary". The result is two paragraphs starting with a line with an image link and thumbdescription. While I know the comlplaint doesn't really belong here I suspect others would be asking if I didn't give my reasons. --Dittaeva 13:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Per agreement, further discussion has been moved to User_talk:Dittaeva
    Oppose as per comment added by Michael Snow. 6 months may be time enough to gain sufficient experience and maturity after making such a statement, but I can't see a big difference. Andre (talk) 20:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
    Would you please explain "but I can't see a big difference"? It’s not a question of maturity, at issue is about feeling comfortable. As i've said, I've rejected a previous RFA because i still didn't feel as comfortable as I wanted. GeneralPatton 20:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. It is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. Nor one who uses Croatian insults in edit summaries ("pickica" [1], "serem ti sliku kralja petra" [2]). Gzornenplatz 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    Insulting other users, but doing so in another language to disguise what's going on is not admin-like behaviour. It was a long time ago, so I would have excused it if he had admitted it up front and apologised, but since it was another user who had to bring this behaviour to light, I'm afraid I have to oppose. Shane King 01:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    It happened in the first month or so of my time on wiki, back in May, and after Avala harassed me a few times and made some reckless edits... Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Avala, his Arbcom has shown Avala to be a problem user. I just desperately tried to have Avala back away somehow (using methods from local language forums), I was still new at Wiki then. GeneralPatton 01:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    OK, if it really is an isolated and early incident against a single problem user as you say, I'll remove my opposition. I don't believe in holding people's mistakes against them forever, although as I noted, I prefer that they admit them upfront. I'll think on this some more before deciding whether I can support or will stay neutral. Shane King 02:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose. I don't think he's a bad guy but we've butted heads over his inability to understand what NPOV means even in the most basic sense. As reference, see our discussions on Talk:Robert Oppenheimer (a few months ago), Talk:Wernher von Braun (a few months ago), and Talk:Nazi Germany (last week, when he suggested, and defended, his use of a self-described holocaust/historical denial website as a valid source for resolving a minor squabble). I think he is an earnest contributor but I don't think he has very good negotiation skills, good historical reasoning, or good methodology. And I think he has some legitimate conceptual problems with understand what NPOV means in any applicable sense. If you want to see this in practice, again, view my frustrations on Talk:Robert Oppenheimer. Sorry, GeneralPatton, nothing against you personally, you seem like a nice enough guy, and I don't think you mean to antagonize, but I think you often just don't get what Wikipedia articles should be about in a very fundamental way, and I haven't really seen any improvement in this, to be honest. I haven't seen you use good editing judgment or communication skills. These seem to me to be rather important for any administrator position, even with as lack-of-status as it is supposed to be. Even if the user has reformed since last July (which my latest disagreement with him suggests to me that he has not), I see this as being a somewhat provisional state and definitely not compelling a vote for adminship. (I'm someone who sometimes has strong opinions about uses of historical sources and statements, so please read the discussions linked and decide for yourself, don't just take my word for it.) --Fastfission 05:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    For a response see : User talk:Fastfission#Fact check GeneralPatton 05:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    It's a response, but one that's not really getting at the essence of my problems. For my "responses" (clarifications, further explanation), see User_talk:GeneralPatton#Adminship_etc. I'm really not trying to grind your goose, GeneralPatton, I just don't think you're the best choice for adminship. That doesn't mean I don't think you should participate in Wikipedia, I just think you lack certain comprehensional abilities and communication skills which would be essential for being labeled an admin of the English wiki. But again, I urge others to look at the links, decide for themselves, this is just my interpretation. I've only labeled it "strong" because I want to draw attention to it, obviously, I don't think it makes my vote count for any more than it normally would. This is not a vote against you, this is a vote against your adminship. They are different things, please don't get so strung out (17 edits to my Talk page in one day) about my one negative vote. --Fastfission 20:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Poor (nil) use of edit summaries and "Show preview". I don't see any effort to perform routine maintenance. Has some well-documented biases, and is friends with some the worst POV warriors around here. I also don't like that it looks like he's using friends from IRC to do favors for him (re: the syphillis image). -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Does not make proper use of edit summaries. —AlanBarrett 16:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Strongly oppose. The name sounds really disturbing. I can reconsider this, if the name is changed. --M7it 18:06, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I agree with the above, though not strongly enough to cast my vote this way because of it. To quote from the login screen, "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a politician, military or religious figure or event." Sarge Baldy 22:12, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    I've also cancelled my own vote as the User has posted a request to change his name. M7it 22:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges. I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away. The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship. Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes. Pedant 01:13, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
  8. Serious reservations, not enough to oppose as of now. VeryVerily 07:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Opposing. VeryVerily 10:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. OpposeCheeseDreams 19:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I guess I'm not really opposing, I'm just not very confident in this user. Moved to neutral. Andre (talk) 21:33, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Request an explanation of how GeneralPatton reconciles accepting this nomination with the quote I have placed in the comments section below. --Michael Snow 18:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I've made this comment 6 months ago, when I was far less accustomed to wikipedia than now. GeneralPatton 18:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Actually it was 4 months and 5 days ago, when you were already active for 3.5 months, so should have been sufficiently accustomed to Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 01:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
    An acceptable explanation having been provided, I move this vote to neutral. I have not investigated GeneralPatton's history enough at this point to make a more informed judgment. --Michael Snow 22:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. Insulting language isn't acceptable for prospective admins. However, event was 6 months ago. Moved from oppose to neutral. ElBenevolente 02:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. I'm impressed by the patience I've seen from him in discussions with some problematic editors that shall remain unnamed here. GP's edits seem generally good, sometimes a tiny bit over-enthusiastic, but nothing serious. But please, use edit summaries, provide sources for images you upload (even if they're WWII images!), and try hard to avoid pointless insinuations (like the one on Nov 16, 2004). Shouldn't be too difficult, given that you managed to keep your temper on far more controversial subjects. Other than that: good luck to you. Lupo 08:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Quoting GeneralPatton from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nikola Smolenski:

...it is definitely not good to have really biased administrator. That is why I personally would never accept being an admin, I am biased, I admit it, but so are you, and the truth is somewhere in between.

While I don't necessarily give credence to all of the accusations made there by Avala and others about GeneralPatton, and I recognize that people can change their minds and come to regret previous statements of commitment, I think some explanation is called for in this case. --Michael Snow 18:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made some beginner mistakes when I joined wiki, being offended by the individuals you have mentioned here and their almost regular push of a POV into specific articles. Since then I've generally learned not to get upset over that what I saw as offensive. Personally, I always invite and accept community input. I can present you with some examples of the things I saw as offensive if you want. I should also note that I rejected an adminship nomination back in early September because I still didn’t think I was ready for the job. GeneralPatton 18:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also want to note that im not a native English speaker, so my choice of “biased” wasn’t really the best choice of words. I wanted to explain to Nikola,Avala,... that as they feel strongly about their oppinion, I also have my own dislike of their POV. However, unlike some of them, I've never imposed a highly controversial POV on articles. In fact i've made all efforts for NPOV, no matter how much I personally agree/disagree. And have never been in an argument absent emotional revert war. In fact i've worked on trying to end several revert wars on wiki. GeneralPatton 20:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Explanation sounds reasonable to me. I note that some of Avala's problems also seem to have stemmed partly from not being a native English speaker. I particularly appreciate GeneralPatton's understanding that one must strive for NPOV in spite of one's own personal views. --Michael Snow 22:00, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just saw this nomination, and that very comment instantly sprung to my mind... :) GeneralPatton exchanged some pretty heavy words with Avala etc, and he edit-warred with Igor, Nikola etc every now and then, but hasn't generally been overly insistent with regard to some extreme opinions, so this could be treated as something that was "back in the day...". I would vote, but I never bothered to investigate his edits unrelated to ex-yu stuff, although I noticed that there was a fair bit of them. I hope it all turns out for the best. If not, well, we have measures against that. --Joy [shallot] 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

since GeneralPatton asked me within minutes of my vote in opposition, I'm copying the following from my talk page, I'm sure he will see it here: [begin] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges. I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away. The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship. Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes.

Hi, could you please explain this further? The comments in question where made back in May [3] [4]. Only around a month after I initially joined, and may I add that I was not particularly active up to that time. I've been pretty active ever since, from editing articles to community work. GeneralPatton 01:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
ok, first, you edited this page, my talk page twice within minutes of me voting to oppose your adminship. That right there is a little insistent.
Of your 50 most recent edits, only seven were in the wikipedia namespace, 5 of those were on your votes for adminship page, and it seems you are trying to 'manage' your own election.
At a quick glance:

22:03, 2004 Dec 3 (hist) Talk:Battle of the Bulge (welcome to fourth grade english)

within the last week you behaved insultingly, your edit summary provided no info on the actual edit as well.

to explain "3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time" and "longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship" :

I don't think I need any more admins who behave insultingly, and the longer it takes for you to learn that, the longer I will expect you to work before I am willing to award you extra privileges. I think one week on wikipedia is plenty of time to learn good wiki manners.

"I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores " ... "Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes"

I'd like to see more edits in the wikipedia: namespace and just all in all to notice you doing chores like reverting vandalism, helping to negotiate consensus, etc. Not that you haven't done those, but I am on an awful lot, and haven't noticed that much of what I would term chores from you. I read a lot more than I edit, so I generally expect to notice an admin candidate before they are nominated.

"a little more sensitive to the needs of the community":

the community needs less insults and more politesse... "more lubrication and less friction" and even more so from an admin. You will probably become an admin anyway, but I find it odd that you are tracking your opposition and immediately interrogating them, particularly odd to have you query me twice before I can respond once. You haven't improved my opinion of you. Not that I have a bad opinion of you, there are far worse users, but you could take a look at the behavior of admins I HAVE supported, and you will note that their behavior is pretty near impeccable. Whether you gain adminship this time or not, I hope that my comments are of use to you. I don't bear you any ill will. Pedant 01:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I don't write "welcome to fourth grade english", that was an other user, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did not write "welcome to fourth grade english", User:Xmnemonic wrote that heading, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. I do appricate that you have a high set of standards. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
alright, I'll delete that part, but 2 edit summaries in a row showed that same text, so will you agree that it is a poor edit summary? Will you allow me to hold the opinion that I think you could do a little better if you tried? May I be allowed to expect admins to be chosen from the group that tries to do a little better than average? You don't need to answer on my talk page, I read everything [wp:Requests for Adminship]. I don't want to hammer on you, but you are really showing me more reasons to oppose promoting you to more privileges at this time.Pedant 02:33, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
If made administrator, I shall do my best to be far and most considerate, working up to the highest standard of dedication, fairness and objectivity. GeneralPatton 02:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[end]

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.)
Probably Enforcement of Arbitration Committee rulings, I'd also like to help with policymaking and resolving disputes.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I’m pretty pleased of most of mine contributions at Wikipedia, I feel honored and privileged I can make a contribution to a project like this. If I really have to single one out, that'd probably be the Erich von Manstein that gained the Featured Article status.
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?
Probably the Avala incident that has been mentioned here. This time I’d just let the Arbcom do its work.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GeneralPatton&oldid=1142575986"