I nominate Graculus. Although a very recent contributor, he is very active, making up to 50 edits a day. He's already one of the site's best history contributors. In addition, he has been thoroughly vetted, having survived an edit war involving Adam/Bridget/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Ril/Pizza Puzzle. He has also been unable to edit a protected page. His capability boundlessly exceeds the requirements. He has already needed sysop powers. And his ability to get around the Wiki has already been proven. 172 08:28, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Seconded. Good choice - not the type of person to abuse sysop power (to the contrary - he'll be a check on other Admin's who may slip into the gray area once in a while). --mav 08:37, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It wasn't a matter of surviving New Imperialism, but surviving a page haunted by Lir. Notice that all tension subsided immediately when Lir/Pizza Puzzle agreed to leave and cultivate a new persona. 172 09:46, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Most flattered, and many thanks. I accept unless anyone wants to change their mind given the age of the above (I'd missed it previously). Graculus 20:28, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't know much about this Wikipedia project yet, and might be deemed too uninformed to be taken seriously if uttering an opinion, but I do it anyway: Above, the word "edit war" is used, and that's probably the right term for Graculus' (and User:172's) contribution [1] to the article on the Continuation War. I am concerned about Graculus' counter-factual contribution, and him comparing his adversaries with Goebbels. This behavior made me look at "what links here", where I however found nothing alarming, except this page. :-) I wonder if it really would be in this project's best interest to grant adminship to persons with these qualities.--Tuomas 02:25, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Graculus wrote "'Revert propaganda. USSR was the aggressor in June 1941? Goebbels would be so proud.'" as the tag line to one of his edits. This is subject to two interpretations: is Graculus comparing his adversaries to Goebbels, or is he saying they are duped by Goebbels's propaganda? It could be read either way. Cyan
Both interpretations ought to be a warning signal. In particular when used in an "edit-war" as a support for (or disguise of) reproducing Stalinist lies and power language - calling it "NPOV". Graculus also wrote: "Finland was a Nazi ally. It's to be understood" That has the same ring to it as the Soviet demand, during the era of Finlandization, that the Finns should "understand" to have started two wars factually started by the Red Army, which clearly echoes when he writes: "USSR was the aggressor in June 1941? Goebbels would be so proud." His swift removal of the dates for Soviet bombing of Finnish towns, for Finland's declaration of State of War, and for troops passing the border between Finland and USSR (added by me[2]) made two hours of my edit efforts to naught. Hurt selfpride? No. It's concern about this project, whose intentions are laudable. See how easy User:172, the top on the list of administrators, put his trust in User:Graculus instead of checking facts.--Tuomas
Do not slander me. I did not base my edit on the basis of any "trust" in Graculus or any user, or for that matter in any distrust in any other user. I based my edit on the nature of the two rival versions. I simply did not have time to expound. Before I get involved , however, I think that it would be best to have the sides try to come to an agreement on the talk page, but not this page. The sniping at Graculus doesn't really belong here. This is not a forum in which to complain every time a nominee gets into a little dispute over an article. 172 01:16, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Your usage of the word slander seems different than mine. I most certainly didn't intend to slander anyone. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the meaning with this forum. Where can it be found what kind of concerns being relevant here?--Tuomas 02:53, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I am afraid I have to agree with Tuomas here. I haven't run into Graculus before, but his behaviour on Continuation War isn't really what I would like to see from an admin. -- Jniemenmaa 09:04, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
I Think the edit war Graculus is currently engaged in is definitely relevant to the discussion of his sysop nomination and acceptance, but I don't think it alone is nearly enough to disqualify him from sysophood. The facts in dispute in Continuation War are neither here nor there, whether he was in the wrong or not, and whether he intentionally used language which might be construed as insulting, it wouldn't matter unless it was part of a pattern of behaviour. And even if it were, then the incidents forming the pattern should all be looked at closely, to eliminate the possibility of misunderstandings. I don't think there is any evidence that the edit war he is currently in is part of a pattern of behaviour. I am leaving the matter of whether he is right or not, for another time and another place.(posted via edit conflict) -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:31, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
There is not a single sysop who works with the history articles who hasn't been involved with an edit war. And this is nothing more than an edit war, with the sides oppossed to Graculus' version complaining on this inappropriate forum. History is contentious, and disputes between users will come up inevitably. Please work this out on a talk page, and not here. Two people in a dispute over an article should focus on the article, and work out an agreement on the talk page. If this became a forum for discussing Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, there would be formal complaints levied against each sysop and each nominee. I myself was involved in a couple of edit wars with Graculus, but I found out how reasonable he was. When you know the topic well and work toward NPOV you will have no problems with this user. 172 14:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If I get into disagreements with people on pages I'm contributing to, that's nothing to do with any admin functions, because (a) they're not to be used by anyone where they're party to a dispute; and (b) I wouldn't use them in someone else's disagreement either unless there was clear evidence of destructive intent against the project rather than against a point of view. I offered to do it solely because admins are thin on the ground: it's of absolutely no personal advantage to me, and I don't want it to be a contentious matter. Nomination declined. Graculus 00:28, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
PS. I don't know why these people are so bothered by a mention of Goebbels, since according to them "Finland's survival as an independent democratic and capitalist country was made possible chiefly through Nazi-Germany's support". Makes him sound quite a decent chap: I suppose if the Reich had won we'd all have been independent and democratic in 1945. Any insult to Ruhrjung is regretted. Graculus 00:47, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I should clarify that while we generally expect good conduct from all users, including admins, engaging in edit wars (which is sometimes very hard to avoid) or occasionally using harsh language (which is less excusable, but we are all human) is not sufficient, at least not by established precedent, for declining sysop status. —Eloquence 02:13, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed, and no precedent intended, but it's also a trust placed in a contributor by the wiki community, and those who don't share that trust are perfectly entitled to say so and have their views taken into account, as indeed I might wish to do under different circumstances. I don't think trying to do the work under circumstances of unrelated controversy would be helpful to any of us. I forgot to thank those who had been supportive or at least constructive. Thanks. Graculus 09:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
