Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Ricimer

Re: Neutrals

"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power?...Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"! I hate these filthy neutrals. With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals—who knows. It sickens me." (Zapp Brannigan, Futurama) --Ricimer 00:53, 22 December 2005 (EST)

If I don't make it through this, tell my wife I said, "Hello." (The leader of the Neutral guys, als Futurama) --Day 08:43, 22 December 2005 (EST)

This needs executive attention

I'm not quite sure how to handle this, so I'll just observe the factual points:

Posted by Jzanjani: "#As one of the many victims of Ricimer's angry and immoderate editing zeal, I'm afraid I must speak against his promotion to admin. Ricimer has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of understanding and sympathizing with opinions which do not match his own - to say nothing of his reaction to contrarian viewpoints! - and bestowing the power of administration will allow him simply more opportunity to abuse this resource to an even greater extent. Furthermore, he has also shown that he is ignorant of rules of etiquette which have been produced by consensus of members, not only in reverting others' edits but other ways as well. However, most importantly, although the other members of this community may feign to distinguish between quantity and quality, I would even question the intrinsic value of Ricimer's contributions to the material. As a writer, I know an amateur when I see his stuff, and Ricimer is an amateur of the most pedestrian variety. His style is ineffectual, rakish and emasculate, his spelling is atrocious and slipshod, his diction is uninspired, pretentious, and formulaic, and the general impression is that of an uncultured and uneducated ignoramus affecting to be something quite different. The community shall please keep in mind that I am speaking of the impression given by Ricimer's writing only, and am not making any disparagements of his character. After thoughtful deliberation, I am sure that the members of this community will come to the right decision and vote against this proposal. Jzanjani"

Few things to point out: A) Jzanjani is not the victim of an "attack" by me, he is a troll who malaciously attacked me, which resulted in him getting banned repeatedly (I think we can all agree on my wording here, I'm trying to be NPOV)

B) Has Jzanjani's monthlong ban (which followed an earlier, weeklong ban) actually ended? I assume it has, as he's made a post here....

C) The main point I wanted Joe's imput on: Jzanjani has broken the rules repeatedly, notably requiring MULTIPLE bannings, and had attacked me on many occasions. You yourself have witnessed all of these, so I won't summarize the whole event again. Nonetheless, should he be allowed to make a vote for administers, given his previous record, I think it's at least questionable.

D) On a side note, I value the constructive and polite inpute of Farago and Mason; yet I assure you, if I would have "abused" any powers I would have been seen to have done so already, and, of late, I have not "bit the newbies" as much as in the past; I can't "be nicer to them at a faster rate " to make up for earlier frankness with them, etc. Your call on that one.

E) Getting back on topic; Jzanjani is obviously making an ill-advised and slanderous joke: Note that he uses many loquatious thesaurus-words rattling on about how he thinks my "edits are of an uncultured ignoramous", that "my edits are amateur" etc. Along with Spencerian and Peter Farago, (the three of our) edits make up the bulk of the episode guide, and indeed this wiki (though thankfully, we've been getting more people lately and I hope this will change; always good to have an extra set of eyes, etc). --->Jzanjani's claim to fame is making a "silly" page for Toaster. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but he simply hasn't done much of anything else in the time when he was allowed to post, and he, SO FAR, at any rate, has done little to correct this. If I were in his position, I would now proceed to make CONSTRUCTIVE edits or discussions, or various other things helping out. But mark my words, I personally believe that he's just a troll who won't contribute anything to this wiki in the coming months. Only time will tell, and, for his sake, I hope he reforms and proves me wrong. But such trust and respect is earned, and he has to work to get it back after being repeatedly banned for malacious behavior.

F) At any rate, I just wanted to "air these grievances" (Happy Festivus!, etc). I'm not asking for another ban for Jzanjani or anything, by no means; he's done nothing that breaks the actual rules...though he has made a baseless and hypocritical statement regarding myself, it's his view to post. Whatever. Regardless, my primary concern is; given his past banning history, and his record of personal attacks against me, should he be allowed to vote? If he is, fine. I cannot stop that. But I wanted to ask. --Ricimer 17:31, 24 December 2005 (EST)

Ricimer, I have every faith that Joe will consider Jzanjani's input on your vote in the spirit it was intended. As for "being nicer at a faster rate", I think it would be a very good idea to revisit your RFA in a month or so, if the present one fails to pass. --Peter Farago 19:22, 24 December 2005 (EST)

I appreciate your thoughtful, deliberative input on this; not what I'm used to; last time I got into a problem on Wikipedia, I found myself on the business end of a BFG (mind you, a BFG can be very, persuasive...).--Ricimer 22:20, 24 December 2005 (EST)