Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marudubshinki

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Marudubshinki

Final (19/2/1) ending 6:13 [October 1, 2005] (UTC)

Marudubshinki (talk • contribs) – Maru has been here since February and aquired ~4600 edits (see Kate's Tool or Maru's contributions). Over 2500 of those edits are in the article namespace. He's friendly, funny, and a participant in WP:CCW. He's on RC Patrol, and I've seen him helping out newbies. I defy you to name a reason NOT to support him. ; - ) sorry that broke WP:BEANS. --Redwolf24 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Well, heck, of course I accept. (And I just want to say, please feel more than free to ask questions; as Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked bout.") --Maru (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. I trust the nominator. --Redwolf24 (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Because of his work on Oh My Goddess!, it became a WP:FAC. In order to do that, you must be civil, compromising and deal with many people. This user showed that his conduct is civil and he works well with others. However, I do caution him that with some of the articles he edits, they are under constant revert wars, so he needs to be careful before he starts blocking people and locking articles like Bogdanov Affair. Nonetheless, I still support. --Zach (Sound Off) 06:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   As far as the Bogdanov affair goes, I (should this succeed) shall refrain from using any admin powers. If I did, it would all too easy for people to claim that I rushed or was rushed suddenly into becoming an admin solely for that purpose, which is something I would like to avoid. --Maru (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Support. Nominator is coo, and funny ='s good. --RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Extreme Phroziac support! --(☺drini♫|☎) 07:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Thought he was one. --Ral315 07:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
6. Support I trust that the nominator wouldn't nominate someone bad, so I support. --Private Butcher 15:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. --Kirill Lokshin
8. Support. --Jaxl | talk 16:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Furry Alien Support All it of orange. --Alf ^melmac 16:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
10. NONDESCRIPT, AMBIGUOUSLY VAGUE AND OBFUSCATED ACT OF LENDING CREDENCE. I believe I may have possibly interacted with him in the past, which might have reinforced my opinions of him in a positive manner. --Nufy8 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

11. Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

12. Support, enjoy adminship. --Christopher Parham (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

    That's a curse, isn't it? :) --Maru (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

    What?!?! Janitorial tasks are fun!! =D --Christopher Parham (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

13. Support +sj + 07:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
14. Support CambridgeBayWeather 09:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Support the Redwolf24 admin-nominating cabal. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 22:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Support Always nice to see him on IRC too. Shall be a fine addition.Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 20:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Support 4600 edits is quite enough and his protectionist leanings are a plus. freestylefrappe 22:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support, Seems quite capable and reasonable. Sorry, wasn't logged in before.Bjones 13:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Support, certainly. This user has proven himself to be a most committed and hard-working contributor to our project, and has made a wide range of contributions in many different areas. Whilst I personally disagree with this user's somewhat protectionist stance, and with a few slightly questionable actions on his part, I would still expect that he would exercise good judgement as an admin and often such matters are opinion based rather than any kind of factual input (Bogdanov Affair is a particular case where protection is understandable, since it has turned into a mud-slinging match between two POV-warring parties). I expect that Maru shall be an asset to our community as an admin. --NicholasTurnbull 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. Surprised he was not an admin already.... ≈ jossi ≈ 21:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
21. Support. Oh, yes, you know I'm down. - Nat Krause 05:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly oppose. Advocates permanant protection of Bogdanov Affair on WP:RFAR, showing a lack of understanding of wikiculture and protection policy. --Snowspinner 05:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

   I agree that it appears to be an ill-devised proposal, but it might also be compounded by poor choice of the word "indefinite," though I note that it is ended by until. Still, I would like to read a response from the candidate and/or nominator prior to a decision. --El_C 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

   Perhaps I was not clear in my proposal: the "indefinite" part of my rewrite-and-protect proposal is really more along the lines of "protect-until-they-get-tired-and-go-another-forum-to-continue-this-flame-war-while-still-leaving-up-a-somewhat-decent-article". As it is, I think it is the current course of action w/r/t Bogdanov which is ill-conceived and wrong-headed; is it really wiki-culture to start resolving a dispute by begining to ban all of one side or the other? Because that is what is happening. I want to break out of this cycle of bans and blocks and accusations and general nastiness. I do not think this is so wrong. --Maru (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

   I think that, when the problem is a specific group of people that, so long as they are actively editing the article, the article needs to stay protected, those people should be removed. I don't think assigning a sole author and protecting a preferred version long-term or permanantly is a good solution, and it's one that speaks to a deep misunderstanding of how to use the protection function, a function you've said you really want to use.

   You'll notice that of the admin powers I'd like to use- protection is on the very bottom of the list. And you continue to misunderstand me- I do not want a "long-term" or otherwise de facto permament version under protection. I want one which will not do our readers a disservice, and one which will not anger the feuding parties, so they will go elsewhere. I do not think blocking is all that great a policy as Igor and the others could bypass it- as they will! I do not think they will take a block lying down if the article remains like a tempting prize. This is only my opinion, and I cannot force people to effect the proposal. --Maru (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose- Further interaction with this editor has left me feeling unsettled as to his abilities and motivations. I will not support. --Hamster Sandwich 03:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
3. On the "oppose" side of neutral re: the Bogdanov Affair affair for the moment - David Gerard 06:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   Note that I'd almost certainly support given a good resolution to the thorny and smelly matter in question - this is a "later" - David Gerard 05:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'll probably change to support if User:Marudubshinki/Admin standards#Why not me? is updated to reflect this nomination ;) Alf ^melmac 10:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

   Duly updated. --Maru (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I don't want to oppose, but I personally like to see contributions to a broader selection of articles. More importantly, I also prefer to see more WP namespace edits before fully supporting. --Alan Au 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

   Actually, checking his edit history more closely, article selection looks ok. However, still a handful of WP namespace edits short of earning my full support. --Alan Au 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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.)

A. Reversion. Blocking vandals (I definitely would have appreciated this while dealing with a really persistent vandal on Eric S. Raymond). Page protection is also something I've oft wished for.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm particularly proud of two areas: My talk page clean ups (which are scattered all around; my most recent cleanup was User talk:XAL, if that sort of thing interests you), and my new articles which I researched and wrote- Han-Shan, Shih-Te, Feng-Kan, Ummon, Joruus C'Baoth, the 12 Grand Admirals (except for Thrawn and Pellaeon). All of these are, I think, very well written, researched, comprehensive, and essentially unique online and doubly useful for that reason.

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 how will you deal with it in the future?

A. There have been a few. Early on, I got into a spat with Motor on the GNOME pages over various issues such as personal attacks, spelling, formatting, whether GNOME should be contrasted with KDE or not etc. I was wrong on most of it, and I eventually conceded as much. We parted amiably[1]. Then of course there there was Mr. Tan, which I helped nip in the bud (although I didn't do as much as some like Mel Etis or JM Bell), and that ended well. Of course, there is David Touretzky. Also, I edit heavily the whole Star Wars area, which has had some edit wars (see the archives for Talk:Darth Revan for tiresome detail).

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.