Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mdcollins1984

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

[edit] Mdcollins1984

Final (2/17/1) Ended 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Mdcollins1984 (talk • contribs) – I am a user who is particularly keen at spotting mistakes by others - grammatical or otherwise, and like a particular standard across pages. I like to make sure similar pages are consistent with each other, and I have done some work in combining small stubs into larger, useful articles to de-clutter the main space. Please check my contributions for the wide range of topics I have edited, resulting in a higher standard of them all. Mdcollins1984 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination!.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would like to help with clearing some of the backlog, by looking into the articles for deletion, in particular those with little or no information. I am prepared to create pages in order to combine multiple pages with little information into a more substantive encyclopaedic entry. See my work as part of WikiProject Thomas on the Fictional Locations (The Railway Series), Major Characters (The Railway Series), Minor Characters (The Railway Series) for recent work on this topic.

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

A: I am pleased with my recent work on WikiProject Thomas, see above, and the major expansion of David Briggs (musician). Other projects have been the Truro School article. My other edits are often music based, or on and around York and Cornwall.

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: I had a small conflict recently, being accused of vandalism by User:G N Frykman, which was resolved by repeatly showing the user that it was not my edit, even going so far as to find the culprit IP address for him (the vandalism was over a month old).

I have also been looking out for un-encyclopaedic edits by User:FelixCheng relating to essential fan-fiction. I will always try to resolve conflicts amicably, whilst upholding the standards of Wikipedia.

Comments

• See Mdcollins1984's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• User:Mdcollins1984's edit count and edit-summary analysis with ais523's edit counter:

• (This is {{hidden}} due to its length). --ais523 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support By all accounts, you appear to be a very talented editor and a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. This is precisely why I hope you don't become jaded by the results of your RfA and stop editing. Spending your valuable time making Wikipedia a better place is commendable and much appreciated. If you do still wish to become an administrator, I humbly suggest signing up for admin coaching, which is a program that will pair you up with an administrator who will act as a mentor of sorts to you and will help you become a bit more experienced in the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per hoopydink.--Andeh 22:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Appears to be too new in terms of edits, virtually no Wikipedia:space work. The candidate will have more chance after more participating in Wikipedia processes (AfD is a common choice, but some of the more unusual ones are badly backlogged, and of course you can participate in more than one). --ais523 17:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
   • Also, I share Mathbot's concerns over the low edit summary usage, but this can easily be improved. --ais523 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose, sorry, just way too new. Less than 1000 edits in total. Only Wikipedia space edits are to wikiprojects. Only admin action he states that he'll perform is closing afds, but his edit history shows 0 edits to the discussions there so far. - Bobet 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per low Wikispace edits AdamBiswanger1 17:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose not enough signs to show that this user is experienced enough, looking through this nominee's contributions. The only substantive reason for nomination boils down to closing AfDs, but until today this editor has not participated in any AfD discussions. From that, I can only infer this editor does not have the necessary knowledge and experience to be closing AfD discussions; therefore, there's no need for the extra tools as of yet. Agent 86 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Weak Oppose very sorry to do this, as your work on WikiProject Thomas is excellent and your help with the Felix Cheng situation is much appreciated. However, as pointed out above you haven't yet shown that your understanding of Wikipedia policy is comprehensive and your answer to question 1 doesn't show any real need for the tools. You can create pages without being an admin. I'd like to see you gain some experience by contributing to AfD and RfA debates and doing some recent change patrolling. That give you a flavor of what admins do, so you can decide if you still want to be one. It will also give you experience with the policy issues involved and give us more evidence on which to decide on your next RfA. I do believ that with more experience under your belt you will be a good candidate next time round. Good luck, Gwernol 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Too little experience of Wiki usage and policy to be an effective admin at the moment. No harm in trying again in a few months when more experience has been gathered.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Fails all my criteria. Please continue to contribute positively though, it really is appreciated! Keep on truckin', and then reapply. Themindset 18:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose Less than 1000 edits with little diversity and lack of knowledge presented as to the technicalities of Wikipedia makes me dissent in this case. Michael 19:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   That's probably enough. AdamBiswanger1 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose Not enough experience. But try again next time. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per Michael. Not ready per my standards. Typo's in the RfA of one who is "keen at spotting mistakes by others" don't help. :) Dlohcierekim 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose on experience and edit summaries (29%!). I suggest you withdraw and resubmit in the fall or winter, taking Gwernol's suggestions of activities to get more rounded experience. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Sorry but you're edit count is very low and so is your edit summary usage (both fail my standards). Try to get a little more active in Wikipedia and then reapply later. --Tuspm ^{(C | @)} 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Aside from the very low edit count, Mdcollins's self-nom and answers to the required questions do not convince me that he even needs admin tools. -- Kicking222 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Low edit count, next to no Wikipedia space edits, low edit summary usage, and weak self-nom and answers. Not right now, but maybe in a few months. Roy A.A. 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    Again, that's probably enough (oppose votes). AdamBiswanger1 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

15. Oppose per above - not ready yet because your edit count is low. --Bigtop 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose inexperienced, doesn't really seem to need admin powers.--Jersey Devil 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
17. 'Oppose Fails to meet my criteria, by a long way. --Wisden17 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, too inexperienced. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.