Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/M1ss1ontomars2k4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] M1ss1ontomars2k4

Final (12/11/9) ended 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk · contribs) – Hello; I've been involved with Wikipedia (as a registered user) since June 2004, when I added a wikilink to Sponge while doing a biology project. However, I wasn't very active until mid-March or so of this year, at which time I've been helping out with reverts, an attempt to mediate a disupte in which the two parties suddenly lost interest in the article, fixing dabs, and general copyediting (especially comma splices and it's-its mistakes). I try my best to be sensible and courteous to other users, so if I haven't you'd better let me know (I did run into some problems with User:IslandGyrl, which can be viewed here). I have not spoken with her since, although I did leave a message on her talk, which can be found here. M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ Nomination withdrawn. Clearly I have much to improve on before becoming an admin, so I'll withdraw now and work on the suggestions listed below. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Seems to know the ropes. Sarge Baldy 02:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support I like Mission's work on AfD, article editing and I believe he'll make a good admin. Edit counts are on the low side, but I believe the quality of the work and the wisdom of the editor is what counts. Gwernol 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support A solid editor —Mets501talk 03:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Barely support and, man, is this one close. Tools, abilities and likelihood that the user won't abuse the mop, bucket and keys just do override the lack of interaction with fellow users, abusive and otherwise, that I'd really prefer to see—especially now that I've seen a greater share. Still, I'm just this side of neutral. RadioKirk talk to me 05:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Trustworthy user and useful contributor. DarthVader 09:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seems ok to me. - Liberatore(T) 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, seems good enough. Adminship is no big deal --Andy123 talk 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. A very good Wikipedian who does the tasks that often go unnoticed, but, of course, are very important to our readers. I have no reason to believe that M1ss1ontomars wouldn't make a good admin, unfortunately it looks like we'll have to wait till nest time. Rje 12:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak support per Andy and RadioKirk. Joe 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Although his experience is limited, he is a good and sensible editor. Not a deletionist, won't abuse the gift. -MrFizyx 17:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support just to cancel out one of the editcountitis sufferers below. — GT 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry, but you don't have a sufficient amount of edits, and you've only been here actively editing for about a month or so. Again, nothing personal, but feel free to try again in a few months! Mopper Speak! 02:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - from what I've seen you're a great editor, your contribs look very good. Mostly this is in the oppose section rather than the one above is due to your (overall / relative) number of discussion edits, I don't really know how well you interact with the community yet and its must for an admin. Thanks for the great work though -- Tawker 02:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Well, your edits are fine. However, I'm concerned over your Talk edits - less than five percent in article talk, and less than one in Wikipedia talk: you need to interact with the community a bit more. --NomaderTalk 02:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above; not enough experience. joturner 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose You look like a great editor, but I'd like to see a lot edits in namespaces other than main, most particlarly project and user talk. I look forward to supporting your future RfA! AmiDaniel (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. Steveo2 11:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Premature. Mackensen (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak oppose per Nomader. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak oppose. Better get more experience.--Jusjih 14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per insufficient experience and per persistent use of "randomcrapcruft" as a justification for a delete recommendation in many AfD's. Though the user acknowledged his error and promised to stop when I contacted him about it recently, it demonstrates a lack of good judgment. Deletion is serious business, and I cannot trust him with adminship if he treats it so lightly. Would be pleased to support in 3 months if improvement is shown, as I genuinely believe it will be. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose no problems with what the user has done except that there's simply not enough of it. Way too little activity for my tastes. I would encourage Mission to come up again in a few months if there is more activity in the interim --Deville (Talk) 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Support. Looking through his history, with the mark up assistance I have with my edit count tool, he seems to have created and expanded a good deal of articles. All around pretty good except talk edits are a bit low. He can learn that as he goes, as it is not that much of a deficit.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to Neutral, after considering Wikipedia edit level more. You definetely need some more project edits in order to really have enough experience. I noticed user talk edits were a tad low, but you only have 3 wikipedia talk edits. I would love to support, but the issue of experience is too much of an issue; trust and quality certainly not issues here.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 03:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, maintain this level of activity for 2-3 more months, and I will support you next time. Kimchi.sg 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, needs more experience. --Terence Ong 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, more experience would definitely be helpful. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral leaning towards oppose, because of the experience issue only. --kingboyk 13:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral leaning towards support, I guess you will have my full sopport in a few months. --Tone 14:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I've seen this user doing an excellent job at AfD , RCPatrol, and beyond. Approaches editing w/ good sense of humor. Uses edit summaries. However, needs more experience. I prefer to see about 4,000 edits. Oldest edit is from March 30. I prefer 4-6 months active use. Thanks, :) Dlohcierekim 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Per Voice-of-All Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. I really, really like Mission, and I'm positive we have great admin material here; but echoing above, there's no rush, and some more experience would definetely be desirable. Will ake this a huge support in a whle. Keep it up, Mission! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

It is of high concern to me, that in a self-nomination, you forgot to sign your name in the "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:" line - especially in a self-nomination. --NomaderTalk 04:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized that randomly. So it's signed now...I thought I was through with forgotten sigs! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user M1ss1ontomars2k4 (over the 2369 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 681 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 3hr (UTC) -- 16, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 2hr (UTC) -- 4, June, 2004
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 90.08% Minor edits: 86.05%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 85.44% Minor article edits: 84.53%
Average edits per day (current): 3.48
Recognized notable article edits (non-minor/reverts): 3.38%
Unique pages edited: 1648 | Average edits per page: 1.44 | Edits on top: 20.77%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 34.49%
Minor edits (non reverts): 43.39%
Marked reverts: 16.67%
Unmarked edits: 5.45%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 58.76% (1392) | Article talk: 4.81% (114)
User: 3.21% (76) | User talk: 9.08% (215)
Wikipedia: 22.2% (526) | Wikipedia talk: 0.13% (3)
Image: 0.8% (19)
Template: 0.68% (16)
Category: 0% (0)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.34% (8)

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'd like to help out the CVU and RC Patrol with blocking and protecting, as I've found it can very frustrating when only a few people (or nobody) is watching AIV or RFP, and the vandal continues to...er...vandalize WAY past the fourth warning, such as 67.100.48.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) (and his sockpuppets) on The Da Vinci Code. I spent an entire hour hitting F5 (refresh) on my keyboard to watch for his fancruft links before User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Madchester came to my aid and sprotected the article and blocked the user, respectively. I'd also like to help new users around Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm mostly pleased with the dab repair and reversions I've done on Wikipedia, but I'm fairly proud of Keuffel and Esser as it is what I consider my first highly visible contribution to Wikipedia. Reversions and dab repair are often disregarded by more casual visitors, but I still find them fulfilling anyway. I'm also pleased with my contributions to AIV and RFP (although those can hardly be considered contributions) because they make Wikipedia a more pleasant place for legitimate users.
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: Yes. See my answer to No. 2 above, as well as my temporary problems with User:IslandGyrl (also as stated above). After my experience with her I decided to more closely adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as other users' suggestions. In the future, I hope to be more WP:CIVIL as well as avoid experiences like this, which, I'd like to add, occurred exceptionally late at night. Should I, in a strange instant of anger, flare out at another user/group of users, I would immediately apologize, as I did to Genzo when I nominated Photo Ionization Detector for deletion on accident.

Question from Ambuj Saxena (this is optional but I will appreciate if you answer)

1. Is adding an RfA to the WP:RfA page a minor edit? I am refering to your nomination's addition.
A:
Comment - this leads to the question of "should we punish candidates for not marking edits like "add this" or "links" and not marking them as minor. My edit count tool marks many of these edits as minor, whether the user did or not, I can generalte a %minor edits actually marked as minor...but is it really that useful? If someone says "add links" without m, does it really matter? I can see if they put m and nothing else, I don't mind that sometimes. As for the edit of adding his RfA, note that you must make the request page and get it up to par, and then add the inclusion marks on WP:RFA, so one can see the actual request page (this) as the major edit and necessarily including using {{}} as the minor edit. So in sum, I am not sure that him not marking it as minor as an issue.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 14:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply - I am not punishing the user for this. In fact I haven't voted in this RfA as of now. If I were so fussy about it, I would have not made this question optional. The idea of putting this as a question here (and not in talk page) is to discuss the candidate's view on this topic. I consider this a major edit and hence wanted to confirm whether he marked it as minor by mistake or was there any reasoning behind it. If there were, I wanted to know candidate's view on it. You have provided an explaination to it, but I am not convinced by it. The difference between a major and a minor edit has mostly to do with good faith. For example if you are a major contributor to an article, you keep it on your watchlist. There are also other contributors to the articles you trust. If any of them make an edit, you go and see what change has been made (even if you KNOW that they are making constructive edits). However, when you see an edit marked minor, it means that the editor feels that there is no need to check this edit as its so minor that it doesn't add any value (by addition or deletion of content). Since you trust the user, you don't check the edit. Now coming back to this RfA's addition. Definitely by just adding this RfA to the main RfA page hasn't changed any content in it. However, people don't watch an RfA until it is added to the main RfA's page. It makes a huge difference as it means another person has applied for an RfA. This is the biggest edit someone can make to this page (apart from policy changes that appear above the RfAs). Although the user explained it in his edit summary, I was intrigued by his marking it as minor and hence I wanted to know his opinion. If you want to discuss this issue further, please contact me personally on my talk page as this page is not meant for debating this issue and is just meant for discussing the user's suitability for getting sysop rights. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.