Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maelwys

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] Maelwys

Final (41/16/6); Ended Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:43:03 UTC

Maelwys (talk · contribs) - I believe that I would make a good administrator because I'm willing and able to perform mundane/repetitive tasks, keep a level head during disputes, and tend to have a good sense of judgement. I feel that I've demonstrated all of these traits during my year and a half on Wikipedia (with almost 2800 edits), that I've spent that time learning all of the the policies and guidelines applied on Wikipedia, and that I can now be trusted with admin tools to help keep Wikipedia clean. Maelwys 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Maelwys 14:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I anticipate doing most of my work in speedy deletions, plus whatever backlogs need the most attention on a day-to-day basis. I've done a lot of work on AfC that I think has given me a good sense of what articles are or are not appropriate to the encyclopedia, so I can apply that wisdom to speedy deletions now as well. Also, my time spent on AfC (almost 650 edits) shows that I'm willing to devote countless hours to a thankless task, and I hope to apply that devotion to cleaning up admin backlogs when I need a break from AfC.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm probably most proud of my AfC contributions. Since I started working with the AfC pages I feel that I've helped a lot to refine the process (through new or redesigned templates) to make it a lot easier and less overwhelming for myself and other editors to continue reviewing articles. I think that the newfound ease created has helped greatly in keeping me, and hopefully others, sane and free of burnout from the time-consuming process. And even though it only occasionally actually pays off (most of the articles are declined) it's always nice to hit a good day where 2-3, even 4 articles are worthy of the encyclopedia. Then I know that I've helped add new, worthwhile content.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been involved in a couple minor conflicts, but don't really feel any stress from them. When I have been involved in edit conflicts I generally try to explain my point of view as calmly as possible on the talk page, and try to build consensus amongst the other editors that regularly contribute to that page before proceeding.
4. Question from User:JohntexIf you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be and why?
A: Hmm... good question... I'll think on this one tonight and post my answer tomorrow after having a time to give it some thought. --Maelwys 03:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A: I think that it might be good to make usernames mandatory, since I don't believe that anon-contribs are generally that helpful, and if somebody is going to take the time to sit and write a well thought-out contribution posting, then it shouldn't be much to ask that they take the extra 2 minutes to signup a username at the same time. Of course this would obsolete the AfC process, but I'm sure I'd find some new time-consuming task to focus on instead. ;-) (new article patrol, for example) --Maelwys 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - I'd like more interaction with other users, but beside that, nothing holding you back and, after all, adminship is no big deal. The Rambling Man 14:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Looks like a reliable, trustworthy editor. I'd like to see more participation in tagging articles for speedy deletion if you intend to assist with that backlog (shows you know what you're doing). But I really like your AfC contributions. It shows a dedication to assisting new users and building an encyclopedia, which is what we are doing here.↔NMajdan•talk 15:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - I checked out the participation in the DB discussion per Hipocrite and saw not "process wonkery" but levelheaded reasoning. Editing record is respectable as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - A good individual who will make a fine and trustworthy administrator. EnsRedShirt 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks like a good potential admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Supports with extreme confusion to the only oppose vote so far. I've read his entire history regarding Daniel Brandt, and he followed policy by the letter and did a very good job. What's the problem? Kntrabssi 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - I'd like to point out, neutrally, that Hipocrite's "wonkery" comment is bordering on uncivil. Please let's keep calm. Yuser31415 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Strong Wikipedia supporter..--Cometstyles 21:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    I'm all for flexibility, but what I'd have expected you to write was more like "you havent contributed as much as to Wikipedia as you should have taking into account that you have been here for about 14 months". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually its 18 months and Iam Quite Impressed with this Editor and I hope he gets the mop or maybe a Vaccum Cleaner (21st Century..hehe)....--Cometstyles 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per Hipocrite. ~ trialsanderrors 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    But Hipocrite opposed, eh? - Anas Talk? 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yup. ~ trialsanderrors 23:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Great user. I only wished you had a little more experience. - Anas Talk? 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Hand over the mop or the vacuum, either will do for this ready and able nominee. Agent 86 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Could use some more experience, but you've proven yourself. bibliomaniac15 02:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak support mainspace contributions outside of AfC are a little thin, at least recently. However, judgment in choosing appropriate articles from AfC seems solid and there's no indication that he'd misuse the tools. Opabinia regalis 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - The opposing users have not convinced me that the candidate is untrustworthy. - Richard Cavell 05:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Likes the small things. Of particularly favourable note to me is helping in AfC. Heavens forfend! Planned articles? Quick, enmop before sense makes an appearance! Pigmandialogue 06:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Terence 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Trialsanderrors makes an excellent point, suggesting this editor has the right temperament for adminship. Xoloz 15:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support per Hipocrite. Excellent point by Trialsanderrors. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Support per criteria set out on my user page. Please remember it is a mop, not a gavel nor a billy club this community is giving you. Some of the comments of others in this RfA might encourage you to treat the concerns of other users too lightly. But the fault lies with them not you. Edivorce 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support looks good, good article building and he cares about policy.-- danntm T C 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Hipocrite's oppose caused me to dig for about half an hour yesterday into this user's contribs in that and other discussions, and all it did was reinforce to me that this user has a good head on his/her shoulders (and I couldn't see a single instance of "process wonkery", but hey, it caused me to do my research, so thank you!). May not have the most experience in process at the moment, but, based on what I saw yesterday, I trust that they will study and learn before jumping into something they're not entirely familiar with. I waited until today to !vote to see if anyone brought up something I hadn't caught, but nothing swayed me. I respect most of the oppose voters, but I see no reason not to hand over the mop. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I think this user has what it takes to be a good admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support as I see ample evidence of need for the tools and a willingness to help in backlogged areas. Also, I don't see anything that supports the oppose reasons put forth by Hipocrite and MECU. I thinl Maelwys will do a fine job as an admin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Just enough experience for me. MECU is being harsh. Hipocrite's objection I find less that convincing. Process wonkery is good thing. Trust the user to wield tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just saw trialsanderrors' comment - my sentiments exactly. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support per NYCJD. semper fictilis 12:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Terence 16:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) As much as I appreciate the enthusiastic support, you already posted to this RfA once, above. --Maelwys 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - what's this? Do I hear the sound of a masochist who desires to perform thankless tasks? Quickly, friends! The mop and bucket for this one, before he gets wise to it! ♠PMC♠ 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. 2,800 edits is plenty of time. 2,800 edits and no blocks mean that this candidate has performed 2,800 actions in accordance with our policies. That means enough to me. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. I'm not seeing any reason not to trust Maelwys with the admin tools. With regards to Hipocrite's concern: although I happen to disagree with pretty much everything Maelwys said at the DRV, his argument was reasonable. I don't think the opinion he displayed there, however wrong it was, has bearing on his trustworthiness as an admin. Picaroon 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support 2800 edits is more then enough. -Mschel 00:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support (switched from neutral). --A. B. (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. I hear and agree with Radiant's concerns on experience with process, but some of this opposition is pretty funny. We're trying to gauge the motivations of people we don't know personally from their choice of minor words (ie. "deny me adminship)? Also, as an administrator who has been guilty of having a fair-use image on his user page, I know how easy it is to run afoul of that policy- in this case (as in mine) it seems much more like absent-mindedness as opposed to lack of understanding. --Scimitar parley 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support per pretty much everyone else :) Why not? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. All the oppose votes seriously looks like nitpicking and people tryign to find any reason possible to oppose him. Isn't adminship not supposed to be a big deal?--Wizardman 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Per Trials and Errors and Scimitar. Wonk away, just don't lose control of it. Just Heditor review 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Why the hell not? User seems well-suited to adminship, willing to perform such tasks, and the response to Hipocrite is perfectly fine (and probably a lot less than I'd say in response to a useless oppose vote). When I was made an admin, the question was, are you willing and able to do the job, and are you likely to abuse the tools if you're made an admin? It's yes and no, and so I can find no reason to oppose. Ral315 » 07:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. I'm with Ral315 and NYC JD, among others. No red flags and nothing that's come up among the opposing opinions particularly concerns me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. WjBscribe 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, although I don't agree with the answer or the rationale behind the answer to Question 4. -- DS1953 talk 19:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support, the arguments above this point are good and the concerns raised below are trivial or ridiculous. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. After a look through their contribs, I'm convinced this user is familiar with policy, and I saw no civility problems or other issues that would prevent me from supporting. Good contributions, and obvious willingness to help out with gruntwork like at AFC. Good work with adopting users and responding well to their questions. I don't agree with the answer to Q4, but I don't believe in denying someone adminship or other privileges based on a theoretical disagreement. Edit count is also not a reliable indicator of experience. delldot talk 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. I believe the opposition based on the "deny me adminship" comment is unfounded. More user talk experience would be desirable, but as long as Maelwys proceeds cautiously with his newly found powers (if promoted), I don't see a problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - process wonkery RE Daniel Brandt is a deal breaker. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    You want to deny me adminship because I follow procedure too well? --Maelwys 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, I don't trust you not to use the tools to enforce policy at the detriment to encyclopedia. Your language, "deny me adminship" treats adminship as an honor, or a tolken, or a blessing. This dramatic misunderstanding of what adminship is is the secon deal-breaker. Please see thisHipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Very interesting reading. Thank you for the feedback, I'll keep it in mind. --Maelwys 17:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whatever happened to assuming good faith? There's absolutely no reason to assume that using "deny me adminship" instead of, say, "oppose my candidacy as an admin" amounts to a "dramatic misunderstanding". Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Hipocrite, can you elaborate on what the problem was vis-à-vis Brandt (perhaps with some diffs)? I'm aware of ongoing controversy with Brandt but I haven't followed the recent chapters. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    [1] and [2] seem to be his only comments on the DRV. Picaroon 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    If those are all there is to Maelwys's participation in that debate, then I don't understand the Oppose. Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Those are my posts in the DRV, I also made a couple posts in the AfD that followed. They're at [3] and [4]. --Maelwys 03:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    The statement that made me lose trust in Maelwys was [5]. Coupled with [6] showed me that he was processwonkering to win an argument on the technicalities, rather than the merits. Given the history of that situation, such behavior is anathema to fair debate (such behavior is why I no longer contribute to the encyclopedia except to oppose the trophy-seeking behavior of individuals that have exhibited such behavior). Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Both of those are perfectly reasonable statements, and not "process wonkery" in the slightest. If someone mentions "reasons already stated" and no reasons have been stated, the obvious reaction is to point that out and ask for clarification. This really smacks of being pissed that you didn't get your way with that article, and pointedly opposing a RfA to get back at someone who disagreed with you. Is this the extent of it, or will we be seeing opposition to other RfA's of folks who supported overturn/keep? --Minderbinder 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for use of fair use image in userspace: [7]. This occurred in December 2006 when the fair use policy was clearly established that use of fair use images outside article namespace was not appropriate. --MECU≈talk 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    You're right, I definitely shouldn't have used that image there. I was doing a major redesign on an article stub and created that page as a sandbox to work in, and because the article was going to end up in the article namespace I didn't even consider that while I was working on it, it'd be in a userspace. (and to compound the problem, forgot to delete my sandbox once I promoted the article to the mainspace) --Maelwys 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    The purpose of that policy is to prevent userspace decoration, which avoids the use of unfree images in contexts where they do not qualify as fair use. There is no practical difference between images that appear under a legitimate fair-use rationale in an article and images that appear in the same text context in userspace during article development. This is largely a red herring. Opabinia regalis 04:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This user just does not have enough experience for me as of yet. I particularly would like to see more interfacing with other users. I see evidence of 69 user talk messages thusfar. A history of effective communication with other users is important to me in an administrator. I think this user should keep up the good work and come back in a little while. Kukini hablame aqui 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - AfC is good training for AfD and CSD, but without significant experience dealing with users, I'm not convinced they're ready for the conflict that will come from performing deletions and blocks. It's too easy to just decline an AfC and ignore the submitter. —dgiestc 08:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Lack of experience with process. >Radiant< 11:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Kukini. Michael 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose lack of experience. -- Vision Thing -- 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Maelwys. I like you, seeing you on AFC and all, and you seem to do better there than a lot of people. But 2800 edits and literally 0 XFD or AIV edits shows it's definitely too soon. Patstuarttalk·edits 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it's not "literally 0 XFD or AIV edits", as I've made 57 edits to XfD pages and 3 edits to AIV pages, but I do recognize your point. Which is why I was planning to stay away from closing any XfD debates until after I'd gained some more experience with those, and planning to stick with CSDs and other work initially. --Maelwys 00:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to neutral. Though I definitely lean to oppose, because of your lack of edits, I'm going to assume good faith and assume you'll try to get more experience in admin related activities. Patstuarttalk·edits 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Lack of experience. Also the "you want to deny me adminship?" doesn't sounds too well for me,--Kamikaze 20:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Must agree with Kamikaze, as the user seems slightly uncivil to me. He says "you want to deny me adminship" as if it's a trophy and the "actually it's not "quote" seems like this user needs to have some time to cool down before going after the M&B. Also, unexperienced in needed areas. VD64992 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    So correcting an opposer who was blatantly wrong is uncivil now? Jesus, how sad is the state of RfA? I, like most, look at the arguments provided by opposers, and if someone writes something that is entirely false, I greatly appreciate knowing about it. "Literally" is a word with an actual meaning, and I'm not at all a fan of being mislead; I'd hope that you aren't either. Thankfully I wasn't in this instance, as I actually did my research before giving my opinion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    I was mostly referring to the first comment, but in a whole (I've done my research too), this user looks like he wants a trophy instead of actually helping Wikipedia. VD64992 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Not at all. Although I admit that it might've been poorly phrased from the shock I was in at the time, my misconstrued statement was trying to understand why Hipocrite would deny my application for toolbox access because I'm apparantly too good at following the policies laid down to prevent those tools from being abused. Looking back at it now, it appears that Hipocrite was just trying to make a point because I disagreed with him on that issue (and the fact that he apparantly retired from Wikipedia because of that issue, and did so BEFORE he came and posted here, seems to support that analysis). --Maelwys 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is further demonstration that Maelwys Does Not Get It. It is not "disrupting the encyclopedia" to oppose someone who fundamentally is basically playing a MMORPE (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Encyclopedia). If I were to start reverting every edit you made? That's a WP:POINT. To oppose your nomination? Get serious. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to nitpick but I'm really with Bbatsell on this one. This rationale for oppose is turning a fairly innocuous, if poorly stated, response to Hipocrite's oppose into a sure-fire sign that the candidate is out looking for a trophy... Again I ask, whatever happened to assuming good faith? And VD64992, please do enlighten us: what exactly did you find when doing your homework that suggests the candidate is looking for a trophy? Pascal.Tesson 04:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    I said that one statement made it sound like that. I didn't say the main reason I opposed was because of that, as he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia process as well (XfD, etc...). Just read the other opposition to find out. VD64992 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    You did say "in a whole (I've done my research too), this user looks like he wants a trophy instead of actually helping Wikipedia". Can you tell us what exactly brought you to this conclusion? Pascal.Tesson 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Must agree with Radiant^. Imageboy1 07:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per the inappropiate "You want to deny me adminship" comment to one of the opposers, and I feel that the candidate needs more article writing experience. Dionyseus 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't get how this comment is so inappropriate. To use the mop metaphor, his comment amounts to "You want to deny me a mop because I clean the floor too well?" I think that's a legitimate question, and doesn't imply any trophymongering at all to me. jSarek 11:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per inappropriate comment, and just lack of experience. As other opposition. Bigman17 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose for various reasons cited above, but mostly for lack of user interaction (ie talking) which I feel is key to adminship. --Dweller 10:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Radiant and Kukini.--cj | talk 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I come as a "swing voter", seeing a 75% support rate, and I'll encourage the candidate to try again in another couple of months. Processing CSDs is a good start, but he needs more experience with XFD or AIV or other admin areas. YechielMan 15:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Changed form neutral. I would rather err on the side of safety here than give someone the tools who has not demonstrated the abilities necessary. No disrespect to the candidate intended, but the low number of talk edits are, for me, decisive. Sorry, and, per Yechieman, come back in a couple of months for a better result. Sorry. --Guinnog 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: Is it just me or was this vote changed After the supposed end of this RfA? EnsRedShirt 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, as was the oppose directly above it also added after the week had expired. However, I assume that the week is just a guideline and the RfA's still technically open for comment until it's closed and marked as archived. (obviously I'd prefer it was locked closer to the ending time when the results were more in my favour, but what can you do?) --Maelwys 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning support. Not quite enough experience for my taste but one has to like an admittedly masochistic candidate who wants to do thankless repetitive tasks. Also, the oppose rationale of Hipocrite seems pretty far fetched. (additional comment: I still am not satisfied with the user's inexperience but the opposition based on the "deny me adminship" comment are so utterly ridiculous that I'm almost tempted to support as a protest...) Pascal.Tesson 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - indeed. The Rambling Man 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral As per Pascal. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 10:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral but quite favorable. I don't have the time to look into his time on Wikipedia, so I can't speak to his edit history here and thus don't feel comfortable making a Support vote. However, I've had experiences with him as a moderator on other sites, and he's always been rational, fair, and even-handed. I have no doubt he would keep up his track record here. jSarek 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral The lack of user talk activity means it's not possible to tell how the user will deal with vandalism or to a lesser extent, editing conflicts. I'd definitely support Maelwys otherwise. Xiner (talk, email) 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral, per Xiner. --Guinnog 16:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose.
    Neutral leaning towards support but I don't understand the Daniel Brandt comment. (see my question to Hipocrite above). --A. B. (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC) changed to support--A. B. (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - see my comments above. Patstuarttalk·edits 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral The early opposition rationales are so wrong that I was tempted to support simply to offset them. However, there is a lack of demonstrated experience in communicating with other users and working through the AFD process. And my review of his article talk page contributions make me concerned that he may be too willing to use original research to write articles. GRBerry 13:44, 21 March 2007 (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.