Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Makemi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Makemi

final (45/7/1) ending 03:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Makemi (talk · contribs) – It is my privilege to nominate Makemi for adminship. A fellow enthusiast of early music, and a highly competent editor of classical music articles, Makemi has been with the project for more than three months now, and in that time has written a number of excellent, indeed superb articles (Trobairitz springs to mind, but see Makemi's user page for many others). In addition to writing and editing, this fine contributor spends a lot of time reverting vandalism and doing maintenance tasks, and – most importantly to my mind – stays cool when dealing with trolls, vandals, and hotheads, and in so doing, shows exactly the right temperament to be an admin. Makemi has a nice mix of article space, user talk space, and Wikipedia space edits; is always happy to engage in discussion with other editors; and shows a strong grasp of Wikipedia policy.

Makemi has my enthusiastic, and unqualified support, and I am happy to suggest giving this exemplary Wikipedian the keys to the broom closet. Antandrus (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Gratefully accept, thank you for your kind words, Antandrus. Makemi 03:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support for this exceptional contributor, with no reservations whatsoever. Antandrus (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, looks good. However, needs more Wikipedia space edits. --Terence Ong 03:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Knowledgeable and friendly. Joyous | Talk 03:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Keep up the good work! Feezo (Talk) 03:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. - Seems cheerful, kind, and competent. Like this editor's style, like their articles. Happy to Support ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support -- More like this candidate, please. John Reid 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support the musicabal a well-tempered editor whose work I've admired. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, good editor. Mushroom (Talk) 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support: Definitely capable. - Richardcavell 06:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support: Definitely 100% on me, you meet all the requirements to me. - CrnaGora | Talk 07:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per everyone else! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Per above. GizzaChat © 12:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Looks like a good candidate; lots of edits in wikipedia, and highly active for the past four months. You have my support. Weatherman90 13:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support A good and friendly user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Normally, I'd be inclined to oppose a candidate of brief tenure; however, the quality of editor's classical music contributions sways me. Excellemt editor. Xoloz 16:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support But do you need help archiving your user talk page?? :-) --mmeinhart 17:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. support: Looks good; as a solid or even exemplary contributor, candidate will likely help maintain needed balance among admin selections, which seemingly veers a bit too much toward favoring vandal fighters rather than editors primarily dedicated to actually building an excyclopedia. Ombudsman 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support looks good, although Makemi is a little new. Prodego talk 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Be careful with the mop, though. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Just about been here long enough to show an understanding of WP policy. Good luck. haz (user talk)e 09:38, 19 March 2006
  23. Support, we'll makeyu an admin yet! JIP | Talk 13:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. I was leaning support and on reflection I think, yes. --kingboyk 16:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Definately. --Andy123(talk) 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support good editor --rogerd 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Kirill Lokshin 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Weak support. Looks like a good editor. Just squeaks by on just about every minimum qualification I have, but crosses the threshold. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. SupportRobert McClenon 01:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Supportwell rounded --Masssiveego 01:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support And note that Makemi seems to be the first of the current batch to get Massive's approval. That takes effort. JoshuaZ 02:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support per above --Khoikhoi 04:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support short time... but okay otherwise. Nephron 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - my 3 main criteria are: be nice, be fair, and contribute well. This user qualifies on all 3 counts. --Go for it! 18:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support per nom. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Joe I 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per nom. --Jay(Reply) 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support--Jusjih 03:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support --Latinus 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, can't see any reason not to and the answers to the questions indicate a level headeness that suit the role. Hiding talk 09:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, based largely on my review of Makemi's work on AfD. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Excellent contributions to music articles and a spread of work in other areas, gets my vote. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    №--Ahonc (Talk) 12:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I have asked the user to clarify this vote. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]

Oppose

  1. Oppose excellent editor but I prefer admins to have more experience throughout the project space. Will have my vote in a few months, now is a bit to soon.--Looper5920 12:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose A little too new for me. Moe ε 20:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose- off to a good start, but needs more experience. Johntex\talk 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose not long enough, KI 03:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Reluctant Oppose good start - but too soon Trödel 13:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Basically an echo here... good start, but a touch to new. -Mask 03:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose agree with all of the above. Needs some more seasoning. --Mmounties (Talk) 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Change to support. Neutral leaning towards support. Looks good, good answers to questions, but I'm a little troubled that the user's talk page is so bare it still has the welcome message at the top. Although there is a large number of edits to other people's talk pages they are mostly warning taggings. Given a fairly low project space involvement I'm not sure the user has shown enough interraction with other editors. I'll probably pile on with the support votes but I'm thinking about it for now. --kingboyk 10:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Good, quality edits, but only 3 months experience, and also per the reason given above by kingboyk.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 07:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 08:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Makemi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. At first I anticipate simply doing the things I run into all the time, specifically, quicker reverts of clear vandalism when on RC patrol (I'm using Godmode lite, but it has its problems), blocking clear vandals, speedy deleting test pages/nonsense page etc. while doing newpages patrol, and doing uncontroversial page moves which are blocked by a redirect, and keeping WP:AIV on my watchlist. As I become better at using my new instruments (read:mop) I hope to help with more complex page moves, including merging histories, and closing AfDs. I feel strongly that a big danger within Wikipedia is entropy, and with a huge number of new people coming here every day, more people are needed to keep the place tidy. I don't want a vandal whacking stick (although I'll probably need it, I don't want it), I want a good spunge to make sure that Wikipedia can stay a good source of free high quality information. (mixing metaphors :))
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I'm particularly pleased with the article Trobairitz, although I anticipate doing more work on it. I also am proud of Venus and Adonis (opera). I feel that both of these are interesting, though out of the way, articles, which have the potential to teach both the newcomer and the expert something new about their subjects. In addition, I'm pleased with my work at updating some pages originally from the 1911 Britannica. At times this seems more difficult than writing an article from scratch, since you have to be careful to avoid the old-fashioned POV it can have, and it often includes since-refuted facts, such as birthdates or alternate names (see [1]).
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. The first disagreement which comes to mind is with a user on Frédéric Chopin. This user was repeatedly inserting a false, though widely reported, birth date to the intro of the article, against consensus, and despite the discussion of the date later in the article. The user then continued with abusive edit summaries, sockpuppetry, spamming, vandalism of my user and talk pages, and even e-mailing me through the e-mail-this-user function. I responded calmly, and when it was clear that this user was unwilling to engage in meaningful debate or respect community consensus, I proceeded to continue reverting his edits which were against consensus. Oddly enough, despite the user's incivility, their behavior did not bother me terribly, although I felt the e-mail crossed a line. It's weird, but a debate on Talk:Just intonation got under my skin a lot more. It's a lot easier for me to deal with a vandal who clearly doesn't have community consensus, than when I strongly believe something to be true and other editors disagree with me. In this case I moved on to other areas, since I felt I couldn't articulate my argument well enough, or frame it in a way these editors would respect. I try to keep myself to the WP:1RR, and I've found that this works out nicely.
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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.