Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maltesedog

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] Maltesedog

final (6/9/5) ending 15:23 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Maltesedog (talk · contribs) – This is my second request for nomination. I've been using wikipedia for over a year now even though I registered for an account later. Having done only a few articles, i used to contribute as user 212.56.128.186 before I signed up for Wikipedia. My interests are primarily articles concerning Malta, and I have worked hard to give information on the island and combat vandalism Maltesedog 15:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the major critique is lack of edit summaries. However the work done seems to be ignored. That's life Maltesedog 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is admin criteria based solely on Edit counts & edit summaries. Well what I can promise is to always use edit summaries in the future. You may see this, in the latest articles.

Maltesedog 08:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (This is a self nomination)

Support

  1. Support. He seems to have done some good contributions. Although this is his second nomination, i still support him. --Activision45 04:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)Activision45
  2. Support meets my admin criteria on my userpage. More edit summaries would be nice, but I do not consider that grounds to oppose. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 21:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, if the only objections anyone can come up with are edit count and edit summaries. —Simetrical (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support No one has offered any evidence of bad behaviour. This editor seems willing to learn from his previous errors, and seems eager and willing to contribute as an admin. Seems distinctly non-crazy. Give him the mop! Hamster Sandwich 07:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support per Hamster. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Firstly, the user neglected to tell us that this is his second nomination; the first can be found here. Fortunately for him, he misspelled the page on that first nom, so he didn't have to use "Maltesedog 2" as the current nom page name (but it still took the help of another editor to set this one up). Secondly, while I'm not bothered by the fact that this user has under 900 edits (using his registered name), it does bother me that usage of edit summary is under 30%. This was brought up in the first nomination, but didn't seem to make much of an impression on Maltesedog. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Lack of edit summaries. --Jaranda wat's sup 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Lack of edit summaries and < 1000 edits. --rogerd 18:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Please consider withdrawing this nom., and returning in six months or so. Xoloz 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. Dmn 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose lack of edit summaries, recomend greater use of the preview button as well. xaosflux T/C 04:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose edit summaries and low edit count. Olorin28 18:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Edit summaries, sleazy behavior.--Heptor 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - per Interiot's tool here [1] is a total newbie with minimal contributions to regular articles, spends a lot of time discussing policy and AFDs. The fact that they failed their first RFA so abysmally and then still came in for a 2nd one which they are failing badly shows guts, but not wisdom. I think I do that many edits per day. So a big time newbie in my book. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, time on Wikipedia and number of edits seems satisfactory, but use of edit summaries is way too small, almost nonexistent. — JIP | Talk 10:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral will support in six months, but he has to use edit summaries and work on his VfD skills! But I think he'll do fine in about three months, would support then. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Would support in a month or so assuming more usage of edit summaries! :-) - Wezzo 21:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Try again later, use edit summaries more consistently. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Try again next month. Use edit summaries religiously! ;] I hear there's a script that forces you to do so ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 11:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • What do you mean by sneazy behaviour? I have never done any wrong behaviour with an intention whatsoever. Maltesedog 08:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you have been editing Wikipedia when you have had the flu. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • very sarcastic indeed Maltesedog 08:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 212.56.128.186 is listed as an ISP proxy server, was it not when you were using it? xaosflux T/C 16:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sincerely, I really don't know. But if you have a look there are a lot of Malta related-articles.. these were created by me, such as Źejtun etc. Maltesedog 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This user seems to be taking to heart the edit summaries, just look at their contributions over the past few days. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 19:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In reply to Zodrac, I always taught participating in Wikipedia afd policy was important to become admin, and therefore edits over there should be taken into consideration. Taking part the second time, shows willingness to work Maltesedog 21:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Mainly to combat vandalism accross Wikipedia and to maintain its integrity as user built encylopedia. With regards to the contents I will give imporance to layout. I have contributed various times to the afd project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Articles relating to Malta, in particular that of the Hypogeum of Hal-Saflieni. I have also arranged the layout of the Malta article.
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. Obviously, had some problems over deletion of articles, some users failed to understand the real wikipedia spirit, but these were cleared, and I don't believe to date I have any pending conflicts. I usually try to avoid conflicts as much as possible.

Maltesedog 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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.