Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maltesedog 4

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 (3/13/6) Ended 18:52, 2006-08-06 (UTC)

Maltesedog (talk · contribs) – This is my fourth nomination on wikipedia.I contribute nearly every day in wikipedia especially in articles relating to Malta, computers, accountancy and the airline industry. Originally contributions were done mainly to Malta-related articles, but more recently contributions to other articles as well is being done. Maltesedog 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ACCEPT (self nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltesedog (talk • contribs)
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: 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. See replies to further questions by JoshuaZ in previous nominations.
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, Zejtun, Coat of Arms of Malta. Other interesting researched contributions were done to Economy of Malta, where a section on the economic history was created. I have also arranged the layout of the Malta article. I contribute in stub-sorting.
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: There is no concencus regarding articles on Maltese nobility at present and this has caused some problems in the past. I tend to argue that nobility does not imply notability. One other conflict was an article regarding the Mediterranean Region which was eventually deleted and rewritten completly but that's quite long ago.


Comments
Username        Maltesedog
Total edits     1709
Distinct pages edited   606
Average edits/page      2.820
First edit      12:31, May 9, 2005
        
(main)  926
Talk    208
User    67
User talk       151
Image   39
Template        14
Template talk   2
Category        2
Wikipedia       296
Wikipedia talk  4
 G.He 20:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See Maltesedog's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Where are the prvious noms? I can't find them. Did you change usernames? - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • They are there. I'm the second person listed under the letter "M" in the previous nominations. Maltesedog 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Previous RfA's: 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Support
  1. Support You seem to want it bad enough to keep asking for it. Give the puppy a chance TruthCrusader 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support The user meets most reasonable requirements for adminship. His history indicates an acceptable understanding of policy, and I am confident that the user will not abuse the tools. Furthermore, the Maltesedog's calm response to 3 failed RfAs demonstrates a level headedness and sense of confidence that I wish more admins had. JoshuaZ 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Strange answer to question 1, but would be unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. DarthVader 13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. For now. Four selfnoms; very weak answers, in part copied from last RfA. Adminship is a big enough deal for you to try hard to gain our support. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sorry. Your RFA answers were weak. Also, your edit summary usage for minor edits is extremely low. --Tuspm(C | @) 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'm sorry, but I feel that you need to spend more time in the WP Talk namespace to improve communications with other users and have an understanding of policy. Apologies, Highway Return to Oz... 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak Oppose per HighwayCello. Sorry, but I'd like to see some additional involvement in WP-space editing before I vote to support. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose This candidate seems a bit too inexperienced, and solely editing articles on one topic is not necessarily best for an admin. Michael 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I know that focusing solely on the number of edits can be a bad thing but only about 1700 edits shows a lack of experience. That and the fact that this and the other nominations were self-nominations. Sorry, perhaps you should wait a little longer and build up your contributions before begining another RFA.--Jersey Devil 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - questions do not indicate you're quire ready for adminship yet... please take a little time and wait for a nom before trying again -- Tawker 23:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - not ready yet per Tawker. And it's actually your fourth time coming here! Just make more edits and you can try again later... --Bigtop 02:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose Maltesedog's calm demeanor is great for an admin (and lacking in some we have already), but he doesn't seem to have any need for sysop-rights, as there are plenty of tools for counter-vandalism. Most editing has been fairly minor and it's difficult to assess knowledge of policy from it.--Chaser T 07:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Fails my criteria, and per Tawker above. --Wisden17 10:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong oppose 4 noms and still not ready. Computerjoe's talk 10:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Fails more than one of my criteria. Badly written nom and answers. Themindset 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Firm oppose per Crz, Tawker, Tuspm, Computerjoe, and Themindset (that isn't my attempt to be overly critical of the candidate but, instead, to convey that I agree with certain concerns expressed by each of the five whom I name, if only in order that I should have, you know, to flesh out my own thinking...). Joe 18:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. I'm voting neutral at the moment. You seem like a good editor, but the fact that you have requested adminship roughly every 3 months (and each one being a self-nomination) over the past year, starting from when you had been here just a few months, seems to be an indication that you still have a ways to go as an editor. You have about 1700 edits, and a cursory look at the most recent ones seems to indicate that they were minor tweaks to the same few articles. In this same cursory look, I couldn’t find many instances of the vandal-fighting you say that you want the admin tools for. However – a few positives – your edit summary usages have much improved since your previous RfAs, and your edits are nicely distributed. I would suggest waiting a good 6 months before you try this again – and in that time, edit more frequently and do more vandal-fighting. It would help to get someone else to nominate you for adminship, as well. Right now I don’t see any compelling evidence that you would abuse the admin tools, but I don’t seen any compelling evidence that you need them, either. You can still be an excellent editor without the mop :). Fabricationary 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per Fabricationary. Roy A.A. 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Fabricationary.--Guinnog 02:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, Fabricationary put it quite well. I suggest withdrawing nom.--Andeh 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral for now, but leaning towards oppose due to experience issues. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • In reply to the above may I point out:
  • In the previous occasions I was asked to wait a couple of months and this is what I have done.
  • There are considerable instances of vandal fighting. I would say one in 5 edits is surely removal of vandalism.
  • In the previous nominations I was told that the edit cont isn't everything. Some people with less than 1000 edits, according to the previous nominations, became administrators. Quality rather than quantity Maltesedog 19:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, participation in wikipedia projects such as the afd project is regularly done. Maltesedog 20:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • More contributions were done prior to registering. See previous adminship requests Maltesedog 20:55, 30 July 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.