Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marasmusine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Marasmusine

Ended (46/1/0); Nomination successful. --Deskana (banana) 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Marasmusine (talk · contribs) - This user has been consistently making good edits over the board, divided well over the namespaces. He has a firm understanding of Wikipedias policy, as well as sound knowledge of procedures. As an administrator, it is my belief that he will be able to assist the community even further. He tends to keep his head cool, and is not easily angered or offended by users that may not always be assuming good faith, explaining his actions, and pointing towards relevant policy. Never unwilling to help an editor out, I believe Marasmusine will be an asset to the administration. Martijn Hoekstra 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! Let the cross-examination begin!


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I never like to see a backlog, so I'll travel to wherever attention is needed. This often seems to be with articles queuing up at WP:SPEEDY and WP:AFD, both of which I am familiar with. Page protection and semi-protection is an area in which I feel I can assess correctly now (partially due to List of Tetris variants being on my watchlist!). I have some experience with WP:AIV, although I'd be rather tentative with blocking.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm quite proud of the collection of computer game articles I've started over the past year (such as Quazatron and Rex (video game) - they may still be stubs, but they're still well referenced). I suppose I'm just pleased with the way all the basics are there; Lead text, infobox, headers, references, categories. I also take some pride in some unglamourous archiving duties at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Finally, it's especially pleasing when I take the time out to explain a policy, guideline, or style issue to a newish user and they thank me for it in the nicest ways :> [1]
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: There's only one incident which has caused me stress - this AfD - which just seemed to spiral out of control with COI accusations going every which way. I seemed to be constantly having to defend myself and my actions. My attempt at dispute resolution was met with hostility and I didn't know if I wanted to continue with mediation. Whilst I think I kept a pretty level head and never stooped to the kind of personal attacks that were coming at me, in retrospect I should've just backed off completely to avoid that sort of stress.
Optional question from Húsönd:
4. Could you give examples of vandal block requests that you would decline and remove from WP:AIV?
A: Firstly, the alleged vandalism should be examined to see if it is a clear-cut case of vandalism, and not merely content dispute (assuming good faith, naturally). If the latter, I'd reject the request and suggest an alternative to reporting user (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for example). Secondly, the 'vandal' editor in question would need to have been warned on his or her talk page (with a full set of warnings from {{uw-x1}} to {{uw-x4}}) to give them chance to consider their actions. If no such warnings have been left, a block request should be declined. Also, if the vandal is anonymous and accessing through a dynamic IP, it may not be appropriate to block a wide range of IP addresses (semi-protection is a possibility in this case). I would also decline requests against non-current activity.
Optional question from Hidden Glass:
5. A terrible plague has wiped out all of the other administrators on Wikipedia, and you, as the sole surviving administrator responsible for clearing the backlogs on WP:SPEEDY, notice the Responsible information management article tagged with a {{db-nonsense}} tag. The article has existed since 2005 and has been edited by 15 different editors. What action will you take?
A: What an awesome question. First I put aside my worries about the approaching plague. Responsible information management is coherently written and simply does not qualify for a db-nonsense. It is, however, rather jargon heavy. Speedy tag will be removed and replaced with {{context}} (I wouldn't go so far as to flag for expert attention, as I'm the only admin and need to get on with things). As an article that has been around for a while and still undereferenced, I'd like to say I have the time to remind the tagging editor that they have WP:PROD at their disposal instead (If this lone admin can get round to that backlog).
I wouldn't go so far as to flag for expert attention, as I'm the only admin and need to get on with things: I might be taking this the wrong way but you seem to be saying: admin = expert editor. Can you please clarify this? :) - TwoOars 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean usage of the Template:Expert-subject; in the above example, to flag the article for the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics. So no, I don't mean admin = expert! MarašmusïneTalk 10:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

6. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. Keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item or its topic out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.
A: I don't think this is quite the kind of thing you are talking about, in which case I'm sure I can find a better example later. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dannii Minogue filmography shows a !vote majority for a merge, but the nomination reasoning is flawed. Lugnuts is implying that the article is a list of only two items, but it is actually a list of all her acting roles (film, TV and stage; and has listed them since before the AfD nomination), the length of which is on par with other lists from Category:Filmographies. The 'merge' !votes echo the 'list of two' reasoning with unhelpful comments like "slap Dannii for being crap". There are fewer keep opinions, but their reasoning is a better interpretation of the article. As the closing admin, would I be able to suggest a rename per List of Kylie Minogue acting roles?
Like I say, not quite the example you were looking for - I'll take another look tomorrow. MarašmusïneTalk 08:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I should have included screwy merge AfDs as a possibilty too. Good reasoning, which was what I was looking for - ability to discern when apparent "consensus" is invalid because of faulty premises. I think you should already know the answer to the question you asked though.  :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, I can't really make a comment like that without 'involving myself in the discussion', plus I've never seen any other admin make comments like that. MarašmusïneTalk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Just a thank-you to Martijn; even if I'm not accepted it's good to know my contributions are being appreciated. MarašmusïneTalk 20:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Marasmusine before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support I don't see any major problems. The answers to Q1 and Q2 show a wide range of interests and experience. Shalom Hello 22:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Great work with WP:VG! Giggy UCP 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Good editor, knows policy, I wouldn't worry about that AfD, especially when you note that neither protagonist has edited since. ELIMINATORJR TALK 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - Decent content edits, and also does the boring behind the scenes crap too. - hahnchen 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    Support Yeah, I concur! Mindman1 00:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: This account was created today, 24th July (UTC)--Cometstyles 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    — Mindman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ Wikihermit 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, and all of his other edits are the same (they all say "I concur"). --Boricuaeddie 14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    I've struck the vote as a SPA (and now indef blocked) account. LessHeard vanU 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. No reason why not. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. You seem familiar. I don't know why, but at least I can make an honest decision on my support. J-stan Talk 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Sorry..But I have no reasons to oppose..hehe..--Cometstyles 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support No major concerns here. Would make a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Review of contributions shows diversity as well as your primary focus. Some great examples of reviewing minor mistakes, also some great examples of WP:AGF with possible vandalism. A good temper, a willingness to accept and acknowledge your own (minor) mistakes, and the desire to check what you have done are key admin qualities. I'm not sure that describing some work as crap [2] is totally useful to a conversation, but that's minor when I see everything else here as good or more than good. Best. Pedro |  Chat  12:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Appears to be an experienced, dedicated and trustworthy user. My only concern regarded the eventuality of maladministered vandal blocks, but I'm reasonably satisfied with the answer to my question.--Húsönd 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - an excellent candidate. Lradrama 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. I also concur Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support due to wide range of interests and experience. Bearian 23:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I like what I see, but do try to improve on edit summaries. Jmlk17 02:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support —Anas talk? 07:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support seems to be a good candidate. Aminz 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support I think you could have been more transparent in the AfD you mentioned above which involves a charge of WP:COI. Even though your edits were probably clean you should have revealed your involvement with a similar game. In fact, you probably should have allowed someone else to bring the AfD in the first place. But I am not going to hold this against you here inasmuch as it was months ago and you pointed to and linked to the AfD here. However, be careful! Otherwise, I see a positive in the way you kept your cool in the discussion against some strong opposition. Your overall work is good. JodyB yak, yak, yak 11:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    It didn't even occur to me at the time, because our games were indirectly related. But lesson learnt! MarašmusïneTalk 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support You seem familiar with Wikipedia policy. Your contributions to video game articles have been very good. I also liked your responses to the questions.--Just James T/C 12:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support without hesitation, level-headed and helpful editor. QuagmireDog 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Wow! You are very good!  PNiddy  Go!  0 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - Our paths have never crossed before, but everything looks good & I like the answers to the questions, esp. the last :) Good luck! - Alison ☺ 18:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Per...just about everyone. Noting especially the answers to Questions 1 and 5. --Tim4christ17 talk 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Looks fine.--MONGO 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support No concerns. Answers to question 1 shows that he's capable for the mop. Good luck!--Hirohisat Talk 00:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Good answers to the questions, and a stable candidate who has what it takes. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Add RfA cliché here. Whispering 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Reliable and worthy. Axl 19:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support per the answer to the AIV question. Not completely right, but better a button weilder adheres to the letter while learning how to interpret the spirit of the role. LessHeard vanU 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Strong support committed to the project. Did some thankless work on categorization (during the heyday of the uncategorized taskforce) and Wikipedia would be much less valuable without dedicated, experienced gnomes like Marasmusine. Sound answers to questions are icing on the cake. Pascal.Tesson 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Switched to Support (from neutral). GracenotesT § 20:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support per all of above. Appears to be exactly what an admin should be. Lara♥Love 05:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Committed and Sharp. Dfrg.msc 07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Weak support: Good adminnish reasoning, on policy bases, but seems a mite unclear on the details of an XfD-closing admin's role. Probably easily rectified— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support I need to take a bath ~ Infrangible 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support per overall effort OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Seems like a fine choice to administrate wiki. Deliciously Saucy 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per nom and above. Peacent 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 03:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Closing admin, please ignore this invalid vote. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. WjBscribe 05:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support as per nom Harlowraman 10:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Politics rule 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - I'm going to support this person for administrator. Clearly sufficient experience and reputable history from what I have seen. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. No obvious issues. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support I think you deserve the mop. AltruismT a l k - Contribs. 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose: To balance out A.Z's frivolous support vote above. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm... How constructive... Pascal.Tesson 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I quote "Closing admin (sic), please ignore this invalid vote." —Kurykh 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose: Marasmusine has repeatedly violated COI. He got caught. Then he kept doing it anyway. Marasmusine has repeatedly made sneaky vandal edits to at least 3 articles. He got caught. Then he kept doing it anyway. Marasmusine has repeatedly acted in bad faith. He got caught and just kept going. He has also inserted some fascinating Original Research, which I would normally ignore, except for the fact that it was was obviously a lie. He is the author of some kind of computer game and he makes malicious edits against other computer games that he feels are similar and that he somehow feels "threatened" by AFAICT. Whenever anyone complains about his bad behavior, he calls it a "personal attack" and gets one of his admin friends to protect him. You have been warned. 216.62.157.210 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I was wondering if you'd show up. I've already pointed out the Team Chaos AfD, above. MarašmusïneTalk 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    IPs are not allowed to cast votes in RfAs. They are, however, allowed to discuss their opinions. —Kurykh 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose: My problem with Marasmusine is that he has some kind of obsession with putting his own Original Research POV into the Total Chaos and Team Chaos articles while simultaneously violating COI. This is not a new thing. He has been doing it for over a year, inserting the same false statements into the same articles even after being politely corrected. He should not be editing articles about things which he has shown a clear emotional bias against.70.132.139.84 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to drag out a conversation about this here, so I have addressed the concerns of the above anonymous (and apparently SPA) accounts on that article's talk page. I invite interested parties to take a look. MarašmusïneTalk 07:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    IPs are not allowed to cast votes in RfAs. They are, however, allowed to discuss their opinions. —Kurykh 07:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

I am a bit concerned that the candidate will turn down an AIV report if a reported user does not have a full set of warnings on his/her talk page. Marasmusine: there are circumstances under which you'll block an editor without all four warnings, such as a valid only warning? GracenotesT § 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Only against editors who have made obvious and serious vandal edits that need nipping in the bud immediately. Perhaps only a single, final warning when it is clear that the user shows no interest in contributing. An example would be repeated, immature personal attacks with no prior sensible edits. MarašmusïneTalk 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have turned down blocks per an AIV request if there isn't obvious vandalism or 3RR (and left a final warning on the "miscreants" talkpage). I have also blocked for obvious vandalism/3RR where there are no warnings. An AIV report is not an automatic block, and a new admin who realises that may prove to be more useful more quickly. LessHeard vanU 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. In the absence of evidence that I shouldn't trust your judgment, a support appears to be in order. Cheers :) GracenotesT § 20:36, 27 July 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.