Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maxamegalon2000

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] Maxamegalon2000

Final (28/17/6); Ended Tue, 26 Dec 2006 06:30:38 (UTC)

Maxamegalon2000 (talk · contribs) – Greetings. I've been active at Wikipedia for over a year now, and I haven't gone a day without an edit since June. I feel that at this point I would be able to competently and effectively contribute to this noble project with the added privileges and responsibilities that adminship would confer. Maxamegalon2000 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

OK. --Maxamegalon2000 04:57, 19 December 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Lately I've taken to browsing Special:newpages and tagging articles for speedy deletion. Sometimes I'm discouraged to see that the articles I tag sometimes sit without action either way for hours. I imagine that I will help with that backlog, and will find the actual deletion as fulfilling as the tagging. I've also worked on reverting vandalism in the past, and would be more than happy to continue doing that, as well as the actual blocking and such.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I created User:Maxamegalon2000/Highlights a while ago for a different purpose, and I consider it an appropriate response to this question as well.
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: Oh, I don't think any of the conflicts I've been involved with have been too stressful on my end. I try to make sure that my edits are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that usually keeps me on pretty solid ground as far as taking sides goes. I always enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and I would hope that the added responsibilities of adminship would only make me more appreciative of the work being done here.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I think that "Ignore all rules" sometimes gets in the way of legitimate discussion. I suppose this really stems from a disagreement between parties about how to improve Wikipedia. I would hope that the numerous rules and guidelines that have been created here would be sufficient to cover most situations, and that IAR would only be appropriately cited in instances where the rules and guidelines are grossly inappropriate or inapplicable. I think that we have enough rules and guidelines, most of which have been and continue to be shaped and interpreted, that IAR should be used mostly as a stopgap when the rules and guidelines fail to satisfy the needs of the encyclopedia. I strongly feel that content and deletion discussions should focus on the situation in question, and that policy discussions should occur seperately.
I think that the Snowball clause at best represents the community's willingness to hear out any proposal or argument at least temporarily, and at worst closes the community to new ideas. Wikipedia attracts people with a diverse experiences and points of view, and it's important that the community be open to what everyone has to say. That being said, some people don't fully understand how Wikipedia works, or they come here to push a POV, or their POV is to skewed so that they don't see the big picture. I think it's worthwhile to open a debate and let the result become blatently obvious so that these people know where the community stands on an issue before closing the debate. I'm a fan of WP:REDUCE in this regard.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: WP:BP says that blocks "should not be used as a punitive measure," and I certainly value the consensus inherent in official policy. I agree with the notion that "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia," and the rest of the policy spells out pretty clearly, I think, a variety of situations where a block is appropriate. I don't think administrators should punish, per se, though I imagine that it would appear to a blocked party that they are being punished. I guess my question when considering blocking someone would be whether or not I believe that they are likely to make legitimate contributions to Wikipedia in the immediate future. Punitive measures seem more like an arb com sort of thing.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I often notice that many articles meant to promote a company are created by new users whose names are similar to the company that is the subject of the article, or the same name as one of the people named as part of the company. I certainly don't think that that in and of itself is grounds for speedy deletion, but when a article is too flowery, lacks sources, and reads like something a PR firm created, I would support speedy deletion and maybe point the new user to WP:NPOV; if the subject deserves an article, someone will eventually write a more appropriate version. I feel that articles that have been around for a longer period of time or have been edited by multiple users deserve a more substantial process.
7. What is your age?
A: Today's actually my birthday; I turned 22. I assume that this question is meant to give a better idea of the person behind the username, and for what it's worth, I'm a student at Marquette University, where I'm graduating this spring with degrees in Criminology & Law Studies, History, and Sociology, and I'm minoring in Philosophy, Theology, Ethics, and Justice & Peace as well.

Optional question from Diez2 (talk · contribs)

8. Is there anything else that you would do with sysop tools? (most of your oppose votes are coming from your answer to Question 1}
A: Well, I would think it difficult to anticipate any other use of sysop tools other than those that are extentions of the tasks I already undertake. Certainly, I imagine that I would put some time in at the various WP:AN pages, and I would be more than happy to close AfD discussions too. That I haven't made a lot of edits to these pages shouldn't imply that I'm not familiar with them.

Optional question from Alan.ca (talk · contribs)

9. Since you began editing wikipedia with this account in Aug/05 have you had occassion to mentor a new editor? Please describe the experience.
A: It's not something I've set out to do, but User:Maxamegalon2000/Highlights#People I've dealt with describes some of my interactions with new users, most of whom were interested only in a single content dispute. I'm happy with my interactions and how the disputes went, and feel like I laid the groundwork for these users to continue general editing if they wished to do so.

Optional question from Asterion (talk · contribs)

10 Would you refer to the resolutions taken by the Arbitration Committee as punitive?
A: I would say that, by the very nature of the process, and the significantly more severe results possible, that Arb Com resolutions are more punitive than actions taken by an admin on a day-to-day basis. Because of my criminology background, I may interpret these concepts a bit differently from the vernacular. For me, "punishment" includes actions taken out of a desire to incapacitate, rehabilitate, or dole out retribution, the latter of which many people would most associate with "punishment", and the former of which I would consider most of the Arb Com decisions consistent with. Administrators simply wield the proverbial mop and bucket to take care of short-term disruptions and temporary restraining measures, whereas Arb Com is more interested in long-term disruption and what I would call more punitive measures.
11 What steps would you take for dispute resolution as an editor?
A: I find that most disputes about simple content that I am part of get solved without outside help; I usually have a few Wikipedia policies on my side, and I try to make sure that my edits follow them. When disputes turn to disagreements about the interpretation or implementation of policies, there are usually other editors around who more often than not agree with my interpretation, not because it's my interpretation but rather because it's the most common. When I was a relatively new editor, I had a dispute at Talk:Marquette University that didn't receive much attention, and I wasn't as familiar with the policies and guidelines as I am today. Because of this, I let the other editor have his way, but today I'd probably stand my ground, especially since I notice that other editors have taken actions at the article that agree with my position.
12 Would you block an editor who you are involved on a content dispute with if they become uncivil?
A: I'm not sure that it would be appropriate for a party in a content dispute to block another party in the same dispute; I would probably ask another admin to take a look. The only rationale, in my opinion, for blocking someone is if they are disrupting the creation of an encyclopedia and there is no reason to expect that they are willing to make good faith contributions in terms of content or discussion in the immediate future. Let's remember, though, that a heated dispute can certainly occur without becoming what I would call uncivil. Maybe what I'm thinking of goes beyond mere incivility.
General comments
  • See Maxamegalon2000's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page. Also, following discussion of edits, a list of Wikipedia project space edits has been included.

Discussion

  • I'm intrigued by Malber's questions, especially the one about his age. What does it matter? How old is Malber?--R613vlu 13:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support Has done a lot of vandalism fighting and mainspace contributions. 05:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support My interactions with this user have not been uniformly positive; we have on several instances disagreed apropos of grammar and syntax, and I don't know that I've always been treated wholly decorously (see, e.g., here; then again, I'm not certain that any of us has not erred in some more severe fashion). Nevertheless, I think it relatively clear that he is possessed of good judgment and a principally cordial demeanor and is relatively conversant with policy, such that I think it altogether likely that he will neither abuse nor misuse the tools and that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin should be positive. I do, of course, differ with Amarkov as regards our granting the tools; we needn't to be concerned, IMHO, about our sysopping someone who intends only to act in certain areas and is not well acquainted with others where we can be reasonably sure that he knows whereof not to act and will appropriately confine his work (although I'm not certain that I see any particular deficiencies here). Joe 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm. I apologize for that, and sincerely hope that you consider my conduct in our more recent interactions to be wholly inconsistent with that of our earlier ones. --Maxamegalon2000 17:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Looks good.--R613vlu 13:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Vandalfighting, AfD, Ref Desk, and encyclopedic content, some experience with conflicts, and confident and civil...mm. Yeah. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, yep. Terence Ong 15:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - I've added the Wikipedia project space edits that are listed by the Wannabe Kate tool onto the talk page. Although the overall total isn't vey high, the edits tick all the necessary boxes. Addhoc 16:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per all above. --teh tennisman 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - Per above. --Oneupthextraman 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Lots of community participation, good vandal fighter, and very level-headed. Seems like a good choice for admin. Coemgenus 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Wikipedia needs more vandal fighters. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support looks like a good editor, who will decently wield the tools. Although, as always, policy knowledge is a big plus.-- danntm T C 22:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Clearly an experienced editor who should make a good admin.--Runcorn 22:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support A very good editor and someone who will make a good admin. Deja Vu time, more Opposes because of low WP namespace edit count - My thoughts will be well known to those who read the RfA talk page - Low edit count does not equal unfamiliarity with process and policy, possibly quite the opposite, showing sensible, rational decisions rather than voting without thought, anyway, 314 is a very reasonable amount. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. I am satisfied that this candidate could use the tools and will use them well. Agent 86 23:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Weak support well basically your mainspace edits do it for me, but please understand that you must get your wikispace edits up, since as Amarkov said we must grant you "all" the tools. — SeadogTalk 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Joe I 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. His wikispace count is't too bad, plus he definitely seems like he'd use the admin tools wisely. --Wizardman 03:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. SupportYea Baby. Imageboy1 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak support I was going to sit this one out, but I can't see opposing over a questionable speedy-tagging. Frankly, I'd think new users would rather have a deficient article flagged as such quickly, rather than two hours later after they've already wandered off to something else. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. support, good luck --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Clearly a good candidate, and I would urge those who oppose him to think again.--Brownlee 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. His help has been invaluable in maintaining and improving Jack Thompson (attorney), which had to be rebuilt from the ground up with quality references. That work demonstrates his trustworthiness and understanding of essential principles, and certainly outweighs one disagreement over a possible speedy deletion mistake. Maybe he's too modest for all the invisible hoops people like to set up, but I don't think there's any reason for concern about making him an administrator. --Michael Snow 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Ready for the mop and bucket. Royalbroil T : C 20:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --Majorly (Talk) 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Moral support. I would rather see more wikipedia namespace involvement but I am happy with your response to my questions. You have my confidence. Regards, Asteriontalk
  27. Support for good answers to questions, endorsement by someone he had conflicts with, praise for major contribution to rebuilding controversial prime potential lawsuitbait article (Jack Thompson), and as per Opabinia regalis Bwithh 05:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Zaxem 02:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Vandal fighting and encyclopedic contributions are nice. Neither show the knowledge of policy that admins must have. We can't only grant vandal-fighting admin tools, we have to grant them all. And you don't have very good projectspace contributions. -Amarkov blahedits 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    I noticed that you voted Oppose for Max here but Neutral for Canadian Bacon. Their credentials are similar. Just an FYI. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    With Canadian-Bacon, I actually had some personal knowledge of the user to go off of, whereas here I have none.
    Just out of curiosity, what number of Wikispace contributions are you looking for, and do you favour quantity over quality ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 22:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    I tend to prefer about 500, but if the ones the candidate has show really good understanding, I'll go with lower. Rarely below 300, though, I like to see XfD participation. -Amarkov blahedits 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Per Amarkov. – Chacor 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose as per above. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sorry, No. I was going to support, but when you mentioned NPP, I went to look through your contributions for declined CSD nominations. Lo and behold, this will earn an oppose from me every time. An article on a musical ensemble by an inexperienced user, s/his second ever, was tagged for {{db-band}} within one minute of creation, without giving the user a chance to expand it. Worse than that, the article contained a genuine and easily intelligible assertion of notability, namely their participation in the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, exempting it from A7 immediately. This is the epitomy of WP:BITE, and it's completely unacceptable from an admin candidate. - crz crztalk 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    That's not so obviously a huge error; there are very few festivals for which participation is an automatic assertion of notability, and even if the Coachella Valley Festival is such a one, it's an easy thing to have overlooked. This seems to me to be an illustration of why speedy deletes usually get an extra pair of eyes, and something to learn from, not an egregious error or a misunderstanding of WP:CSD. Can you explain more why you think it's such a huge problem? -- SCZenz 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    That it was a misapplication of A7 is no big deal. But the BITE issue is fatal. - crz crztalk 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    This is why NPP ought to be done from the bottom of the new page list. It's unfortunate that many candidates don't know this until it bites them at RFA.--Kchase T 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I would have thought that being quick to tag articles for speedy deletion would be a positive attribute. Sometimes I'm ready to tag pages created in the last minute but find that someone else has already beaten me to it. For what it's worth, I always make sure to add {{nn-warn}} or the equivalent to the user's talk page. --Maxamegalon2000 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    refactored the rest to the talkpage - crz crztalk 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Vandalism can be fought without access to admin tools. --MECU≈talk 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. No need to rephrase what Amarkov has already said. NeoFreak 19:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per crz. On its own, given that a warning template was placed on the User's Talkpage the incident isn't so serious. However the candidate's answer to crz that, "I would have thought that being quick to tag articles for speedy deletion would be a positive attribute" indicates he has failed to appreciate the problem with tagging articles he is not qualified to judge the notability of in their early stages (especially when created by new users). This, combined with the impatience with the WP:CSD system expressed in his answer to Q1 lead me to conclude that he would exercise sysop powers far too readily. I also share concerns about lack of experience in policy areas. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak oppose per crz. Not because you did anything wrong on purpose, but because more patience really might have given that user a better impression of Wikipedia and got him to stick around. Chalk it up to inexperience, and learn more, and I'll gladly support in the future. -- SCZenz 05:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. You could use some more experience with process first. (Radiant) 10:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per crz. Although not a deliberate BITE, I would prefer not to have someone deleting an article like that immediately. I'd support again in 2 months knowing that you are aware of this now. James086Talk | Contribs 13:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per above. HalfOfElement29 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Crz and Radiant. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Basically per lack of experience. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Crz and Radiant. Candidate has insufficent experience at this time. Xoloz 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. The candidate shows promise, but needs more experience. I'd have been neutral if only considering this candidate, but bearing in mind that there are already too many editors and admins who are over-zealous with CSD, my stance is weak oppose. Your answer to Q6 suggests to me that you risk becoming jaded on new page patrol, with the possibility of mistaking good faith contributions for adverts. I understand the attraction to NPP and have been there myself, but be careful to see the encyclopedia through all the articles. Consider spending more time improving the low-quality stub articles on NPP that don't qualify for CSD, since most editors either tag them for CSD anyway or just ignore them. BigNate37(T) 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Needs more experience. Jayjg (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Lack of experience. Dionyseus 05:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - I wanted to support as he seemed sensible enough, then I wanted to oppose, as I don't like the biting stuff, then I thought I'd support anyway but warn not to bite, but then I changed my mind again, and then I realised I was too uncertain to be anywhere other than Switzerland on this one. Proto::► 10:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Questions are fine, but needs a bit more experience.Insanephantom 13:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral both sides make good points. Just H 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral A very dedicated editor but the lack of experience is a concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Inexperience. Come back in 2 months and I'll support you. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Looks like a good editor in general. Some concern about the BITE [1] raised by crz. It was less than 2 months ago... if there had been a little more time btw now and then I'd have supported. Nephron  T|C 17:36, 23 December 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.