Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michaelas10

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] Michaelas10

Final (77/5/0); Ended Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:31:39 (UTC)

Michaelas10 (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gents, I give you Michaelas10. This user has been with us for almost a year now; in this time he has achieved a whopping 10,000 edits, a statistic which should satisfy even the worst sufferers of editcountitis. He is an exceptional contributor, who's all over Wikipedia at once - for starters, he participates in XfDs, and regularly closes AfDs for articles that have been speedily deleted (he caught one of mine today! :) ). In all these he exhibits a clear and acute understanding of deletion policy.

He also participates in article/portal peer review, and regularly reviews featured article, portal and list candidates - and somehow manages to slip in the occasional editor review. Lastly, he is an active member of the South Park WikiProject. His contributions always indicate his attitude to be collaborative rather than combative, a much-needed attribute in an administrator.

Michael is a frequent recent changes patroller, who always takes the time to warn vandals, and reports vandals when necessary (at the time of writing, he has a stack of AIV reports, about 75). No doubt the ability to quickly block troublemakers, and the rollback tool, would benefit everybody enormously.

His frequent edits to requests for page protection (always helpful, never interfering) indicate that he has sufficient knowledge of the protection policy to be entrusted with the extra button.

Not just a pretty face, he has also helped in raising Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Make Love, Not Warcraft to GA status, helped to get List of Harry Potter films cast members to featured list status, has helped to improve Portal:AC/DC (currently a featured portal candidate), copyedited a fair few articles while on FLC, and has saved a few articles from AfD too.

Michael is invariably polite, friendly and helpful, has assisted in welcoming a few hundred new users, and is just an all-round nice guy, whom I've never seen act in an uncivil manner.

As for the paperwork - no blocks, e-mail-able, cool, non-annoying userpage and signature.

This guy deserves the tools - he will definitely make great use of them, and he'll make a great addition to the team. His enthusiasm for the project, coupled with his knowledge of policy, his many and diverse contributions, and his excellent record, make him a natural candidate for adminship, and I respectfully submit him to your attention. – riana_dzasta 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination Well I am a little bit late, I offered to nominate him back in January and this is when we were going to give it a shot. Basically this is a knowledgeable user who would benefit greatly from the tools. Anything else to be said has already been covered by Riana (she beat me to it ;) ~ Arjun 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:33, 17 March 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: As an administrator I anticipate closing deletion debates and decreasing backlogs at WP:AIV, two areas where I've previously been very involved in. I also expect to help deal with CAT:CSD requests, an area I believe I'm experienced with and which could always use an extra pair of eyes. Further areas I anticipate helping with include WP:RFPP, WP:RM, and DYK. 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Although I've never been a supreme FA writing machine, I'm quite proud of myself as a decent contributer. My major contributions are Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Make Love, Not Warcraft. I've assisted on countless others, including List of Harry Potter films cast members, List of volcanoes in Indonesia, Prigat, and Portal:AC/DC. I'm also proud of my works on behalf of the portal peer review volunteers; thus far I've reviewed nearly 50 portals both on WP:FPOC and WP:PPREV, most of which eventually received featured status. Hopefully I will bring an article to featured status myself in the nearby future. 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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: I rarely have conflicts over my edits. The last major conflict I've been involved in occurred back in December 2006. AnonMoos continued to remove an AfD header which he believed to be added in bad-faith, despite mine and Amarkov's attempts to explain him otherwise. He was eventually warned by an admin and since discontinued. I feel I've handled it quite well, and in the future I plan to calmly handle conflicts without going into edit wars. 16:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. How do you explain your views on the Wipipedia deletion debates?
A. I believe a clarification would be useful here. Wipipedia is a wiki about BDSM lifestyle, which was a subject to two AfD's and a DRV that took place last year. What originally drew my attention to these was the amount of WP:ILIKEIT votes in connection with the subject matter at each debate. Regardless, the second AfD was ultimately closed keep by Runcorn, and the subsequent DRV resulted in an option to relist it anytime rather than overturn. This was likely due to the presented evidence of a trivial website using some of Wipipedia's content. As a participant of both the DRV and AfD, I don't believe my opinion was unfair, nor it was unsupported by other participants. I will proceed to relist it on AfD anytime this year if nobody else would. 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Extreme nominator support – riana_dzasta 15:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Is voting even open yet? Anyways, this is one of the few people I think would make a perfect admin. · AO Talk 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - Wow, two of my friends say yes so far, so now I do too! RyGuy 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong support he'll do excellently. Good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support as co-nom. ~ Arjun 16:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support A great user who I see often.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong support (cliché warning) - good luck! The Rambling Man 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Excellent candidate. Xoloz 17:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Fuck yeah. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support - Perfect image of an administrator. Good luck, Michael! Mike5193|Mike5193 - Talk Michael 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Not much to add to the very thorough nomination. Excellent candidate. Rje 18:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Wow.--SUIT양복 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support On my to-nominate list, as well. <yodaspeak>A great candidate for adminship Michael is.</yodaspeak> Nishkid64 19:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I'm Captain panda and I approve Mailer diablo's message! Captain panda In vino veritas 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support This user is definitly an admin canidate. No doubts.--PrestonH(Sandbox) • (Sign Here!) 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, most RfA candidates are definitely admin candidates. ;) --Kyoko 03:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Familiar with the policies and definitely eager to help.--Orthologist 20:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Sure, let Michael have the mop and bucket. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. WjBscribe 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - trustworthy nominators, seen this chap around a fair chunk doing the right thing. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Trust the nominators and the candidate. –Llama mantalkcontribs 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Wow that's like 10 times more than my edits. I see practically no reason at all to object. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support An excellent candidate. —Krellis (Talk) 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I have seen his excellent work on here. Spebi 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. S.D. 00:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Naconkantari 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Seventy ... dot ... 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I believe this user has been indef blocked as a sock. IronDuke 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I'm not sure what to add. YechielMan 03:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. I would however urge the candidate to mark his more minor edits as minor. This is not a major concern, though. --Kyoko 03:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. Has the need for the tools, the experience to use the tools correctly, and the demeanor to use the tools wisely. -- Jreferee 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Friendly, hard-working and helpful, I think adding the tools to his palette could only be a good thing for Wikipedia. Orderinchaos78 05:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - Trustworthy of the tools. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 06:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Terence 09:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support per nom. Addhoc 11:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support excellent nom! Great and trustworthy candidate. - Anas Talk? 12:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Great contributor.--Yannismarou 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support: Very good contributions and per his answers. --Meno25 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Axl 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Yuser31415 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support per Dev920. James086Talk 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - Yes. - Richard Cavell 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - no problems here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support.--Húsönd 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Looks like an excellent candidate. Rockpocket 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per responses and overall record. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Kukini hablame aqui 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Michael is an excellent candidate and I am confident he will be a fantastic, fair admin. Sarah 05:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Hardworking, qualified, helpful - will do a good job. M3tal H3ad 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. —SaxTeacher (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Ja. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Very good candidate. I will respect this user's authoritah. IronDuke 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support he's been helpful to me - and will be an asset to the encyclopedia as an admin. --sunstar nettalk 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support good candidate.-- danntm T C 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support LuciferMorgan 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. I see no valid reason why this user would abuse the mop. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Sweet. Pigmandialogue 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support, until Runcorn proves his/her claims. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support Seen some good solid work from this editor all over. Most impressed with the effort put into peer reviews, GA and FAC. Extra tools will go a long way, I reckon. Bubba hotep 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support --cj | talk 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support Joe I 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support-Great user. See him around plenty. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Strong Support You know why. Get on it! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support. Michael 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support: I am amazed at his responsiveness - I sent him a wikipedia mail with a message, and his response was immediate. We require responsive administrators. --Bhadani 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. See no problems. ElinorD (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support per Runcorn's diffs (yes, I know Runcorn opposed). User showed a good knowledge of policy in these debates, and was in my opinion quite correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. I've only interacted with him/watched his editing recently, and I am not terribly impressed with the strengths of the opposes. What I saw was administrator material, and the below opposes are nothing compared to his attributes. Daniel Bryant 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support - Fine contributor all-round. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support - The most efficient WP user I know. He knows all policies/guidelines off by heart. -GilbertoSilvaFan 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support, based on previous interactions with this user. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 15:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support I was neutral before but I've changed my mind, I cant hold it against you just for what could be a technical fault. Good luck! Tellyaddict 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. Jaranda wat's sup 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support - Denny 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose User has shown some bad judgements on AfD, attempting to get good articles deleted and to get keep votes overturned on DRV. This gives me no confidence in his ability to close AfDs himself.--Runcorn 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    Can I please ask for some examples? – Riana shiny disco balls 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    Try the second AfD on Wipipedia[1] and the subsequent DRV.[2]--Runcorn 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. – Riana ঋ 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've made an additional answer above to explain the situation. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 10:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I was involved in the discussions linked above and agree with Runcorn. I will retract if I can be convinced that Michaelas10 has learnt from this and would not repeat what happened then. --Holdenhurst 16:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I know that my vote will not affect the outcome, but if it makes Michaelas10 think and not repeat his mistakes then I'm not wasting my time.--Brownlee 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose From what I have personally seen of this user, he is a deletionist following his own agenda even when an article has recently been through a deletion debate. (I have no opinion of how he might be useful in relatively minor backwaters of administration.) He does not seem to have an understanding of how an interactive encyclopedia must build over time and I feel he would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. --Interesdom 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    Are you shooting him down for having opinions? I can't see any evidence that says he lacks knowledge of policy, or badly interprets it. – Riana ঋ 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose User:Michaelas10 has shown great personal vindictiveness against me in connection with the 2nd Wipipedia RFD, and went through a whole long rigamarole nonsense of misusing warning tags on my user talk page, while refusing to give any concrete specific non-speculatively-hypothetical replies to any of my concerns, which has all left a very sour taste in my mouth -- and given me very strong feelings that I don't want him to be given any additional powers which he will probably end up misusing in the end. AnonMoos 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral I would support this user but... I asked this user if he would like an RfA in the past (shown here) and I kindly asked if he would reply on my talk page, in which he did not, he said on his talk page that he emailed me and did not contact me as asked, so this brings me to doubt about whether he takes time to read and understand situations, also it seems unclear to me whether this user would hurry into decisions and not listen to what someone wants or asks if they were asking him a question or asking him to perform a sysop chore on another user/article etc. I know some may think this is a small reason to oppose but this is whar I think.Tellyaddict 20:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I can recall emailing you, can you please double-check your intro box? I apologize if there was some misunderstanding, hopefully the message will be retrieved. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 21:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you have a right to express your opinion, but I do feel this !vote doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a neutral perspective (no pun intended). For the simple reason that you recently felt so impressed with this editor with you wanted to nominate him, yet on the basis of what appears to be at worst forgetfulness and much more likely a technical gremlin, you are now not willing to even support? Moreover, I'm not sure how this is evidence that he may "hurry into decisions and not listen to what someone wants or asks". I would instead propose that the reason he wanted to email you could be because there was perhaps personal information in his reply that might not be appropriate for a public forum. I know both times I was asked about being nominated I replied privately for those very reasons. Indeed one could argue this shows the editor demonstrates good judgement and discretion. Finally, could I respectfully propose to you that you may be reacting to disappointment at the perception of being snubbed, and ask whether on reflection this should influence your overall impression of this, otherwise very impressive, nominee? Rockpocket 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The above from Tellyaddict may arise from his GA review of Still Reigning, which has been disputed at GAR. LuciferMorgan 14:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Tellyaddict was quite clear in his reasoning for why his !vote was not one of support, and the GA review was not mentioned. To his credit he was willing to reconsider, noting "maybe my vote was a little one sided" and I commend him for that. Having withdrawn his comments, I don't think a detailed examination of his motives is helpful, nor appropriate. Rockpocket 17:19, 20 March 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.