Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michaelsanders

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.


Contents

[edit] Michaelsanders

(talk page)

Michaelsanders (talk · contribs) - This is the first nomination I have ever made; so, if I fail to put the case convincingly, please recognise that the blame is mine and not the nominee's. Michaelsanders has been an editor since March 2006, and as at 1 November 2007 had amassed 11254 edits, which is neither sub-standard nor so impressive as to suggest editcountitis. I encountered Michael on the British history pages, where his contributions have been thoughtful and intelligent. I am not pretending that he is "Mr Perfect", as I see he has got himself into one or two disputes with other users (as will any wikipedian who really cares about what he/she is doing), but as far as I can see he has behaved with creditable restraint in these situations. I believe that any adverse situations he has found himself in will only have added to his all-round ability as a Wikipedian (as opposed to "just" an editor), as he has learned to deal with and accept criticism, for example in the naming dispute over Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence. I believe he shows a good understanding of wikipedia conventions and will come up trumps if given increased responsibility. Deb (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept nomination. Michael Sanders 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly reverting vandalism, probably trying to solve any disputes/edit-wars which I don't have an involvement in.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Bits and pieces, really. Probably history articles, where I generally use the sources I have to improve the quality, and introduce facts not already included in the article: my writing style is not always marvellous (you can see my attempt to write an article on the Duchy of Burgundy, based on Joseph Calmette), but when I have the appropriate texts, I can generally leave an article better than I found it (William Adelin, for example), and I willingly give help to any editors who want it, and will point out mistakes or problems in a non-aggressive manner ([1], [2]).
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: Frequently: I tend to be strong-willed in editing, and when I clash with other strong willed editors, e.g. User:Srnec, who care as much as I do about dragging up the quality of articles to what either of us perceives to be a higher standard, things can get difficult. But, such situations tend to sort themselves out, as cited by Deb: I will always talk reasonably to other editors, and will not risk damaging the quality of wikipedia or the service we provide to the readers for the sake of a power-trip. If editors give me stress, or argue about edits, I will defend my own view of what is required forcefully but not damagingly, and with the view of quality rather than personal satisfaction in mind - if someone provides good evidence of their reasoning in favouring a certain POV/style/whatever, I will accept that. And if editors become irredeemably over-bearing/aggressive towards me, I will simply ignore them or, if it affects wikipedia in general, call for neutral editors to wade in and arbitrate.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Michaelsanders

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Michaelsanders before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I have added commentary on the talk page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I was just looking at the candidate's talkpage - it's like a battlefield. You have even been blocked and recieved another 'last warning'! Something tells me you shouldn't be an admin now. Dlae│here 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sections titled "Severus Snape" = block, "R.A.B" = 'last warning'. He's a conflict magnet. He should be arbitrated, not RfA'd. Dlae│here 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. As nominator - obviously. Deb (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    I blame you for this. Dlae│here 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Is this a supporting vote? Deb (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Not as far as I know. (I don't really blame you) Dlae│here 16:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support - User has proved to me via replies and contributions evidence that they can be responsible, and not necessarily "forceful" as suggested on current userpage. — Rudget speak.work 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose (beat-the-nom I'm afraid) Very aggressive editor and proud of it - see user page. In my experience - see any talk page of an article he does a lot on (Talk:Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765) is a manageable size) - responds badly to questions on his edits & disregards the views of others. This does not need reinforcing with admin tools, which I suspect he would not be cautious in using. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose as above, particularly userpage statements such as "If I believe that I am right, I will fight. And if I am offended, I will not back down." Does not appear to have the temperment required of a Wikipedia admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. The attitude portrayed on the user talk page betrays a confrontational personality. I think we have enough of that already. We need people with a spirit of compromise and cohesiveness. - JodyB talk 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per user-page issues. Icestorm815 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Userpage seems far too aggressive for my taste. Sorry. Master of Puppets Care to share? 21:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Recent warnings of 3RR violations? No thanks. --DarkFalls talk 22:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. oppose unwilling to endorse. After looking over his answers and his talk page, I'm unable to trust with tools. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose--The answer to question one is unsatisfactory, any user can revert vandalism, don't need adminship to do that. The user page and talk page indicates temperament is not suitable for an administrator, leaves me unable to trust you with tools.--Sandahl 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Sorry, oppose per Johnbod. Try to discuss first, edit second if there is a standing consensus or if the topic might be controversial. Put some time in editing with level-headedness and a will to discuss and compromise, and I'll support. AvruchTalk 03:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose based on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Michaelsanders#Reverts, moves, & edit summaries --A. B. (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)switch to neutral
  10. Oppose A review of the edits shows that the candidate lacks the maturity for adminship. In too many cases, the candidate does not "get" the big picture, does not seem aware of the #1 objective of any publication (to impart information on the reader) and lacks a natural instinct for reasonable compromise. Iterator12n Talk 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per all the concerns above. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per the obvious concerns about edit warring and warnings, as well as also Iterator12n to a lesser extent. Daniel 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Recommend withdrawal, find a coach, and try again early next year. Jmlk17 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose I don't see any demonstrated need for the admin tools. Any editor can revert vandalism, and is encouraged to do so. - Crockspot (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - per 1 & 2. Miranda 09:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - per 1 & 2 and as per Daniel. — Rudget speak.work 11:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per 1 & 2. User page is just plain scary for a potential admin. Would suggest that this RfA is closed per WP:SNOW. TheIslander 13:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - Agree with all of the above --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose being firm but courteous is important at times when editing or admin actions result in conflict. However, an admin needs to be flexible and respectful when disagreeing. Conflict is inevitable in a project of the scope of Wikipedia. That is why we have in built mechanisms for dealing with conflict. While nom appears to have the firmness down, answer to question 3 and the userpage make it apparent that nom is otherwise not ready. Dlohcierekim 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral - You seem an alright candidate but I am troubled by the stark contrast between what you say in response to Q3, and what you have on your userpage. I do not wish to have "forceful" (quoted from #3.) administrators participating. — Rudget speak.work 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If I'm allowed to comment? - it's a long time since I updated my userpage blurb. Michael Sanders 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems so. But have your views changed, and if so why wasn't updated with this in mind? — Rudget speak.work 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Because in terms of "to-do" lists it fell pretty low in terms of importance? I wrote my blurb between a year and a year and a half ago, I've certainly become less aggressive since then (and are not most admins 'forceful'?) Michael Sanders 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You've generalised too much. Quite a lot of admins (and non-admins for that matter) are very nice users. — Rudget speak.work 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Changed to support, then oppose. See reasoning there. — Rudget speak.work 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Opposing editors make some very good points about agression. I won't flat out oppose, however, as I believe that it is possible you would act more calmly and officialy upon becoming an admin. I suggest waiting a few months, trying to avoid arguements, come back to RFA, and point the fact that you haven't entered into any arguments. Good luck anyway. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. While this user makes good contributions and appears dedicated, he's a little too confrontational. I suspect that they'd be a controversy magnet if approved. Calm down a little and come back in a few months so I can support. Lankiveil (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
  3. Neutral -- Michael, you have a lot of valuable experience. You were recently invited to stand for RfA,[3][4] more or less said "OK"[5] and the next thing you know you're now getting picked apart here. Yikes! If you're still interested after this RfA, I encourage your finding a mentor who can help set you up for success in a 2nd RfA. Good luck and thanks for all you already do around here. --A. B. (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair comment - at least the "power-hungry vandal-hunter" stereotype does not apply here, and Michael does care about the content. Johnbod (talk) 10:16, 9 December 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.