Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Micoolio101

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] Micoolio101

(Final 2/26/0) Ended 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Micoolio101 (talk · contribs) has done Wikipedia a lot of good, especially in his attempts to shut down the psycho user we call OrphanBot. Should you grant him administration, he will allow more images to be posted that would otherwise not be, thus creating a more positive experience for Wikipedians everywhere. Silverback, Freshwater Captain 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micoolio101 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 July 2006
Support
  1. Weak support. I'd give him a chance, but know that OrphanBot's job is to sort out recently uploaded images. As it is stated: OrphanBot's current task is to sort and remove images that are in Category:Images with unknown source and Category:Images with unknown copyright status from articles so that the user uploading the page could place the proper copyright tags. --Axiomm 11:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Would make an excellent admin. juppiter talk #c 16:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    For what reasons do you think he would make an excellent admin? Aren't I Obscure? 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose: Ignorance of policy; inexperience; lack of participation in Project namespace; civility; low edit summary usage.
    The immature rhetoric expressed against OrphanBot, and more worryingly its owner. Using Nazi imagery was bad taste and shows poor judgement.
    There seems to be an unwillingness to accept advice and follow guidelines. Although I advised him that fair use images were not allowed in user space, he reverted without discussion. This exchange was worrying, for instance: the tags he used clearly said 'fair use', so spouting that they weren't was at best carelessness, or, at worst, deceit. Neither admin qualities. Since he chose to interpret my corrections of his misuse of fair use images as vandalism, I suspect he would be very, and inaccurately, trigger happy with the tools.
    Similar issues, along with civility, were demonstrated here. The JPStalk to me 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose and suggest withdrawl. User:The JPS has covered almost all points why he shouldn't be an admin. He lacks experience, is uncivil, lacks knowledge of policies and attacks others. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose dislike users unfriendly tone, not just because of the reasons stated above. spamming users talk pages Has had a final warning from AmiDaniel regarding copyright problems and has had more copyright misunderstandings after that. User page is quite controversial too.--Andeh 11:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Didn't sign acceptance, or add RfA to the main listing. This shows carelessness in regard to following policy, which is an instant oppose. I've haven't confirmed the things mentioned above, but if they're true, then it's a strong oppose. --Tango 11:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. A very rare oppose from me because of the reasons listed by The JPS. You will need to change your current attitude towards process/policy and users/bots if you are to become an admin in the future. DarthVader 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Where are these claims listed, so I can read them. Axiomm 11:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think that I have made any claims, but The JPS has provided some good diffs in his comment. Oops and this (being just my comment) wasn't AOL vandalism Naconkantari. :-) DarthVader 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    The revert didn't just remove your comment, it also removed a support vote from an IP address posing as a signed in user. I would imagine removing your comment as well was an edit conflict. --Tango 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose. The JPS's summary is excellent. ×Meegs 11:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per above. Naconkantari 12:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    User has a recent history of removing votes. Herosudos 13:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    The vote was legitimately removed, as it was added by an IP address, not the user stated. I've struck the vote out, for now. --Tango 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I reinstated the vote because after some investigation, the vote was actually legitimately added by the said user. --WinHunter (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've just realised, my comment was a little ambiguous. The vote that was legitimately removed was the support vote by the IP user that Naconkantari removed. This oppose vote should certainly remain - that was what I was trying to say. --Tango 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong oppose per nominator and nominees' hatred of Orphanbot. Shows disregard of image copyright issues. --Kimchi.sg 12:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - if you are running afoul of OrphanBot, maybe it's because there are problems somewhere along the line with images you have uploaded. I took a look at your image namespace contributions. You changed someone else's image licensing [1]. This image is a copyrighted TV screenshot being used to illustrate the person being shown. That's not permitted under fair use. This one is tagged as a promo image for a TV show, but comes from screensavers.com. (That can actually be speedy deleted.) BigDT 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, user did not sign after accepting the RFA, as per JPF. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 12:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose on experience and attitude re OrphanBot. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Does not seem to really understand Wikipedia policy, resulting in stress for himself and others. Aren't I Obscure? 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose Civility concerns, lack of appreciation of problems with improperly tagged images, and lack of project space esperience. Eluchil404 13:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. No, no, no, and no.--SB | T 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong oppose. (actually per nom).--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per The JPS. --Shizane 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose and suggest withdrawal per JPS Alphachimp talk 14:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong Oppose Fails my criteria on a number of fronts. Firstly the nomination is extremely poor, problems with OrphanBot rings alarm bells, then the extremely low amount of edits (both generally and more specifically to the Wikipedia project space), and finally comments above about the incivility of the user. --Wisden17 14:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Though I have seen the candidate work on a lot of the Futurama articles (which I am interested in), I cannot vote support due to lack of experience. --WillMak050389 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Answers to questions don't show a familiarity with Wiki policy and process; severe civility issues in interactions with other editors; general lack of experience that can be gained with time. I suggest an editor review and perhaps some admin coaching at Esperanza when more experience has been gathered.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Oppose per Sean Black. :) --Nearly Headless Nick 15:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong oppose per most "oppose" votes, such as Naconkantari. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Firm oppose. War against OrphanBot is detrimental to the project and shows unfamiliarity with policies and copyright laws. - Tangotango 17:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose per the whole Anti-OrphanBot thing. Likely to abuse tools. Roy A.A. 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong oppose, and I'm wondering if this is a bad-faith nomination. Either way, use of images with bad copyright status is a problem that could get Wikipedia into trouble. We don't need people fighting OrphanBot and undoing legitimate actions. (There are review processes in case someone disagrees, anyway.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 17:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong oppose, per The JPS (and pretty much everyone else for that matter.) OrphanBot is there for a very good reason and helps keep Wikipedia free of image copyright violations, which seriously undermine the project (more than most other things.) I suggest you withdraw and come back a long time from now when you are willing to abide by policy and be civil in your interactions with other people. Grandmasterka 18:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    (By the way, can someone close this? It's below 10% support and I think everything that needs to be said has been said...) Grandmasterka 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
Username        Micoolio101
Total edits     1404
Distinct pages edited   325
Average edits/page      4.320
First edit      11:07, 23 January 2006
        
(main)  644
Talk    63
User    339
User talk       146
Image   103
Image talk      7
Template        36
Template talk   7
Wikipedia       50
Wikipedia talk  9
11:05, 13 July 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, 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: If I become an admin, mainly cleaning up vandalism, and the other things I do if I'm not an admin (expanding pages, adding descriptive images, etc.). If I suspect any main vandals are on the loose, such as The Communism Vandal, or Willy on wheels, I will track them down and block them.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Probably some sub-pages of List of recurring non-robot characters from Futurama, adding new sections such as The Cookieville Orphans, Brain Slugs, and Nibblonians. I added images of the characters to the Happy Tree Friends article, and the drumset section in Russel (Gorillaz). And also the "Product Line" section in Avedis Zildjian Company.
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: OrphanBot has caused me some stress, sending my wikistress to "Run For Cover". I've learnt to deal with it and I've put it in the past. However, if OrphanBot deletes any free use images (GFDL-self, PD-self, for example), I'll be ready for him (in a good way. Not vandalising edits such as this: [2]). I have created a petition to get rid of it, but it keeps getting deleted, then recreated by someone. I'd like this petition to go through. I'm not trying to attack OrphanBot in any way, but I think it's best if he was shut down for a while.
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.