Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MisfitToys

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] MisfitToys

Final (54/7/5) ended 22:44, 2006-08-07 (UTC)

MisfitToys (talk · contribs) – MisfitToys has been a valued contributor here since March 2004 and has more than 15,000 edits. Even though his wikipedia and user talk space edits are a bit low, he is a dedicated editor who copyedits or expands tons of articles [1] [2], [3] [4] [5] [6], fights vandalism [7] [8], and helps new users out, [9]. I think MisfitToys would be an excellent admin Jaranda wat's sup 01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ACCEPT. MisfitToys 22:43, 31 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: There are some areas such as articles needing categories and very large categories which I'd probably sort through; I've done a lot of past work in organizing categories - for instance, I created about half the subcats under Category:Baseball, and recently set up most of the subcats under Category:State elections in the United States. Articles needing context might be another area I'll work on. Not having referred many matters such as blocking/suspension requests or vandalism notices to admins myself, I'm not sure how adept I'd be at handling things in those areas; my experience is a bit limited. I'll probably also try to work on fixing vandalism and watching new pages for deletion, both of which I've worked on intermittently in the past. I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My user page notes a lot of the articles I've worked on, with the ones to which I've made sizable contributions bolded. List of lifetime MLB hit leaders through history was a difficult project, and List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological) is now a featured list; I started most of the articles for Years in baseball. I think Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1946 is pretty good, as are some of the bios I wrote (Biz Mackey, Hank O'Day, Andy the Clown, and especially Sam Barry). Some of my more recent contributions have been to articles such as Gil Hodges and Joe Judge. I've tried to add a lot of material that puts data from primary sources into context, which I think is a primary strength of the articles. I know some of the articles (particularly older ones) need better citing of sources; I've been working on that lately.
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: In January I got into a long battle with an anon contributor over the USC Trojans football article; the arguments are here. More recently, I've gotten into a dispute with another contributor over the length of the 2005 in baseball article; that discussion is here, though I now see that the other user has been suspended a few times. I also got into a minor disagreement regarding the original research policy's intent/application at the 78th Academy Awards article. I've tried to double-check Wikipedia policies and be sure of my facts when I've gotten into these disputes, though I concede I've become a bit overheated a couple of times. But in general, I think I've tried to present my arguments as completely as possible, and I've invited comment from admins when I thought the debate was getting a bit entrenched (and I've usually just asked the admins to look at the discussion, without making my arguments directly).

Optional question from User:Themindset

4. Your mainspace edit count is quite high. How do you account for the relatively low amount of concurrent talk and usertalk edits?
A: I suppose I've done more work editing short articles into longer ones than I have on helping turn already sizable articles into truly great ones, so a lot of what I've worked on have not had existing talk pages or ongoing debates. Also, a lot of my edits have been of a copyediting/maintenance nature, which tend not to prompt much discussion, and a lot more have been toward improving links to more appropriate articles. I'll also note here that some voters have expressed concern that much of my work has focused on baseball articles, and they would hope that admins would be knowledgeable in more than one area. To that I would note that I've been one of the top 100 contributors to the Internet Movie Database for each of the last four years, and I'm also on the advisory committee for The Political Graveyard, to which I've also contributed. (Those who are determined to do so may no doubt figure out my name by cross-checking the pages.) Yes, there are other areas to which I'd like to contribute, but there's only so much time. MisfitToys 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Alphachimp

5. Can you please enable email?
A: Done. MisfitToys 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question from tariqabjotu (joturner)

6. You mention in your answer to question one that you have been involved in fighting vandals in the past. However, I couldn't find any warning templates added to user talk pages. Can you point me to some evidence of that vandal-fighting? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A: Well, it's mostly been catching things as they come up rather than devoting blocks of time to vandalism, but here are a couple of commendations from last year; the first was for a series of Willie on Wheels page moves that I reverted quickly. MisfitToys 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Lar:

7. (one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A: I suppose I would consider placing myself in the first category if other users found my conduct as an admin objectionable, though I don't believe I'd do it right away if I'm confirmed. From my own answers and the concerns posted below, however, it seems everyone believes there's a greater likelihood that I'll not use the admin tools enough, rather than using them too much or indiscriminately. As to the second category, I primarily see it as humor but also recognize the point being made. I suppose if someone wanted to put me in there, I'd be surprised - but probably wouldn't object. MisfitToys 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments
Username MisfitToys
Total edits 22069
Distinct pages edited 10884
Average edits/page 2.028
First edit 16:48, March 25, 2004
(main) 19931
Talk 311
User 365
User talk 207
Image 8
Template 128
Template talk 12
Category 527
Category talk 7
Wikipedia 564
Wikipedia talk 7
Portal 2
Support
  1. Weak Support I would, of course, like to see quite a few more edits on a variety of pages (talk and Wikipedia, as noted above). Michael 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. He's honest and obviously a dedicated, thoughtful contributor. He's been here since 2004, will likely be here for quite some time longer. I'd be pleased to see him as an admin. alphaChimp laudare 23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Though I agree with the low edit counts in the two noted namespaces, this user seems to be a great candidate, with over 10,000 distinct pages edited. Kalani [talk] 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support as nom Jaranda wat's sup 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Clearly won't abuse tools. --W.marsh 23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per nominator. --Shane (talk/contrib) 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Could you clarify your comment? alphaChimp laudare 23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    Done. :) --Shane (talk/contrib) 23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per nom. --Tuspm (C | @) 23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Long time editor, tons and tons of work, seems good. User admits, and from question 1 I'd agree that he doesn't have much need for the tools for what he does, but surely someone who's done this much won't abuse them, and any admin work they do is better than none. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Rama's arrow 23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support per nom. G.He 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - BT 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  12. Merovingian - Talk 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  13. Edit Conflict Support - after 22000 edits on 10000 distinct articles pages, in my book he doesn't need significant Project space edits for me to be sure he'll be a good admin. If he was going to be a problem admin, it would have been apparent long ago. -- I@n 02:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support 20000+edits... wow. Total yes. Viva La Vie Boheme
  15. Support, why not? Stifle (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. They tell me you're a terrific editor. Please stay an editor. I pledge to fulfill all your admin requests ASAP. I am supporting you because I am sure you will not abuse the tools, though I don't think you'll help us too much with backlogs either, and besides, we have plenty of non-creative drones who can't write to save their lives (read, me) whose job it should be clear the backlog in CAT:CSD or Special:Shortpages. So I respectfully support - and suggest withdrawal. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support mind-boggling number of edits. Content specialists are a good idea and just because there's no immediate need for the tools doesn't mean they won't be useful to him. Opabinia regalis 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support no big deal and I can't see him misusing the extra buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak support, won't abuse the tools, but I'm unsure of the need for the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you'll find a task to do, given your astounding record in the mainspace. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support — FireFox (talk) 12:28, 01 August '06
  21. Support. Great editor. No reason to think he will misuse the tools. -- DS1953 talk 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Stubbleboy 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, you don't stick around for two productive years without knowledge of how things work. In particular I'm voting here because of the reasons given to oppose. Since some tools just make it easier to edit, experienced editors should have access to those tools. If people want admins to be "policemen" then they should form a new level of admin defined to do that. That isn't what admins are for now. Those opposition votes seem directly counter to the idea that admins don't have special authority compared to non-admins. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support, a slam dunk, err, home run, eh... nevermind. --CharlotteWebb 22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  29. Strong support per Schmucky and inasmuch as, quoting myself (a neutral and reliable source, to be sure) from the current Rmrfstar RfA, inasmuch as it really matters not that a candidate will use the tools infrequently where one can be certain the candidate would not abuse the tools or, in ignorance of policy or in view of an indecorous or unilateral streak, misuse–even avolitionally–the tools. One need not to worry, I think, about Rmrfstar's acting irresponsibly, and he surely appreciates how properly an admin ought to conduct himself, both inter-personally and vis-à-vis consensus (recognizing, notably, that an admin acts only to interpret the views of the community and to implement whatever action it is behind which a consensus lies). Joe 01:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, demonstrates understanding of policy through application. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support -- strong editor, will make an excellent admin. -- No Guru 03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support of course. — Deckiller 06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  33. Strong Support - in my view, it should never be forgotten that we are writing an encyclopedia, and all the rest is only subsidiary. I simply don't see any reasons for not making him an admin.--Aldux 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  34. Very Weak Support: The edits and longevity are astounding, but... what makes me worried are the low use of summaries, (user) talk participation and Wikipedia activity. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Low use of summaries doesn't bother me when held against other deeds. TruthCrusader 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - strong editor, great history of adding to wikipedia. Kukini 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. If any of his numbers seem low, that is only in respect to his massive contributions to the mainspace, which should not be held against him. He satisfies my criteria and his answer to my question (#4) satisfies me completely. Good luck. Themindset 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support - hard working editors make good admins. abakharev 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support per Joe. Would have like to see more AfD and RCPatrol. COntributions offset. :) Dlohcierekim 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per the rest. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, from his contributions and his answers, I don't see a reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. Clearly stating what he would or wouldn't be confident doing shows maturity and trustworthiness to me. - Bobet 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  42. Non-main namespace edits are a useful indicator of experience and familiarity with common practice, when there is evidence to the contrary. When it is clear that we do have an intelligent editor with good judgment and experience, and much good work in the encyclopedia (where it should be), then to oppose based on numbers is absurd. Dmcdevit·t 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support --Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Mildly surprised he's not an admin already. I don't see how low edit counts in other namespaces should be counted as a negative, unless there were some other indications that there might be a problem. older ≠ wiser 19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support as my standards met and no significant rationale to oppose (incivility, vandalism, etc.). I'm a little puzzled by the allegations the user spends too much time editing articles, that's why we're here. Ifnord 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support per Joe—WAvegetarian•(talk) 09:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support: --Bhadani 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support: --SynergeticMaggot 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support per all of above. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  50. I see no possibility of abusing AdminPowers™ Highway Return to Oz... 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  51. Good user who deserves the tools. JYolkowski // talk 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  52. Candidate will find out about how being an admin is different in his/her own time. It's an interesting ride. Support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support - 20,000 edits should exceed anyone's standards. --CFIF (talk to me) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support looks like a good candidate Semperf 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose This user is a fantastic editor and has made invaluable edits to this project. However, the administrative aspect is a completely different side of Wikipedia and not a "promotion," or an "upgrade" from being a "common user." I don't believe there is a need for the tools, since once you get admin status (and you are interested in doing the chores required), you can't assist on the level of articles, you need to focus on the whole scope. The answer to question one shows a lack of knowledge of what being an admin entitles, I also really don't like reading, "I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past." Sorry, I don't want to seem like I am bashing this user, but this request isn't needed since there really isn't a request for the tools. Yanksox 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you say you can't "assist on the level of articles" once an admin? I think I'm probably just interpreting that differently than you mean, but it seems like... why not? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    I did alot of Copy editing before I was an admin, but I am slowly realizing that you can't spend your time doing that when you have alot of other admin tasks that need ot be done. There is a never ending backlog at CAT:CSD, once an admin, if you want to be a productive admin, you can't keep editing articles. You need to act like a policeman-type. The nominee hasn't given me any reason to support this request for the additional tools. Yanksox 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Wouldn't we be better off with more admins who clearly aren't going to abuse the tools? If we only promote people who are going to make 5,000 deletions a month or whatever... that just seems really short-sighted. Wikipedia is about a lot of people doing a bit, rather than a few people making herculean efforts (that just leads to burnout anyway). Even if he just makes 20 admin actions a month, that's better than him making 0. --W.marsh 03:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Reading "once you get admin status..., you can't assist on the level of articles" and "if you want to be a productive admin, you can't keep editing articles. You need to act like a policeman-type." made me almost fall on the floor. No, becoming an admin does not obligate you to drop your normal tasks to do the never ending backlog you mention. Indeed, I don't really want admins who do not appreciate that admin tasks should not become your total focus once you become an admin. I want admins who can routinely step back and let other admins do the admin work for a while, and never lose touch with normal editing tasks. Adminship is not an all or nothing thing, don't give up being a user to become a full time admin. NoSeptember 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    I went on a bit of an off topic tangent, I guess what I really am trying to get to is the fact that the candidate is an excellent editor and a great asess to the project. However, I don't think he fits the role of what I perfer an admin to be. I don't mind or care if an admin edits articles and contributes. What I meant to say is that I care if a substancial part of what they do isn't helping in admin tasks since other users can't assist there. This is just based upon a few days of me being one of the newest SysOps, but I believe a need for the tools and confidence in the user's ability to be a solid admin is there. I'd rather not support for now. Yanksox 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose 22,000 edits is astounding, but the WP: edit count is too low. And it's not just the number that I don't like, it's more so the distribution. Most are towards Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports, Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, Wikipedia:Non-unique personal name, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Hollowell (see WP: contributions). Perhaps more importantly, there are few talk and user talk edits, which may demonstrate lack of communication skills. In a sample of the few talk edits available, I did see a bit of impatience ([10], [11]) as well as biting a newcomer by repeatedly telling someone to sign his/her posts without actually explaining how to do it (see Talk:USC Trojans football#Titles won). I do also echo Yanksox's sentiments about that statement in the nomination. Nevertheless, I'm more than willing to change my mind (at least to neutral) if some of the support voters can provide me with evidence that these issues are atypical, but so far I see mostly comments on the immense number of edits. One can be a wonderful, dedicated editor, but not be ready for adminship. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see how wikipedia edits would affect a canitdate, he clearly won't abuse the tools though and we need more specialist admins. Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    In what are you suggesting MisfitToys is specialized? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    MisfitToys is one of our top baseball editors, and we need more admins that knows about one subject. Jaranda wat's sup 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Why do you think that? I don't see how being knowledgeable in one subject would make someone a better admin. I'm, of course, not opposing on those grounds, but I'm curious; that just seems like a non sequitur. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Not to speak for Jaranda, but - because they're more familiar with the community of editors that focus on a particular family of articles, and because they're more able to distinguish a real correction from a well-intentioned but erroneous edit from subtle vandalism in their area of expertise. Opabinia regalis 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    I have a week to think about it, and the answer to my question above would help too. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per Jo above. His percentage of Wikipedia project space edits, at just over 2.5% is a bit too low for my liking I must admit. I would very happily support in the future when the user imporves his amount of Wikipedia project space activity. --Wisden17 14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose for two reasons - I'm not convinced he needs the tools, and his edit summary usage is poor. He is a very active editor, and that is great; but I don't think we need any more marginally active admins. This oppose vote is not meant to impugn the editor at all; I hope he keeps up all the great work (and starts using edit summaries). --Aguerriero (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I've been working on that (particularly since this nudge in March. MisfitToys 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Sorry, MisfitToys, but there just isn't a good enough balance of edits: 207 user talk and 311 article talk in well over two years shows almost no community interaction; and seven edits to project talk shows no discussion about policies or guidelines. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose More non-article space activity, please. Attic Owl 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above --Masssiveego 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose A great editor, but not enough evidence of the need for admin tools or experience in those areas. -- Mike Christie 17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Until questions are answered.--Andeh 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    Sticking after reading answers and reasons under Oppose.--Andeh 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Seems like an excellent editor, but unfortunately answers do not seem to require admin tools. If you were to complete some active RCP and some other participation on WP: then I will be happy to support if you run for admin again. And of course admins can still participate in article contributions, as the idea is that they are still normal users, but they also have the duty to participate in the wider scale of Wikipedia. Seivad 11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral WP space edits are a bit on the low side and it seems like he wouldn't use admin tools much. Roy A.A. 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per my comments in the oppose section, but the user doesn't appear untrustworthy. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I find it really doubtfull that you will missuse the tools, but I also doubt that you especially need them. YOu seem to be a fantastic editor and we can never have too many of them. Keep up the good work. ViridaeTalk 07:04, 5 August 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.