Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mitchazenia 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Mitchazenia

Final: (55/6/2); ended 03:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) - Mitchazenia has been a Wikipedian for more than 2 years. He's a great article writer, a friendly person and I think he'll make an excellent admin.

Mitch mostly works on hurricane related articles; his work includes Subtropical Storm One (1982), Gun Hill Road (Bronx) and East 233rd Street (Bronx). His personal best work, 1983 Atlantic hurricane season is currently a Featured Article candidate. Besides hurricanes, he's worked on road articles, and has created numerous short articles on both subjects. He has made numerous discussions on the various talk pages, and he collaborates well with others. In the past, he has also been a reviewer of Good Article nominees.

Mitch is also active in project space; he contributes to AfDs, MfDs, TfDs, as well as keeping the various road Wikiprojects up to scratch. He is also an occasional new page patroller, and often takes the time to welcome and help newcomers. He's clearly shown he is very capable, and is familiar with our policies and guidelines. In all, I think he'll make a fabulous addition as an admin, and I hope you can support him. Majorly (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thanks Majorly. Mitch32contribs 03:59, 26 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: I intend to take part in deleting articles, in which I have experience speedy tagging. I would also like to take part in is vandal warning/reverting. I love trying to help people where and when I can. I also want to help close AFDs, TFDs, IFDs, MFDs and such.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, as stated above by Majorly are the U.S. Roads project, the Tropical cyclone wikiproject and the Canada Roads wikiproject (which I started). I have had experience GA Reviewing, but I retired on December 20. My best articles are 1983 Atlantic hurricane season and New York State Route 146. I also have other GAs to my name (listed above). I am experienced with speedy delete tags, TFDs, and making templates and other things. I use inkscape for images, most that go to good use. I am also a semi-active contributor to the Wikimedia Commons and a part of the Wikimedia NYC chapter. I am willing to do even better on these and become better experienced.
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 used to have civility issues, which I have long fixed. I used to be under the username User:HurricaneCraze32, and had a lot of trouble. I finally decided to turn myself around. After producing the Canada Roads Wikiproject, I changed my name to Mitchazenia and started myself over. I should mention I had one 24-hr block in August 2006 for trash-talking about a user. I take full blame for that. Over several months, I started to become a more useful editor, putting more time into Wikipedia and the projects I work for to this date. In June 2007, I was nominated for adminship, but it was snowed 0-5-0.

If I have a future problem, I'm willing to take it and deal with it well.

Optional question from Unschool

4. I'm curious; on your user page you have announced that you are "retiring" from reviewing GA articles. Few editors, if any, have as many GAs under their belt over the past year or so as yourself. Why are you giving this up? Unschool (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
A: I was being a major screwup there, passsing bad articles, small reviews, article history troubles, etc. When I heard they're going to be a lot stricter on the process, I decided its time I retired. I didn't want to cause any more trouble.Mitch32contribs 13:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As of December 27, 2007 - I have restarted GA Reviewing on a limited basis, and will get practice at what to do.

Optional question from Chris.B, posted 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

5.What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Obeying the letter of WP:3RR.) Chris.B (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
A: Warn the user first about the 3RR and explain what happens. If all else fails, report him to others or deal with it myself. Dealing with it myself includes more warnings and a possible later block.Mitch32contribs 21:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Optional questions from O (talk)
6. What is your interpretation of NFCC? How would you enforce it?
A: The Non-free content criteria is too long & large to be addressed point by point. However, I understand the criteria exists to protect Wikipedia for legal issues and help users (old or new) to follow the "5 Pillars of Wikipedia" and its guidelines against the uploading of unfree content. Mitch32contribs 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
7. You find a WikiProject that has its own style guideline(s) for articles, and it turns out the MOS is violated because of the WikiProject guideline(s). WikiProject members assert that their guidelines should be followed, but mention nothing of the MOS. What would you do to make the project guideline(s) comply with the MOS?
A: I would first notify the project about the Manual of Style and its guidelines. The suggested guideline would depend of the project violated and remember that it is not "a guideline set in stone and should be brought about with common sense and have the occasional exception". There is not a reason to fight with the project, but when it comes to article naming conventions, there may be other matters taken. Mitch32contribs 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Do you disagree with any of the current policies and guidelines? If so, why, and how would you propose to improve them?
A: I have no problems with any current policies or guidelines.Mitch32contribs 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
9. An article that you contribute heavily to has been deleted citing BLP and/or OTRS. You do not believe that there was any sensitive information in the article, and want to undelete it. How would you deal with this?
A: I would first get ahold of the administrator who deleted the "issue" article, if possible in confidental form. If there was an agreement, all would be said and done. If there was a disagreement, I'd go for a neutral third party. Mitch32contribs 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by Corvus cornix

10. What is your opinion concerning the "this admin is open to recall" controversy? Would you offer yourself up for recall if you are an admin whose actions have been questioned?
A. I don't really think there is a controversy over admins being open to recall. I'm sure any administrator would give up their tools if asked politely on their talk page because of a valid concern, even without being on CAT:RECALL. I certainly would.Mitch32contribs 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Mitchazenia Requests for adminship/Mitchazenia 2

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Mitchazenia will be the first administrator of 2008. May the force be with you. :) Rt. 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like if the above questions were answered, as they are relevant to the nominator's experience in potential admin activities. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • He doesn't have to. They are optional, and as you've already opposed, what would be the point? Majorly (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • He never made an attempt to explain himself to my opposition, so depending how he answers I might change it to a support. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Majorly (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The Transhumanist 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely. Fantastic editor. Maser (Talk!) 04:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Review of his edits reveals quality work, in-depth knowledge. Looks solid. Unschool (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - absolutely. What a turnaround from last RfA! This candidate is excellent and should make a great admin - Alison ❤ 05:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Excellent contributions, it'll be a real shame to lose him at GAC :( — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Lucky number seven... Majorly has a knack for good finds (cough). Jmlk17 08:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Good article contributor, nothing to suggest that he would do something silly. Per Jmlk17. Daniel 11:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - I'm not Mailer Diablo and I approve this message ™...--Cometstyles 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support - Great contributor, especially at GAC. Good luck. Rt. 14:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - RaNdOm26 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Strong support - Great articles writer and has experience all over the place. Will be fine with some extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support -WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN 16:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Great job. You have improved exponentially since your last RFA. -Icewedge (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. I've worked and spoken extensively with Mitchazenia over these last few weeks, and I have no doubt in his ability to yield the mop and bucket well. Qst 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 20:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Should-have-nommed support great user, deserves the tools and will use them well.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Seems to be a very good editor looking at the edit summary. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 00:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Strong support A great help at the Wikiproject Tropical cyclones, and I hear he is good at roads too! Juliancolton (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Positive changes since last RFA. :) GlassCobra 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support: After reviewing the prior RFA and the edits today, a big improvement! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support A good editor with many GA quality articles written. I am slightly concerned at the awkward answer to question 4 but I don't think it should be that big of a problem. People change after all. --Hdt83 Chat 08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support--n1yaNt 08:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Long time since Majorly nommed a guy. Must be good. --DarkFalls talk 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Trustworthy nominator, candidate is clearly ready and willing to make use of the tools. Additionally, I've had the pleasure of talking with Mitch over IRC, and he's a top fellow. No qualms, Anthøny 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support - I must admit I am a bit taken aback by answer to Q4 but ultimately I see no deal-breakers being raised and as always, a good article writer and 'pedia builder is a plus. Overall a net positive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Good writer. Answer to question 4 - meh. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support. I have no problem with the answer to question four, I much rather a user that feels as though they can not do something not do it. Such self-restraint and self-assessment is welcome. Of course, this assumes that the user has attempted to improve his behavior before simply quiting, but I believe that is the case. At any rate, best of luck. SorryGuy  Talk  20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Awkward answer to question #4. But there is nothing saying a person can't change their mind. Would be a welcome addition. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Won't abuse the tools. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Answer to Q4 is obviously concerning, but recognizing substandard conduct in oneself is a good value to have as an admin. Advise candidate to steer clear of blocks and CSD for some time, and exercise extra care in controversial actions until you've had enough time to become comfortable in these areas. Avruchtalk 00:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Mitch always conducts himself cheerfully and professionally and doesn't have any major problems (other than a strange aversion to being called "Mitchster" -- just kidding Mitch! :P). I believe that he's immersed in Wikipedia well enough to handle the tools, and to look up those policies he has questions on.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. An excellent content contributor who's experienced and dedicated to the project; I have no qualms with giving him the extra buttons to use in the course of his work. --krimpet✽ 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Mitch has always been enthusiastic. His dedication to the the project has always been there from the experience that I have seen from him. Question 4? meh - we're human - he's learning just as you and I are.  — master sonT - C 14:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support Enthusiasm is good. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Indented, see support 19. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - looks great! Bearian (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support good answers to the questions. RMHED (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Good user. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support A pleasure to do so. Maxim(talk) 14:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support - I'm not concerned about the answer to #4. My interests have changed dramatically during my wiki-life, as I have burnt out from some tasks and moved on to others. I don't see this as being out of synch with that. --After Midnight 0001 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support :-) Stwalkerster talk 17:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support John254 18:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support great editor, has changed a lot since his last nomination, very experienced, he'll make a great admin. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Dlohcierekim 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per above. No reason to oppose this user. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support There are many aspects to Wikipedia that goes beyond GA reviewing. Some people have strengths in reviewing, others have their strengths in writing and researching. Some people are better at mediating disputes. Granted, in all cases a user needs to have the experience...and Mitch has that. He'll make a great admin. --Son (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - Adminship is "no big deal", i do not think this user will abuse the tools. Tiptoety talk 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. I have no foreseeable problems with this candidate gaining administrator status. While the answer to question four may be troubling to some, it has been realised by the candidate that giving up isn't the a good thing to do, and then bucked up and returned to doing what has been done before. Even in difficult circumstances like the beginnings of a probable arbitration case, he has managed to keep cool. Bolstering that, I have not seen Mitch be incivil once, and that is a huge plus in any candidate tossed up in the air. Keep it up, 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (GMT)
  51. Support - very good editor and article writer, deserves the tools.   jj137 ♠ 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support Terrific editor, answer to question 4 troubles me very slightly, but overall he is a great contributer and I believe he would do well with the tools. Hello32020 (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  53. Weak Support User deserves adminship and the tools, answers to Q4 and Q5 trouble me slighty. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support Great contributor; can be trusted with the toolset. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  55. Yes I support this request. --VS talk 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. The user has had some issues in the past while under pressure or given some power. He admits in his last RFA of his problems with AFB. He mentions several conflicts, and I'm a little concerned it could happen again if he became an admin. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Don't see a point by point reasoning that the problems mentioned in the first RfA have been resolved. Besides, the answer to the present question 4 may be honest to a fault but nevertheless bothers me a lot - nom not being able to keep up with rising quality standards?? Sorry. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Sorry, the attitude expressed in answer to question 4 is just bizarre for someone now wanting admin status. Nick mallory (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose per answer to question 4 and per Hurricanehink. --Coredesat 10:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The answer to question four and admin status are, in my view, mutually exclusive Whitstable (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not ready yet. Answer to question 4 is very troubling, no one who views themself as a source of trouble at their main Wikipedia space contribution area is ready for adminship. Speedy deletion tagging that I spot checked was all blatantly obvious cases, so it didn't give me a sense of whether the candidate has good judgment. GRBerry 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral, I really have no reason to oppose, but I'm a bit hesitant to support, as well. --Coredesat 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose --Coredesat 10:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What makes you hesitant to support?--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 20:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've had it explained to me via irc, no problem.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I've worked with Mitch a lot over the last few months through WP:NYSR and I must say I'm impressed with his work ethic. He's one of the most energetic and eager editors I've had a chance to collaborate with, and that says a lot. However, the answer to question four is a bit concerning. My issue with the answer transcends adminship or even the wiki; giving up instead of learning new things when changes warrant such learning is a bad approach to have in life. Instead of becoming familiar with the new Good Article criteria and becoming a better reviewer (which GA desperately needs, judging by the now-commonplace backlogs), you close up shop. I also remember a few discussions with Mitch where he had an opinion regarding some XFDs but refused to add his opinion to the pages, which to me comes across as a bad practice as well - if you have an opinion about something, you have to voice it. No one on the wiki can read your mind. To me, an admin - to be honest, all editors as well - has to be willing to stand up to new challenges and be willing to voice their opinion. There are also a few flaws that I see on the editing side, but these are far too ticky-tack for this venue. Don't get me wrong, Mitch has done great things on-wiki and he's a good guy, which keeps me from opposing, but the concerns that both I and others have above are far too great in my mind to support at this time. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 11:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral because I'm concerned about the Q4 answer. If there was further clarification I might be persuaded to support. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:53, 29 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.