Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MoRsE 3

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] MoRsE

(50/2/0); final Andre (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

MoRsE (talk · contribs) - It has now been some time since my last attempt to become an administrator (see 1 30 Sept 2006 and 2 29 Jan 2007) and I would like to nominate myself again. My previous RfAs failed mainly due to my low edit count and because I did not have enough experience at the time. At present I have reached some 4,400 Mainspace edits and some 6,300 edits in total (roughly 550 edits/month since September 2007). I have also taken part in the reporting of several types of abuse and administrative issues. I have been an registered user on enwiki since May 2005 and an active participant since September 2006. Prior to that I was mostly active on the Swedish and Finnish language wikipedias. I am part of several projects, including the Military history project (Military aviation task force, World War II task force and Maritime warfare task force projects). MoRsE 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am often involved in the structuring of articles and I have often felt that it would have been good to have administrative rights, in order to move pages of uncontroversial nature to occupied titles, like the ones presented at WP:RM. I would also help out in the WP:SD and WP:AIV departments.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am a writer and I write both original articles as well as doing a lot of translations, mainly Swedish and Finnish to English, but sometimes also from German and French (as far as my knowledge of the languages go). I have also been involved in the translation of metawiki pages into Swedish. The following articles are some examples of what I have written: American Holland class submarines, Svartholm fortress, Jorma Sarvanto, Finnish torpedo boat S2, I have also largely participated in the creation of two featured articles on the English language Wikipedia: T-26 and Battleship. I have written about ten "featured articles", as well as a number of "Good articles" on the Swedish language Wikipedia.
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: Yes, I have been in some minor conflicts or disagreements, but I do not wish to get entangled into the never-ending ones. I am aware of the 3 revert rule and I am de facto trying to follow the 1 revert rule instead. I would say that I am doing my best to stay civilized and I try to solve the matter of disagreement through discussion.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/MoRsE Requests for adminship/MoRsE 2 Requests for adminship/MoRsE 3

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MoRsE before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support He is a very trustworthy editor. His last RfA failed narrowly, but I believe that this time, the mop should be given to him. He is also unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I think this user seems fine. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Why not? Lets give him the mop, give him lots of backlogs to clear! --Chris g 10:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. No reason not to - I see no terrible problems. A great candidate Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Edits seem good, generally trustworthy. I admire your spirit to keep going for RfA, it shows dedication in the face of failure. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. (ec) Support Trustworthy enough and experienced enough. Would certainly be suited well to speedy deletions and also requested moves. GDonato (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - good candidate. Addhoc 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Classic application of "adminship is no big deal." Good experienced editor; no problems at all. Shalom Hello 13:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I view multiple self-noms as prima facie evidence of someone who knows how Wikipedia works. Oh and all those edits on other wikis, your civility and your contributions. Pedro |  Chat  13:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Pedro, that is the best supporting comment I have seen in ages. Thanks for the smile ;) the_undertow talk 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Although project-space edits at en.wiki remain a little low, candidate has clearly put effort into addressing concerns at prior RfAs. I don't mind allowing his experience at other wikis to count for a little something. ;) I'll sure he'll be excellent on the mop. Xoloz 14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong support as last time. A highly trusted user on other Wikis. I wasn't persuaded by the opposition last time but he appears to have addressed those concerns in any event. Definitely seems to know what he's doing. WjBscribe 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Third time change of mind, as MoRsE appears to have participated in admin-related tasks since his last RfA, as per my recommendations. The admin tools should be well-handled by this editor. (aeropagitica) 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I see no reason not to. Good luck! Pax:Vobiscum 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Excellent history of good editing. User appears to be always civil and shows a strong knowledge of process. Fantastic candidate to take up the mop. Trusilver 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support While the user shows no known proficiency in Esperanto, my native tongue, the grasp of multiple languages is impressive, along with mainspace edits and a general consistency. the_undertow talk 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I like what I see...'nuff said. Jmlk17 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Politics rule 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. ... ..- .--. .--. --- .-. - as WJBscribe and inasmuch as it seems quite clear that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. No problems with you. J-stan Talk 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support You are a good contributor to the swedish wikipedia as well as english one. No reason to oppose--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. What the...? good luck! The Rambling Man 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support I don't see any problems. Hirohisat Talk 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support I - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Long-term editor with solid contributions to building the encyclopedia. I'm somewhat concerned about the relatively few contributions to wikipedia space, but weighed against adminship on another encyclopedia this doesn't seem sufficient reason to withhold support. Espresso Addict 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - Impressive. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 23:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I propose totally to discount all of the edits this user has made in wiki Sweden. His edits here, in mainspace and in namespace, amply justify his receipt of the mop and bucket. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per Pedro :P. MoRsE is clearly doing stirling work, and IMO will continue to maintain the high standard as an admin. ck lostsword•T•C 00:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Thought you were one already. IronGargoyle 00:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - All the best. Khukri 07:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, definitely. I like what I see in MoRsE; he's a very balanced editor. —Anas talk? 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. -- Y not? 14:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - as per the Rambling Man..--Cometstyles 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. 3 Self noms? Sounds like "I'm going to go at it until I get it". User is Persistent, and shows great initiative, all great admin qualities. Plus, I do not see any evidence that this user would abuse the tools. --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Although I think you're perhaps too "Swedish oriented" in some questions in which I disagree with you [1], I respect your great efforts on FAF and FN articles. When you don't get too passionate in the "language strifes" you have my full support. --Pudeo⺮ 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Strong support looks like a good user. As for the three self-nominations? Not a concern. Acalamari 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Great use of edit summaries and an overall expiernced user. And the previous RfAs show that he has learned much from them, so he deserves the mop. Marlith 23:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Ja naturligtvis, just like in the last two times. Experienced and trustworthy user.--Húsönd 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per above. Peacent 07:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Seen him many times and got to say that I have seen only a very fine job by this user. - Darwinek 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Good editor, will mop wisely. And I like his MoRsE MeDaL. :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - good user. Everything is now in order. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Självklart Productive and experienced editor. Valentinian T / C 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - Hope you make it this time. Roadmr (t|c) 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - Garion96 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support—the changes Morse has implemented into his contributions since the last RfA(s) is noticeable for all the right reasons, and I think he's ready for the buttons ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Have shown now to be much more familiar with the ropes. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support - One more time, i approve Mailer Diablo's message. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support There is no change that can not be undone. Remember that. ~ Infrangible 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support I view this self-nominated candidate as competent enough to be an administrator. Power to those who desire it! New England (C) (H) 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Editing is OK, but three self-noms? Strikes me as a bit of "I'm going to go at it until I get it", and that worries me a bit. You would think that someone would have noticed his work, but there's less than 100 edits to his talkpage in two years, and no awards. I also don't see much in the way of work on admin tasks. For what he does do, adminship isn't necessary. MSJapan 14:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Awards are very dubious... I wrote a FA on an obscure topic and no one even said "nice work" for my 2 trips to the library and dozens of hours of hard work. Then I reverted vandalism to some guy's user page, 3 seconds of effort, and got a barnstar. Awards and talk page comments tend to come from doing highly visible things, not necessarily highly valuable things. I haven't looked at this candidate's work, but I'd say you'd get way more edits to your talk page for making 100 controversial POV edits than for making 10,000 quiet cleanup edits. I think we want admins who do the latter though. --W.marsh 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. I wrote one FA and eleven GAs on one topic and it doesn't register much, and when I blocked a very obvious sock (about 1 minute to inspect) an opponent of the banned user gives me a star......I have seen other cases where person A gave person B a barnstar because person B (illegally) indefinitely blocked person C. A and C were in prior conflict. Or some pov-pushers giving barnstars to their "revert-allies". In any case, from my personal experiences of myself, I always got barnstarred more when I was wandering around not doing much work and making more public appearances. When I had my head down writing FAs, GAs and DYKs, nobody noticed. And it's not as though I was the most impoverished guy out there. The top four guys out there in terms of DYK (about 120-170 DYK articles) all have less than ten barnstars. Some of them have 500+ start class articles and 8+ FAs as well.............whereas I can think of one person with 110 article edits and no articles with 15 barnstars and another person with 2 stubs and 1000 machine article edits with about 25 barnstars.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    User:Gmaxwell/report_for_raul654 - Also note this analysis of the most edited talk pages. Of the top 8, Jimbo is the first (obviously). Of the following seven, one was a former administrator who resigned "under a cloud" as the ArbCom put it. Two other users on that list, Mistress Selina Kyle and Karmafist are banned and the traffic on their page was mostly due to controversy. CoolCat was blocked quite frequently, and Curps ran an adminbot, which was quite a revolutionary thing which raised many eyebrows. So massive talk page traffic is not necessarily a good thing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 00:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.