Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/moink

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] moink

Final (86/0/0) ended 07:08, June 18, 2006 (UTC)

moink (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. I have been a registered Wikipedian since 1 December 2003. I was promoted to admin in March 2004 at an RfA found here:[1]. I continue to have the sysop flag set, but I have voluntarily given up use of admin tools since March 20, for behaviour outlined at User:moink/diffs. If this RfA fails, I will ask a bureaucrat to remove the sysop flag. If it succeeds, I will resume using the tools. moink 07:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nomination, therefore I obviously accept. moink 07:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Everyone should be given a second chance. NSLE (T+C) at 07:54 UTC (2006-06-11)
  2. Support don't think you behave badly at all, I don't even think you should have to rerun. Thetruthbelow 08:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support as NSLE mentioned above, every editor deserves a second chance--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 09:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Including you NSLE :D Computerjoe's talk 09:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support No big deal in the scheme of things.--MONGO 10:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Agree with NLSE, especially in view of contrite behaviour since, and with MONGO. --Avenue 11:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per above. --Tone 12:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Of course! Everone deserves a second chance. To err is human. Besides, she has proven herself to be a very good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support her credentials are quite impressive and I have not found anything terrible in the User:moink/diffs. Some staff in User:Moink/diffs#Older_negative_stuff actually looks like exemplary behavior to my taste. abakharev 13:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Maturity under fire wins bonus points. RandyWang (raves/rants) 13:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support please resume your former good works as admin. Gwernol 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. extreme emo support. — Jun. 11, '06 [14:52] <freak|talk>
  13. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support ForestH2 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support --Terence Ong 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support didn't see a problem in the diffs. Confused about the whole thing. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 16:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Well, this is certainly different. I don't see anything wrong on your "diff" page, and you seem to be a good user.--SomeStranger(t|c) 17:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support digital_me(TalkˑContribs)
  19. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Suppty - Yup. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. Keep up the good work. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Looks like you went through a bit of a rough patch, ie human. :) - Glen Stollery 19:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Merovingian {T C @} 20:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Rory096 20:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Welcome back. To err is human and you did the right thing, and are doing the right thing again. I like people who do the right thing. --Guinnog 20:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support per arguments above. G.He 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral until e-mail has been confirmed. G.He 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    User has now enabled email. G.He 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - moink has not been disruptive at all. She's editing conscientiously. Richardcavell 23:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support per Guinnog. Kalani [talk] 00:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Speedy Support - we trust you 100%, feel free to speedy close this as it's obvious we trust you -- Tawker 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support without reservation! --hydnjo talk 00:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Jaranda wat's sup 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support, absolutely. One of the people whose kind and reasonable style I've long admired. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support seen this person around ANI. good user. good luck.--Alhutch 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support appears that should be invited back to mop duties. Kukini 02:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. The only thing that made me nervous was the deletion of material from talk pages (see my question below). I was going to oppose, but the way Moink handled conflicts with users (civilly, compromisingly, and willing to admit mistakes) seemed to outweigh that. I do not have a problem with Moink for getting depressed, though I *hope* that Wikipedia helps with that. Note that I reserve the right to change my vote pending a response to my question below. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support — The King of Kings 04:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, readily. ×Meegs 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support – any past mistakes are of no concern now. And, of course, was trusted with adminship before – Gurch 09:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. MaxSem 09:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support. Doing well as an admin already, no abuse present as far as I can see. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Came right out with mistakes, and everybody deserves a second chance. Tyler 15:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Anyone who is dedicated, and has the strength to admit their own mistakes is a good addition to the adminocracy.--The ikiroid (talk desk advice) 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Michael Snow 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Been fine so far, and you are trusted.--Dakota ~ 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. </lurk> Support. Welcome back. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) <lurk>
  48. Support per above. Nevermind2 18:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support :-) --HappyCamper 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. I applaud moink for seeking reaffirmation and am happy to Support ++Lar: t/c 22:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support and feel free to take a break whenever it suits you. Stephen B Streater 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  52. Strong Support. User is very open to criticism or loss of power as a result and per much of the above.Voice-of-All 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. I don't really see any huge problems here, and frankly, she seems to be handling this whole thing in a refreshingly mature and responsible (if a little dramatic) fashion. I see no reason to believe that she would abuse the tools that she could abuse right now if she was so inclined; if anything, it seems to me that moink is very much aware of the responsibilities adminship carries. That's good enough for me. I feel rather strongly that it would be ridiculously unreasonable to expect admins to be infallible (assuming a basic level of competence has been reached, of course, but I think we all agree that this is hardly an issue in this case). What really counts is that I can see no malice here. -- Captain Disdain 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support 2 months of voluntary punishment for something that wasn't even that serious. OK you've whipped yourself enough now :-) jbolden1517Talk 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support for absolute maturity. Werdna (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. I appreciate your integrity, maturity and transparency. Good luck. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support, most certainly deserves admin powers. Roy A.A. 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support One bad day isn't enough reason to stop being an admin. A persistant pattern would be, but that isn't what moink demonstrated. And an admin with a sense of humor is valuable. See my input, Gareth Owen's don't bite warning, and moink's response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIT Assassins' Guild if you want the example. But next time you get depressed, go play patrol or call nightline.) GRBerry 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support, go ahead.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support Joe I 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support, of course. Evidentally a human being disguised as an admin... like most admins. And most users. And most readers. Heck, like almost everyone on the planet. We need you, moink! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Welcome back! Antandrus (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  63. Of course. SushiGeek 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support totally. I managed to miss voting on the first RfA, good to have a second chance ;) -- sannse (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. αγδεε (ε τ c) 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support a huge level of self criticism for what seems a relatively minor issue. Clearly a valuble admin in the past, pleasure to support - Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support, absolutely. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Anyone who is offering to resign as an admin if this fails can, I think, be trusted.Dolive21 14:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  70. Strong Support The very fact that you yourself recognised your mistakes and voluntarily gave up using Admin tools, makes me trust you. I hope this time around, your previous chastened experiences will help you be an even better administrator. After all, To err is human, to ask for forgiveness is divine. ;-) Jordy 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support with absolutely no hesitation. Moink never lost my trust, and it's obvious that she never lost the community's trust either. AnnH ♫ 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  72. Strong Support Moink was one of the first admins I interacted with and I've always been impressed by her sensitivity and tact in dealing with other editors. older ≠ wiser 20:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support —Cuiviénen 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Afonso Silva 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  76. Cheat, Cheat! ;-) (inquire per email why :-) ) Kim Bruning 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support it takes a lot of guts to ignore your sysop flag and reapply like this. --Xyrael T 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support. Wow... How RfA has changed since early 2004. It takes way more than two votes of support to pass. Anyway, previous admin + transparency + civility + good faith = a support. I am suprised you don't have more edits in all that time. Ah well... Grandmasterka 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support - nothing wrong in those diffs.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  80. Tack on Boston Support I see nothing wrong that you did, all it showed was that people care about you. You did no wrong, and will continue to be a fine admin. Yanksox (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. Doubt he would abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    moink is a she. Yanksox (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    moink is a she who doesn't really care if people think she's a he. This is the Internet, after all. Thanks, though. moink 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support--Kf4bdy 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support--Infinite chances for everyone (as long as they don't mess up on purpose every single time). GangstaEB EA 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support--Runcorn 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oh, good lord, of course. What the hell is our beloved community doing to people to make them think they have to put themselves up for review like this? Yes, this user keeps their sysop bit and furthermore, receives considerable respect from me for having the metaphorical bollocks to go through this mudslinging match. I've never heard of the user at all, so I'm assuming there's nothing about them warranting us to jump up and down and demand a pint of blood. robchurch | talk 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  86. You're willing to put up your mop when you feel it's been too heavy, and willing to take it up again when you feel you're ready again. That's the kind of responsibility that many people don't have: Doing what is right even when you don't benefit from your decision. I can only hope that if I'm ever in the same position, I handle it the same way. Oh, Support btw. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral

Neutral. Would prefer a bit more time. Not enough to oppose. —Cuiviénen 16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: a bit more time since voluntary "desysopping". —Cuiviénen 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. Changed to support. —Cuiviénen 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Neutral until e-mail is set. G.He 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
E-mail is now set. Changed to support (See above). G.He 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Moink
Total edits 4910
Distinct pages edited 2869
Average edits/page 1.711
First edit 20:04, December 1, 2003
 
(main) 2343
Talk 351
User 56
User talk 854
Image 15
Image talk 1
Template 9
Template talk 11
Help 1
Category 1
Wikipedia 1171
Wikipedia talk 97
 G.He 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--Viewing contribution data for user Moink (sysop) (over the 4910 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 892 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 11, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 2, December, 2003
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 88.61% Minor edits: 99.15%
Average edits per day: 5.82 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 491 edits) : Major article edits: 98.74% Minor article edits: 99.43%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4910 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.14% (7)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 6.35% (312)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 25.27% (1241)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 60.4%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2710 | Average edits per page: 1.81 | Edits on top: 7.66%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 59.78% (2935 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 22.24% (1092 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 17.98% (883 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 4.66% (229 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 47.72% (2343) | Article talk: 7.15% (351)
User: 1.14% (56) | User talk: 17.39% (854)
Wikipedia: 23.85% (1171) | Wikipedia talk: 1.98% (97)
Image: 0.31% (15)
Template: 0.18% (9)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.24% (12)
  • Just for clarity: Moink (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is already an admin. As I understand this, Moink has voluntarily suspended her use of the tools, and is asking if she could/should resume such use. -Splash - tk 07:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should have made that more clear. Yes, you're right. I have now added to the initial statement. moink 07:50, 11 June 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: Closing votes for deletion, cleaning up speedy deletions, doing recent changes patrol and if absolutely necessary, after 4 warnings (spaced at least 5 minutes apart) blocking persistent vandals. I have done all of these in the past.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Please see User:Moink/diffs
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: Please see User:Moink/diffs. I plan on continuing in the same manner.
4. Could you please justify why you remove comment from a talk pages? Why not archive, even prematurely, if the material bothers you that much? Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 03:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
A: I cannot justify that, or any of the other behaviour I exhibited that day. I wasn't behaving rationally. I will not do it again. moink 06:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's cool, we won't hold it against you. It's also reversible. So I assume you wouldn't mind restoring said removed material? Armedblowfish (talk|contribs)
You mean I didn't? My memory is poorer than I thought. I will do so, later tonight. moink 00:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a very complicated question, and unfortunately one I don't have an easy answer to. I think it's important that Wikipedia editors trust their admins to protect the encyclopedia and respect community consensus. It's also important that there is not only admin integrity, but the appearance of integrity. This means that an admin should NEVER protect an article she regularly edits, even if it's obvious it needs it. This means that when an editor makes repeated personal attacks against an admin, or repeatedly reverts an admin's constructive article edits in violation of 3RR, that admin should get other admins to help rather than blocking the violator herself. Most admins are very good at that, but there's a small number who let their personal viewpoints get in the way. When an admin does something against policy, I think it's important that the rest of us politely let that admin know that we disagree with her actions. If it becomes a chronic problem, we need to take action and remove her admin powers. I would be in favour of some kind of community desysopping if a good proposal could be found to work. But so far all the suggestions have failed to gain consensus, and those tried, like quickpolls, and the old admin abuse page, were mostly useless as they attracted too many paranoid users and those with personal beefs against the admin. I know the ArbCom is overworked, but for now I think we're going to have to be satisfied with recourse to arbitration when an admin repeatedly misbehaves. moink 00:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Question from GHe

I noticed that you current have no confirmed email, or chose not to receive email. Email is an important means of communication, especially for admins, since they may also deal with requests from blocked users. Will you enable email or confirm an address now? G.He 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I swear I confirmed it when the confirmation came around. Will fix right now. moink 20:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I confirmed it but didn't subsequently re-enable it. I hadn't realized that was necessary. Fixed now. moink 21:00, 15 June 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.