Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Mike1 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:45, 9 November 2006 editMike1 (talk | contribs)3,166 edits →[]: reply to jcam← Previous edit Revision as of 03:46, 9 November 2006 edit undoRiana (talk | contribs)36,950 edits s-->nNext edit →
Line 81: Line 81:
#'''Support.''' Keep up the good work (hopefully as an administrator!). '''</nowiki></font>]]'''&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>] • ]</small> 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) #'''Support.''' Keep up the good work (hopefully as an administrator!). '''</nowiki></font>]]'''&nbsp;&nbsp;<small>] • ]</small> 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''weak Support''' - it's encourging to see user who opposed your last nom, supporting here --]-] 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC) #'''weak Support''' - it's encourging to see user who opposed your last nom, supporting here --]-] 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', so long as you sustain your current level of activity - I find Sarah's neutral opinion below to be fairly valid. ''']_]''' 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :<s>'''Support''', so long as you sustain your current level of activity - I find Sarah's neutral opinion below to be fairly valid. ''']_]''' 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)</s> Switch to '''neutral''' per Sarah and Nish's concerns. ''']_]''' 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''
#'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. While acknowledging the candidate's contributions to the project, I have some reservations, enough to push me from my usual '''neutral''' into the '''oppose''' column. As mentioned by the neutral voters below, Mike did have an unsuccessful Rfa little more than a month ago. People do change(I, a former vandal, am proof of that), and Mike has made much progress in the past month. However the user's votes in makes me question whether the user understands fully the qualifications and importance of the mop. First, Mike gives the user a witty support vote. Which is fine, we all do from time to time, but then Mike strikes the support vote and opposes stating ]' conduct in a controversial Afd as being "slightly uncivil" when anyone (other than perhaps a hardcore World of Warcraft junkie) could see he was very civil, yet effectively arguing his point. Then several moments after accepting this Rfa, Mike changes his mind again, to neutral(which was probably not significant in terms of what it does for the Rfa since it is above 90%). So, going against my instincts which say 'assume good faith,' I find myself wondering if the user is entirely prepared for the mop & bucket and/or whether he sees this as just a trophy/prize/etc. for good editing. So a reluctant, yet firm oppose. ] 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC) #'''Oppose''', I'm afraid. While acknowledging the candidate's contributions to the project, I have some reservations, enough to push me from my usual '''neutral''' into the '''oppose''' column. As mentioned by the neutral voters below, Mike did have an unsuccessful Rfa little more than a month ago. People do change(I, a former vandal, am proof of that), and Mike has made much progress in the past month. However the user's votes in makes me question whether the user understands fully the qualifications and importance of the mop. First, Mike gives the user a witty support vote. Which is fine, we all do from time to time, but then Mike strikes the support vote and opposes stating ]' conduct in a controversial Afd as being "slightly uncivil" when anyone (other than perhaps a hardcore World of Warcraft junkie) could see he was very civil, yet effectively arguing his point. Then several moments after accepting this Rfa, Mike changes his mind again, to neutral(which was probably not significant in terms of what it does for the Rfa since it is above 90%). So, going against my instincts which say 'assume good faith,' I find myself wondering if the user is entirely prepared for the mop & bucket and/or whether he sees this as just a trophy/prize/etc. for good editing. So a reluctant, yet firm oppose. ] 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 93: Line 93:
#::::Say you're patrolling ] and you see a vandal who has made at least 6-8 vandalism edits in a short period of time, but has only been warned once. What would you do in this case? I just want to get the hypotheticals out in the open. ''']]''' 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC) #::::Say you're patrolling ] and you see a vandal who has made at least 6-8 vandalism edits in a short period of time, but has only been warned once. What would you do in this case? I just want to get the hypotheticals out in the open. ''']]''' 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
#:::::Probably, but it would only be a short preventative block (maybe a few hours) as it could be a shared IP. I know that a user should get all of the warnings before being blocked, but just because people had neglected to warn the vandal does not excuse his/her clearly intentional disruptive behavior. - ] | ] 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC) #:::::Probably, but it would only be a short preventative block (maybe a few hours) as it could be a shared IP. I know that a user should get all of the warnings before being blocked, but just because people had neglected to warn the vandal does not excuse his/her clearly intentional disruptive behavior. - ] | ] 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Neutral''' - struck support. I might follow this for a while, and rethink it. Sorry about flip-flopping :( ''']_]''' 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:46, 9 November 2006

Mike1

Voice your opinion (19/1/2) Ending 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike1 (talk · contribs) – This is my first time nominating someone, so here goes. In my opinion, Mike1 is an excellent candidate for adminship. He's been here on Misplaced Pages since November of 2005, but started contributing regularly in January of this year, and more or less continuously since the middle of March. In this time, he has amassed just more than 3,000 edits, including over 1,000 in the main space and more than 300 article talk edits. He has also made more than 500 Misplaced Pages space edits, many of which were made to important areas such as XfDs, RFAs, and FACs, as well as the WikiProject Comics. His talk archives show that although there were problems in the long-ago beginning, there exist no such problems now, and his recent talk pages are full of little but thank-yous and barnstars. Mike1 is an up-and-coming user who demonstrates good faith and a willingness to help the encyclopedia both by writing and performing the administrative duties which are so important.

Basically, if I could sum Mike1 as a user - he's certainly better than I was when I ran for admin. He's a willing and eager candidate who deserves the mop. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks very much for the nomination. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hey all! I've been doing a lot lately to prepare for this nomination. I have recently passed the 3,000 edit mark, as Ryan has noted, and have been getting more involved with the Misplaced Pages namespace, including some particpation is AfD discussions. I hope that the community finds me deserving of the tools, and if I should be granted them I will always be open to any criticism. Supplementary questions are welcome. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I can see the rollback tool as being very useful to me, as I often find myself reverting pages. In addition to that, I plan to monitor Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection as they seem to be under-staffed there at the moment. Last I checked there are only about 5 active admins there for the requests, which sometimes leads to a slow response time, and as we all know, in that slow response time vandalism usually will not stop.
Also, as a member of the welcoming committee I am always happy to help new users. Being an admin would make it even easier for me to be of help to them, particularly if they need to have a page deleted, semi-protected, etc.
Of course, the most important area that I can see the admin tools being useful to me is my simple every-day editing. There have been many occasions recently where I had to contact an admin for assistance. For instance, I wanted to move FoxTrot (comic strip) to FoxTrot, because the latter was simply a redirect page. It seemed kind of silly to have a redirect page when there was no purpose for it, and in addition the article had been located at FoxTrot for months and was only recently moved. If I was an admin, I could have just deleted the redirect page and done the page move myself, and it would have made life easier for everybody. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Calvin and Hobbes stands out. I've made over 200 edits to this one, ranging from the addition and cleanup of sections to minor formatting. I also created Hobbes's article and completely restructured and helped to clean up Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes.
I'm really happy with the Netscape article as well. I reformatted it to change the focus of the article to the company rather than just the browser. In addition, I converted many of the inline citations to the new footnote format. Recently, it was nominated for GA but narrowly failed. However, I think it's pretty close and mainly needs work on the lead.
Recently I've done a lot of cleanup to Michael J. Fox, rewriting the lead, removing long unsourced claims, adding a better image, etc. Also, I recently did some cleanup to Apple Computer, removing a long unsourced "analysis" section and other unsourced information. After my cleanup edits, it was nominated for GA and passed. I do not take credit for the content, but I believe that the cleaning up is what put it over the top. We're working on an FA nom now.
Finally, Peanuts. I re-added it to consideration for the Comics project collaboration of the month, and it is now the current collab. I've done a lot of cleanup edits to it and added the new lead image, which depicts the entire cast rather than just the main character (at the request of User:Jc37). I am also a member of the article assesment team at the comics project. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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: As Ryan noted, I had some minor problems early on in mid-March with Steve Block. I was adding links to my own websites to articles, and as we know know that's considered spam-linking around these parts. I regret the whole situation and apologized to Steve here. I know I was inexperienced at the time, but what on earth was I thinking? Sure, I wanted to bring traffic to my sites, but that's not why I'm here. A more detailed explanation of what happened is available here. Steve and I are on good terms now, and I don't think we will have any issues in the future. Other than that, I haven't really been involved in any serious editing conflicts. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Under what circumstances should a page be protected? Are there other methods to avoid protection?
A: Protections (both full and partial) should be kept to a bare minimum because they prevent editors from improving the encyclopedia, and they should only be applied when more harm than good is coming from it being open to editing.
Full protection should only be applied if there is a serious dispute involving edit warring among contributors who seem unwilling to discuss the changes. A protection forces them to do so.
Semi-protections should be the most common form of protection, but should usually only be applied if there is persistant vandalism by multiple vandals. This is more effective than warning and blocking every single one of these vandals for several reasons.
  • The vandals will usually get bored and go away when they see that they can't edit the page, and it is unlikely that they will return.
  • Most people who vandalize Misplaced Pages are looking for attention. Blocking them would be simply giving them the attention they want, and they are likely to vandalize more when the block expires.
  • Many IPs are shared, and blocking them can cause innocent people to be unable to edit. At least in this situation they will be able to edit other pages than the protected page.
I understand that semi-protections are no fun for constructive anon editors, and I agree that they should not be applied unless it is absolutely necessary, but in cases of vandalism by multiple anon editors, I think that it is more effective than watching over the page like a hawk and having to revert, warn, and block every disruptive editor. I should point out that in a case where an article is only being persistantly vandalized by one editor, then a semi-protection is not necessary. - Mike | Talk 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support. As nominator. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Why not? Steve block Talk 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC
  3. Strong Support, per nom this user is a very, very good user and having him as admin would be great.--Seadog 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong support Seems like a fantastic user, and has clearly taken on comments from his previous RfA. Good luck, 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:23 8/11/2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Support Overall good contributions to articles, but your[REDACTED] edits are a bit low. You have just participated in around 30 AFD's. I suggest you participate more in these 6 days.--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. DarthVader 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Candidate is now ready. --Alex (Talk) 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support a good, experienced candidate --Steve 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support good nominee. Rama's arrow 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support very good strong nominee TheRanger 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I broke my complete Wikibreak to come here to vote for Mike. He'd be a brilliant mop. Sharkface217 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support I see him around quite a bit and he always carries himself with a very approachable and friendly deameanour. Seems to have the best interests of the project at the forefront of his editing style, so I can't see any reason not to think he'd have any trouble with a few extra buttons hoopydink 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Michael 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support Spot on. Yanksox 00:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support Mike has grown a lot since his last RfA and deserves adminship. I don't think he'll ever abuse of the tools. And he's very friendly and communicative. Good luck! --Húsönd 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - Seems like a very solid candidate. --cholmes75 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Keep up the good work (hopefully as an administrator!).   talk • contrib 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. weak Support - it's encourging to see user who opposed your last nom, supporting here --T-rex 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Support, so long as you sustain your current level of activity - I find Sarah's neutral opinion below to be fairly valid. riana_dzasta 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Switch to neutral per Sarah and Nish's concerns. riana_dzasta 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I'm afraid. While acknowledging the candidate's contributions to the project, I have some reservations, enough to push me from my usual neutral into the oppose column. As mentioned by the neutral voters below, Mike did have an unsuccessful Rfa little more than a month ago. People do change(I, a former vandal, am proof of that), and Mike has made much progress in the past month. However the user's votes in this Rfa makes me question whether the user understands fully the qualifications and importance of the mop. First, Mike gives the user a witty support vote. Which is fine, we all do from time to time, but then Mike strikes the support vote and opposes stating Trialasanderrors' conduct in a controversial Afd as being "slightly uncivil" when anyone (other than perhaps a hardcore World of Warcraft junkie) could see he was very civil, yet effectively arguing his point. Then several moments after accepting this Rfa, Mike changes his mind again, to neutral(which was probably not significant in terms of what it does for the Rfa since it is above 90%). So, going against my instincts which say 'assume good faith,' I find myself wondering if the user is entirely prepared for the mop & bucket and/or whether he sees this as just a trophy/prize/etc. for good editing. So a reluctant, yet firm oppose. Jcam 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I had a feeling that somebody would comment on that. That's not generally the way I behave at RfAs and as I said I hated to jump around so much :-). However, I am usually very sure about my RfA votes, and I am fully aware of the qualifications. To me, adminship is no big deal, but if I see issues with civility or severe lack of experience, I am often tipped to oppose or go neutral. Sorry if this makes you less confident in my abilities as an admin, and I can assure you that was a isolated incident and I promise to act in the best interests of the project if granted the tools. - Mike | Talk 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'm going to have to be neutral for now. Sorry Mike. I'm just a bit unsettled by the idea of two RfA's in one month. Also, I'm concerned about whether your change in editing in response to your previous RfA is sustainable and whether it is simply a means to an end (your goal of adminship). Neutral for now, but I'll review before the close. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral User has made substantial improvements since last AfD, but I still have some worries. You can only improve so much in about a month, which worries me, since I don't believe Mike has totally gotten a feel for everything on Misplaced Pages. Mike has a colossal, yet scary amount of Calvin and Hobbes knowledge, and I appreciate all of his edits to the mainspace. I still don't think Mike has enough experience in AfD discussions, as it doesn't seem that he contributes that much to the discussion (besides the "vote"). All I see is "Delete-looks like spam", "Delete", etc. Anyone can go around Misplaced Pages and get a feel of how the whole system works in a few days, but it takes a while to fully understand everything there is to know (which is what admins should at least have a good decent knowledge of). Also, I do not see any recent reports to AIV and I have some doubts in regards to your knowledge of the warning and blocking policy (again, something that admins should have a deep understanding of). I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't believe I can wholeheartedly support your RfA at this time. Nishkid64 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    The block button is something I've always seen as a last resort. My general feeling towards vandals is if you give them attention, that's exactly what they want, and they will continue their vandalism. This is why I usually simply revert their changes, and I usually will not warn them until I see a second offense. I find that most of the time this is the best way to deal with vandals, and it has been very successful for me in the past. - Mike | Talk 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    What exactly would be a "last resort" situation? Nishkid64 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    A vandal who won't quit no matter what you do about his/her vandalism, whether it be constant warning or reverting, if they are causing constant disruption, they should be blocked. But when some kid just feels like making a lame joke on an article, if they don't get any attention, they'll usually stop. - Mike | Talk 03:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Say you're patrolling AIV and you see a vandal who has made at least 6-8 vandalism edits in a short period of time, but has only been warned once. What would you do in this case? I just want to get the hypotheticals out in the open. Nishkid64 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Probably, but it would only be a short preventative block (maybe a few hours) as it could be a shared IP. I know that a user should get all of the warnings before being blocked, but just because people had neglected to warn the vandal does not excuse his/her clearly intentional disruptive behavior. - Mike | Talk 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - struck support. I might follow this for a while, and rethink it. Sorry about flip-flopping :( riana_dzasta 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mike1 2: Difference between revisions Add topic