Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mipadi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Mipadi[edit]

Final (9/17/6) Ended 10:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mipadi (talk · contribs) – I have decided to nominate Mipadi for the added position of administrator. Mipadi has displayed exceptional knowledge of the policies, guidelines, and trends of Wikipedia — both in the form of the key policies and the new "out of universe" perspective applied to articles. Mipadi has a high edit summary usage rate, a friendly attitude, and 4000 5500+ edits — many of which to the Wikipedia and Article spaces, in addition to a resonable amount of talkpage/user talk edits. Mipadi has been working on the encyclopedia for over a year now, and has displayed ambition and outstanding character in helping use Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars to slowly — using a neutral and respectible step-by-step process along with myself and Jedi6 — evolve Star Wars articles into encyclopedic entries. I believe Mipadi will use these tools well in the mission to morph the Star Wars articles (and numerous others) into sterile, encyclopedic environments through deletion, reversion, policy discussion, helping new users, protecting pages, deleting orphaned images, and any other administrative duties. I also believe that Mipadi has the ability to balance administrator duties with encyclopedia duties — a key trait of a well-rounded and intelligent Wikipedian. — Deckiller 20:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Of course I accept! – Mipadi 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Nom support per my statements above. — Deckiller 10:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Deckiller. This Fire Burns.....Always 10:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support...it's nonsense to think that you have to actively fight vandals and post test warnings in order to be an administrator. I'd like to think that there are admins that don't fight vandalism. Alphachimp talk 11:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merovingian {T C @} 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. ugen64 00:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Adminship is supposed to be 'no big deal' I see no reason not to.... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Proactive user. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Well-rounded and solid editor, shows good judgement. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Der Loewe schlaft nie! --Torchwood 11:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has only 5 edits. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Torchwood has been blocked indefinately. Naconkantari 22:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    205.188.116.6 attempted to unstrike this vote as well add User:Vitriouxc and User:TummellIl, both of whom are blocked. I reverted those changes. Kevin_b_er 08:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per User:Vilerage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reggae Sanderz (talk • contribs) 16:54, June 1, 2006 (UTC)
    2nd edit outside of their own user pages, the other to another RfA. Kevin_b_er 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - The WP space edit is too low (96 as of now), little bit too low for me to have confidence in the candidate to close AFD votes. Also, no evidence of "test" warnings ever issued and no WP:AIV reports either, so I am doubting the candidate's need for the admin tools for fighting vandalism. --WinHunter (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you suggest Mipadi shift his goals as an administrator or focus on building an anti-vandalism track record? — Deckiller 10:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I bring out these concerns based on the candidate's answer to Q1, where s/he vow to fight vandalism and close AFD votes. --WinHunter (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per WinHunter.--Andeh 10:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Winhunter and Andeh. SushiGeek 10:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Andeh didn't say anything...am I missing something? Alphachimp talk 11:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Andeh opposed per WinHunter, so he essentially has the same reasoning as WinHunter, which is what I opposed for. Why do you care? SushiGeek 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I care because I thought that you were refering to some logic referenced elsewhere. I'm just trying to follow the train of thought. Alphachimp talk 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per WinHunter. 96 WP space edits indicates not more than a passing involvement in any of the XFD discussions. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose- I don't know that you have much experience in AFD because of your low Wikipedia namespace edits.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per WP edits. --WillMak050389 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per WP edits. 96 is not alot, Deckiller. ;) Roy A.A. 17:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, okay, so I need to figure out how to use that new editcount code, since the old tools stopped working a few months ago... :-) — Deckiller 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose fails II. At least 350 Wikipedia space edits in my standards. —Mets501 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Lack of Wikipedia space edits is a concern. Try again in about 3 months time. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose as per WinHunter. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose for very low Wikipedia space edits.--Jusjih 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I'd like to see more AfD participation for candidates who want to close AfDs. A month or two of XfD participation and I'll probably support. BryanG(talk) 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Not enough Wikipedia-space edits. — The King of Kings 01:39 July 09 '06
  15. Oppose for reasons given above re: Wikipedia-space edits. Mipadi sounds like a great contributor and should make a good administrator after additional WP space experience. I hope he/she will not be afraid to try again after more experience.--A. B. 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Weak on the Wikipedia namespace edits. Kevin_b_er 09:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose I have concerns reagading this candidates knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia's polcies and guidelines, due mainly to a low level of activity in the Wikipedia project-space. --Wisden17 14:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Not quite enough WP namespace edits. DarthVader 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per above. Naconkantari 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Avoiding pile-on neutral. I'll be happy to support him/her once s/he gets those WP edits up. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral WP edits just miss my standards and limited evidence of warning vandals ([1] [2] [3] were all I could find) does not show need of admin tools. Come back in a month or so and I'll probably support. Eluchil404 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Lack of WP edits indicates not enough experience with the inner-workings of wikipedia, which i believe is a crucial requirement for an aspiring admin. Will support in the future once WP participation is up. Themindset 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • See Mipadi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • See Mipadi's edit count from Interiot's tool2
  • I have removed recurring vandalism from an AOL IP. Before submitting, please check the history to see if any IP from AOL has vandalised this RFA. Thanks Naconkantari 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had to sprotect this page now because of continued vandalism. If a new or unregistered user wants to contribute to this page, place it on the talk page and I or some other editor will add it to this page. Thanks Naconkantari 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username	Mipadi
Total edits	5695
Distinct pages edited	2018
Average edits/page	2.822
First edit	17:24, 20 June 2005
	
(main)	4336
Talk	337
User	655
User talk	245
Image	3
Image talk	2
Template	7
Template talk	4
Category	2
Wikipedia	96
Wikipedia talk	6
Portal	2
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: I deal with vandalism a lot, so I think I'd spend a lot of time keeping a watchful eye for that, and performing related actions—reverting and protecting pages (if absolutely necessary), for example. I am also a stickler for organization, so I'd help out in that area by watching Articles for Deletion votes, and making sure the consensus of the Wikipedia community was followed out.
To clarify, I am very concerned with the organization and functioning of Wikipedia on that level, so keeping things from being chaotic, such as by patrolling for pages that are candidates for speedy deletions, and watching the list of requested moves, are also chores I would help out with greatly. I know that as a user, I like to see these things move along as quickly as possible, especially when I am trying to make small tweaks and corrections to article titles, or remove things that don't belong on Wikipedia, so I'd love to help out users to do those tasks as quickly and efficiently as possible.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The thing I like most about Wikipedia is watching it evolve. For example, I helped start the article on Interface Builder as it applies to Apple's software. It was a pretty small stub back then, but now it's grown into a much bigger article—and I've been along to watch the progress. I've had the good fortune of seeing this happen with other articles as well. It's great to see a seed of knowledge grow into a tree. I'm also happy with a lot of organizational/aesthetic edits I've made. I've helped clean up a lot of Star Wars articles, including the clean up and expansion of references in the List of Star Wars planets articles. I also jump-started the efforts to shift Clone Wars (Star Wars) from a Star Wars-centric view to a "real world" view. Basically, I'm happy about anything I've done to make Wikipedia into more of pool of real knowledge, including helping to expand stubs, tracking down references, and adjusting articles so they apply to the world as a whole, rather than a single community.
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: I'd like to say I haven't, but it's hard to work in a place as big as Wikipedia, with people of all walks of life, without occasionally getting into a conflict or getting a bit stressed. I think it's important to keep in mind that most people on Wikipedia are just doing what they think is best. If someone reverts my work, before getting irritated, I remind myself that he's just trying to make Wikipedia better, too. I've had a few conflicts in articles, such as in XNU and Objective-C, where I have made edits that were quickly reverted. My general policy is to take the 3 Revert Rule a step further: If I make an edit that quickly gets reverted, instead of reverting the reversion, I post a message on the other user's talk page or the article's talk page, and try to work out the differences. Sometimes things get a bit heated in these discussions, but I think it's better that they get heated there, rather than as a summary in the page history. In the future, then, I'll continue to deal with it as I do now: If I disagree with another user, I'll try to work things out on the talk pages and come to an agreement before engaging in a tit-for-tat revert war. Taking a deep breath and talking things out is better than acting impulsively and lashing out uncivilly.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    No one on Wikipedia is above the rules. If a user breaks the rules, he should face the consequences, no matter how well-known he is. I'd follow the standard Wikipedia policy against sock puppetry, even in this case.
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    I'd have to respect the other admin's judgement in this case. I would, however, continue to communicate with both users, then make a statement to WP:RFAR about the case. Assuming it was rejected by ArbCom, I'd continue to do my best to communicate with both users in order to keep a lid on the dispute, so to speak. I think issues on Wikipedia can best be solved by calm discussion and mediation.
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    I think Wikipedia is pretty good as is, although I wouldn't mind if some of the administrative stuff could be done a bit faster, without so much red tape.
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    The cirumstances would have to be pretty extraordinary, but if a user was continually disruptive, or harassing, and ignored all communications, I'd consider blocking him until a case could be brought before ArbCom.
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    While I fully support deleting some articles, I think the "default" option should be "keep". Therefore, if the results of the RCU were inconclusive, I'd have to keep the article until it could be proven that a delete vote was made. The decision would be the same if the result was "no consensus".
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    I can't say I have a set number per se, but more than one or two people would have to weigh in on an AfD. The same goes for CfDs and RfDs as well. I couldn't delete such an article if only a few people gave their opinion. Of course, some smaller articles don't get enough traffic to have a large number of voters. If I had to give a number, I'd say that at least a half dozen people should respond to an AfD, CfD, or RfD. If there isn't that much support, then the article in question probably shouldn't be deleted until a larger audience can be polled.
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    I normally don't let stress get to me. Wikipedia is relaxing for me in a lot of ways, so I don't find it to be very stressful at all.
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    I spend a lot of time around here. I peruse a lot of things on Wikipedia. It'd be awesome to be able to make changes were I see fit, since I have a good general knowledge of the site and use it a lot, as well as edit it a lot.
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A bit of both. I'd like it to be more of a technical than a political position, and I think it is, but it's hard to ignore the politics that go along with being an admin. When you're dealing with a large userbase, overseeing the will of voters, and the like, it's hard to say it's not a political position. Mostly, though, I think of admins as people who have some technical permissions to handle the maintenance and administration of the site.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mipadi&oldid=1147969009"