Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mjs1991

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.

Mjs1991

[edit]

Final (2/11/0); ended 11:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC) - withdrawn by user - MrClog (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Mjs1991 (talk · contribs) – Hi, I've been an editor on Wikipedia since 2010. I've contributed in over 15,000 edits, and created just over 1000 articles ranging from films, biographies and albums. I've contributed in the effort to stop vandalism on Wikipedia, while having rights to rollback, auto-patrolled, pending changes and various other activities. I believe Wikipedia is much like a University or a school; learning different topics of rules and regulations of various pages within Wikipedia. At the moment, I've been helping in the backlog at WP:AFC. Thank you Mjs1991 (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
The work I intend to take part in and fix up is WP:AIV and WP:RPP. I've always had the goal to protect pages from suffering from vandalism, which I've had my time dealing with. I currently have rights as recent changes patroller which is what I'm always focusing on, along with AFC creations and much more. Being able to protect pages from vandalism and block user from constant vandalism would be a major aim for myself
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
At the moment, I have over 1000 article creations as seen here on Xtools. Currently I have 1 GA-class article, and several B- and C-class articles. I contribute to Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer, which relates to my vandalism efforts. At the moment, there is not much involvment at Request Page Protection and AIV which i feel I could contribute to. I also contribute to the Birthday committee, congratulating people on birthdays, first edits and administration, which i feel makes users, especially those with 5+ years of edits, a lot happier
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?
Definitely. Editing conflicts is a regular thing that happens to everyone on a daily basis. I've very rarely been involved in serious conflicts, and avoiding pages on topics that I'm not familiar with. If there has ever been a time where major conflict has happened, I've always stopped and walked away from it, as I believe there's no point going back and forward in arguing. I've learnt to put conflicts in the past and move on from them

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Reaper Eternal
4. You mention having over 1000 articles created. Which article(s) do you feel best represents your work? Additionally, I didn't find the GA linked on your page, so would you mind linking it here? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A: Australian politician John Dacey was my GA. I feel the creation of the majority of album articles I've introduced to Wikipedia represents what I've done on here. It's a knowledge I know quite well after studying the manual of style and notability of a number of albums
Additional question from TonyBallioni
5. You say you want to help out at RFPP and AIV. I was curious if you can explain when you would block someone and when you would protect an article?
A: In my opinion, the best time to block a user is when they're causing too much conflict within Wikipedia, and they've been given several warnings on their talk page. I've been in the scenario of where a user has constantly vandalised a page after all 4 warnings and then notified user to the AIV to start the process of blocking them. In regards to protecting an article, if that article is under constant bad edits, then i believe protecting the article is in best interest to stop anymore vandalism happening.
Additional question from TonyBallioni
6. What areas of the admin tools do you not consider yourself competent to work in? As an example, I am completely incompetent at templates and edit filters and won’t touch either.
A:
Additional question from John M Wolfson
7. If you were placed in an unfamiliar situation that entailed the use of your admin tools, how would you deal with it?
A:
Additional question from John M Wolfson
8. What is your biggest regret from your time on Wikipedia, and how have you learned from it?
A:
Additional question from Chetsford
9. You were minimally active between 2016 and a few months ago. What motivated you to return to Wikipedia and, within just a few months, apply for Rollbacker and then put your name forward to RfA?
A:
Additional question from Chetsford
10. As nothing on WP is completely siloed, a general understanding of most of the basic policies and guidelines is important for success as an admin, even if they're an area in which you don't necessarily intend to focus. One of your three AfD noms was for a language apparently spoken by 800,000 people. Is there a guideline or policy you should have followed prior to making that nomination and, if so, what was it?
A:
Additional questions from SoWhy
11. You say you want to help out at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP but according to the edit counter, you only edited AIV 30 times and RFPP five times or less (the counter only shows the top 10 edited pages per namespace). So why do you think you are experienced enough to handle such requests if you have only made few requests yourself?
A:
12. According to the counter, you only use edit summaries in ~75% of cases. Can you explain why you believe it not necessary to use them all the time?
A:
Additional questions from Lee Vilenski
13. First of all, thanks for your nomination. As you'd like to be involved in WP:AIV, what do you believe the difference is between persistent good faith edits, and clear vandalism?
A: My belief, is that persistant good faith involves editing an article in a sense where the user is trying their best to improve a page, and have possibly been on Wikipedia as a user for sometime but aren't aware of the proper guideline of manual of style or notability. Whereas vandalism, comes from a lot of new users, red-linked, IPs, and edits articles in such a way that they're clearly disruptive and wrecks the nature of what others are trying to achieve. It's all about being careful and staying staying cool
Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
14. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation
A: No, I would never get myself involved in paid-editing
Additional question from Softlavender
15. In your reply to Reaper Eternal in Q4, you stated that John Dacey was "your GA". However, you wrote less than 10% of that article, and the state you left it in was this: [1], a 1,502-byte stub. You did not bring it to GA. Callenecc wrote 80% of the article and nominated it for GA 2.5 years after you last touched it. So I'd like to ask again: Which article(s) do you feel best represents your work?
A:
Additional question from Usedtobecool
16. I can see that you failed to end your answers with a period(.) on multiple occasions in this RfA alone. I caught several other grammatical errors as well, and one instance where you left a duplicate word after creating a wiki-link. My concern is that you are not careful in your actions and/or not proficient in the English language. I can envision several scenarios in which having an administrator on the other side of an argument with either of those shortcomings would be problematic for me, and Wikipedia. How would you manage your adminship duties in light of the balance required between mindfulness of one's own shortcomings and a tough decision/stance an administrator must take?
A:

Discussion

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support
[edit]
  1. A capable editor who has contributed a large volume of content to wikipedia over a long period. The GA thing will, of course, be a decisive self-torpedo in this RfA. But I would like to think the candidate wasn't deliberately trying to pump his resume; he just used non-deliberately misleading words to describe the fact that an article he created, out of the 1,000-plus he mentioned, had become a GA. I know that won't sound convincing but so be it. I certainly don't think the snow that will follow is a fair numerical reflection of the candidate's merits. I also like the idea of not concluding paragraph-ending sentences with a full-stop. For such sentences the conclusion is clear from the context. I'm going to start doing it myself --Mkativerata (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - We need more administrators around here, and I'd like to thank the candidate for stepping forward. I feel that adminship is no big deal, and we should be handing out the mops very freely, including to candidates like this. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Soft oppose Less than a year of recent experience. Less than a handful of edits to RFPP and AIV in the past few years. Rollback and PC rights obtained this month. Few non-templated talk interactions with other editors in the past few years. Overall, on the right path. Gain recent experience in administrative areas. Apply again after that. Thanks, Lourdes 08:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We all have less than a year of recent experience; anything older than that isn't recent. ‑ Iridescent 09:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say then.​ Lourdes 09:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per answer to question 4 (Australian politician John Dacey was my GA). This was the sum total of your contributions to that page; if you're going to engage in this kind of kill stealing and attempted deception even on an RFA when you know your contributions will be under scrutiny, that's prima facie evidence of poor judgement right there. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Same thing with every other claim in Q2: One of the two B-classes he is claiming, he left as a 1,369-byte stub [2], 4% of the current B-class article, which Yeepsi wrote 91% of [3]. The other B-class he left as a 659-byte stub [4]; it was not rated B-class until 6 years later, after other editors had added 13,000 bytes to it: [5], [6]. The C-classes he is claiming: This he left as a 4,166-byte stub [7]; it was not rated C-class until HotHat had expanded it to 15,801 bytes: [8], [9]. This one he left as a 2,167-byte stub [10]; it was not rated C-class until a few months ago, after EditorE had added 15,319 bytes to it: [11], [12]. This one he left as a 1,971-byte stub [13]; it was not rated C-class until 2 years later when other editors had added 10,000+ bytes to it: [14], [15]. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - sorry, but not convinced with some of the answers, and the John Dacey issue is concerning. Probably TOOSOON. GiantSnowman 09:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too soon, I think - and Dacey doesn't fill me with confidence either. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - The Dacey affair is indicative of either malicious intent or poor reading comprehension. Either is sufficient to deny adminship, IMHO. Additionally, other instances of poor punctuation and grammar, and the answer to conflict resolution suggesting that the first instinct is to run and hide without even trying doesn't instill much confidence. The candidate boasts knowledge in limited areas while adminship gives too much power in a broad area. There is, therefore, a significant danger of misuse. However, I will be coming back to review their answers to come and will further review their contributions during the discussion, to see if there's sufficient reason to change my "vote". Usedtobecool TALK 09:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per the gross misrepresentations of the quality and ratings of his content work. See my reply to Iridescent's !vote above. That, plus the hiatus from June 2015 to February 2019, the sudden rush of activity and rush of hat-gathering in the few months immediately prior to this RfA, the lack of communication, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Iridescent and Softlavender. Additionally, you don't seem to have much evidence of communication; most of your user talk page edits are automated, and your own talk page has questions from users wondering why you have declined their AfC submission which have gone unanswered. That's just not acceptable for an administrator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. User:Mjs1991/CSD log, which I wish I had checked for before searching contribs. I only looked at the speedy tags postdating the Sep 2014-Dec 2018 gap, but of them, not even one was correct. (Killian Pozdol did need to be speedied, but not for the reason stated, either time.) The fact that some of the articles and drafts tagged were actually deleted doesn't speak well of the deleting admins, but it doesn't make me trust this user with a delete button either. —Cryptic 10:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll single out this and this as particularly appalling mistags. —Cryptic 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree, especially since nearly his entire oeuvre consists of hundreds of two- to three-sentence stubs on albums providing no indication whatsoever of notability. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'd assume the GA and other related claims were not made calculatedly to mislead us, but then that leaves us with a serious question of competency here. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. per Iridescent and Cryptic. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
General comments
[edit]
  • Note that John Dacey was expanded and improved to GA by Callanecc, not Mjs1991. See here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that this has transcluded okay? It seems bizarre to see no supports /opposes/ or even neutrals when it's been open for what, six hours?! ——SerialNumber54129 09:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129 I'm seeing it fine in WP:RFA. Bear in mind that in light of recent events many people are going to be very reluctant to post anything in opposition to anyone, given that posting without diffs could be considered "harassment" but compiling diffs could be considered "stalking", so processes like RFA are going to move more slowly than usual. ‑ Iridescent 09:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^^True dat. I think I'll wait for clarification from Mjs1991 regarding the GA before opposing per Iridescent. ——SerialNumber54129 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ^^^What the? Wait, what? What happened? Where was this? I already posted an oppose without diffs. Now I'm scared. Usedtobecool TALK 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The WMF summarily unilaterally banned an editor from Wikipedia for (correctly) flagging edits as problematic, on the grounds that even though the errors pointed out were genuine, pointing out errors constituted "harassment" as it would discourage the problem editor from continuing to edit. Their explanation was Indeed, I have not seen you literally threatening other contributors. But, I have observed the sum of your activity in certain areas of interest (like copyvios, for example, or automated editing) having a similar effect to that of a threat: causing contributors to be scared to continue to contribute in fear of being constantly monitored and later attacked through community process, and eventually driving them away. From what I've seen, you are very good at spotting problematic edits and editing patterns; the issue is with the way and the perseverance with which you appear to approach the editors responsible for them. In many cases, even if your concerns have been valid, their raising has been done with a degree of abruptness, repetition, scrutiny and persistence that feels like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions. Now, I don't think this is your intention, but this does seem to be the result in several cases, hence the warning. So, I'm not saying you should stop trying to improve En.WP., only that in doing so you also consider how your activity and approach impacts the users you address and other readers of your comments, and how it contributes to an unfriendly volunteering environment that discourages them from returning to it.. See this page for (literally) megabytes of community response. ‑ Iridescent 10:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks everyone, everyone makes a good point. I guess I worded my sentences in a bad way. I've started to realise that since 2009, I haven't really done much to be worthy of an admin just yet, and I probably should just wait a bit longer until i gain a bit more credibility with AIV and RPP and everything else, before I decide to make a request again. And the whole GA- B- C- class was a mess up on my behalf. So in saying all this, I'd like to remove my Request for adminship. Sorry for the inconvenience, and at least maybe next time, I'll know what to expect in the future. Thanks --Mjs1991 (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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/Mjs1991&oldid=904419027"