Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michaelsanders

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caulde (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 8 December 2007 (→Support: ws.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michaelsanders

Voice your opinion (talk page) (1/3/1); Scheduled to end 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Michaelsanders (talk · contribs) - This is the first nomination I have ever made; so, if I fail to put the case convincingly, please recognise that the blame is mine and not the nominee's. Michaelsanders has been an editor since March 2006, and as at 1 November 2007 had amassed 11254 edits, which is neither sub-standard nor so impressive as to suggest editcountitis. I encountered Michael on the British history pages, where his contributions have been thoughtful and intelligent. I am not pretending that he is "Mr Perfect", as I see he has got himself into one or two disputes with other users (as will any wikipedian who really cares about what he/she is doing), but as far as I can see he has behaved with creditable restraint in these situations. I believe that any adverse situations he has found himself in will only have added to his all-round ability as a Wikipedian (as opposed to "just" an editor), as he has learned to deal with and accept criticism, for example in the naming dispute over Ramon Berenguer IV, Count of Provence. I believe he shows a good understanding of wikipedia conventions and will come up trumps if given increased responsibility. Deb (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept nomination. Michael Sanders 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly reverting vandalism, probably trying to solve any disputes/edit-wars which I don't have an involvement in.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Bits and pieces, really. Probably history articles, where I generally use the sources I have to improve the quality, and introduce facts not already included in the article: my writing style is not always marvellous (you can see my attempt to write an article on the Duchy of Burgundy, based on Joseph Calmette), but when I have the appropriate texts, I can generally leave an article better than I found it (William Adelin, for example), and I willingly give help to any editors who want it, and will point out mistakes or problems in a non-aggressive manner ([1], [2]).
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: Frequently: I tend to be strong-willed in editing, and when I clash with other strong willed editors, e.g. User:Srnec, who care as much as I do about dragging up the quality of articles to what either of us perceives to be a higher standard, things can get difficult. But, such situations tend to sort themselves out, as cited by Deb: I will always talk reasonably to other editors, and will not risk damaging the quality of wikipedia or the service we provide to the readers for the sake of a power-trip. If editors give me stress, or argue about edits, I will defend my own view of what is required forcefully but not damagingly, and with the view of quality rather than personal satisfaction in mind - if someone provides good evidence of their reasoning in favouring a certain POV/style/whatever, I will accept that. And if editors become irredeemably over-bearing/aggressive towards me, I will simply ignore them or, if it affects wikipedia in general, call for neutral editors to wade in and arbitrate.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Michaelsanders before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. As nominator - obviously. Deb (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I blame you for this. Dlae│here 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a supporting vote? Deb (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I know. (I don't really blame you) Dlae│here 16:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ...Support - User has proved to me via replies and contributions evidence that they can be responsible, and not necessarily "forceful" as suggested on current userpage. — Rudget speak.work 18:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose (beat-the-nom I'm afraid) Very aggressive editor and proud of it - see user page. In my experience - see any talk page of an article he does a lot on (Talk:Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765) is a manageable size) - responds badly to questions on his edits & disregards the views of others. This does not need reinforcing with admin tools, which I suspect he would not be cautious in using. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as above, particularly userpage statements such as "If I believe that I am right, I will fight. And if I am offended, I will not back down." Does not appear to have the temperment required of a Wikipedia admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The attitude portrayed on the user talk page betrays a confrontational personality. I think we have enough of that already. We need people with a spirit of compromise and cohesiveness. - JodyB talk 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - You seem an alright candidate but I am troubled by the stark contrast between what you say in response to Q3, and what you have on your userpage. I do not wish to have "forceful" (quoted from #3.) administrators participating. — Rudget speak.work 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm allowed to comment? - it's a long time since I updated my userpage blurb. Michael Sanders 17:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so. But have your views changed, and if so why wasn't updated with this in mind? — Rudget speak.work 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because in terms of "to-do" lists it fell pretty low in terms of importance? I wrote my blurb between a year and a year and a half ago, I've certainly become less aggressive since then (and are not most admins 'forceful'?) Michael Sanders 17:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've generalised too much. Quite a lot of admins (and non-admins for that matter) are very nice users. — Rudget speak.work 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Michaelsanders&oldid=176602973"