Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Microchip08

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Microchip08 (12 · 11)

RfA of Microchip08

global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

Microchip08 (talk · contribs)

Ended: November 1st

I present to the Simple community Microchip08. Microchip08 has been editing simple for over 6 months, and has almost 2000 edits, 514 in the mainspace. He is active at newpage patrol, WP:AN and simple talk. I feel that he is well versed in policy, and has a great desire to make the Simple English Wikipedia a better place. Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Ok, I accept. For those interested in my sort of editing, take a look at User:Microchip08/RfA, and be aware of my pretty high userspace edits. Microchip • talk 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through my deleted contribs, I have around 50 Quick Deletions. MC8 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you see your deleted contribs? - tholly ^--Talk-- 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were e-mailed. MC8 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Can't believe i forgot! Shapiros10 ^{Flap the Yap} 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Has more mainspace edits than I did when I passed. Majorly ^talk 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support - Great editor. I trust him to do a good job, and that is really the only criteria I look for. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This user is a very godd editor that nows all our basics. Tharnton345 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I believe Microchip will make a fine admin--though he may not have the experience generally asked for, he definitely has the intelligence. Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Took a while to work out my position on this RfA. The opposes are convincing; little article work is a valid issue when requesting adminship. However, Microchip is an intelligent and valued member of the community, a long-standing Wikipedian, who should do fine with the extra buttons. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Like Pete, i've taken my time over this, and have kept switching from oppose to support then back to oppose. If there was a neutral position, i'd be there, but as there isn't, i'm going to give MC8 a chance ;). I would like to see a higher amount of article space edits, but I am sure this will come with time. B G^7even 15:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very trustworthy, excellent editor, well-suited for admin. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per he isn't going to blow up the wiki. (Only adminbots can do that :P) --Chris G (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support . Why didnt you make him one while I was gone? -- Da Punk '95 talk 05:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't see a reason not to.....GOOD LUCK, MAN!-- ✧ Christian Man 16 06:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microchip comes across to me as a user who knows what he's doing. However the low Mainspace does concern me. But I still count the high Wikipedia space and talk in favor. I think MC8 would make a great sysop if he'd concentrate more on Mainspace so: weak Support The life of brian (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per goals, not ready yet. Per Creol. SwirlBoy 39 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Microchip warned us, but I was still shocked to find that only 15% of your edits are to the mainspace. And I know that not all of us will be VGA article writers, but still, that is far too low of a number for me to support. alexandra (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need for delete - looking at users deleted contributions for the last few months, the only ones with a summary indicating a QD tag were in his own user space. No need for ban - Three Vip reports at end of August, 1 back in June. Extremely low main space editing (2515%-ish). Signature takes up most of a page ( Hi ~~~~ = about 1K added) - issue with conforming to WP:SIG. Only twelve pages tagged as obvious reverts looking at the summaries back through June. Lack of summaries is also an issue. "Playful vandalism" such as this ( and this deleted one) do not help out at all. -- Creol(talk) 22:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I generally haven't been using an editsum for QDs. What's the AE one? I only remember 'vandalising' Kennedy. Microchip • talk 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the deletion log. alexandra (talk) 10:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that none of my deleted contribs (other than the userspace ones) aren't quick deletions; I'm sure I added {{QD}} to a lot more articles than that. I don't think I edit summaried them, though. So I reckon there is a need for delete, Maybe not the other areas of adminship, but I can see myself using the deletion tab. Lack of summaries, I know is a problem, which can be rectified. So could you do be a favour and look through my other deleted contribs? Most, if not all, of my mainspace deleted contribs, I believe, are quick deletion tags. If I'd known my edit summaries would be such a core part of an RfA, maybe I would have used them more! Oh, and I've replaced my sig with a smaller, plainer, one for you. MC8 (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm now actively reverting vandalism, as per flagged items on #cvn-simplewikis MC8 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Far too many problems at this point, but Microchip could be a good candidate in the future. More improvement is needed. – RyanCross (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, you have too little mainspace edits. Try to be more active. This causes a low number of QD tagging as well. Chenzw Talk 01:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel that while you are a good contributor to the community side of this wikipedia I have not seen you very active much in writing articles, which is after all what an encyclopedia is about. I myself recived plenty opposes on my RfA for having only a 55% mainspace edit count, so for me 15%/25% is very low. Do some more QD tagging/article writing and I might support should you apply again in a few months. FSM ^Noodly? 08:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Came here hoping to support, but I just can't. This bothers me, and your % of mainspace edits is quite low. Not all of us are VGA writers, but there are some standards, and I'm afraid I don't feel at this time, you meet them. Sorry. ס ^Talk 10:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - User without a wide knowledge, can’t participate as an administrator, here is an example Puttyschool (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; why does tagging an article as complex show that I do not have a wide knowledge? Please explain, so I can improve. MC8 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you failed to provide another solution while keeping on scientific terminologies, but even worth, you comment holding a meaning of “Cryptography is out the scope of the project” indicate that you don’t understand what the word “encyclopedia” means! Puttyschool (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to disagree with you there. Simply put cryptography is inside the project scope, but as soon as you put it into complex words, it goes straight back out again, and needs simplification before it can become an untagged, inside-scope article. MC8 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still you believe that we have to simplify terminologies? :) Puttyschool (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Everything on Simple English Wikipedia needs to be in Simple English. MC8 (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, but not yet - you need more edits in the mainspace. Generally I've found the (mediawiki official?) edit counter with graphs to work best, and that put your mainspace at 15%. Either way, I think that there should be more article editing than user/user talk edits. Sorry - tholly ^--Talk-- 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tholly. --Beefball ^Talk 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but RyanCross said it best. I'm sure you'll make a fine admin in the future. Juliancolton (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Shapiros10 says Microchip08 has 514 mainspace edits, but this says only 308...? That's 15% not 25%. - tholly ^--Talk-- 08:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shapiros and I had that same confusion on Gmail. He was using Wannabe Kate's tool. alexandra (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm now finding it slightly amusing that 15% gets quoted, without the user quoting it actually looking for themselves, as it's not been 15% for most of this RfA (it's currently 17.6%)... MC8 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a 2% difference, maybe the user just rounded it... FSM ^Noodly? 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the posts, only Cassandra, myself, FSM and Tholly brought up the actual number 15%. Of those four, three of them (us) made the posts prior to mid-day on the 26th. At that time (12:30-ish by history), you had 308 mains out of 1934 edits (15.9xxx%). All edits before that point claiming 15 percent would be correct. The one after it was Tholly who had already commented at the information before hand - ie looked for himself - before using the number in his vote. At your posting, the RfA is roughly 48 hours old, at the 26 hour mark, you were still at 308 (309 happened at 17:20) so for most of this RfA (up until you stating "for most of this RfA"), your mainspace edits were 15%, only your edits today have pushed it up the extra 2%. -- Creol(talk) 20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for me is closed, Microchip08 not passed this RFA --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. I didn't look at it hard enough. Could you reassess your QD comment, though, as I'm sure I made more QD's than you've stated. MC8 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.