Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Minimac

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Minimac

Final (3/4/1); ended 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate - Tommy! 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Minimac (talk · contribs) – OK. I am going to try and nominate myself for adminship here. I've been around since October 2009, and since then have made over 10,000 edits. I spent lots of time doing admin related activies including rollback, page protection requests, AFD, reporting bad usernames (Including a spam username too. [1]) and I hope the tools will help me here. In terms of deletion I've done a terrific job recognising that Breut Carmen was a hoax article, and also that the Whoa Nellie Deli was kept as not being an advertising article. In terms of demonstrating my understanding policies I have created 20 articles and have done 2 GA Reviews too. I hope the community agrees. Minimac (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, can someone close this please? I decided to withdraw this nomination. Even though it's such an early closure, I do like to thank all of those who voted. Minimac (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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?

A: I would like to carry on with my rollbacking skills, but also want to take part in WP:RFPP, WP:AIV and also have a look at the deletion backlog category, especially articles, where I can challenge, or support the deletion. I may also want to have to go at the unblock requests. Speaking of removal of editing privileges I once had my rollback rights revoked in early January, but since then, I have given an appropriate reason for my actions and thus, had the right restored by an admin.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In terms of the encyclopaedia I have recently started to work in the sections category of the Wikipedia backlog. I think my expansion of lead sections may have been the most notable of them all, because lead sections generalise the points about the subject for example what makes the person notable, and what actions did he/she do. In terms of writing all the articles I created are stubs. My writing skills are not as good as some of the other users around the community. I'm also proud of my GA Reviews too, because it give other editors an idea of what points I have concerns with have to be sorted.

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: I have only been in a couple of minor disputes but I haven't shown any uncivil responses or been in any disputes which relate to stress. I had a little dispute with User:Lambtron about what maintenance templates should be kept in the Crossfit article while it was already semi-protected, which was eventually resolved. I had my proposed edit in the Berkhamsted article reverted by another editor, and while the reverter discussed the action on the talk page, I didn't respond. Sometimes I feel that it's better not to respond if you don't know what to say. The most recent one I joined into was a dispute related to an infobox in one of the featured articles (Don't know which one it was, I will try to find it soon). I once re-added it, but then supported the removal as being unsourced. In terms of stress, the only big stress I usually have is vandals after I revert their actions. The vandal that caused me the biggest stress was 24.215.121.145 in which after it vandalised Kevin Gallant it also vandalised my userpage, which I've never discovered before. Next time I get into such a big stressful state I will try to get of the computer and talk a walk outside or something like that.

Additional optional question from Begoon

4. Certainly not a big issue, but it confused me a little: In this recent edit: diff, your edit summary is Adding ridiculous number of new sections per template above. Did you really think it was a ridiculous number of sections to add, and if so, why did you make the edit?

A: I made the edit so that I can address the concern in the template and therefore, I can remove the template without further ado. I still think the edit was necessary so that the Athletics section could have been more accessible and easily laid out. I don't really think that the number of sections I placed was ridiculous, but a lot of the paragraphs in the Athletics section looked like it was based on different categories, which is why I decided to add more sections in.

Ah, thank you. I don't disagree with the edit you made, they are only L3 sections, and the section overall is easier to read with them. It was really the edit summary that confused me. It seemed you were saying "I don't like this, but I'll do it because I want to remove the tag." Thanks for explaining. I ought also to say that in general you use good edit summaries, because I don't want it to appear as though my picking this one to comment on at RFA is indicative of my general opinion of your edit summaries. It isn't.  Begoon•talk 14:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Minimac: Minimac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Minimac can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• I don't know how to add edit stats, could someone help me here (If possible?) Minimac (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It'd help if you created User:Minimac/EditCounterOptIn.js first, with whatever content you like. sonia♫ 09:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support seems to get deletion reason right, and uses AIV. I would like to see use of the upload facility though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Support This user seems to have his priorities right, and has proven they are worthy of the mop several times over IMHO. Very nice edit summaries and appropriate warnings. This user will do well as an admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talk • contribs)
3. Weakish support. I do have concerns - all of the article creations are stubs, and the nomination statement isn't the most convincing - but overall would probably be a net positive. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, sorry not convinced about the user's capabilities in terms of the deletion process. Several relatively recent speedy deletion templates and PRODs on the user's talk page. -Regancy42 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose - a Wikipedian for less than a year, the candidate has had very modest experience in most of the administrative-related areas with vandal-fighting a notable exception. Other issues include a rollbacker revocation and very meager content contributions. The candidate is definitely on the right track, but now is not the time.--Hokeman (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose Grammatical errors throughout this RFA. Townlake (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
4. I like you, but would like to see more writing before I can comfortably support. Would be happy to reconsider in the future --Tommy! 15:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral at the moment. I have some concern with the speedy deletion templates etc., in the candidate's talk page/archives, mentioned above, albeit they are from a couple of months ago. I also get a general nag from looking at contributions that there isn't quite enough experience just yet. Also the answer to Q3 makes me a little uneasy, indicating that the candidate may find vandals commenting on his reverts, or reacting in other ways, a "big stress". That seems worrying considering the amount of that type of thing an admin would be faced with. I do, also, see lots of committment, a good personality, and a good, wide range of relevant contributions, the candidate obviously having good intentions, and putting in a good deal of effort, so I'll possibly revisit this !vote later.  Begoon•talk 14:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.