Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mythdon

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.

Mythdon

[edit]

Nomination

[edit]

(0/15/5); Originally scheduled to end 04:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC). Nomination withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon (talk · contribs) – I have been part of Wikipedia since December 18, 2007, and started editing actively shortly after. There was a period of time where I was semi-active (April 2008 - September 2008). I'm a rollbacker on the English Wikipedia, and with that tool I've been fighting vandalism, but if I make a mistaken rollback, I revert it. I don't contribute to a wide variety of articles, but that doesn't matter, especially since I have experience in vandal fighting. My vandal fighting began in March 2008, but during that time, I used agressive edit summaries in the reversions and didn't warn the users. That changed when I became semi-active and inactive in vandal fighting, and didn't become active in vandal fighting again until a few months after becoming fully active again. I also follow policy strongly, and want other editors to do the same. For more information about me as a user, read my contributions. Thank you for taking the time to read this. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to block disruptive editors of any form, perform page protections when needed, strongly enforce WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:OR with warnings followed by blocks of any duration (including indefinite) and sometime page protections of any duration (but never indefinite), so basically I'm not going to play nice with disruption and do things like needed within policy.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My contributions to Power Rangers articles. Such as the mergers, tag placements, and others. Also, my reversions of vandalism have helped out alot.
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've been in many edit wars with other editors, mostly on Power Rangers articles, and have gotten into many content disputes. For example, when I was placing {{fact}} tags on Power Rangers articles, and didn't stop for a few days.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, give a real-life analogy between the two.
A. A block is a revocation of editing rights, but is sometimes overturned. A ban is a probation from certain things and aspects on Wikipedia, temporary or permanant, and sometimes even from the entire project, which is accomponied by a block.
5. What is your opinion of User:Ryulong?
A. Can't really explain in an elaborative way. He is good in some ways, and bad in other ways. Lets put it that way.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Absolutely not per the user's talk page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose thank you for your work fighting vandalism, but, not yet. Icewedge (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I have seen the candidate around a bit, and my personal observations and a cursory review of his talk page suggest that he not infrequently fails to demonstrate the sound sense of judgment, deliberative temperament, cordial demeanor, and conversance with policy that well serve an admin, such that, even as his evident good faith is sure to prevent him from intentionally misusing the tools, I cannot conclude with any confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive, although continued participation in the project will provide a broader record from which I might in the future reach a different conclusion, as I should be happy to do. Joe 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't believe you have the temperament necessary to be an administrator. seresin ( ¡? )  05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Your editing is kind of too aggressive for my liking. AGF a bit; not everybody is trying to nuke Wikipedia. When the other flies off the handle, it doesn't mean you should too. So, maybe next time :) Chamal talk 05:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Judging from your talk page, no one really seems to like you. I don't see a single friendly post on there (with the exception of a "you've been granted rollback" notice and my "merry christmas" template). To add to that, you've responded to all of them with some mean, demanding comment like "Don't do it again" or just "No." You also seem to have gotten into numerous incidents with Ryulong. I find no bright side to making you an admin. flaminglawyer 06:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, do you think you could have squeezed a little more venom into your oppose?---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've commented out my response to this, it sounded kinda like a PA) flaminglawyer 07:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Flaming lawyer, You missed at least a couple of friendly posts, for example User Talk:Mythdon#Userpage reversion was an unambiguous thankyou note for vandal reversion. WereSpielChequers 10:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Pretty much word-for-word what flaminglawyer says above. Too many disputes; we don't need more admins seeking or creating drama than we already have. Oren0 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ummm... no Not now, and probably not for at least six months. An admin candidate's experience in creating content is more important than in fighting vandalism, and a cursory inspection shows serious deficits in that area. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I've had a hell of a lot of interaction with Mythdon since he began editing Wikipedia, and as he states, the Power Rangers subject area. Flaming calls them "incidents" which I would perhaps agree with the summarization. Recently, Mythdon had taken to sending articles to AFD for reasons that I've never found in any way part of the deletion reasons or processes. Until recently, any sort of article that should have probably been merged (at least in accordance with present practices concerning articles on fictional concepts). It was only until one of my comments towards him (which I now regret for how I handled myself) did all of our behaviors and practices were brought to light. I've not figured out why he acts as he does, but as far as I can tell, the only administrative function he should be allowed is the rollback function, as I do not trust his judgement if it comes to blocks, deletions, or protections. As per my (as it feels) daily interactions with this user, he is extremely difficult to talk to, difficult to reason with, and difficult to edit with. If you read this conversation, you can see how he does not know when to stop. As far as I know, there have only been two pages that he's actually created, and afterwards he did not add to the pages, they were simply created. As far as Mythdon goes, if he were given adminship it would be a mix of TTN and CSCWEM, in their editing and administrative practices.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know TTN or CSCWEM. Can you tell me what they did to form your defintion "a mix of TTN and CSCWEM". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not something you need to worry about. And this actual replying and asking questions when they are not necessary is one of the many reasons I believe you are not ready to have any sort of extra priveleges on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't tell me, I won't understand your point of view fully . —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Not completely happy with the very recent interaction with Ryulong, coupled with the lack of serious content contributions. However, keep up the good work, don't be discouraged. » \ / (⁂) 10:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Part of an admin's job is to answer stupid questions with while showing patience for the ignorant. No indication the candidate can do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - ordinarily, I would probably snow close this RfA at this point (if any of about a dozen other editors hadn't already beaten me to it). I would not have felt the need to pile-on with this lengthy oppose. However, withdrawal has already been suggested to Mythdon, who has declined forcefully at least twice, so I feel it important to provide some specific reasoning:
  13. Oppose. Candidate may be a nice guy in real life, and I like his dedication to various tasks, but it will make a lot of extra work for all of us if he becomes an admin. Sorry. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose No-one likes to pile on, but it seems that this RFA may be the only way of getting through to Mythdon. The candidate seems to be sorely lacking in the ability to work with other people, to admit mistakes, and seems to have no method of communicating without demonstrating almost constant aggression. Pedro :  Chat  13:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. "I don't contribute to a wide variety of articles, but that doesn't matter, especially since I have experience in vandal fighting." Um...no. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Vandal fighting should not be the reason for your existence on the project. If you do that on the side, that's great. I understand that even excellent content contributors, once they become admins, tend to work more in the administrative side of Wikipedia, but you've got to have a good background in content and not dismiss it like that. "I am not going to quit this RfA at anytime. I will run as I please, and until the closure date." I understand the sentiment, but you could have phrased it much, much better ("I would really like for this to run the full time so that I can get as much feedback as possible" sound a lot better than "I'm going to keep this open, and you can't stop me"). Additionally, I seem to remember a less-than-ideal attitude when you were posting on AN or AN/I. Overall, this just isn't the temperament I would like to see in an admin. That being said, if you tone down the aggressiveness some more and contribute — really contribute — with some substantive content, I would probably support in six months or so. Better luck next time. Hermione1980 14:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral to avoid pile-on. When the editing heats up, I'd recommend keeping WP:LETITGO in mind; it'll make everyone feel better. Useight (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suggest closing per SNOW and IREALLYDONTWANTTOSEEPOSSIBLEFUTURECANDIDATESGETBEATENINTHEHEADWITHASTICK. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 06:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per NW. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - to not pile on, questionable judgment etc. Matt (Talk) 08:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, I know this editor can make good contributions sometimes, but even the tone of "I will run as I please" in this very RFA smacks of exactly the attitude that I don't want to see in an admin. Sorry, maybe sometime in the future. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (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/Mythdon&oldid=1085556736"