Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maltesedog3

Add links
Source: 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.

Maltesedog

Final (11/31/2) ended 06:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Delisted early as unlikely to succeed. Essjay Talk • Contact 06:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maltesedog (talk • contribs)

  • This is my third request for nomination. I've been using wikipedia for over a year now even though I registered for an account later.

Having done only a few articles, I used to contribute as user 212.56.128.186 before I signed up for Wikipedia. Such important contributions should not be ignored, but also taken into consideration, despite the fact that I was not registered. My interests are primarily articles concerning Malta, and I have worked hard to give information on the island and combat vandalism.

I have complied to the previous request of making use of edit summaries.

Support

  1. Support - Why not? He's not going to abuse the tools. - Richardcavell 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Quality over quantity. Especially active with the counter-vandalism squad. -- └ VodkaJazz/talk┐ 20:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support He has worked hard over the past months on Maltese-related articles. And extra brownie points for his fight against vandalism and nonsense articles --Roderick Mallia 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)-[reply]
  5. Moral support - I think in a few months, you'll be fine. Proto||type 14:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Roderick and Vodka. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per Roderick. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, it's no biggie. Hiding talk 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral support; I see this user around, making good, solid edits. Unlikely to abuse the tools. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support meets my criteria, good user. -Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. No, it's not "Just Too Soon". I was made an admin with 1.4k edits. SushiGeek 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose due to massive formatting errors user had in creating this nomination, [1], 2; suggests infamiliarity with Wikipedia policy and procedure and also carelessness. Try again in a couple months. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Too few edits and general inexperience, try again later. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Too inexperienced still. Eivindt@c 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way? SushiGeek 19:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per BorgHunter. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose a little too new to show knowledge of all Wikipedia policies. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, still green, and the questions do not indicate specific usage of admin tools.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Inexperience + per BorgHunter's comments. Mikker (...) 00:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hang in there contribs to date are in good, but you need a few more months to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. --Jay(Reply) 00:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And why is this? I was made an admin with this much experience, edit-wise (although I had been around for two years). SushiGeek 19:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Much better application this time, but still a bit short of my baseline criteria (too few edits, particularly in WP space). I was also hoping for more substantial answers to the questions below. That said, feel free to try again later once you have more experience. --Alan Au 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per above. NSLE (T+C) at 01:03 UTC (2006-03-29)
  11. Oppose Per above. Moe ε 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not active in the Wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose I like your work on Malta but if I take into consideration that 130 of your edits were to that article and its talk page alone, that doesn't leave a lot for you to gain experience in all the other areas of Wikipedia. Sorry. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose lacks of experience. --Terence Ong 10:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Not enough experience.--Looper5920 10:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose It's Just Too Soon.--Deville (Talk) 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, Need some more experience still. Shyam (T/C) 15:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Needs more experience. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - If you continue working and learning, I'll support you in the future Afonso Silva 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Insufficient experience.--Jusjih 09:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Fad (ix) 19:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per BorgHunter Cynical 19:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Spend some more time learning your way around and discover things admins do other than rollback; look forward to supporting in the future. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I'd prefer to not need to assess whether or not a nominee is canvassing [2] [3]. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose: Nothing personal, mate, but its just a lack of experience. Try again in a bit and I'll gladly support. _-M o P-_ 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Nay Ncrown23334
  27. Oppose, going out and ask users to recast their votes isn't something very appropriate, and things like these have started ArbCom cases in the past. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Per above. Be patient. Your time will come.--HereToHelp 21:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, gotta say no here. Weatherman90 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per reasons given above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose was going to go weak oppose/neutral, but note that RFA is not an election, and advertising isn't needed. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Only barely below my standards so far. Keep using Wikipedia and reapply after a couple of months. JIP | Talk 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Would normally support due to unlikeliness of abusing admin tools, but as a matter of principle I will generally not participate in a poll when canvassed. Please note the difference between polls and votes: polls are supposed to be representative, and while polls on Wikipedia clearly aren't, there's no need to make them worse than they already are. Since you would currently need 69 more support votes with 0 more oppose votes to meet the minimum 80% guideline, I recommend you withdraw. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record - I did not indicate to you to vote for me. I simply asked you to cast your vote. I do not consider this as canvassing. Vide talk page Maltesedog 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Simetrical supported you last time. You asked him to stop by the new RfA. This is considered very bad form. Again, wait a couple months and try again: You have your heart in the right place, and you work hard. Just keep learning about Wikipedia and you'll do fine. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd like to point out that six of nine oppose votes in last RfA of this candidate cited lack of edit summaries as a reason to oppose. Since the closure of that RfA, Maltesedog has used edit summaries 90% of the time. --Durin 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two prior RfAs: first, second. --Durin 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two prior RFA's indicated that I should wait a few more months and make greater use of edit summaries. This was done. Maltesedog 20:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit summary usage: 90% for major edits and 74% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 38 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Maltesedog's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Mainly to combat vandalism accross Wikipedia and to maintain its integrity as user built encylopedia. With regards to the contents I will give imporance to layout. I have contributed various times to the afd project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Articles relating to Malta, in particular that of the Hypogeum of Hal-Saflieni. I have also arranged the layout of the Malta article.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Obviously, had some problems over deletion of articles, some users failed to understand the real wikipedia spirit, but these were cleared, and I don't believe to date I have any pending conflicts. I usually try to avoid conflicts as much as possible.

Maltesedog 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Please expand on question 3 above in regard to deletion of articles, with specific difs if possible.

Articles should be deleted strictly on the wikipedia policy of article deletion i.e. WP:AFD. I have in the past placed a number of articles for deletion which in my opinion where of no relevance to wikipedia and voted various times in favour/against deletion of certain articles depending on the circumstances. (If the question is more demanding, I ask you to clarify it)

The problem in the past was with articles relating to Maltese nobility. In my opinion, nobility does not imply notability, but fortunatly the cases were positively concluded. Some of the articles were deleted, some kept in accordance with wiki policy.

2 How would you respond to users who argue that you have too low an edit count?

I work daily on wikipedia. Low edit counts could be due to time invovled in researching particular items. But I believed, quality should come first nothing else. I've been working on vandalism on articles ages - I have quite a few articles in my watchlist. I also reply to the accusation that I edited mostly the Malta article. The reason is basically one. Its vandalised every day! How can I leave vandalism on a particular article?

3 Under what circumstances would indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
  • Users who post personal information on other users
  • Usernames designed to impersonate legitimate users
  • When the owner posts the password for public use
  • When there are anonymous proxies

All these are examples of indefinite blocking.

The above 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/Maltesedog3&oldid=1089731313"