Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mifter

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mifter

Final (56/12/3); Closed by Rlevse at 22:46, 06 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Mifter (talk · contribs) – I am happy to be able to present Mifter to the community for consideration. Mifter first began contributing to Wikipedia back in February of last year, racking up over 11,000 edits. More importantly, however, is the quality of these edits. Mifter spends much of his time on Wikipedia helping out at WP:DYK, moving hooks around and generally being useful. He also has done good work moving free images to Commons. Mifter will obviously be an even greater asset in these two areas as an administrator.

Mifter has also consistently contributed to anti-vandalism efforts with recent changes patrol and new page patrol. His edits in these areas has also been of high quality, and I was happy to see very few problems with his work there on his talk page and archives. One final area of Mifter's contribution to Wikipedia I would like to highlight is his work at the account creator toolserver where he has worked steadily at, responsibly using the account creator userright. Considering the high quality of Mifter's edits, it can be seen that he will make an effective and helpful administrator if given the tools. Thank you for taking the time to consider Mifter as a candidate for adminship. Malinaccier (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination, and I thank Malinaccier for this vote of confidence. Mifter (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an Administrator, I plan to focus primarily on WP:DYK which I have been helping out at for over a year now, and specifically on moving approved hooks into the DYK queues waiting for the DYKadminBot to move them onto the main page, I also plan to work in locally uploading and protecting images that are going to appear on the Main Page for DYK and occasionally for ITN, TFA, etc, which as is stated here is something that could use some more admin help. I also plan to help out at WP:AIV and WP:CSD on occasion although I plan to work mainly on DYK. Also, I will continue my work on moving Images to the commons which I have been doing for quiet a while now and the Admin tools would make it easier me to delete images locally once I had moved them to the Commons. Finally, I plan to do some work at WP:RPP although I will probably wait until I gain more experience as an Administrator before starting to help out here, I also plan work at the WP:NAS to gain experience before I actually start making use of the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia in my opinion are to Wikipedia:Did You Know and to WP:MITC, In terms of building the encyclopedia which I count as one of the most important things I have done during my about 1 ½ year tenure here at WP, I have written a few articles and my best among those FBI Buffalo Field Office, I have 2 DYK’s from articles that I have written or expanded, and I currently have 19 DYK nom credits and a few other DYK noms currently in the pipeline so to speak. I have also done quiet a large amount of work at WP:MITC which I also see as important, because the English Wikipedia has one the largest collections of free Images of all the Wikipedia’s, and I believe that it is important that we transfer images to the Commons so that other Wikipeidans on other Wikis and use them to improve the content on their wikis.
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: Fortunately, I have not been in any conflicts over editing in the past and I have never been caused stress by another editors actions, if I were ever to get into a conflict with another editor(s) over content or some other thing which I know will be more likely when I have the admin tools, I would always approach the conflict with a serious business like attitude always listening to the other users POW and their issues and I would work to reach an outcome that is appropriate to both me and the other editor(s), also in the event that I were ever to become flustered in dealing with another editor, I would immediately take a “step back” and think about the situation so I would not do anything rash or uncivil and I would also take a look at the issue and see how I could help to resolve the issue. I know that being an administrator can be stressful, but if I ever were to be faced with a conflict over my editing, I would be sure to keep my cool and to discuss to find a solution that is acceptable to all involved parties.


Additional optional questions from Timmeh

4 Why have your edit numbers (by month) been declining throughout this year, leading to just one edit in the month of April?
A: My edits had been declining throughout the last month and before because unfortunately I was getting quiet busy in Real Life, I am on a crew team and once our race season started earlier in the year, I unfortunately had less time to devote to Wikipedia than I wanted due to the increased practices and races, but being that my last race was last weekend and I have no more practices for a while, I should have lots more time to spend editing Wikipedia and getting back to what I love to do :). I hope that this answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim

5.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A: That would really depend on the article, their are some articles that are obviously attack pages or pure nonsense and those should be deleted under WP:CSD on sight. But, for most other articles I feel that it is better to do a quick search to see if their is any readily available verifiable/reliable information that could assert that the article should not be speedy deleted and that in fact the subject is notable, and instead of being speedy deleted, it should be flagged for cleanup/rewrite. And, to a certain degree it does matter what WP:CSD category that an article is deleted under, something that is non-notable shouldn't be deleted as an attack page or an orphan talk page because the speedy deletion reasons help newer users realize why their article(s) were deleted and that helps them to not make the same mistakes in the future and a completely wrong speedy category could lead them in the wrong direction, but in some cases and article can fit more than one criteria e.g. it is a test page about a non-notable person, then in that case it could go in either or even both could be quoted in the deletion log as being reasons for it being speedied, so it does matter what criteria an article is speedied under, but it is possible for an article to fit into more than one category. I hope that this answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask :). Thanks All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?
A- Their are some circumstances where if a user is a blatant vandal (Making blatant personal attacks in the user or user talk namespaces, or obvious BLP related matters) that I would block without a full set of warnings, although I would never block if the user had less than 2 warnings because the first two warnings are generally kinder and most users who got past those and into the 3rd and 4th warnings generally have minimal intention of contributing constructively (Although I would prefer not to block without full warnings because even one constructive edit shows that a user has the potential to be a good contributor) and each case requires its own unique investigation and judgment, and also as B said here their is no entitlement to receive warning, they are done as a curiosity, but in most if not all cases, I would wait for a full set of warning to be given, unless the vandalism was blatant and the user showed no intention to contribute constructively. I hope that this answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask :). Thank you and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
7. Scenario: You're closing an AfD. It's a subject with which you're not personally familiar — say, Eskimo marriage customs — and there are a total of twelve !votes including the nominator.

Nominator states: "Article contains no references from reliable sources, delete." Four other editors agree. Another user states: "References do exist", and cites a paper source by ISBN. She goes on to say, "Deleting this material would be another instance of systemic bias against non-caucasians. Besides, the article could be sourced, it just hasn't been sourced yet." Three other editors agree (but no changes are made to the article to actually source it during the AfD). Then an admin states: "Merge to Marriage Customs — sourced or not, there's not enough content here to justify a separate article at the moment." Two other editors agree.

How would you close? Please give reasons.

A: This is an interesting situation, when I first become and administrator, I will generally try to stay away from these kinds of AFD's and even when I have more experience, AFD is a field where I will probably not do much work. But, in this case what I would do is one of two things (1) I would research the one user's claim that their is are reliable sources and then if their were some readily available I would suspend the AFD for a few days asking those who were in favor of keeping the article to make whatever sourcing changes they wished to improve the article and the after that time was up, I would re-list the AFD to gain a new consensus and then I would rule based on the new consensus wither it be to keep, delete, or to merge to article, Wikipedia is not a democracy and the number of !votes does not always determine consensus, and because of that I would allow for some improvements in the article because their were sources out their and once those who thought it should be kept had made whatever improvements they wished, then I would let the AFD run its course and then merge, delete, or keep the article based on the new AFD. Either that or I would do (2) I would also invite another neutral administrator to render their opinion on how the AFD should be closed and I would then discuss it with that administrator I would close the article based on what me and the other administrator had decided (Also, I would bring the discussion the the WP:VP or other administrators if necessary) and then I would write a detailed explanation on why I decided to close it the way I did. I hope that this adequately answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Sandstein
8. You are reviewing the unblock request of an editor who was blocked for a month for disruptive editing. You agree with the blocked editor's argument that the block is excessively long and seems to be punitive rather than preventative. You also notice that the block has been under discussion at WP:ANI for about eight hours, with some ten uninvolved editors supporting the block and eight others arguing that it should be lifted or reduced in length. What, if anything, do you do as an administrator in this situation?  Sandstein  06:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Being that the matter was currently being discussed at WP:AN/I I would not unblock the user or do anything else concerning this matter until the discussion at WP:ANI had been resolved, and the only other thing I might do in this matter is I might go and join the discussion at WP:ANI but otherwise I would not perform any administrative actions on the matter until the discussion at WP:ANI had been resolved. I hope that this adequately answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
9. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Yes, I believe that Wikipedians have rights, the most important of which in my opinion is the right to have others assume that any mistakes that they make were made on good faith and were not intentional or designed to cause trouble. I believe that it is important for administrators to prevent harassment and to ensure that newer users are treated with good faith and to prevent WP:BITING. As an administrator, I would take all necessary steps to prevent WP:BITING, harassment, and to ensure that users assume good faith. I hope that this adequately answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). Thank you And All the Best :), Mifter (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Keepscases
10. Were these definitions provided by you? http://www.urbandictionary.com/author.php?author=mifter
A: Nope, none of those definitions were provided by me :P, I only am "Mifter" on all WMF project, Wikia, and a few other sites but I don't contribute to the urban dictionary so the Mifter their is not me ;). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
11. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
A: Being that I am involved in WP:ACC, I have registered a large number of accounts which have had their passwords sent by e-mail to their respective users and as such I have never had control of or used any of those accounts, a full list of which can be seen here. The only accounts that I have created for my individual use, are this one (Mifter (talk · contribs)), and the accounts of my two bots MifterBot (talk · contribs) (which is currently defunct because when the m:Special:Centralnotice was introduced, it changed something with how images are retrieved and parsed which caused my bot to cease working, I have been trying to re-code the bot to fix that problem, but it will take quiet a bit of time), and my AWB bot MifterBot I (talk · contribs) which I run every 1-2 months to tag non-free vector graphic (.svg) images with {{SVG-Logo}}. I hope that this has satisfactorily answered your question, and if you have any more questions or if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Stifle
12. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a building which is still standing be used on Wikipedia?
A. The only time that a non-free image of a building that is still standing may be used is when that image has iconic status or historical importance, and it cannot be replaced by any free alternative, e.g. Image:Empirestate540.jpg. I hope that this has satisfactorily answered your question, and if you have any more questions or if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Rootology
13a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?
A: Answer Copied from Question 11, being that these are dupe questions ;) Being that I am involved in WP:ACC, I have registered a large number of accounts which have had their passwords sent by e-mail to their respective users and as such I have never had control of or used any of those accounts, a full list of which can be seen here. The only accounts that I have created for my individual use, are this one (Mifter (talk · contribs)), and the accounts of my two bots MifterBot (talk · contribs) (which is currently defunct because when the m:Special:Centralnotice was introduced, it changed something with how images are retrieved and parsed which caused my bot to cease working, I have been trying to re-code the bot to fix that problem, but it will take quiet a bit of time), and my AWB bot MifterBot I (talk · contribs) which I run every 1-2 months to tag non-free vector graphic (.svg) images with {{SVG-Logo}}. I hope that this has satisfactorily answered your question, and if you have any more questions or if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?
A: Nope, there are no account names that I cannot disclose; all of my accounts are listed above :), Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?
A: See above :), I have no account names that I feel I cannot disclose :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?
A: My views on WP:BLP are that it is a core policy in that it protects the quality of our biography articles, and it also provides to help shield the WMF from any potential legal action that could occur as a result of vandalism. As with any policy if could definitely be improved upon, because nothing is perfect, but I think that all in all it is a fine policy that helps to ensure the quality and integrity of our living person bio articles, because those articles if the contain in-correct facts have the potential to hurt people in the real world which is not what we are here to do, we are here to build an encyclopedia not make a collection of heresy and unsourced rumors which WP:BLP helps prevent. I hope that this adequately answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). All the Best :), Mifter (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?
A: I don't have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations in my real life that in my opinion could interfere with my editing on Wikipedia, and I generally try to stay away from topics that could be used to track my real life identity, etc so that has the side effect being that I generally don't edit articles that I have any relation to the subject in. I hope that this adequately answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). Thanks And All the Best :), Mifter (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?
A: Yes, I would be open to Administrative Recall, because I feel that an when an administrator is given the bit, they are given a sign of the communities trust in them not to abuse the tools they have been given, I feel that if I were to ever lose the communities trust through a mistake/error on my part, that I should be held accountable for what I have done. I hope that this answers your question and if you would like a clarification or have any other questions, please feel free to ask me :). Thank you And All the Best :), Mifter (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?
A: Yes, I do feel that admins should be subject to blocks as any other user would, adminship does not make you any better or "higher up" than any other users in my opinion it only make it more important that they set a good example because they are the first users many new users see, and if you break policy (e.g. 3RR) then admins should get blocked and treated the same if not more stringently then other users due to their position of trust as any other user would if they had broken the same policy. I hope that this adequately answers your question and if you would like a clarification, please feel free to ask me :). Thanks :), Mifter (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?
A: Heh, I don't really care for drama, it generally hurts the encyclopedia and tears and damages the social fabric of Wikipedia, chocolate is good, but I only like it on occasion, and beer and whiskey, I really don't care for being that I don't drink, so I guess I'd have to say cake, I love cake for any occasion, especially when its fresh from the oven :). Best, Mifter (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Jamie☆S93
19. I would like to support you, but I've concerns that you're not experienced enough, and was about to move to the oppose section. Here's a chance to show your knowledge, though, with a few deletion questions (partially lifted from others). First question:
You are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an unreferenced, new article tagged as {{db-attack}}. The article's first two sentences say, "XYZ is a governor in Estonia. He was thrown in jail for killing his wife and children." You do a Google search on this person, and you discover that XYZ is indeed a governor (and passes WP:BIO). However, you can find no sources to confirm whether or not he killed his family. The rest of the article consists of three sentences of neutral information about the governor's campaigns and his actions in office. Should the article be speedy deleted per WP:BLP?
A. In this case, I would have to say that it shouldn't be deleted per WP:BLP because even though the sentance does violate BLP, the article passes WP:BIO and as such deserves its own article, but the sentence that says the governor was thrown in jail for killing his family should be removed per WP:BLP with a note saying why it was removed and that once a WP:RS was found for that sentence that it could be re-added to the article, because of its potentially libelous nature. I would also consider leaving a note on the editor who created the article's talk page informing them of what happened with their newly written article. I hope that this answers your question, and if you have any questions or clarifications that you would like that you feel free to ask :). Thank and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?
A.
21. In your own words, when would it be best for an admin to userfy an article (to another editor's userspace)?
A.
22. A new editor called Fluffy1339 has written an article about a corporation. The article is promotional, and is tagged for speedy deletion. The editor removed the tag, the article went to AfD, and was deleted after due process. The editor then went on to request that it be userfied so she could fix it, and another administrator did that. The restoring administrator has subsequently retired.
A few weeks later, you receive a note on your talk page from another editor, saying that Fluffy1339 has restored the article into mainspace in several different places, with titles that were slightly different to the title that was deleted at AfD. You verify that this is correct and remove the articles in question. Then Fluffy1339 leaves an insulting message on your talk page saying you're harrassing her.
As her next action, she proceeds to write a new article using slightly different wording about the same company. What do you do now?
A.
Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
23a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
A.
23b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
A.
23c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
A.
Additional optional questions from Wrad
24. Do you agree with this proposed wording change to protection policy? Wrad (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



General comments

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
  1. Support. As nominator. Best of luck, Mifter! :) Malinaccier (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. No reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I thought you were an admin already. :-) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see no reason to suggest that user will misuse tools.--(NGG) 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No worries.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. More than happy to support you. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 23:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Good answers to questions, I think he will help the project with the bits. tempodivalse [☎] 01:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. trust nominator. meets my standards. liked answers for my questions. primary area of interest is area where more admin support is needed, and in which candidate has experience. review turned up nothing troubling. Dlohcierekim 02:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as work at DYK has been excellent and they need more help. I see no evidence the editor would abuse the tools. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Go for it! I'm satisfied with your answer to #6. A wave to Malinaccier for entrusting me with the rollback :) –BuickCenturyDriver 03:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Per Q7, this candidate doesn't understand AfD, and those weren't the actions I would expect, but what they do show is, when in doubt, this candidate shows a desire to seek consensus before performing an administrative action.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. →Nagy 10:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support SUL 10:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support:Candidate seems reliable, trustworthy & dependable & the more people helping at DYK the better I say. Good luck Mifter. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support No indication Mifter would misuse the tools, and my question was answered satisfactorily. Timmeh!(review me) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Will be an asset with the tools. -download ׀ sign! 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support--Res2216firestar 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Great contributor, though I don't care for the answer to Q6 personally. Wizardman 20:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Brilliant interactions with this user lend me to believe he will make a great administrator. Good luck! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate is an article creator who has received multiple barnstars (demonstrates that candidate works well with others and is here to improve our project) while having never even been accidentally blocked. I noticed a userbox about being slapped by a trout; while I am not open to being slapped by a fish, a fun variation might be for me that is if anyone know how to create these things, being open to be slapped by a pretty girl perhaps, but anyway, though, candidate seems good overall. Good luck! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: Great editor and very civil. South Bay (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. No negative impressions, to be honest I thought he already was one. J.delanoygabsadds 02:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Especially impressed by answer to Q5. This indicates a careful, well-reasoned approach to using the admin buttons, keeping in mind "what's best for the project" at all times.  JGHowes  talk 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No issuies here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - meets my standards, no major issues, has rollback rights, and we could use another person with experince in law enforcement issues who is an admin. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak support. On the lower end in experience terms, but we've got rather a lot of admin backlogs that need to be cleared out. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak support Would be stronger, but needs to make sure that s/he has mainspace as the namespace with the highest number of edits. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support rootology/equality 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. weak Support Everything appears to be in order here. The oppose concerns are not compelling (If an admin is more likely to wait before blocking someone it really isn't the end of the world). Changing viewpoint slightly having now looked at the CSD issues in more detail. Thus have changed to weak support. I'm willing to support as long as the user understands that they shouldn't use the deletion features until they spend further time familiarizing themselves with the deletion policies (especially the CSD policy). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Go for it. Renaissancee (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No reason not to. Pmlinediter  Talk 08:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Of Jamie's 4 diffs in the neutral section, the first is awful but the other 3 are judgment calls. We all make occasional mistakes at CSD, and I don't see anything in the oppose section that seems like an outright disqualification. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Candidate wants to help at CSD and DYK, areas which he seems to understand based on his contributions. Mm40 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Candidate's drive for DYK have been extremely helpful. The admin tools will really help him a lot. --Maverx (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - A couple of bots, DYK work including 2 DYKs, good article work...what's not to support? Regarding Q7, I would say these two things: 1) there's no need to suspend an AfD; just let it ride if you don't feel it's a consensus, and 2) I have been an admin for almost a year and when I spend any time at AfD (infrequently), I routinely skip AfDs that look either difficult or not quite done. I haven't "broke teh wiki" yet. Cherry picking? Perhaps, but we do (and the project does) best when we contribute according to our ability rather than according to an external formula. And there would be nothing wrong with checking with someone else before taking an action one is unsure of; I still do that and will continue to. Also, I am perfectly happy to have someone with experience working as an admin in the swamps that image work represent. The CSD concerns are minor and in fact I am not sure I see even the assertion (let alone demonstration) of notability in G-Technology five months later. It's a company that was bought by another company...so?  Frank  |  talk  11:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support No real issues, per above ⊕Assasin Joe talk 14:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, No reason to Oppose. OtisJimmyOne 16:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support – I've seen him/her around, fully trusted. American Eagle (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support fact he doesn't drink a major problem as he will not well tolerate the endless tedium here on WP, but that's his problem. I liked his answer to number 8, tends to show he won't be a cowboy admin who boldly goes where no admin has gone before and blocks while there's a discussion going on at AN/I. We've lost editors on account of such actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No worries here. BG7even 20:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I think admins who "specialize in specific area is okay such as DYK where many reviewers are needed.--Caspian blue 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I find some of the answers on the weak side, but that is not so relevant as those areas are not the focus of the candidate. Experience in the fields of choice is what matters. Agathoclea (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seems trustworthy to me. hmwithτ 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Wider experience would be nice so not the perfect candidate but most likely a net positive. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Looks very likely to focus on using tools in the area they specialise in. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Looks like Mifter will be a fine admin.    7   talk | Δ |   01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Satisfactory answers to the questions. Seems level-headed and rational. Would make a capable administrator. -- Ϫ 07:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I have trust in this editor to use the tools wisely and get help when needed. -- Banjeboi 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support trustworthy in my opinion. --Kanonkas :  Talk  08:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I don't see any reason he would abuse the tools and know =s what to do. --Abce2|AccessDenied 21:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose per answer to Q6. The response sounds like the editor would be counting warning "levels" and waiting for the "magic number" before issuing what would be an obvious block. Nakon 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please allow me to clarify my answer to Q6 for you :), what I meant when I said “that I would never block with less than 2 warnings” is that I would very very rarely bordering on never block with less than two warnings although as you brought up there is no "magic number" of warnings that a user requires before they should receive a block, e.g. in some cases a repeat vandal might just be given a level 4im warning and then after that if they were a repeat vandal making blatant vandalism, then I might block them with only that level 4im warning and I would not hold of on making a block due to the lack of warnings, what I generally meant to say, is that I would not generally block without the full set of warnings and the chance of me issuing a block decreases drastically for each warning the user has not received and I only meant that blocking for less than 2 warnings is something that I would rarely do except in extenuating circumstances and also that each individual situation requires its own unique judgment call. In addition, in cases I would prefer to err of the side of caution especially once I first get the tools before doing more complex administrator actions that require a bit of experience to make a good judgment in. I would also like to thank you for taking the time to bring this up and voice your opinion on me becoming an administrator :), and if you have any questions you would like to ask me or if you would like a clarification on any of my answers to the above questions, please feel free to ask me :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that while it's not required it's very good etiquette to warn a user before blocking. If you think about it, many sockpuppetry and block evasion cases could have been avoided had the original blocker been a little more patient. While I understand that blocking is a necessary evil, it's best to use a good explanation (in the spirit of WP:AGF) rather than simply default to blocking a new user as a "vandal-only" account unless you are sure that it belongs to someone who was recently blocked. If you must block and you suspect foul play, I'd suggest using SSP. Good luck with the tools. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I had to deal with a number of abusive Socks before I became an admin and found it tiresome having to get every incarnation listed somewhere to let them wreck havoc for a while. They got quickly bored when it was a case of a quick RBI. But those were really obvious cases and possibly better TOR and IP blocking helped as well. Agathoclea (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. little in the way of noticeboard contributions or dispute resolution experience, little audited content contributions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Fuchs above. Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose switched because I see nothing in the answers given that would support giving this editor sysop sts. I will review again before thread closes to see if I still adhere but at this point I see nothing that warrants inclusion to Sysop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. From reviewing Mifter's contributions, I think he does a lot of good work; the admin tools would be helpful for him at DYK but I cannot support his adminship because of his extreme lack of involvement in substantive discussion with others, including AfD discussions. Insufficient evidence that he has a good knowledge of policy. Mangojuicetalk 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I could support in the future but you don't seem to need the tools nor do you plan to use them immediately and question #7 is not making me very happy. Come back when you have time to use the tools and are ready to use them. (The basic idea of cautious use at first is a good plan when you're ready.) Drawn Some (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose: candidate states an intent to help out with WP:CSD in Q1 but provides a vague answer to Q7 which lacks depth in understanding AfD policy - which is a potential bleed-in from CSD - and also shows a lack of conviction in the response given: the answer the candidate was looking for is "AfD is not cleanup". ColdmachineTalk 20:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose I don't see much in your content contributions at all. I feel you may be a good candidate later with some more content in your hands.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - sorry, but I have to oppose based on the CSD nominations linked by User:JamieS93 in the neutral section below. At least three out of those four CSD taggings were wrong, and all four were rejected; I don't feel I can trust this user to implement the speedy-deletion criteria correctly. If this does pass, I advise him to be very careful with deleting pages under criterion A7 - it should only be used for those pages which contain absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. Robofish (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Q7 as well as some shaky speedy deletion nominees noted above. I recommend brushing up more on the deletion policy as well as the criteria for speedy deletion and get some more practice CSD-tagging. MuZemike 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose' on the basis of first, almost no work to demonstrate understand of policy in discussions at AfD or policy talk, and second, poor speedy deletions--especially in rushing to nominate pages the moment they are created. I checked some taggings that were deleted, but the article re-created. Placed an AfD tag on Japanese armour at a time when it just had a heading for references, & no other content, but within 6o seconds of it first being written (I blame the admin who deleted it as well 3 minutes later). Fortunately the user was not discouraged and went on to write a stub and another used developed the article to an acceptable one, but the first ed. hasn;t been seen since. For Fraud of feminism he tagged a clear but unencyclopedic essay as "nonsense"--it was subsequently deleted correctly as copyvio, and the title used for a redirect of a book having that title to a notable author. erhaps he knows better now, but there's no way to tell. We need some way to judge, and there just isn't any. I expect he'll be ok a few months from now after some work in these areas. DGG (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall pledges are made ad captandum vulgus and can be retracted or ignored post-RFA. Skinwalker (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're opposing because the user might go back on their word, on an issue which is anyway completely voluntary, but you don't have any particular reason to think so? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I haven't reviewed the candidate's contributions fully, but I am concerned that their talkpage contributions (editor, article, project, user) show almost no experience in editorial discussions. For an editor who has been active for over a year, that is quite unusual. How are we to assess Mifter's judgement with so little to go on?  Skomorokh  23:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do not deny that his talk page is a little bare lately, I have found that most of Mifter's communication with other editors deals with DYK, and so is in a less conventional "venue." He has made comments at WT:DYK, and at TT:DYK (although many of his edits there are simple notices that he has approved hooks, there are also instances in which he communicates with the editors there). Also, (while I know it has been a while) Mifter has contributed to discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Law_Enforcement. I hope this helps you out, Malinaccier (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll definitely take a look. Thanks Malinaccier.  Skomorokh  23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having gone through the DYK and WT:LE contribs, I still see no indication that the candidate has ever been involved in substantive or contentious discussions. It's very difficult to predict based on their past behaviour how they would comport themselves if one of their decisions as an administrator was challenged. Mifter seems to have a great attitude, and the quality of their contributions is impressive. The nature of their edits however make the candidate an unknown quantity as an administrator, and this combined with their rather limited experience in the article and project namespaces make me very reticent to support.  Skomorokh  03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Nice DYK work, it would be good to have another helping admin on board. Helpful editor, and would probably be fine with extra tools. However, I'm not sure at this point, mainly because I haven't reviewed the candidate's AIV and CSD work, two areas that need to be treated with care as an admin. Best, Jamie☆S93 15:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly fine CSD work, but taggings like [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. bring up concerns. Granted, all of those cases were from January, and that's usually plenty of time to hone skills. It seems that the pattern of incorrect January tags has not continued, so I considered switching to support. On the other hand, it looks like you've only made one CSD tag since early March 2 (deleted contribs). Staying neutral, can't exactly support at this point. Feel free to comment, I don't consider it badgering :-) Jamie☆S93 16:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any problem with the initial tagging of that first article, for example - at the time he tagged it [5] there really was no assertion of notability. The OP then expanded and remove the tag against policy, and Mifter added it back in. Granted, when adding back in it would be better to check if the article has substantially improved.    7   talk | Δ |   01:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. To be specific, this diff was my particular concern, since the author had added some nice "award" notability claims: [6]. Jamie☆S93 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    #Nuetral, I see no issue on which to oppose the editor. I however also see nothing in the answers given that would support giving this editor sysop sts. I will review again before thread closes to see if I still adhere but at this point I see nothing that warrants inclusion to Sysop.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nakon 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already !voted in this RfA.[7] Duplicate !vote struck. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral; support and oppose rationales leave me somewhere in the middle. One two three... 06:05, 6 June 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/Mifter&oldid=1088715764"