Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MC10 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flaming (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 27 July 2010 (→Neutral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

MC10

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (12/15/3); Scheduled to end 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

MC10 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentleman, it is my pleasure to nominate MC10 for adminship. As can be quickly seen, there have been issues in MC10's past which would raise an eyebrow, including disruption caused by his brother's socking and issues with his maturity, the latter of which prompted two premature requests for adminship. Having looked closely into these issues and kept an eye on MC10 for a few months, however, I'm satisfied that these are no longer issues. In my own interactions with him, I've been struck by how much he has matured as a Wikipedian over the last few months. He has consistently proven himself to be trustworthy and knowledgeable– for example, in my first significant interaction with him, he came up with some complex code that still makes no sense to me and requested that it be added to an editnotice meta-template (which one, I forget!); in the resulting conversation, which moved to his talk page, I was left with a very good impression, to the extent that I granted him accountcreator right in order to allow him to make his changes directly. MC10 is trusted with almost every non-admin right going (accountcreator, rollback, reviewer, autopatrolled) and has proven himself knowledgeable and clueful in the areas in which he wants to work, particularly AIV and RfPP which are always in need of more admin help. Further, MC10 has taken on board much of the criticism offered to him previously, including improving his work in the mainspace. To that end, he has significantly contributed to a very high quality GA, First Crusade. All in all, I find MC10 to be worthy of a few extra buttons and, at the very least, worthy of the community's consideration. I apologise for the long nomination, but there's a lot to cover. Thank you all for your consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I gladly accept your nomination. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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'd like to, first of all, work in WP:AIV and continue with anti-vandalism efforts, as vandalism is always a continuous problem on Wikipedia. I'd also like to work with WP:CSD and new page patrol by reviewing CSD requests by other NPP patrollers, and deleting pages when they fall into the appropriate CSD criteria. Another place where I'd like to work in is WP:RFPE, where I would mainly review reviewer and rollback permission requests. As I frequently watch and comment on WP:ANI, I would engage in discussions there, and would be willing to sort out cases and make the necessary actions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, throughout Wikipedia, are undoubtedly to anti-vandalism. Many (if not most) of my edits are to anti-vandalism, and I will continue to focus in that area. I would be reviewing AIV requests, and with the admin bits, I would be able to block disruptive users. As to my best article edits, I would definitely say my edits to First Crusade, where I reworked and rewrote the lead, added a few sections, and did some major copyediting overall, helping the article attain GA status. My edits to Radio23 were also one of my best, as I reworked a promotional article that was deleted and userfied into an article that looked pretty well-written and was featured in a DYK hook.
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: Of course, with interaction comes conflict. Almost five months ago, I was involved in this incident, where I apparently "broke" quite a number of the anti-vandalism templates. (The ANI discussion can be found here.) It turned out that I had only broken one template – {{welcome-anon}} – with a code change; however, a few editors had thought I had broken all of the anti-vandalism templates as well, and reverted almost all of my changes to them. Since the change was discussed, I informed the other editors at ANI about the discussion, and stated that only one of the templates was broken. As a result, the whole "mess" was sorted out. In a future situation like this, I would discuss my changes before making them, as I have done so here, and reference that discussion in my edit summaries in order to prevent further conflict.
As mentioned by HJ in his nomination statement, I have two brothers that also edit Wikipedia (ActivExpression (talk · contribs) and Madden NFL 21 (talk · contribs)) – one of them is a constructive editor, and the other one is a disruptive user who has many sockpuppets. I know I'll garner some opposition because of this, but since I'm giving this in the open, I hope you don't, at the very least, just use this to oppose me. Apparently, since I share an IP with my brothers, I was blocked as being the master of the sockpuppets. After an unblock request, along with a discussion with some admins, I was unblocked with IP block exemption enabled on my account.

Additional question from Hipocrite

4. Are you still living in the same house with prolific and unrepentant vandals? If yes, please detail the physical security of your terminal. What exact url are you using to view this page, right now?
A: Unfortunately, I am still living in that same house with whom you describe as "prolific and unrepentant vandals". My user account on my computer is protected with a strong password, and so is my Wikipedia password. I have a SHA-512 hash to prove I have access to my account in the (practically impossible) case that my account becomes hacked by my brothers. I am not using the secure terminal right now, so my URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MC10_2, although for the secure terminal, it would be https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MC10_2.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. Have your brothers ever used your account, or attempted to do so?
A: My brothers have never attempted to or used my account. They enjoy vandalizing with new accounts created, and they have never tried to hack my account. Even if they tried to, they would not have the technical ability to do so. They would have to hack my computer's password, then hack my Wikipedia account's password.

Additional optional questions from Keepscases

6. How old are you? How old are your brothers?
A: I'd rather not give away my exact age, but I will just say that we are all under the legal age in the U.S. (which is 18).

Additional optional question from user:zzuuzz

7. I've been wondering. Both you and your 'good brother' had significant template interaction with Cessna 406 (talk · contribs · block log) and Jack Ebs (talk · contribs · block log) before they were blocked. At what point, and how, did you both discover that they were your 'bad brother'? Also, why do you template your brother?
A: I discovered once I saw him logging in to those accounts, after he started vandalizing. I templated him in order to get him blocked as soon as possible to prevent further disruption, as WP:SPI is much too backlogged, and WP:AIV isn't the right place to report sockpuppets if they haven't been warned sufficiently. Quite a number of times I had to report him/his edits to WP:ANI, as he would not stop vandalizing.
Additional optional question from StephenBuxton
8. How would you deal with a newly created article on a minor that is a BLP violation?
A: Since the article is about a minor, and is also a BLP violation, I would immediately delete the article, in order to protect the privacy of the relatively-unknown minor. Since how the article is a BLP violation is unclear, unless the article was an attack page, I would warn the user about writing unsourced BLPs. If the page was an attack page, I would block the user indefinitely.
Supplemental Question. Assume this is an attack page outing this person. Would you do anything else? Stephen! Coming... 17:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to indefinitely blocking the user, I would salt the page to prevent the user from recreating the page with sockpuppets/meatpuppets. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and...? Stephen! Coming... 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask an oversight to oversight the deleted material on that page, as it has personally identifying information. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Salvio

9. What would you do if you stumbled upon these articles [1], [2] & [3]?
A: I would decline the speedy deletion of the first article, as it asserts importance, but I would prod it as an unreferenced BLP. I would delete the second article as A7, as importance is not asserted. As for the last article, I would immediately delete it as a G10, as it attacks the subject.
Whoops, messed up with the first article. I would delete it under G11, as it is promoting the subject of the article.
Try again for the last one. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete it as G3, as tagged, for vandalism.
Really? Aiken ♫ 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, still G3, but as a hoax. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it's not a hoax; the original admin turned the article into a redirect to foot fetishism. I think I would have done the same thing. What's certain is that the article was definitely neither a G10 nor a G3. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I was unaware of the subject (foot fetishism), and thought that the article was vandalism. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from White Shadows

10. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user reported at WP:AIV whom has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?
A:


General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support Looks alright to me, see no reason to oppose/go neutral. Pilif12p :  Yo  15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support The nominee does great work. Brambleclawx 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support This user has done a great work on articles. ActivExpressionTalkGuestbook 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - a good set of edits. Hard work has been done. You seem to know what you're doing. You've taken onboard concerns in the past, some of which weren't directly your fault, and matured. This ought to commended, rather than to still have you coming under fire for what has past. You can have confidence in being nominated by HJ Mitchell too - he sees the good in Wikipedians who deserve to know it, even if they cannot see it in themselves. All the very best, Orphan Wiki 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. His past had a bunch of concerns, not all his fault, but he pushed through it all. The adversity matured him, I think and he's taken criticism constructively to become a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Should this account be granted admin status, you may want to keep that fact concealed from your brother, or at least conceal the additional functions granted admins, just to keep him from being tempted to try to gain access to it. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved and indented the IP vote. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here is fine, too. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Nice mix of maintenance work and quality content building edits. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As nom. I see no reason why you wouldn't make a good admin and, as I said in my nom, I was stuck by how much you've matured since your last RfA. I'll address the age thing very briefly: as an admin, much of the stuff I've dealt with that would be "unsuitable" for "minors" was brought to my attention by non-admins, some of them below the age of majority and it would be impossible and undesirable to prevent them dealing with such material that some maniacs insist on adding to WP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I am going to support purely on the basis of the ageism present in oppose rationales. All this demonstrates is it is better to lie in RfAs!  Francium12  17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one oppose has mentioned specific age (which I disagree with). It would be pointless to lie about age, as most underage people can be distinguished by the way they write, their article interests etc. If he did lie, then people could still oppose for the immaturity aspect. Aiken ♫ 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. A fine nom from a very well respected admin, and pretty impressive maturity in one so young - I'm not opposed to admins being under 18. Problem with brother is not the candidate's fault, and it looks like he's taken sensible precautions. As for the Q9 CSD examples, I thought the first one was borderline - I would have looked for sources and tried to improve it myself, and only done the G11 if that was not possible. As for the foot fetish one, I suspect if you asked a number of experienced admins, you'd get several different answers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks like he'd do a good job. I personally thought one of the pages in Q9 (page 3) was inappropriate to bring up to someone that said that they were a minor (it's possible he wouldn't even know what that meant), so I completely disregarded any mistakes made by him in identifying what to do to the third article. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? I'm sorry but the latter part of your comment is very odd. You seem to be effectively saying is that it's okay for admins to make speedy deletion errors if they do not know what the subject matter is about, or should not because of their age. That's a pretty bizarre view point Coasterlover. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I did not make myself clear. I did not like that he made speedy deletion errors, I just think that it was not appropriate for someone to ask a minor to categorize a page that specifically deals with "mature" topics. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    you need to use a hash before indenting in numbered lists or it breaks the markup BTW No, you made yourself clear. My point is that MC10 can clearly see similar things on WP right now, and as an admin would be able to review deleted matter of considerably more problematic nature. More importantly they would also be in a position to judge its fitness for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing your support, but I can't reconcile how you think that it's inappropriate to ask that particular part of the question to a minor when the very nature of MC10's request for adminship means s/he would gain visibility to some of the worst vandalism and abuse that happens here. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Awesome! Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support although less active on AFD these days, I remember MC10 doing quite a lot of good work. I'll assume the Ola's Kool Kitchen incident was a one-time mistake, and give MC10 the benefit of the doubt. Has plenty of wikigrome experience and is unlikely to misuse admin tools. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Q9 is wrong but not, in my view, profoundly "shouldn't be an admin" wrong. On balance, I think the positives outweigh the errors. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Nay. I have interacted with this user in the past in MW.org (where I gave him editor status), but I think he's not ready for the admin mop in a big wiki such as Wikipedia. Sorry, I respect you lots and I liked the responses to the questions, but I reiterate, I don't think you're ready. Diego Grez what's up? 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering, but why would you think I am not ready here? MediaWiki, as well as WikiNews Wikinews, are different projects from Wikipedia, and the requirements to become a sysop are different. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know, and I have seen only good work from your part here in Wikipedia, but I can't support. (It's Wikinews!). Diego Grez what's up? 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll respect you to your opinion. (By the way, I fixed "Wikinews". Sorry about that.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your understanding. Diego Grez what's up? 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose The user page is somewhat better than when I opposed last time, but still not particularly professional. While I admire the honesty and have been impressed with your more recent contributions, I cannot support an administrator candidate while you're not yet legal age. I realize that this may actually get you more supports, since my rationale is not popular, but I vote my conscience, not the prevailing opinion. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I apologize in advance if this oppose seems somewhat judgmental, but I can't help but get the overall impression that this candidate doesn't have the maturity I like to see in admin hopefuls. Also, his userpage makes me feel that he's applying for all the wrong reasons. Cares more about status than anything. Sorry. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I’m really sorry MC10, you seem like a great guy and a fairly good editor who has good intentions but I've noticed several substantial red flags that keeps me from supporting you much as I would love to. Your initial comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ola's Kool Kitchen show a lack of policy knowledge. I also feel you don't quite have your maturity issues that were brought forth in your last RFA to use the tools. While I suffer the same issues to a carbon-copy match at times (and I feel bad for being a hypocrite), I must point out that in the past few days you were e-mailing HJ Mitchell incessantly asking him to nominate you in the first place and when he did not reply fast enough, you kept nagging him to get to it as shown here. This made you come off as a bit too eager to get this RFA up and running. HJ pointed out in his nom that First Crusade was a good example of your “work in the mainspace”. The article is good (It's also a GA and I applaud you for getting it to that quality of work) but having looked at your edits to it, I merely see very superficial edits like fixing re-directs and minor copyediting. You’ve done a good job at Wikignomeing but your overall lack of true article writing leaves something to be desired. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary. I want to see you truly get into article writing, even if an article written by you does not get up to GA or FA status. Lastly, I’m a bit uncomfortable with having an admin’s brother-and one who is presumably within reach of your computer and possibly your account-be a disruptive sockpuppet who tries to destroy this project. I have no doubt that you are telling the truth on the matter of your brother but the whole situation leaves me second guessing handing you the tools. You’ve come along way and I am truly sorry to oppose you but I simply cannot support you this time around.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about Ola's Kool Kitchen; I had only voted in that AFD because I was involved with copyediting that AFD. I am going to steer clear of AFDs. About my comments to HJ: That was completely my fault; I assumed that he hadn't read my talk page message, as I am used to seeing users make some sort of reply, so I nagged, unfortunately. Of course, I'll leave you with your opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, he wasn't nagging or badgering me. We've been exchanging emails for a while, but I don;t check my inbox as often as I should (and don;t always reply to pings on my talk page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally understand and I'm sorry for writing such a long oppose rational but I feel that you simply are not quite there yet. There are too many red flags and I hope that you work in your weaker areas and possibly go up for an RFA in say December/January.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments; I'll take that into account. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And once again, I feel really sorry about opposing you but I don't want to give you the tools and then "fail" (so to speak). You'll get there in good time and you've come along way :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - per whiteshadows. As a sidenote to this, it seems that maturity has increased according to a few trusted users, but the nagging and the brother issue is just a little too problematic for the tools in my opinion. Otherwise, due to the seemingly good work in most areas, this may have gone differently. Good luck with the future and hopefully you'll have success in the near future. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There are definitely pluses and minuses here. A strong nomination, coupled with your enthusiasm and your tendency to want to be helpful, are convincing for support. However, the negatives here - which include maturity and "game-playing" (as Wisdom mentions above) concerns, along with WS' concerns raised just above - convince me that you're not ready to take on the tools yet. There is definitely an improvement in maturity - quite like White Shadows' improvement - but there needs to be a period between for it to sink in so that editors can be sure that you have grown. Wait a few months, and do some more work in areas which you already enjoy. Write a few more articles. When you feel ready, consult someone you trust to be fully honest with you, and work from there. Regretfully, ceranthor 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Whiffed Q9. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, messed up with the first article. How does it look now? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per your response to question 9, I'm sorry (yes, the first one should have been speedied per G11). Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I really do hate opposing, but the candidate wishes to work with CSD, and the answers to Q9 were completely wrong. As much as I hate to say it, I'm also seeing immaturity coming through loud and clear. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with ageism, and we have many great admins who are under 18. But I do expect candidates who come across as mature adults, even if they are not. Sorry, but adminship isn't everything and not everyone is ready/suited to the role. Aiken ♫ 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Nothing personal: nothing against your age, maturity, or temperment; but the answer to question 9 is way off the mark. Sorry. ThemFromSpace 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose If you want to work with deleting articles, particularly speedy, you need to have a good understanding of the policies and criteria. I was hoping you would have had Oversight in your mind without the extra prompting (Q8 above). I thought I would wait for you to answer Q9 though before deciding how I would !vote. Unfortunately, you're not quite there with your understanding. I would suggest you concentrate your efforts in the coming months on XFDs (discussions) and CSDs (nominations), and I think you should be ready. Have a read of this essay on speedy deletions, and maybe try the exercises too. Hang on in there... you are nearly ready for the mop! Stephen! Coming... 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Numerous red flags. The dialogue surrounding #9 is particularly ominous. Townlake (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Q9 was the killer. Sorry, just not ready yet. Dodgy deletions are a sure fire way of losing new editors and I have a feeling you'd not be cautious enough around them at this time. Certinaly not a "never" comment though, but I suspect the community would like to see some more time and more of your undoubted good work. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - because teenagers have much better things to do than spend all day on Wikipedia. Like finding girlfriends. SnottyWong communicate 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the candidate will one day be a fine administrator as MC10 has made many fine contributions to the project; however, it's obvious to me that it is too early (e.g. Answer to question #9)--Hokeman (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm not entirely sure what to think; I've seen plenty of good edits from you, but the answers to some of the questions, particularly number nine, make e hesitate, so I'm just going to be noncommittal... :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is e-hesitation a sort of virtual form of procrastination I've not yet come across ? :) Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral—I commend your enthusiasm and great work, MC10, but I am not so sure about Q9. (Personally, I would've Googled the subjects first to get some background info, and salvage them if possible.) Don't be discouraged! Airplaneman ✈ 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. While I can see that you probably have the best of intentions, I can also see a clear lack of maturity. I had never heard of you before this RfA; by reading your answers to the questions, I could tell that you most likely a teenager. It's in the tone, the wording. And this "bad brother" thing, it's really not doing much good for your reputation. Even if it's not your fault, it still happened. [flaminglawyer] 22:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MC10_2&oldid=375811213"