Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Madhero88

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ahechtbot (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 22 August 2018 (Task 2: Fix LintErrors (missing end tag)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Madhero88

Final (2/12/2); Ended 6:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (closed per WP:SNOW by User:Ktr101.)

Nomination

Madhero88 (talk · contribs) – Here is my first attempt at nominating someone else for adminship. User:Madhero88 has been editing for nearly 3 years. During the three years he has created over 80 articles, participating in the DYKs and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jordan. He has also adopted three other users. Although he got blocked once in January 2009 I still hope it isn't a surprise for him to be nominated for adminship. Minimac94 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I really appreciate the nomination, and I thank User:Minimac94 for it, and I am honored to accept it, and become one of the great admins of Wikipedia MaenK.A.Talk 17:04, 7 February 2010 (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:
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am so proud of my contributions to one of the the most important subjects in medicine, which is Hypertension, worked on the article promoted it to a article, and I created two related articles which are very well cited the first is pathophysiology of hypertension and Complications of hypertension, I spent so much time creating both articles reading through hundreds of abstracts and papers, I wish you find them useful too. And there are many more am proud of, and I worked hard to get them in their current states.
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:

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Madhero88 before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as the nominator. Minimac94 (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support: will some day be a net positive. Ret.Prof (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - You seem to have a penchant for Huggle mistakes. This coupled with my relative disdain for the overuse of Huggle, I'm going to be force to oppose for now. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Everyone makes mistakes, but I can't support in good conscience an admin who accidentally restores vandalism twice in a day while using Huggle. Looking at your edit history it seems you do a lot of good work, both in article work and in anti-vandalism, but one out of every few hundred reverts is something like this, which you didnt seem to notice until the user Tangent747 brought it up on your talk page. I would be happy to support if you return to full time editing for a while and show us that you won't make mistakes like that in the future. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, I see some causes for concern regarding Huggle and copyright issues. Would also like to see some more experiences in varied capacities, including quality content work. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Soap and lack of recent activity. The majority of activity within the last 2 months seems to be controversial, and I cannot support an admin with that in mind. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that the edit counter seems to be a bit borked; it's only showing 11 and 3 edits for the last 2 months, but looking at the contribs log it's much higher. Still, the recent momentary lapses of judgement give me reason for concern. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just manually counted edits for January 2010, and I got 11,; 7 for December 2009, and none for November- the same as the edit counter. Edit counter is a bit sluggish for current month, but I don't think the edit count is that far off. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at this month's, saw it wasn't "3", and assumed something was wrong. I note that the counter no longer says "3" so you're right it's probably just a bit behind. Thanks for the info. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per soap.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Pretty much for the same reasons as Wisdom and Soap. Useight (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose this time. Huggle mistakes are relatively easy to make, so I'm not going to hold them against you. However, I'd like to see a good deal more recent activity before supporting. Someday, just not today. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose due to the candidate's several lapses in judgment, Huggle errors, and lack of recent activity. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Huggle is a powerful tool that should be used very carefully, and you seem to make numerous mistakes... Now, I make mistakes every now and then, but I catch them practically every time I and revert myself, but seeing these mistakes of yours isn't exactly what is causing me to oppose, because everyone makes mistakes. It is the fact you don't seem to notice your mistakes until someone tells you about them that fills me with doubt... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose per this rather significant lapse of judgement. Being blind to the content an attack page that was blanked, and restoring that content, gives me grave concerns about your ability to actually look carefully at things in Huggle. Sure, it was a newer user adding the CSD template, but a newer user blanking an article is not automatically unconstructive. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Per concerns with judgment, experience, and recent inactivity. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Per the talk page comment pointed out by The Thing. The mistaken revert happened too soon before this RfA gained more votes, thus I am opposing this user for now. I also know that this will be a learning experience for him, and that I wish him best of luck in the future. :-) Schfifty3 01:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Per the above. Sorry. smithers - talk 04:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral due to lack of evidence - I like to review the candidate's answers to the three standard questions as a minimum.--otherlleft 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Huggle edits seem like really bad timing (and cause for concern) especially after launching this endeavour. Query 1 and 3 should be answered before I will make any decisons on support/oppose Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2010 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Madhero88&oldid=856043716"