Content deleted Content added
→Oppose: oppose |
Hennessey, Patrick (talk | contribs) Moved oppose vote to oppose column, placed in position 3 to keep timeline consistent. |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
#'''Support''', I see nothing wrong with this user. Contributions indicate a strong grasp of verifiability policy on AFDs and image licensing policy, which are important aspects of the type of work he discusses in his responses above. Looks like a fine candidate. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Support''', I see nothing wrong with this user. Contributions indicate a strong grasp of verifiability policy on AFDs and image licensing policy, which are important aspects of the type of work he discusses in his responses above. Looks like a fine candidate. — [[User talk:CharlotteWebb|CharlotteWebb]] 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support'''. Looks like a fine candidate. —[[User:Scott5114|Scott5114]][[User_talk:Scott5114|↗]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[Special:Contributions/Scott5114|[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]]]</span> 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Support'''. Looks like a fine candidate. —[[User:Scott5114|Scott5114]][[User_talk:Scott5114|↗]] <span style="font-size:75%">[[Special:Contributions/Scott5114|[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]]]</span> 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
#'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' No problems here. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:ESP|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
#'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, and has turned on the prompt for edit summaries. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] ([[User talk:Addhoc|talk]]) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Support''' - trustworthy editor, and has turned on the prompt for edit summaries. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] ([[User talk:Addhoc|talk]]) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 59: | Line 58: | ||
#:::I would consider 650 to be a fair amount... if the candidate had only 4000 overall edits but still the same number of edits in Wikipedia namespace, would it be better? – [[User:Sadalmelik|Sadalmelik]] ([[User talk:Sadalmelik|talk]]) 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#:::I would consider 650 to be a fair amount... if the candidate had only 4000 overall edits but still the same number of edits in Wikipedia namespace, would it be better? – [[User:Sadalmelik|Sadalmelik]] ([[User talk:Sadalmelik|talk]]) 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
#::::As a matter of fact, for my criteria of balance, yes it would. Although it would matter ''what'' and ''where'' those edits were. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#::::As a matter of fact, for my criteria of balance, yes it would. Although it would matter ''what'' and ''where'' those edits were. [[User:Wisdom89|'''<font color="#660000">Wisdom89</font>''']] <sub>([[User_talk:Wisdom89|<small><sub><font color="#17001E">T</font></sub></small>]] / [[Special:Contributions/Wisdom89|<small><sup><font color="#17001E">C</font></sup></small>]])</sub> 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
#'''Oppose'''. I have no real issue with the lack of edit summaries: you have said that you'll turn this option on and in any case I agree, sandbox edits hardly need a summary. My problem is with civility and a cool head. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viridae&diff=147649369&oldid=147648003 This edit] from last year is old enough that I wouldn't let it sway me now. But a much more recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bowman|AfD discussion]] saw some remarks from you that I felt were intemperate. Even though you were right and the article stayed - perhaps ''especially'' because you were right. You could have let your rational arguments speak for you and even win over your opponents. If you were to be an admin you would get into much more stressful situations than an AfD, and coolness under fire is one of my essential requirements for an administrator. [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]] [[User talk:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]] 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
#'''Oppose'''. I have no real issue with the lack of edit summaries: you have said that you'll turn this option on and in any case I agree, sandbox edits hardly need a summary. My problem is with civility and a cool head. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viridae&diff=147649369&oldid=147648003 This edit] from last year is old enough that I wouldn't let it sway me now. But a much more recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bowman|AfD discussion]] saw some remarks from you that I felt were intemperate. Even though you were right and the article stayed - perhaps ''especially'' because you were right. You could have let your rational arguments speak for you and even win over your opponents. If you were to be an admin you would get into much more stressful situations than an AfD, and coolness under fire is one of my essential requirements for an administrator. [[User:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" color="#0E6E2D">Kim Dent-Brown</font>]] [[User talk:Kim Dent-Brown|<font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0E6E2D"><sup>(Talk)</sup></font>]] 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''' Per edit summary, sorry! [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]]) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) <small>— [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A man of honour|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small> |
#'''Oppose''' Per edit summary, sorry! [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]]) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) <small>— [[User:A man of honour|A man of honour]] ([[User talk:A man of honour|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A man of honour|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}</small> |
Revision as of 23:56, 11 February 2008
Mind_meal
(talk page) (5/6/5); Scheduled to end 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Mind_meal (talk · contribs) - self nomination Mind meal (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I am particularly interested in WP:AFD, where I could help to close out nominations that have been voted on. I would weigh the arguments openly and, when a sound consensus is reached, I would close them out accordingly.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I helped to bring Seung Sahn to WP:GA status. I have also contributed substantially to articles relating to my interests, i.e. jazz and Buddhism. The number of new articles I have added to Wikipedia I have lost count of. I would estimate it is in the high hundreds. I have an extreme desire for article accuracy, and will not edit an article or create one without proper referencing. As one can see from my sandboxes, I currently do not create new articles until I have brought them to completion there. In addition, I recently helped to improve the article on Toni Packer, which was in dire need of a new layout and references. If one looks at the talk page for that article, they will see it was a challenge. I participate sometimes at WP:AFD and consider my votes to be open-minded. Notability for me is not something I decide upon depending on my interest in a subject. It is demonstrated by the presence of reliable referencing. I spend so much of my free time editing on Wikipedia I thought I'd ask to become an administrator. I also started WP:CINCINNATI, and have worked on Cincinnati related articles in the past. Generally I edit and create articles that interest me, as I am sure most editors here at Wikipedia do.
- 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: Very few. The last one I can remember was on the Nhat Hanh article. I had obtained a freely licensed image of Nhat Hanh at Flickr and became embroiled in a miniature edit war with another user who insisted on reverting back to his old press photo. So I brought the matter to the Mediation Cabal and ultimately the press photo was deleted from this site. Incidentally, I have obtained many photos from Flickr by contacting photographers there and then uploaded their relicensed works to Commons. I did have another issue on the use of flag icons in infoboxes. I have since aligned myself with the guidelines on the use of flags, however, and no longer insert them into infoboxes.
- 4. Thanks Mind meal for submitting your RfA. I see a lot of deleted articles and images amongst your contributions and a number of deleted image notices on your talk page. Can you tell us how this relates to your understanding of notability and image use, et cetera? Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. Certainly. Most of those were from a period when I had little understanding of fair use and Wikipedia's mission of bringing free content to the encyclopedia. I also did not start out referencing much of my material when I first climbed aboard this site, which likely comprises the majority of those deletes. I no longer upload images to the Wikipedia site unless it is for the rare book or CD article I am doing. When doing so, I always provide a fair use rationale for album and book covers. I do upload a good amount of photos to Wiki Commons with the proper Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 license today, however. My philosophy has evolved a lot during my time here editing. So today, as I mentioned above, I do not edit without proper referencing and do upload most of my photo uploads to commons. I have replaced non-free images several times in the past when a free picture presented itself. So I've learned what is acceptable and not acceptable over time, often through trial and error. I hope this helps. (Mind meal (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- 5. Thanks for your reply. I am still concerned by the creation of this article, Counterpoint LLC, for which the only sourcing is the company web page and in which there is no clear assertion of notability. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- A. If what everyone wanted was the "perfect candidate", I'm not your person. I'm just a guy who tries to do his best with the time he has. I never expected this level of criticism, and don't see now why anyone would humiliate themselves in this way. While I would never have abused my powers as an admin, it isn't worth this level of scrutiny. Every editor can be cast under unfavorable light when information is cherry picked. (Mind meal (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- Ouch. Certainly not the response I was hoping for. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
General comments
- See Mind_meal's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
RfAs for this user:
- Links for USERNAME: Mind_meal (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mind_meal before commenting.
- Mind meal, perhaps it would help reassure people about your edit summary use if you would agree to turn on (and leave on after this RfA concludes) forced edit summaries in "my preferences"? I don't have an opinion yet about your RfA as I do not know you myself and have not reviewed your contributions but poor edit summary use is a rather unfortunate reason to be picking up opposes and neutrals at this early stage of your RfA. Looking at your edits to the mainspace here, there does seem to be a problem with lack of edit summaries in the mainspace, it isn't just in your userspace as you suggest below. Poor edit summary usage can be very frustrating if transferred to admin-related edits, so it might help allay concerns if you would switch on, and leave on, required edit summaries to help you get into the habit of always providing an edit summary. Sarah 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have saved the preference to prompt myself when editing with a blank summary, and will make it a habit to provide at least some sort of edit summary from now on. When working in my sandboxes, I still do not see much of a need. I have such a large number of edits in my sandboxes because I am constantly correcting minor prose problems and adding or subtracting new material. I should probably try to get in the habit of previewing more than I do before saving to alleviate this. (Mind meal (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
Discussion
Support
- Support, I see nothing wrong with this user. Contributions indicate a strong grasp of verifiability policy on AFDs and image licensing policy, which are important aspects of the type of work he discusses in his responses above. Looks like a fine candidate. — CharlotteWebb 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a fine candidate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor, and has turned on the prompt for edit summaries. Addhoc (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Your editing pattern and your use of edit summaries seem rather spotty, to say the least. Would you not agree that a reasonable edit summary is both polite and helpful? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply It depends on the editing being done. When I am working in my sandboxes, which constitutes much of my current editing, I simply see no need for edit summaries; it is my userspace. Anyway, thanks for considering me. As for my editing pattern, I've done a lot for this site. I'm not sure what you mean by that. (Mind meal (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- Oppose. Edit summary usage is too erratic. Also, good editor, likes discussion, but at nearly 18,000 edits, only 650 in the Wikipedia namespace? Wisdom89 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Not to keep replying, but doesn't my Mainspace count indicate 10724? If you could break down what all the stats mean in the my user count, that would be helpful. If I don't become an administrator, no sweat off my back. I'm a fine editor, and I know that. (Mind meal (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- Don't worry about replying when you require clarification on something I've said. Yes, your mainspace edits are 10724, hence why I referred to you as a good editor. I was referring to your Namespace: Wikipedia edits which are "Wikipedia:658". Wisdom89 (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would consider 650 to be a fair amount... if the candidate had only 4000 overall edits but still the same number of edits in Wikipedia namespace, would it be better? – Sadalmelik (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry about replying when you require clarification on something I've said. Yes, your mainspace edits are 10724, hence why I referred to you as a good editor. I was referring to your Namespace: Wikipedia edits which are "Wikipedia:658". Wisdom89 (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Not to keep replying, but doesn't my Mainspace count indicate 10724? If you could break down what all the stats mean in the my user count, that would be helpful. If I don't become an administrator, no sweat off my back. I'm a fine editor, and I know that. (Mind meal (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
- Oppose - doesn't meet my criteria of Pi42 edit summaries per minute. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have no real issue with the lack of edit summaries: you have said that you'll turn this option on and in any case I agree, sandbox edits hardly need a summary. My problem is with civility and a cool head. This edit from last year is old enough that I wouldn't let it sway me now. But a much more recent AfD discussion saw some remarks from you that I felt were intemperate. Even though you were right and the article stayed - perhaps especially because you were right. You could have let your rational arguments speak for you and even win over your opponents. If you were to be an admin you would get into much more stressful situations than an AfD, and coolness under fire is one of my essential requirements for an administrator. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per edit summary, sorry! A man of honour (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) — A man of honour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Oppose for now. I would expect someone seeking the mop to clean out AfD to not create an article of questionable notability and only sourced by the company's web site to not make a snappish response when asked to explain. Believe me, people do question admin actions. One must handle such questioning with a certain degree of aplomb. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seems Janky and Junky —Preceding unsigned comment added by AIdolRocks (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose per answer to question 5. Sorry. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose per answer to Q5. --ChetblongT C 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Q5 answer. I know you can easily get scrutinized during the Rfa process, but I never took it as anything less/more than a learning experience to know where I could improve my work around here. Jmlk17 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral - good editor, but low edit summary usage concerns me. jj137 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, I really want to support, but the lack of edit summary usage really does concern me. Not opposing as the user is obviously a high-quality contributor to the project. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
- Further Comment, the huge number of edits you've made to your Sandboxes in user space ([1]) worries me a bit too. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
- Neutral per jj137. SpencerT♦C 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Great user. Edit summary use is too low, bump it up and I'll be glad to support you. Burner0718 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral The image thing was soptty for me, but you seem like a great editor! Shapiros10 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)