Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Magioladitis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Magioladitis[edit]

Final (20/15/4); ended 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Magioladitis (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Magioladitis for administrator. He has made lots of contributions (19.000+), he has had no conflicts or disputes with any other users, he contributes to cleaning stuff. He would make a great administrator He has already accepted the nomination. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 00:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Thank you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 working on many projects in wikipedia, especially projects that have to do with orphan, deadend, or newly created articles. Occasionally during these activities I felt the need for admin rights, mainly to speedy delete pages and also to block IP vandals. I would like to be involved in closing AfD's as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I mainly contribute by correcting, improving and tagging articles (red link repair, defaultsort, categories, tags of any kind,etc.). I also use AWB the last month for my purpose. I think that Wikipedia needs a lot of cleaning. I have created many articles especially about politics and I have created some templates with election results as well.
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: I have been in some conflicts mainly with users who were not aware of Wikipedia's rules. I always dealt with these situations calmly trying to explain the rules and Wikipedia's style of writing to them. To avoid an edit war, i wasn't hurried to revert their edits and mainly I use the user's talk page of the article's talk page to explain the situation. I always ask for consensus before doing something that one user has expressed a different opinion. In a situation where I don't know what the right thing to do is, I always ask someone with more experience to help.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I wasn't aware of this request for arbitration. I read the case carefully and I agree with all the conclusions. We have to be very very careful with biographies and especially these of living people. You can see how I handled a case similar to that about a Greek politician here and in the article's talk page where I reverted edits of unsourced elements which could be offending for his personality and at the same time I defended wikipedia's right to present facts with NPOV.


5. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: First of all, I would contact the administrator who deleted the article to ask him why he deleted and express my objections with his actions. If we agreed I would report the subject to the administrators' board for discussion and certainly I wouldn't undelete an article about a living person without consensus. I keep in mind that I always can fix things later after the dispute is solved. I always try to take a long term view.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - Can't find any reason not to support and user seems like a well-rounded, good-intentioned editor who knows what he's doing and could be a compliment to the site with the tools. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Probably could use some better edit summary usage (on minor edits, mainly), but other than that, the user seems to know what he's doing.   jj137 ♠ 03:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support with reservations. You appear to have little experience with adminny things, such as WP:XfD or WP:RCP. However, there is potential to be a great administrator, as you do have a reason to have the tools. Maser (Talk!) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, reasons given in proposal.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Sure. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Seems to be a good contributor, with a mature attitude. RMHED (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - good contributor. Rt. 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Excellent user. I'm impressed with conflict resolution skills (edit warring counts as a conflict, in my opinion). Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Liked the answers to the questions. Calm, thoughtful, patient user unlikely to run amok. Dlohcierekim 21:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck support per CSD concerns. Dlohcierekim 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. support --.snoopy. 22:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Does a great job with Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery. Aspects (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, seems fine to me. Neıl ☎ 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I've encountered this editor a number of times over at the Dead End Pages project, and I know the mop will be in good hands.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per my note in the Oppose section below. It would be helpful if he learnt the CSD criteria by heart (to avoid repetitions of Phil Bridger's diffs below), but he's evidently familiar with plenty of other admin-related areas, and I see no reason not to give him the mop. If this RfA is successful, I recommend that he refers to WP:CSD before carrying out any speedy deletions. WaltonOne 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support CSD issue is a concern but we all must learn. with +19,000 edits and +12,000 of those in the mainspace it is a no brainer (even if it is mostly Janitorial). Janitorial work is necessary to maintain the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. Sirkadtalksign 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Adminship is janitorial. He's smart. He'll figure out the admin tools fast enough. He's loyal - virtually all his edits have been in good faith. We need more admins like him. The Transhumanist 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. level-headed and common sensed; would make a great admin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Garion96 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A solid editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, hard-working, dedicated, serious and calm editor, all vital characteristics for adminship. --Soman (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. A couple very small mistakes, isn't a problem IMO. I also, don't see helpfully using AWB as a problem. SQLQuery me! 18:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Has demonstrated in the last 48 hours a lack of understanding of speedy deletion criteria.[1][2] Also both of those articles were tagged without an edit summary, making it difficult for anyone reviewing contributions for this AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For my defense I want to say that hardly you'll find more examples similar to these above. Usually I prod an article instead of requesting speedy delete (unless it's a redirect) and I can't recall another time that I didn't use the summary. Sorry I can't find any example but it seems all the articles I requested deletion have been finally deleted. At that day I made many contributions in cleaning the deadend articles and probably I was a little tired. The articles above were finally deleted but of course tagging for speedy deletion wasn't right. Please check here for example that in this case I nominated 3 articles for merging very carefully by warning all the contributors, adding the nomination in the appropriate list, copy-pasting the creator's, etc. Moreover, having administrator's rights it doesn't mean I'll start deleting articles without asking or something but on the other hand I'll be more careful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at those examples, neither of them ought to be a deal-breaker IMO; bear in mind that both pages were actually speedy deleted, albeit with different rationales to those recommended by Magioladitis. He tagged the first as a non-notable neologism per WP:NEO; it was then deleted by an admin under CSD A7. While NEO is not a speedy criterion, it was true that the article was about a non-notable neologism and obviously needed deleting; although the candidate may have been unaware of A7, he used his common sense instead. He tagged the second page as nonsense; it was then untagged by DGG as it didn't fit the strict definition of "nonsense", but then deleted by Neil citing CSD G6 (housekeeping), since it duplicated material from other articles and was an obvious candidate for deletion. What I see from this is a user who is inexperienced with the speedy criteria (and/or wasn't concentrating fully at the time), but knows how to use common sense. WaltonOne 15:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is quite unfair that a user with 19.000 contributions is judged for 2 contributions which were not complitely wrong. Perhaps the reasons he gave to speedy delete were not exactly right (even I think that in the second case, the reason was quite ok, but this is just an oppinion), but the important thing is that the articles were deleted anyway. So, the problem is not that he tagged the articles with the speedy deletion template, but that he didn't choose perhaps the best reason. If he had been an admin and he had deleted them, the result had been exactly the same without making loose time to anybody.
    I just want to point out also that 99% of his major edits have edit summary and 71% of the minor ones have it also. So, I really think that if in this major edit he forgot to put it, it was really an exception, since he forgets it in less than 1% of the cases.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see the aforementioned speedies, as they were deleted, but if they were obvious speedies it would be most unfair for 2 incorrect tags to get in the way of an admin nomination. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I cannot in good conscience support someone who has contributed mostly janitorial work for adminship. There's no need for admin tools to do that kinda thing. Jtrainor (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All else aside, admin work is generally janitorial (cf. Category:Janitorial admins). Dekimasuよ! 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why it is referred to as "the mop". The Transhumanist 11:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Does not understand the criteria for speedy deletion. Absolutely not ready for adminship. --- RockMFR 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Very much so, per Phil. Jmlk17 10:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for now. I may be wrong, but I can see very little vandal reporting, AfD discussion or warning of vandals on user talk pages. While the maintenance work is impressive in its quantity, I'd also like to see evidence of the kind of work which runs into admin-related tasks and would give this user experience prior to a future request for adminship. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for now Not ready yet based on deletion confusion. Only speedy when you are absolutely certain the article meets all the criteria and nobody besides the creator would ever object. When in doubt, don't speedy. If you're going to get involved with deletions, please participate in some of the more disputed AfDs and DRVs. Learn to independently verify notability before commenting in an AfD, doublecheck our guidelines each time, etc. I suspect I'll be happy to support in the future when you've got more substantive experience engaging in discussions. --A. B. (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. The activities cited are blocking the occational IP vandal you come across, and speedily deleting pages, aswell as closing AfD discussions. I don't see all that much AfD experience, not much reporting to AIV, and I share the above concern about speedy deletion. [This edit] especialy I find concerning. In an AfD discussion, you ask for speedy deletion, without indicating what criteria for speedy deletion should be used. In other AfD's I see a lot per nom !voting. All in all, for the tasks you are requesting the tools for, AfD closure, Speedy, and IP blocks, you have not convinced me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Kim Dent-Brown. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. CSD issue and AWB usage is too much for me to support., and per Kim Dent-Brown. Jack?! 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment What do you mean by mentioning "AWB usage"? I really don't get it. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) PS Btw, majority means "50%+1", I don't think I have 10,000 edits with AWB but much less. Just to clear this out as well. Thanks.
  10. Oppose per Phil, CSD concerns are glaring. Despite 19,000+ edits, there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate the candidate has a good grasp of process. --Coredesat 12:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Coredesat, Phil Bridger and relatively uninspiring answers to questions. Daniel 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No for Now Seems like a solid editor in many respects, but I'm having some serious issues with the candidate's understanding of CSD. Making decisions on CSD is one of the most important things a sysop does, and whether intended to be used or not, at some point he the candidate be likely need to do some CSD related work. Once he or she has a better grasp on this I will probabally support Mr Senseless (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, due to a seeming lack of understanding of CSD. I invite the editor to come back in a couple of months when they can demonstrate an understanding of the process, and I'll be happy to support. Lankiveil (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  14. Oppose per Phil Bridger. John254 23:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose — The mechanical work that makes up the bulk of this user's contributions is important, and I have no problems in general with users who do mostly that. But those kinds of users tend to develop a fortress mentality that is not conducive to being a good administrator. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral This user seems to have branched out lately, but the majority of his edits is Wp:Awb. I would like to see more variety in what this user edits. Ex: [3]
  2. Neutral with sentiments of support. Lots to like here, a productive and dedicated editor, but the C:CSD issue above concerns me. Poor deletions not only anger editors (mind you good deletions also do that!) but cause additional work for others. I'm sorry, but Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Neutral (leaning towards support)- I like your contributions but the CSD issue is a problem. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Plenty of contributions, but agree with the CSD problem per above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 23 December 2007 (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/Magioladitis&oldid=1085980222"