Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex.muller

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

(50/9/5) final Andre (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex.muller (talk · contribs) - I first came across this wonderful editor, Alex.muller, about a month ago as a new page patroller. I was working clearing out CAT:CSD and I was struck by Alex's high level of civility and most certainly clue when I approached him about an article that he correctly tagged (and I incorrectly declined). Our discussion led me to award a barnstar, something I rarely if ever do, and I asked him if he was interested in becoming an adminstrator. As a prime example of not being power hungry, Alex declined the offer to gain more experience and more contributions. That was a month ago. I've watched his interactions peripherally since then, and I am now doubly convinced that Alex would make an extremely well balanced sysop. He uses twinkle and more recently Rollback without a hitch or hiccup. He is a prolific vandal and new pages patroller, as shown by his activity at WP:AIV with over 60 reports. He is also an active contributor on WP:ANI and WP:ACC, always adding thoughtful and pertinent comments and suggestions. Take a looksee through his contributions and especially his talkpage. You will not find even a hint of incivility, but rather honest and patient dialogue with numerous examples of going the extra mile beyond WP:NPP and WP:RCP. To ice the cake, he has even created 6 articles, proving that he knows what belongs here and what doesn't. I give you, the community, Alex.muller for consideration. I believe in good faith that you would be hard pressed to find any reason to decide not to support Alex for adminship. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, thanks Keeper —αlεx•mullεr 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: Short term, I don't expect the work I'd take part in to change too dramatically. I'd be more bold in closing some AfDs. I've been trying to help out with the massive backlog and I could easily move over to looking at the admin backlog. An obvious place that comes to mind is C:CSD, as well as some of the areas that are always mentioned like WP:UAA and WP:AIV which need constant tending to. There's also WP:RFR and WP:ACC, where I could help out past what I've been doing so far and create new similar accounts. Long term, I wouldn't mind learning more about WP:3RR, an area I haven't ventured to yet.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As I admit on my userpage, I'm much more of a content "fixer" (or gnome, if you will...) then a major article writer. However, I don't believe contributions to Wikipedia just have to be in the form of article creation. I'm happy with the amount I've been through the backlog (eg cleaning up), and if I absolutely had to pick an article I'd say I've tried to improve St Paul's School (London) the most.

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: The only times I've really conflicted with other editors in the past has been when they had a complaint about their recent change that I'd reverted. I'm always happy (and have in the past) to have discussions on my talk page or elsewhere when the other editor was willing, and this has resolved the problem – I haven't yet had to go through steps at WP:DR. Obviously as an administrator there's so much more chance for conflict as the decisions that have to be made are much more serious (deletion and blocking, for example). The thing to remember is to talk it through with people, always keep a cool head, and then head to dispute resolution if that becomes necessary.

Questions from J-stan'

4. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR, or even recall as a process at all?

A: Seems to me like a perfectly fine idea, though it needs to stay absolutely voluntary for the time being. As the majority of editors I would come into contact with as an administrator wouldn't have had a say as to whether I become an admin or not in the first place, it only makes sense for them to be able to question it at a later date. Criteria do definitely need to be defined quite clearly in advance, but that's a given.

5. What about Rollback? Would you participate in the April 10th discussion? What would your standards be if someone came to you personally asking for rollback?

A: Rollback's been incredibly useful for me personally, so it's clear that provided it's given to the right people, it's a fantastic tool. I haven't actually seen anything about this April 10 discussion apart from a passing comment from you here (and the terms are too general to search for), so a diff or info would be appreciated. But hey, it's a discussion on Wikipedia, so I'm completely up for it. As far as my criteria go: some sort of repeated vandalism reversal using undo or related (like Twinkle) is necessary, and the user being polite makes it so much easier to judge. Unlike CAT:AOR, there's no real way to put down solid criteria for giving users rollback.

Optional Questions from Parent5446

6. In your opinion, when should cool-down blocks be used?

A: Blocking policy is pretty clear, cool-down blocks are a no-no as they tend to inflame the situation (and anger the editor in question) more than necessary. Blocks are only used for preventing damage to the project.

Optional question from User:Stifle

7. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A. I learned this the hard way back in December of last year; non-free fair use images of living people are not allowed. I suppose the thinking is that as the person is alive, it's perfectly possible for them to have a photo taken of them which is released into the public domain.

• See Alex.muller's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Alex.muller: Alex.muller (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/Alex.muller before commenting.

1. Support nominator's enthusiastic support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support per Great feedback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Rudget. 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. STRONG STRONG SUPPORT Very impressed with the answers above. Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Excellent user. Acalamari 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Friendly, conscientious, industrious. Works on a variety of projects. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Very experienced user. Majorly (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes. He has enough experience for my support.EJF (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Great editor. Nice work at WP:ACC. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Good user, seen him around, and honest answers to questions. BTW, the template used to be on the page, however it has been removed and re-added a few times. As far as I know, the discussion will take place, and the template could be re-added closer to the date. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Good answers, mature demeanor and attitude, notabigdealwhynot. User:Dorftrottel 21:39, February 19, 2008
13. 'Support Haven't seen anything to throw me off. Looks good! нмŵוτнτ 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support track shows no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support he seems like a really good user to build up so many edits and such a reputation in a mere matter of months. I congratulate him and show my support. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Despite the "low clock time" of only being active for two months, nominee will do fine and is learning fast. Reviewed contribs back to Jan 15, 2008. Not sure I would have speedy tagged an article created by Tony Sidaway, even if it did say, "placeholder." <<grin>> I would recommend waiting a bit before deleting articles after they are tagged. The creator may need a bit more time to get references and a claim to significance up. A review of nominee's talk page shows courtesy and a willingness to learn. I did not see any notifications of speedy deletions. It would be good to notify article creators that their pages have been deleted and why. It softens the blow and helps them to become more constructive. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong Support. Has only been here since December, and is already a well known and respected editor. I think you will do great things with the tools, and would be an even better contributor for it. Malinaccier (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support pre WP:NBD. Would not abuse the tools and is a good user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WBOSITG (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Looks good to me. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak Support. Doesn't have a whole lot of Wikipedia namespace edits, nor has he been active terribly long, but he seems to know what he's doing. Bonus points: at the time of this writing he has exactly 1394 edits this month. Useight (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - good editor.   jj137 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. weak support essentially per Useight. I'd prefer slightly longer here and a bit more evidence that he understands policies that he will be dealing with as an admin but overall looks good. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Impressive answers, seems to know what he's doing. Lack of article writing is a bit bothersome, but admin tools don't do much for article writing anyway. Evan ¤ Seeds 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - per no big deal. All the best ^Khukri 08:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - I second what User:Dlohcierekim mentioned above. You're a good user and you won't abuse the tools :-) Good luck! Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support per nominator. User has achieved marked improvement in a (fairly) short time; appears fit for sysophood. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - I have come across this editor from time to time and have found his work to be fair and experienced. I don't see any evidence where he would abuse any tools. Canyouhearmenow 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per above, and I am not impressed by the oppose votes here because Alex has plenty of experience. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong support Alex understands policy and has demonstrated his ability to apply it in a fair and civil manner. Keeper76 asked me to co-nominate Alex and I would certainly have done so, but have been traveling for the last day or so. Gwernol 15:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support! DO IT!!! :) Mr Senseless (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support yes, a very good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support seems very together. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. Sounds okay. Basketball110 :) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. What I've seen, I like. Alexf⁴² 02:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. Why not? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - Per what others have already said. Quality over Quantity. PookeyMaster (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support: Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support: I am a bit reluctant to support, more 'pedia building would help. Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support No problem with him receiving the mop. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support, no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
43. Support. AGK (contact) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Alex.muller has a strong edit history, even if only since December, his records indicate no blocks and I don't see any shady warnings on his talk page. He always uses edit summaries, keeps civil when dealing with other users (even vandals), and I think he would make good use of the tools. P.S. I, for some reason, thought Alex.muller already was an administrator, but maybe that is just the vibe a good editor gives off! I hope to see this RfA succeed. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - will make a good admin, and by no means should all admins write big articles, as there are many other important jobs to do. Pundit|utter 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - Looks good to me, no problems here —^ossmanntalk 14:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Weak support. Typically I'd prefer a month more of experience, but otherwise, great user that deserves the mop.--TBC!?! 09:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - User has done some good work at WP:ACC, and I see no evidence that they'll mis-use the tools. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - has always appeared civil and communicative as far as warning vandals and authors of pages for deletion. His editing style encourages that his changes are checked by those affected by them, so I don't think he will abuse admin tools. He reacts well to criticism and seems willing and able to fix his own mistakes. He also seems willing to entertain the difference between a vandal and a user who is confused about where they should write. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Support, per Jimbo, that being an admin is no big deal, looking through his history, this is an editor that knows how WP is run, is obviously level-headed and constructive, and would make good use of the tools. Good luck!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Insufficiently experienced as yet: the user has only really been active since December. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You don't seem like the type to judge quantity over quality, but here we are. Care to elaborate on your position here? Is there anything in Alex.muller's contributions that causes you such concern? I certainly haven't found anything. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In a very quick scan, I haven't encountered any specific problems with the editor's contributions. However, I feel it takes a while to fully understand everything that's involved in contributing to this encyclopedia. I'd hate to quantify how long, but 2.5 months of substantive editing just isn't long enough to gain my trust. Sorry. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   No problem, E.A. Thanks for the clarification and continued civility. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I have just noticed (entirely by chance) one minor glitch. He reverted vandalism to Tilston, without noticing that the page contains an unreferenced possible BLP problem, which had previously been added by an anon: [1] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure I understand. The vandalism was also not reverted by two admins a total of four times. One of the admins who failed to revert it three times is open to recall. When I use Lupin's tools to patrol recent IP changes, I am only presented with the diff, not the whole article. I do not correct any other problems when rolling back IP vandalism, and neither do some trusted members of the community. When I do spelling correction or stub sorting, I try to fix more of the article, but most of these short articles need 40 or more hours of attention, and our volunteer time is quite limited. I think using his time efficiently speaks very well for him. JackSchmidt (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with your assessment here, JackSchmidt. That "BLP" issue is run of the mill vandalism added by an IP in October 2007. There is no such author as James Dempsey from Tilston, and only one book, not written by him. A harmless prank really, not a BLP concern. That being said, it's been overlooked by two admins, several IPs, and at least 2 other editor's in good standing. Hardly something to pin on Alex, who like JackS said, doesn't get to necessarily see or read the entire article when something pops in on Vandal patrol. The statement he removed has been removed several times over the last 4+ months whilst the "BLP" concern has stayed. It seems you might be reaching for something that's just not there. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   (←) To be clear though, it is very important to catch this vandalism, and this is a prime reason why we need vandal fighters who don't just use the same tools. There is no need for Alex himself to be one of these, but it is extremely fortunate for us that E.A. caught it. I was hooked on new pages patrol, since it gave me a chance to see some seriously deletable articles, but it also gave me a chance to do a first pass on categorizing them. However, I've been trying to come at this from different angles, use "short pages" and "uncategorized" to catch some of the significantly older problems. I particularly like this candidate since he has helped me find some more "alternative" methods of helping out. It takes a lot of different kinds of editors to make wikipedia work, but someone who is polite and industrious (like E.A., Alex, and basically everyone who has commented here), is pretty universally good for the project. JackSchmidt (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - Not ready for the mop - no evidence of any article building or editorial experience, minimal participation on mainspace talk pages. 60 reports to WP:AIV is cool, but doesn't impress me. I'm uncomfortable with the candidate's activity only persisting for a mere 2.5 months as indicated above. Just fails my criteria for balance, but based on experience, I must decline. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Writing and making large edits articles is one (albeit extremely important) aspect of this encyclopedia. Not all administratiors are into researching and writing content, there are many sysops who revert vandalism, clear backlogs, fix maintenence issues, welcome new users, patrol new pages, and help on projects. We need sysops doing these tasks just as much as writing new content. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I realize that not everyone partakes in massive article building. However, my personal RfA criteria for a strong candidate is a reasonable level of editorial experience, as administrators are expected to encounter the daily polemics that pervade the editing process. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. The vast majority of user's edits are automated or semi-automated. Too little time active on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose – Not for the quality of the edits, I could find no fault there, or for the quantity of edits, which I am impressed with over the last two months, but for the amount of time actively involved here at Wikipedia. I agree that a majority of administrators work is routine, and as the saying goes, mop and bucket duties. However, let’s be realistic, editors do look to administrators to resolve, sometimes very contentious and controversial issues, and sorry to say, I personally do not believe 2 months of experience is enough to have that responsibility placed on an individual. Please do not take this as a negative opinion of your edits or work, just the opposite! If your contributions stay at this level for the next 4-5 months, I would be happy to jump to the support side. Good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  11:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. You're only active for last 3 months. Give yourself more time and familiar with everything. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Just a bit lacking in overall experience. Jmlk17 09:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per the above comments about experience. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Very new, recommend at least 6 months, prefer 9-12 months experience and stability with more interaction with editors and controversial areas.--TheNautilus (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose I do not see you being a threat with the admin tools; I am however concerned that the bulk of your edits and involvement with Wikipedia have occured mostly within the last two months. I am more at ease supporting someone with more substantial editing experience. I would gladly support you in a few months with more time and experience here under your belt. --Ozgod (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Sufficient basic experience, knowledgeable answers here. I'm a little concerned with the apparent lack of dispute resolution experience though, your answer to Q3 was over-simplistic (i.e. you spoke in generalities, rather than giving specific examples). If you could provide a diff of an incident you think you handled well, then I would be happy to support. VanTucky 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Regretfull Neutral No article building or editorial experience. While vandal fighting is ok (In fact, my 150-or-so edits are mostly VAN reverts), we've got others than admins to do that. I also found that most of your articles were focused on the last two months: February and January 2008. Sorry, but not good enough experience in my opinion. --Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - not quite up to my standards. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   May I ask what are your standards? Icestorm815 • Talk 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral. Good answers to questions, but low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely poor level of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. The admin bit is not needed to be a good wikignome ot a vandal fighter. Get some more experience in dispute resolution, and you will be ready. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2008 (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.