Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mark t young

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

Mark t young

Final: (53/20/3); ended 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Mark t young (talk · contribs) - I'd like to nominate Mark Young for administrator. Mark is a knowledgeable and highly-respected editor who has been with the project for just over two years. A paleobiology graduate student, Mark's expertise on sauropodomorph mechanics helped fix some problems on Good Article (now Featured Article) Massospondylus. Mark also worked extensively on Stegosaurus, helping it reach Featured status. Mark is calm and laid-back, dealing civilly with even disruptive users. Wikipedia's paleontology articles receive a lot of schoolkid vandalism, fancruft, and quackery. Mark has been a boon to WikiProject Dinosaurs, other paleobiology articles, and to Wikipedia. I would trust him with a few extra tools to help him clean up the place. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination to adminship. 20:13, 22 June 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: My plan is to continue and further my contributions to the WP:ANI and WP:3RR noticeboards. I have had success in the past with handling disruptive editors to the palaeontology articles. Notably I have reported two sockpuppets of user Komodo lover, a particularly disruptive editor who in the month of April, in particular, caused mass disruption to many palaeo-articles.

Currently, I have been examing WP:V. Many palaeo-articles are either unreferenced, or lack in-text citations. I have been adding sources of articles template messages to many pages. This is a first step in highlighting where the problems are in these articles, so that later either myself or other users can come back fix outstanding issues.

Another area I have been active in is WP:AFD, speedy deletion and redirects for deletion. These have been extensions from my work on palaeo-articles, but I believe I can in general add a calm and patient voice to any debate.

Of course there are noticeboards, as of yet I have not contributed to, that I can forsee I would. These include, but are not limited to: articles for creation; requested moves; WP:AN; WP:AIV. With adminship, although I could ease the pressure on the palaeo-articles when it comes to vandalism and "fanboy-esque" editing, I believe the best work I could do is to listen to edit-revert conflicts. Not to necessarily use administrator tools, but aid in the quest for consensus and collaborative editing. This is mayhap, the best work an administrator can do.

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

A: Extensive knowledge on vertebrate palaeontology/zoology and general evolutionary biology. I, like many of my contempories, believe strongly in science communication. My contributions, I believe, can add much needed verifiable content. As Firsfron mentioned in his prologue, many of the palaeobiology articles receive vandalism and POV-'pushing' edits. Another administrator will ease the pressure on these projects (namely Dinosaurs, Pterosaurs and Sea Monsters; and the other articles not within these projects), and ensure these edits are not left unchallenged. One interesting category of edits which I have noticed, are those based upon news reports. Although these edits are all in good faith, they frequently contain errors or information that is questionable. My personal knowledge of the subject allows for these edits to be detected and be corrected. Dissemination of scientific information is becoming a major issue, and as a student effectively being 'paid' by the UK taxpayer, I believe knowledge learned should be shared to all and I hope I have strived to do so.

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 involved in the discussions over two edit conflicts. The first was on Alexander the Great. During April of this year I entered into the debate on whether or not "Anicent Greek king of Macedon" was acceptable. There was accusations of nationalistic POV-pushing. On the 17th of April I attempted to defuse the conflict, and bring editors together on the common goal, to make wikipedia as reader friendly and as accurate as possible. In addition, I contacted the user who had been accused of NPOV to ensure they were okay and make him feel he wasn't being excluded by disagreeing with the consensus. In addition, other users made what I considered to be unhelpful remarks which I made my disaproval of known. Although I cannot comment if I was successful in ending problems there, but I did aid in that issues defusing.

The second was more recently, on the redirects of Thylacoleonidae‎. I noticed a revert-war going on over where a capitalised form of marsupial lion redirects. I got involved, leading too the two editors in question received a block (which was terminated swiftly). However, this began a period of discussion. I suggested a poll be taken of the different positions regarding the redirect issue. Of course a poll cannot be used to 'enforce' consensus or be the end of a matter, as wikipedia is not a democracy. Nonetheless, the talk page was vitrolic, and a three day revert war wasn't going to be ended without some fresh impetus and the forming of a broad church. Although one of the original warring parties refused to be involved, the poll lead to something. A discussion on how to make the marsupial lion pages better to the wiki-reader. Although there was, and still is, disagreement over the correct pages to redirect to, consensus was reached that hatnotes would make the pages more navigable. This brought users together. Collaborative editing increased and a more convivial environment was born. Only today a consensus was reached upon what categories to use for the pages in question. Although there is a long way to go, now there is hope for collaboration without recriminations.

I would state that my goal in any content dispute is to get people talking, but not in a situation where they fear being blocked, one where the best interests of the reader is the focus, and common courtesy to their fellow editors prevail. I believe over time my approach to disputes will improve with experience.

I'm sorry Mark, but these are lies. You did not help the situation by what you did, and instead inflamed it. You suggested a poll even though you say you know "wikipeda is not a democracy" and as such should be well aware of the policy and guideline I have repeatedly directed you to. And I find you even mentioning the category issue a joke! I was blocked for deleting the uncapitalised "marsupial lion" category, which later when I was taken out of the equation and everyone basing the edits on me and not what I was saying, Uther changed it over to the correct form per WP:MaM, which I mentioned repeatedly! You have not made hope at all you suggesting the poll is what broke down everything. Read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia is not a democracy and then when you have read them, read them again! And then again, and again, a thousand times over until you understand them and will not ever suggest something which is so damaging. And if that is your goal, well I'm sorry you have failed at it and the only way you will ever improve in situations over disputes is thoroughly analysing all arguments and replying to users instead of ignoring or sidestepping issues raised. Cazique (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Frank:

4. Why is your username not capitalized more "normally", as in "Mark T. Young" or "Mark T Young"?

A: Hi Frank, thank you that's a good question, I'm not really sure! I suppose as I wrote it as Mark_t_young, with underscores, I left my first name capitalised and everything else lower case. Not very satisfying I know, but better than my youtube account which is all lowercase. Best, Mark t young (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Can you change it in one of the ways shown above? Can you just recreate a new version of it with the "correct" capitalization? Does it make any difference to Wikipedia? Don't answer three questions in detail...I'm just looking for a little understanding about uniqueness and/or changing of usernames. This is a low-key question; quite honestly the purpose is just looking at how far you've traveled around Wikipedia and where you might go if you were asked about something you hadn't run across before. As an admin, people will ask you these questions. Frank | talk 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: Yes it is possible to change usernames, request can be made at WP:CHU, with a bureaucrats being able to rename my account, with the guidelines as to whether or not it is appropriate/possible per WP:U (e.g. none of the possible replacements are already occupied). As I have a global account a steward would need to delete it, so that my English wiki-name can be renamed locally. Personally I feel that it does not make any difference to Wikipedia. Unless the user desires to change it, and the username does not violate any guidelines, I see no need for the change. Mark t young (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping through the hoop and for providing a good answer to an ill-conceived question! Frank | talk 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from WJBscribe

5. Your use of edit summaries seems quite low. Is there a reason for this? If you propose to use edit summaries more consistently in future, would you be willing to change your preferences to remind you when you leave a blank edit summary?

A: Sorry for taking so long to get round to answering your question, I have not been on wikipedia for a few days. Some of the first comments made in opposition to my nominations were about my lack of edit summaries. I immediately changed my preferences settings, and all edits since I have had made use of edit summaries explaining all changes made. My previous lacking in this regard I fully appreciate will (and has) caused concern for many people. All I can offer in my defence is none of my editing has resulted in edit warring or being reported to any noticeboard for violate of any wikipedia policy/guideline. Best, Mark t young (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again lies. You edit warred on the pages Marsupial Lion and Thylacoleonidae. Do not lie! Cazique (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from SJP:

6. You have stated that as an admin you would like to get involved in the Afd process. In what way would you get involved in the process? I assume you mean you will close Afds where a consensus has been reached, but I just want to confirm that. If you do want to close Afds where a consensus has been reached, would you only close ones where a clear consensus has been reached?

A: Thank for your questions. My primary reason for including Afd in my response to question 1 was if an article within any of project to which I contribute were to be up for deletion, then I would get involved. As has been mentioned, my lack of experience in these areas is of note. I consider article deletion as a final measure. Therefore, I would only consider being involved if I knew the subject well enough to make an informed decision. My proposed/presumed involvement would be to close Afds if 1) my knowledge base is good enough on that article/subject, 2) there is a consensus towards its deletion. That being true, I would still wish to know why there would be opposition to its deletion, and that would have to be fully explored prior to any final judgement. After all, articles can always be redirected with content merged. Best, Mark t young (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. You have said that you want to work on deleting articles that violate WP:CSD, however, you aren't active in tagging articles for speedy deletion. I hate to do this to you, put will you please give us a short example of an "article" that would fall under G1, G3, G11, and A7.

A: As per my answer to your previous question, this is again only an area I would venture into when it when my knowledge base is high enough for me to make an informed decision (i.e. palaeo and bio articles). Assuming you mean hypothetical examples of articles that would violate the categories you outline, they are as follows: G1 Patent nonsense: taking a more extreme example, if someone started a page that only has LOL repeated continuously, this would fall under this category. As there would be no way to salvage the article, I would tag it for deletion. G3 Pure vandalism: if an article was created which is of malicious content, i.e. an additional article on a famous indiviual that is not a biography, but one of "slanderous" content with use of profanity and malicious attacks. G11 Blatant advertising: an example would be an article on a newsagents, local shop or any store from a small area that cannot be verified from third-party sources. Prior to speedy deletion a further criteria needs to be assessed, that of notability (organisations and companies). A7 An example of this is known to me, Polmont F.C. This article (which has been created more than once) is about a amateur football team from the village I am from. It has been deleted several times due to its non-notability. In addition, it was also an example of advertising, as they recently created a website for the team, with much of the information in the article gleamed from there.

Just so that everyone knows, I will not have internet access from 20 (mid day BST) to 22 June Mark t young (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back on-line. Mark t young (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Mark t young's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Mark t young: Mark t young (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/Mark t young before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Support, per my nomination and Mark's replies to the standard questions. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Support as a "specialist admin" who will be able to benefit the project by using the tools in the area in which he has particular knowledge, in that he will be able to recognize vandalism others might miss. I would caution going cautiously in closing AFD's and deleting CSD's at first, as there is not a lot of experience in those areas, but should do well if chooses to err on side of caution. Dloh cierekim 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, I did miss the edit summary usage. Communication is very important in adminship, so do please set your "preferences" to require edit summaries on saving. Dloh cierekim 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. His participation in the Thylacoleonidae fiasco was a great aid. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent work done, will do no end of good with the tools. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have worked with Mark, and in my experience he communicates well with talk messages. Edit summary usage should be simple enough to clear up. I have no reason to think he won't pick up admin tasks quickly. J. Spencer (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wisdom89 and Iridescent. Al Tally ^talk 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Too ironic. Dloh cierekim 22:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also per KojiDude. Al Tally ^talk 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - NBD. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problem here. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no indication candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support,I think this user will be fine admin and the current opposes do not concern me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy support. My criteria for adminship are as follows: CLUE + at least 4 months tenure + clean talkpage + communicative + content focused + reasonably clean block log = support. There is no valid reason (presented yet) not to allow this dedicated, intelligent, content focused editor access to the additional tools. I'm even more impressed by this editor because he doesn't loiter around noticeboards/discussions outside of his comfort zone/expertise. He adds content (Yes, that says 83% mainspace, I number I will never ever attain...) Excellent admin candidate, because he wont' abuse the tools, and based on whatever I can glean from his "personality", likely wouldn't dare misuse them either. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Dlohcierekim , Rory, and Keeper. Also, the edit summary usage does concern me - I would recommend following Dlohcierekim's advice to enforce edit summary usage via your preferences; this is especially important for admin actions, as they are expected to be able to withstand greater scrutiny. I am confident, however, that this user will avoid making admin actions in questionable situations; I would still caution against, for example, closing an XfD that is significantly controversial until you're sure you have the hang of things, given the lack of experience in some of these admin-related areas. Good luck, CrazyChemGuy (talk · contribs) 02:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, candidate has too few template talk edits for me to oppose. giggy _(:O) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools, therefore I support. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dlohcierekim, Sceptre and Keeper76. Good editor. EJF (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Firsfron, no worries here. I won't go as far as to say the opposes are without merit and if Mark had a shorter tenure here it would be a worry, but in two years of editing he's managed to go without any blocks or any drama and that says to me he's probably not going to start banning people he doesn't like the second he gets the tools (admins usually wait a week or two for that). The fact that I haven't seen him at any of the dramaboards is a plus. Naerii - Talk 11:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, user seems to be an excellent contributor and would likely be a good administrator. I would like to see some more activity and experience in relevant "admin areas" for a full support, however. Shereth 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has contributed solidly to the project for two years without causing any memorable dramas, so no reason to think he'll turn into a rampaging monster if sysopped. Keeper sums things up nicely for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good candidate who is likely to become a good admin. Perhaps ironically, my support became stronger after reading some of the oppose views ... — Athaenara ✉ 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. a good 'pedia builder and a clear net positive as an admin. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Impressed with your rather fine article work. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but please make sure to use edit summaries. That's a big deal. Frank | talk 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A candidate likely to become a good admin.BlueQ99 (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deli nk (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the nominee's focus on mainspace edits. We need more editors as admins. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 01:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A worthy contributor who can be trusted with the admin tools. JoJan (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but please ensure you use edit summaries by fiddling with your preferences. My edit summary usage was rubbish until I switched that on. After a while it becomes second nature. Neıl 龱 10:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have a candidate with two years of experience on wiki who is active in a WikiProject to improve a large range of articles, and has some familiarity with administrative issues. I checked the Wikipedia-space contrib log. There are fewer than 50 items, as others have noted, but they are well-distributed among AFD, AN3RR, ANI, FAC and WikiProject. I have no qualms about letting Mark t young learn about adminship on the job. From what he has done until now, he certainly will know what to do and when to ask for assistance. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor who concentrates on article improvement. PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I trust this user to not mess up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content is purpose of the encyclopedia, and this user consistantly contributes content. While there is not great depth in wikipedia-space contributions, the comment below by Editorofthewiki is a cogent one: Someone who writes large amounts of content without problem has de facto demonstrated policy knowledge. It also demonstrates tempermant, something that cannot be taught. I'm confident that this user can be taught how to use the tools wisely. If he can't I believe the candidate will bne happy to step down. - brenneman 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aaron, there's an interesting question I posted at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship that you would probaboly be interested in answering. And the other side of the apple: what if an adminship candidate has lack of article-writing, but extreme understanding of policy. And you say that if they write content, then they automaticallyunderstand policy. I don't understand that. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason we have policy is to make it easier for us to work collaboratively writing good content. If this user is already writing content without problem (admittedly in non-controversial areas) then they have, through osmosis, absorbed the spirit of all policies. With respect to the other hypothetical, I'd prefer to have that discussion in a more appropriate venue. - brenneman 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more actual writers we have as admins the better, there's much more to the role than just 'twinkling' out of existence anything you haven't seen on MTV that week. Nick mallory (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Nick, above. Nick (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly a trustworthy editor highly unlikely to abuse tools. Dean B (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: too "young" (bad pun :P). In all seriousness, as I don't see any trust issues, and as that's all I really look for apart from a few months of experience, I Support. Good luck with the remainder of this RfA (apologies if my attempted pun is too bad... or if you've heard that one done to death :P ) :-) Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aaron. Yes, he is totally correct. Looking at his contributions, this user has created a pleathora of high quality work. Worrying about edit summaries is, quite frankly, ridiculous. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any major reason to oppose this candidate: regarding edit summaries, I don't see how that's a problem if his usage shoots to 100% during this RfA, and remains that way; plus, I find new opposition based on edit summary usage disappointing. His answers to the questions are good, as is his behavior, and he seems experienced enough. If he just takes it slow, goes to the new admin school and the administrators' reading list upon (or even before) promotion, and talks to more experienced administrators if he needs some help, then he'll be fine. Acalamari 02:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me. Appears to be a solid, trustworthy article builder. I also note the recent major improvement in edit summary usage. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - an editor asking for editing tools. Admin tools are editing tools, they aren't about governance - that only arises incidentally because only admins can do blocks or deletions. Based on past observations, he seems reasonable and level-headed. Guettarda (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This user will use the tools in areas where he feels comfortable, thus I doubt he will unintentionally misuse the tools. Also, nothing indicates he will intentionally misuse them. This users attitude seems good. Nothing indicates his attitude makes him unfit to be an admin. Since he won't misuse the tools, and his attitude is right, I will support him. His inexperience, his lack of using edit summaries before this Rfa, and the fact he probably won't use the tools that often weaken my support of him a fair amount.--SJP (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A trustworthy inclusionist at AfD would temper any risk of imbalance there. (I speak as a deletionist.) Cazique (talk · contribs) incidents handled with maturity. I can see every reason to trust that he won't use any admin buttons until he fully understands the process and community behind them. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on trustworthiness of the candidate. If the candidate were to make admin at this point I would hope and expect he'd go slow with the tools for a while. CitiCat^♫ 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to me that such a long term editor who has added a considerable amount of content without getting into any real trouble though that editing has enough of a handle on policy to be fine here. These are the types of editors we should be encouraging at RFA. He's navigated the maze of content policy well enough to be an effective editor, no reason to think that same experience doesn't give him (?) a good enough basic foundation so that he won't blow anything up as an admin. RxS (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Really no issue, just the lack of edit summaries makes me think... America69 (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This user may not have been taught all the ins and outs discussed below, but in my judgment he has a grasp on the things that can't be taught and that's more important anyhow. Good builder, subject expert, seems like a nice and reasonable guy, etc. The thoughts of Sir Firsfron, Mr. Mallory, Ms. Naerii, and Mr. Brenneman echo my own. --JayHenry (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decided to switch from strong oppose after further review of his edits show a strong support of science, in other words, he lacks that anti-science POV that is ruining this project. He addressed my concerns about edit summaries (please use them). And the candidate is not a part of the admin coaching garbage. I'd still prefer more experience, but I hope he'll continue to edit articles while being an admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (switched from neutral) - the massive spike in edit-summary usage after it was mentioned, combined with the answers to the questions, convinces me that his relative inexperience in some areas will probably not result in problems, as he'll learn what to do before doing it. ~ mazca ^talk 00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No problems here. User's obvious maturity, intellect and attitude surely makes up for any lack of experience in any given area. I have zero concern that Mark (Mr. Young?) will abuse admin privileges. Tan | 39 02:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User does not seem as he would abuse the tools, and seems more than competent enough to understand the various admin duties. Lack of vocal participation in an area does not ecessarily imply inability to function properly. -- Avi (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unlikely to abuse the tools. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mature, easily addresses issues such as low edit summary usage and unlikely to abuse the tools. ~ Eóin (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose I'm sorry to be the first. First of all, I'm deeply concerned by your lack of edit summary usage, and I recommend that you force edit summaries in your preferences. These are important for administrative actions especially. Secondly, you revert a great deal of vandalism, but have no edits to WP:AIV. I'm just curious as to why that is, but it is slightly concerning for me. Thirdly, you say you wish to work at AfD, but I see no edits to deletion debates in the contributions I looked through. The count analyser would also seem to confirm that. Also, with few edits to talk pages, it's difficult to tell how you would communicate as an administrator. I think you are on the right track, but feel it's too soon to offer my support. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, Thank you for your comments. Very constructive. I've changed my edit summery preferences and started making much better usage of edit summeries. I've always added warnings onto the userpage of the vandal in question. I've found that I very rarely need to place two warnings on a persons userpage for vandalism. I allows move progressively from a level 1 warning to a level 4 one, although I have jumped from 1 to 3 one occasion. But your are very correct, I need to make use of WP:AIV. Best, Mark t young (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think you'll need some more experience at WP:ANI and various other noticeboards before you take up the role of an administrator. Great start though. You appear to be a good contributor. I'm also concerned by what looks like a lack of collaborative effort in the mainspace, as well as little communication. WP:NOTNOW for me. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these are weak WP:AFD arguments: [1], [2]. You need to demonstrate why they are non-notable, and not just say they aren't and stop there. Also, claims of original research are a signal for improvement, not deletion. You state you wish to work at WP:AFD, yet there is a paucity of contributions with the above rationales. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You specifically say you want to work in AFD/CSD, but a look at your deleted contributions shows that you've only ever twice successfully nominated an article for deletion (once incorrectly, since you'd already spotted that it was a copyvio, and once a rather dubious (but successful) speedy). There's nothing there to judge whether I trust you or not. – iridescent 20:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very little Wikipedia-space edits. Alot more experience is needed to be an admin.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't state like that as if it is a fact. Anyone can be an admin with any amount of experience. Al Tally ^talk 22:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They can be, and most can probably learn as they go, but I'd rather not picture the amount of screw ups that would follow. Not saying that would happen with this candidate, but it's a perfectly legitimate concern. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Excellent work in the mainspace, which I like, but you'll need more experience in the Wikipedia namespace doing admin-like tasks. You may want to participate in more XFDs, report some vandals at AIV, participate in RFAs, post at ANI, etc. It'll help you become a more well-rounded editor and more prepared for adminship. Useight (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You seem like a good editor. However, I don't think you're ready for adminship. First, 42 project space edits just doesn't cut it. 23% edit summary for major edits is not near enough; nearly 100% is expected of administrators. You have very few talk edits, so I cannot predict if you have good communicating skills. Again, you're a good editor, but I'd say wait six months, and you should be good to go. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I humbly suggest that edit-counting for this user isn't entirely useful? Mark has been a major asset on three or more WikiProjects for years now. Just because he doesn't spend X amount of time in such-and-such space doesn't mean he wouldn't be useful to the project in an administrator capacity: Mark has proved himself an excellent mediator and vandalism reverter, as other editors have attested to above (and which you could observe on the page Mark linked above). That should count a lot more than edit counts, shouldn't it? :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not really the edit count that concerns me, but the lack of admin-related experience which is typically represented in Wikispace contributions. I respect that he is an excellent editor in the mainspace, and I hope he continues, but I can't be sure about how he will preform as an administrator because I don't see prior experience. Cheers, Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, nobody seems to be disputing that he's been very useful to the project - but all those things you list do not require admin tools, and he doesn't seem to have done very much at all in the areas (such as XfD, AIV, etc) that he would use them in. Hence, it's hard to tell what kind of admin he'd make from his current contributions. ~ mazca ^talk 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily per the reasons expressed by Wisdom89, i.e. upon reviewing your contribs, I see only a few AfDs, all of which seem to be deletes. I do like that you earned some barnstars. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose One must really wonder if you NEED the tools, you seem more like a writer to me and this role does not REQUIRE admin tools, in ur antivandal work you have never reported a user so u obviously dont need the tools for that. Lack of edit summeries is DISGRACEFUL, (I being an antivandal find it extemely frustraing when people dont use meaningful edit summerys as it wastes my time having to check an entire edit when the user doesnt include a summery). You have not been active (above 5 edits) for six months in a row Participation in admin related tasks is also seems to be in short supply. Consider admin coaching if not adoption!!! «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the tone sounds pretty harsh to me. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Learnt that tactic from an admin, sometimes harsh words must be said to get the point across «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tactic shows more like a lack of patience to me. Its like {{test4}}-ing an editor without any prior notice/warning/advice. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking a user who has been on Wikipedia over 2 years to consider being adopted is rude and insulting. Al Tally ^talk 11:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Majorly & Mailer. I oppose this candidate for other reasons, but shouting semi-literate misspelled abuse in ALLCAPS is not the way to have a discussion. As I've warned you before in another context, calm down. – iridescent 11:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of edit summeries is DISGRACEFUL" - and this coming from someone with a completely unintelligible signature. Hah. Nick (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I don't think you learned the lesson correctly. Most of us are blunt, but definitely not this harsh. —Kurykh 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a true friend could be that bluntly honest, You right i should have learned my lesson better, i should have done a Nick and added "That's sort of pushing me towards the "Never, ever, ever" level of Opposition here, actually. Final words of advice, stop digging and withdraw your RfA." «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tone as harsh, insulting and degrading as that will get you nowhere on Wikipedia. Can you image how you would feel if this was your RfA? :'-( Lra drama 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I rather like is that Prom3th3an's overly-harsh comments seem to have put several people off opposing, and in the end I think they've actually helped Mark's chances of succeeding in this RfA. ~ mazca ^talk 12:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grin, careful or you might have to swallow you own words within a couple of hours. People wont like what you just wrote, predicting them like sheep that is «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In your last 500 edits, you haven't participated in a single deletion debate, which is extremely worrying because you say you want to go into the deletion area. I am also concerned with the edit summary usage, and your very few deleted contributions (which shows limited activity in speedy deletion policy areas). My advice is to get more experience in deletion and other administrative areas and re-apply in 4 months or so. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per iridescent. I am not an admin, so I cannot examine the deleted contributions for myself. However, looking at wannabe_kate's summary, I am concerned by the low use of edit summaries, sporadic activity in key, non-article space areas (WP:, Talk:, User_talk:), and the spurts of recent activity (1041 edits last month when the average is ~115). « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:06 2008 June 16 (UTC)
Oppose, regretfully. A demonstrably excellent contributor, but too rarely in the areas in which we want our admins to be well versed. A couple months spent working on the areas which other editors have highlighted here, and I think this user could make a fine admin. Ford MF (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – First, great work on prehistoric subjects! However, sorry to say, with over 50% of your contributions in just the last 6 weeks, you have not demonstrated enough experience working with other individuals to determine temperament. Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Very weak in depth of editing. Very weak in length of time in editing. Lack of edit summaries is unacceptable--Lack of one is usually the first sign of something wrong with the edit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You indicate you want to "continue and further my contributions to the WP:ANI and WP:3RR noticeboards.", yet I count 6 to the former and 5 to the latter. This is out of 42 overall edits to the Wikipedia: space. I generally expect at least 100 edits at the lower end of my range, to show a candidate has participated in a reasonable number of XfDs and noticeboard discussions. I'm sure you can improve this over time though. MBisanz ^talk 07:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Poor depth of experience (little participation in Wikipedia space), few deleted contributions & little frequents to the XfD area (whilst wanting to get involved in deletion) makes me wonder whether the tools will be misused; not intentionally, however. Theoretically, having to go around undeleting pages is an arbitave task for any administrator. Rudget (logs) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wait to improve your edit summary usage and contribute more to the Project namespace, such as AIV and XFD. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to support or oppose in this one, but are you seriously implying that Mark lacks knowledge of policy simply because he doesn't have that many edits in the Wikipedia namespace? Why do think an admin nominated him to that position without trusting his knowledge? "Mark is calm and laid-back, dealing civilly with even disruptive users." IMO, you cannot be able to do such things without understanding policy. This user obviously mostly contributes to the article-space (a + for him) and thus would not be active in the admin-related areas, at least not yet. I honestly think you need to find a better reason than this to oppose this candidate. I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Excellent article work, but work in Wikipedia space and overall participation isn't sufficient yet in my eyes. The edit summary issue also needs fixing too. I'm saddened by Prom3th3an's comment, and I hope you aren't upset or put off by it. See these opposes as constructive criticism, designed to improve you to standard in which you can try for RfA again. Lra drama 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the lack of experience is a deal breaker. Users should wait until they have had more experience.--LAA Fan 02:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. More experience needed in the Wikipedia space and with general admin-type activities. A good future potential for adminship, but not yet. Singopo (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Singopo. Mark is a good future potential for adminship, but not yet. I am opposing because of his relatively low proportion of edits in the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose He is not fit to be an admin as many other people such as Uther and Firsfro are also not. He needs to learn how to communicate effectively and not ignore users or sidetrack issues they raise. He either does not understand what being biased is, or chooses to be when he cannot make an effort to deal in a situation he has become involved with. He suggests things which go against what are fundamental foundations of wikipedia and does not help in disputes. Giving him admin tools would damage wikipedia as it would give another person who makes his edits based on the user instead of his edits. Cazique (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 'crats This user has been blocked indefinitely for harassing other users. Enigma ^message 16:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - I'm not convinced you have nearly enough experience of the areas of Wikipedia that require admin tools, so I'm not too sure how good use you'd make of them. However, I also think you're a very worthy candidate in terms of making good encyclopedia contributions and having a good temperament for the job. I'm very sure you could make a great admin, I'm just not too sure you've done enough of that kind of stuff yet. ~ mazca ^talk 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Switched to support. ~ mazca ^talk 00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - per the directly above and per PeterSymond's oppose. I do however think you would make a good specialist admin. I also think you should work on your communication, hence the neutral. --Cameron (T|C) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one, for an editor who meets some, but not all of my fairly strict standards. He's obviously a brilliant person, and a solid editor, having made over three thousand useful edits. He has roll back rights. He has an interesting user page. However, he appears not to know much of policy, which is what admins really need, nor does he partake much in the way of community discussion. On the whole, I'll remain neutral for now. I'd be inclined to support with more evidence of Wikipedia space involvement. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of Wikispace edits and edit summary usage are too concerning. However, you're a dedicated editor who's been good for the project thus far., so I can't oppose. Wizardman 00:48, 21 June 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.