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

Final (15/16/1); Scheduled to end 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MrFish (talk · contribs) - I would like to present my third nominee, MrFish, for the community's scrutiny. He is a hard-working mainspace contributor who specializes in railroad-related articles. He is very communication-oriented, with over 1200 edits to user talk pages, for those that like numbers. He is also highly experienced, as he has been an editor for 2 years, racking up nearly 5000 edits. As an active vandal-fighter, MrFish has over 200 reports to AIV. I don't give the best introductions, so I'll let his contributions speak for themselves. You can view our coaching work here. Ladies and gentlemen, MrFish! Useight (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is with excitement that I accept the nomination.I wish to withdraw my acceptance of this RFA that it may not waste anymore of my or other users' time on the project. Though it might sound unbelievable, I sincerely thank all who supported and all who opposed, as I have learned a lot from this in the past few days, and perhaps have made more friendly acquaintences in that time than in the past 2 years.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 03:34, 3 April 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: In a word, everything, at least at first. WP:AIV, WP:AN, WP:AFDs, WP:CSDs and WP:MFDS, WP:RFPPs; I wish to get a healthy variety of work and then maybe decide what things I might be better at or more useful with.

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

A:I think that my best contributions are the quiet ones; the articles I've created and the stubs I've expanded, most of them on obscure and/or rail-related topics. That work is quiet, almost wikignome-like, but it is the real encyclopedia-building and will always be more valuable than maintenance tasks that draw more attention.

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: Most of my conflicts with other users have involved articles that I created that were deemed non-notable. I acknowledge that I am an inclusionist, and I can and have gotten carried away. However, I have never participated in a real edit war--the most drastic thing I've done is once removing a prod notice without notifying the editor who posted it (I later apologized for that). When things do get hot, as in a long-running dispute over the article on the Walt Disney World Monorail System (I was the lead editor to the Monorail task force of the Trains WikiProject at the time), I have a habit (and perhaps not a totally desirable one) of standing aloof and allowing the more aggressive editors to beat out a consensus. In real life as on the internet, I am naturally slow to anger and stress.

Questions from Acalamari

4. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

A. The egg; the fish egg evolved millions of years before the chicken.

5. Is this a good question? Acalamari Bellatrix! 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.Not really, because it is presumably meant to be clever, when it really exhibits an ignorance in biology.

Questions from EJF (talk · contribs)

6. How would you deal with a POV-pusher who had not committed any vandalism?

A.This should be treated more or less like vandalism, giving the user warnings like Uw-npov1 (and up to level 4), trying to reason with the user, and the user should probably be given a little more patience than a vandal (as he/she may in fact be of good faith), but if the user does indeed ignore the about 4 warnings, (s)he should be given a block, vandalism or no.

7. Under which circumstances would you deem issuing a cool-down block to a user necessary?

A.Never. Besides being against policy, they just plain don't work.

Optional Questions from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

8. All of the following accounts were blocked as socks or puppet masters: AndalusianNaugahyde, AshbyJnr, Blueanode, Brandon97, Burntsauce, Casperonline, Dannycali, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Eyrian, Gazpacho, Golfcam, IPSOS, Jack Merridew, JohnEMcClure, LAZY 1L, Moby Dick, Mrs random, Note to Cool Cat, 75.5.225.151, SolidPlaid, Varlak, and Yeshivish. As the block logs indicate, these accounts used sockpuppetry and harassment of editors in order to get over two hundred popular culture related articles deleted from Wikipedia, including those indicated in this list that one of the banned accounts wrote. Even if you personally want those articles deleted, do the ends justify the means? What if anything could or should be done to reverse what they did and to send a message that sockpuppetry and harassment will not succeed on Wikipedia? The above indicated accounts were used in hundreds of AfDs and in many cases in was not determined that they were socks of each other until after the AfDs had closed. Consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Konami code references in popular culture. It closed as delete with 7 for delete, 4 for merge, and 3 for keep; however, at least 2 of the deletes were determined to be sock accounts. So, my question is in part what now? Just leave the AfDs as closed deletes, which means that their tactics "won," or should we revisit any AfDs in which a number of the sock puppets participated and likely influenced opinion?

A. That is a unique question, and I am not perfectly clear what exactly it is asking in some parts, but here goes. Firstly, no, of course the ends do not justify the means, as per WP:POLICY. Now, this situation, as far as I have read, is not covered in existing policies, and so I tread new ground when I say that I think it would be a good idea to review close debates such as the one cited. However, like I said that would be going out on a rather treacherous limb, as it could become a major precedent, and I would never go down that path alone. Indeed, I think two administrators would be insufficient to make the decision alone to reopen these afds. It should be posted to the noticeboard and discussed at least a little first.

Optional questions from MBisanz

9. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?

A. I am indeed currently unfamiliar with the MediaWiki Namespace and I don't know what Special:Unwatchedpages is. Of course, I can't be 100% familiar with the technical procedures until I can actually look at the buttons, but I think I'm ready.

10. What is your opinion on {{User recovery}}?

A. Well, I can't see myself doing that, personally. Those articles were deleted for a reason--they are almost useless. I'd rather do something that actually helps the project, but I don't mind if other administrators do that, so long as they do not violate the terms mentioned in the template.

11. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that their a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?

A. Yes, a little. It would make the block softer, but a proposed exemption is not yet an exemption, and shouldn't be treated as one. It's all fine and good to claim you are a trusted user, but there is nothing trustworthy about a stubborn POV-pusher or 3RR-violater, even if you have an account, so that person will have to explain their recent actions, not just declare himself/herself "trusted".

12. How do you feel about the Admin Coaching program? Would you be willing to coach interested users once you have some experience with the mop?

A. The program worked for me, so I'm glad for it, although it certainly has a dearth of coaches. I would indeed like to try coaching someday.

Optional question from Animum

13. Boxers or briefs?

A: I do not choose to answer this question.

Optional Question from Jon513

14. If you saw this article nominated for deletion what would you do?

A: This article might need to be deleted, but I don't think it should be "speedied", as WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to movies. It needs to go through a WP:PROD or a WP:AFD.

Follow up question by Jon513

14a. On November 9, 2007 you nominated (deleted diff) that article for speedy deletion. I copy and pasted the article with the speedy tag you added from the deletion history. What has changed since then?

A: I am impressed by the effort behind these two questions! What has changed since then is that I have read and studied WP:CSD more thoroughly.

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

• Links for MrFish: MrFish (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/MrFish before commenting.

1. Support as nominator. Useight (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Appears a good faith editor who works hard, has not shown any signs that he would abuse the tools, and meets my criteria. Orderinchaos 07:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mmm... fresh fish... EJF (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   But is he the poisson d'avril...? Contribs look fine, he'll be a good admin. EJF (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Answers to my questions were excellent. :) Great user: will make good use of the tools. Acalamari Bellatrix! 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Banned user.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Restored vote. :) I'm not banned at all. Explained here. Acalamari Bellatrix! 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   *Blushes*.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ha ha, that's hilarious! Useight (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Dlohcierekim 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Tools will be useful for him and he will make good use of them. I see no indication that he may abuse the tools. --Abrech (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per above. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Good answers all around, contributions look solid. MrPrada (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Identifies the areas he needs to know more, so he'll be cautious with the mop. MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. I don't see any serious problems. Best of luck! SQL^{Query me!} 05:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Because it's no big deal, I support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak support, could do with a broader range of experience, but good answers to the questions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Weak support. The concerns addressed in the oppose section are worrying, but I can still support you without feeling guilty. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support because Wikipedia always needs new admins!-- Barkjon  20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose - Sorry. I cannot support you at this time, while I see some good article work and you are involved at WP:AIV, there is more to being an administrator than fighting vandals. For instance, you don't seem to communicate all that much, which raises my internal alert sensor, and outside of AIV, there doesn't seem to be a lot of participation in the areas which you want to work in. You would need more experience in my opinion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Not to be a nuicance, but could you provide liks to places where you think this user has had a fialure to communicate? Not that I'm challenging your comment, just like to see all statements backed up with eveidence.--Phoenix-wiki 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Not a nuisance at all - see here. Article talking is extremely limited and minimal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Im sorry but you claim you would contribute in a variety of area's (eg WP:AFD), why then do you not have any experience in these areas? Surely somebody so eager to work in these areas would be keen to take part in these tasks prior to becoming an admin. AIV edits are commendable though, sorry...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   That fair. However, it is inaccurate to say that I have no experience in AFD's. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]--MrFish^{Go Fish} 20:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do apologise, I failed to do my homework properly. Engage in more admin-related tasks to get a tast for them and then come back and I'll be happy to support...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. Sorry I couldn't support, but I don't think you have enough edits in WikiSpace. Other than that, you're a very good editor and Wikipedian and would make a great administrator. Basketball110  Talk  02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Mainly because of questions one and four. With his answer to question one, MrFish asserts that he intends to jump headfirst into areas where he has little or no experience if he receives the tools. This is just asking for trouble - not that he would intentionally misuse the tools, but all new admins should start out slowly, and his overeagerness to use the tools in areas which he has never even participated in worries me. As for question four, to be honest, I'm not a fan of these silly questions. "No big deal" is one thing, but I'd like to see the RfA process taken a little more seriously. Nevertheless, his answer suggests to me that he would not be great in handling a dispute (we certainly have more than a few smart-ass admins, but we don't need to add to them). Basically, if he ran into an abusive user, I don't think he would be able to keep his cool. Less importantly, he has one of those "I want to be an admin" userboxes, which I personally don't think much of, and he's relatively inexperienced in projectspace. I could potentially support MrFish, but not right now. faithless (^speak) 05:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose While I am a big fan of admin coaching, I don't see it as a pass to RfA's. At this point I cannot support. First, your talk page edits are almost non-existant. If you look at the User Talk, then your edits since October/June 2007 are 90+ percent templates/warnings---and there aren't that many of those! Then there is the non-user talk. In the past year (April 2, 2007-present) you've had exactly 50 edits in the talk space! And you've had less than 25 wikipedia talk posting since you joined wikipedia. Most of your article edits are usually fighting vandalism or minor. But one that I did find is, this one which doesn't inspire much faith. First, it is uncited OR. Second, it is linkspam. Third, you didn't appear to know how to create a proper reference (inline citations shouldn't be used in articles, you should be creating footnotes via <ref> citation </ref>. Then there is your lack of experience in the areas that you claim to want to work in. I'm sorry, but participation in about a dozen XfD's over a 2 year period is not enough experience to make me comfortable with your familiarity with the process.Balloonman (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I will fix the "uncited OR" and "linkspam" by giving the reliable, third-party source that I got the information from, now. By doing so, I do not wish to change this or any other user's opinion, I merely wish to fix this problem in the article. In separate issues, I have made hundreds of footnotes here--I would never have made two WP:DYKs without doing so, and I have run into dozens, if not hundreds of abusive users (15 attacked my userpage) without ever losing my cool. I wasn't going to comment like this, but other oppose votes citing this one cause me to address these legitimate concerns.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ultimately, that is all we ask is that you take what we give here and learn from it. As for getting DYK, DYK has very low standards for requirements--it is looking for true start class articles with the hope of getting more people involved in refining articles. Inline citations are generally only used on talk pages and in end/footnotes.Balloonman (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry for commenting again. I am learning from every oppose vote, and I am already wiki-energized--regardless of whether this fails or passes, so certainly there are no hard feelings at all! However, this says that inline citations are required for FAs and GAs. Perhaps you and I are using this term to mean different things?--MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, no need to apologize. When I am talking about inline citation (and maybe I'm using the wrong term) I'm refering to making a reference like [www.website.com this] within the text as compared to <ref>[www.website.com this]</ref>. References in articles should be using the <ref>text</ref> convention with a {{Reflist}} at the end.Balloonman (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, it was a term-use communication failure. I have made hundreds of citations by the <ref>{{citetemplate><ref> method, and the case in question was an exception where I appear to have become lazy. Opposing because of this failure is fair game, but I would like to note that it is inaccurate to say that I do not know how to make proper references, as I have been making them for a long time.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Looked at some more edits and saw places where you were using the appropriate referencing method. Struck through that part of the objection above---went ahead and struck the entire commentary on the edit as my main concern was the way you made your citation. I still have major concerns about your over reliance of templates in the talk space and lack of discussion in various talk arena and your lack of experience in areas where you've indicated a desire to help out.Balloonman (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Weak Oppose sorry. This is the RFA that Useight mentioned at WT:RFA and I had a chance to review then. User:MrFish/Admin_Coaching#Last_set and your opinion on reverting other admins actions. I'd prefer candidates be very much of the opinion that you don't revert at all without discussion (except in clear cut issues which would be very very rare). In addition I'm not convinced that your contributions and Q1 match up. I appreciate as well that there's lots to like here, hence a weak oppose, but I'm not sure you're really quite seasoned enough at present. Pedro :  Chat  07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - I don't think he has enough experience in the areas he says he will help out in, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Baloonman. Rudget (review) 13:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose per Wisdom89's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Low mainspace edit. Only 2549 mainspace edits, [10] and not enough edit in individual articles. Highest number of edits is in List of Amtrak stations, i.e. 27. Which means majority of the mainspace edits are vandal reverting. Not enough experience in article building. Sorry I have to oppose here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 2,549 mainspace edits? Only 27 edits on one article? What exactly are your standards, because frankly, they sound nearly impossible to attain. Ral315 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I'm thinking the same as Ral here: your standards seem to be a little quantity-focussed, rather than quality-focussed, and moreover, seem rather difficult to reach. Anthøny 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not "Only 27 edits on one article", this user has 27 edits in the article with maximum contribution. This user has low edit in individual articles ranging from 8 edits to 9 edits. Article building can be proved by a good article, or at least some B-quality articles with a minimum size of 32 KB, which this user does not have. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose per everyone. SexySeaShark 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose – Sorry MrFish. In reviewing your talk page I noticed that you just applied to the coaching program on March 9th and which finally matching you with a coach on March 16th. That’s less than three weeks ago! I do not mean to sound critical, but isn’t that a little fast to go through the program? Especially given all the areas you would like to be involved in that you referenced in question one. Possibly if you had a higher edit count, but less than 5,000 edits, and only 1.46 average, means that a majority of your contributions have mostly been vandal fighting. This is a noble job. However, I would like to see a tad more participation in areas such as article building and areas such as Afd which involve generating and gaining community consensus along with gaining knowledge in policy. Either way this Rfa goes, Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually applied to admin coaching a year ago. On March 9th I reapplied because I was asked to.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The quick admin coaching was actually my fault, not his. When I was coached, we only went for 2 weeks (November 1 to November 17), so I figured that length of time was normal. Useight (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no problem with short coaching sessions, if the candidate is qualified. Obviously Useight felt that MrFish was ready or he would not have nominated him. But two weeks as coachee is not, IMHO, grounds for an oppose.Balloonman (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I do believe MrFish is ready, I would've !voted support if I he had self-nommed and I just happened to come across it. I was surprised by his answer to Q1, though, since he really seems to focus on vandalism and we hadn't talked about much other than AIV and ANI. Useight (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I am sorry so late in responding – and your right, the amount of time spent in this program or that is not a reason to Oppose or Support. That is why I also mentioned edit count and work within policy. My comments were not a reflection of the work or character of MrFish but rather an observation of a edit count that shows Vandal Fighting, which I stated is a Nobel effort, but also shows inexperience in areas that we need administrators in; Mediation – Afd – CSD and other areas that take a minute or two more to decide the right way to go. Are these areas the MrFish can improve in easily, Yes. After another 3,000-4,000 edits. Moreover, at that time would be happy to review and move to support if everything stays copasetic. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. Per above, plus the fact that this user is not as active as many admin candidates would be. Try again in a few months and once you're ready, I will support. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose, grudgingly. Just not quite enough experience with admin-related tasks. Seems like a good-faith user who is (and will be) an asset to Wikipedia, but I'm not comfortable handing the tools over quite yet. Tan | 39 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - per Wisdom89, and Ballonman. Sorry, you make great contribtuions but just are not there quite yet. Tiptoety ^talk 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per Wisdom. Sorry. Spencer^T♦C 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral not enough familiarity with editor, so neutral. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Just a comment here - if you are unfamiliar with the candidate, wouldn't it be prudent and courteous to take a look at the contributions/talk page/edit count etc..etc..to see whether they meet your criteria? No offense intended, I just never heard of someone abstaining just because they didn't know the user. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm just not sure from what I have seen that there's enough there to support or oppose at this time. I see valid reasons for support and oppose in the many comments above, which is at aboit 50/50 vote wise, so I'm not really persuaded in either direction yet. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:06, 2 April 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.