Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MacMed

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

MacMed

Final (27/36/8); Closed by Rlevse at 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

MacMed (talk · contribs) – Hi there, my name is MacMed and I am nominating myself for adminship. Though I have only been here 3.5 months, I feel that I could be a good addition to the admin team. I realize that there will probably be at least one or two people who oppose based on wiki-age/edit count. Though such opposes are often valid, I would like to respectfully request that such opposes not be made "vanilla". If you feel I am inexperienced or immature, please provide an example of when the duration of my time on Wikipedia has affected my editing negatively. I feel that I am a trustworthy, mature editor that would handle the mop quite well, and I hope that others can see that as well. Also, thanks in advance to anyone and everyone that contributes to this RfA. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: One of the main things that I would like to contribute to is the edit filter. I have a good handle on regex and I feel that I would be able to really help out there. I would also contribute at AIV, UAA, and AFD. At AFD, I would take it very slowly to begin with, only closing clear debates, or relisting those that are very unclear. I would also observe at WP:RFPP, and look at clerking for sock puppet investigations.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't have any nice bronze stars, or even a GA. I have only created one article, and that is a Start-class. I have about 3 ITN's, but that's it. I would like to contribute more to article creation, but I find myself drawn more to behind the scenes work. I have made small corrections and expansions to articles, and created a few through WP:AFC. Most of my contributions lie more in vandal fighting, AFC, AFD, and some article assessment.
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 not been in any major conflicts in the past. In the future, I would probably calmly discuss the problem with the other editor(s) and try to reach a consensus. I am starting to get involved at the mediation cabal, an informal mediation initiative, and I will likely learn many different ways to handle conflict and stress from my colleagues there.
Additional optional questions from Vicenarian
4. You have very little experience here at Wikipedia. Are you confident you understand all the responsibilities of an administrator? Why do you think you are qualified to be an administrator at this time? Vicenarian (Said · Done) 15:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I realize that it will be really quite difficult to convince all of you that I understand the responsibilities of a sysop, but I truly believe I do. Admins must be approachable for any problem or mistake, and must never bite a newbie, as a good editor must be. An admin must also have a solid understanding of policy and it's practical application to articles on Wikipedia. They must also be willing to explain their actions to others. I believe that I am qualified because I fulfill these criteria. I thought about running RfA after I realized that almost all of my speedy tags were getting deleted, and requests made to admins were being done. I decided that I would run RfA, rather than wait for someone else to do my work. I am very willing to answer any questions related to policy in order to demonstrate my knowledge to you. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from fngosa
5. what topics interest you more on wiki and why? good answer will earn u my support. Freshymail-user:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am mostly interested in the behind-the-scenes technical and practical maintenance of Wikipedia, though I believe you are asking about content creation topics. If I am wrong, correct me and I will give you a new answer. In terms of content creation and maintenance, I am interested in video games (WP:VG), medicine (WP:MED), as well as sports, specifically rugby union (WP:RU). Also, Canadian topics are very close to my heart (not so close as to violate COI though ;)). All in all, I am interested in most of the topics on Wikipedia, though some are admittedly closer to my heart than others. This does not mean that an editor who edits mainly articles I am interested in (positive or negative contribs) would receive any bias from me as an administrator. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you well answered question. Freshymail-user:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender

Additional optional questions from Pascal.Tesson
6. Were you previously editing under another username or anonymously? If so, under what account/IPs? I don't want the question to sound too hostile but your first 150 edits are very untypical of newbies. In that first week after creating your account, you're already adding prod tags, fixing double redirects, using templates like {{Article issues}} and {{expert-subject}}, answering {{helpme}}, manually issuing user warnings for spam, tests, vandalism, adding userboxes, relisting AfDs, citing notability guidelines, nominating articles for speedy deletion, asking for Rollback privileges, handing out barnstars. How did you develop that familiarity with the inner-workings of the en.wiki?
A: Well, the main reason I got started with those backstage actions is simply because I took the time to read the policies and their "Related Links" pages before I got started editing. If you look at my first contribs, you can see that they were test edits, as User:Chzz walked me through wiki-syntax on IRC. In the interest of full transparency however, I will note that there is another, retired account on the same IP as me. My brother is a past Wikipedia editor, under the name of CanadianNine, and he is the one who originally interested me in editing, as well as telling me to look at the CSD pages, AfD logs, rollback, etc. I have one alternate account that I planned to use for AWB edits, but for some reason I could never get it to work. Aside from that, I have no other account names. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I know I'm stretching the assume-good-faith principle here but I am a bit worried about all this. CanadianNine (talk · contribs) retired the day prior to the creation of your account. Like you, he gave a barnstar to Chzz (though that makes sense and explains how you got in touch with Chzz in the first place). One of the last few edits of your brother was this very reasonable AfC assessment which you repeated six days after the creation of your account. In fact, you pretty much picked up where your brother left off at AfC. I know I'm being dickish about the whole thing but I can't quite shake the doubts. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well, I was brought into contact with Chzz through wikipedia-en-help on IRC, after my brother told me he was helpful (as you say above). The reason I became involved at AfC, similarly to him, was because those were his last few edits. I found him editing and asked what he was doing, he explained and mentioned that he was planning to retire, as he was tiring of the project. I asked him to show me a few things, and AfC was what he decided to demonstrate. As such, I had a measure of familiarity with AfC coming into Wikipedia, and felt comfortable going there relatively early. I observed and helped him for a little bit, then he retired, so I created my own account. I understand your concerns, and I know there isn't really a way to definitively prove to you that CanadianNine and I are not the same person, but I hope you can take my word for it. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of reminds me of my own situation: my sister has been a sparse editor since mid-2007, and in Nov 2007, I decided to join Wikipedia and she showed me the basics about how to edit a page and such. Similarly, by the time she had only a few hundred edits, she learned from me (beyond her experience level) all about deletion, ANI, RfC, drama, etc. ;) Around the beginning, we edited similar articles, and subsequently I have even accidentally made about 3 edits on her account. There's technically no way to prove that we were/are different people, similar to MM's situation, so at this point it's a matter of AGF in my opinion. JamieS93 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Irbisgreif
7. This RfA is almost certain to not pass; however, will you consider Editor Review and/or Admin Coaching before your next attempt?
A: I am planning to seek out an admin coach, most likely in the weeks following the closure of this RfA. I have tried Editor Review before, and it isn't very active, so I doubt that I will go down that route. Since most of the concerns are experience related, I will most likely re-apply in mid to late November. In the meantime, I will work with an admin coach as well as gain some more experience in my areas of admin activity. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Sssoul
8. as a party who requested mediation, i'm interested in hearing more about your statement (above) that you're "starting to get involved at the mediation cabal". could you say something about how that's going, please and thank you? it would also be good to hear about any other experience with dispute resolution - RfCs you've helped to resolve, for example. (i asked that second question on your talk page on august 15th, but it got archived before you responded, so it seems worthwhile to try again here.)
A: As I said, I am starting to get involved with MedCab. I do not have a lot of experience with mediation, if any at all. For that reason, I would never use admin tools in a mediator role until I gained a lot more experience. As for the current mediation, I realize that I have not contributed a lot to that. In all honesty, that is because it doesn't need it. I have watchlisted the page, but the discussion is proceeding well as far as I can see. I am ready to get involved if it is required, but the editor in question seems to be willing to discuss changes before making them, and everyone has managed to refrain from editing the disputed article until consensus is reached. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Alan16

9. a) – You have approximately 1500 edits over the 4 month period on which you have been active on Wikipedia, so you average almost 400 edits a month. You have stated in your answer to question 7 that you intend to have another go in November, that is in 3 months time. At your current rate of editing, that would result in an edit count of between 2500-3000 edits, with less than 800 of those to articles. As administrators are considered role models, do you feel that having such a low edit count would be suitable, taking into account that you have not created any articles to date?
A. Well, I have created one start-class article (Laser Ghost), as well as 3 ITN's, though I know that that is not quite enough. I do plan on doing some more content building in the interval, while continuing to gain experience in my stated areas of admin activity. Also, I feel that an administrator may not necessarily have to be a content role model. They can also be role models in their civility, interaction with other editors, helping of new editors, and general clue. I am planning on contributing more in the content building area, but I don't think that I need to become someone with 3 FAs before I run again. Also, the November statement is a ballpark number. If I feel I have met the expectations of the opposers (or not) I may run earlier or later. I don't really know yet. MacMedtalkstalk 16:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. b) – With less than 45% support, what do you feel you will accomplish by letting this RFA run its course, considering that a large amount of advice has already been offered?
A. Since there is only two days left, I figure that I may as well let the clock run out. Most of the advice offered has been "Come back in 3 months", "More content building", and "Not enough experience". Since most of this (aside from the content building) is not something that I can consciously work on, I don't really see the point in withdrawing. Someone else may offer something that they would like to see me improve on, and I can work on that. Really, what harm can I do by leaving this RfA up for another 2 days? Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 16:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

  • Links for MacMed: MacMed (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for MacMed can be found here.

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

Discussion

  • I would just like to point something out. I noticed that User:Happyandrew1994 has been on Wikipedia for only one day, and his very first edit was a support for me above. I am not involved with this user, nor have I requested anyone to do such a thing. Should the community wish for the !vote to be struck, I will happily oblige. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support; despite their low level of experience and thin editcount, I know this user to be knowledgeable and responsible. I have no problem trusting them with the mop. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Julian, this isn't going to pass but I see nothing wrong with the user other than time here.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I remain unconvinced when all of the opposition is "I just want you to pass some arbitrary limit." Still, you should get some more experience under your belt. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Per JC. This looks like it's going to SNOW close, unfortunately. Until It Sleeps Wake me 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support Under no circumstances should this be SNOW-closed. While this RfA will not pass, this editor deserves to have this RfA stand until if and when he decides to withdraw. Keepscases (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It doesn't matter how long the editor has been here or how many edits he/she has made. Rather, it matters whether or not the editor has my trust. MacMed does. I hate to see this RfA going the way that it is. hmwitht 16:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of this !vote moved to talk page.
  7. Support i see no reason why we should refuse him to be an admin. he is well organised, answers with greeat thoughts, will be a great video game and medical wiki editor. He has interest of defending KNOWLEDGE at heart. I invite you also to support him. Freshymail-user:fngosa--the-knowledge-defender 18:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that we have no memorable negative interactions, candidate has never been blocked, candidate already has rollback, and candidate has received some User:MacMed/Awards. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support—This would normally be a case of opposing/neutralling the candidate for lack of general experience (only been around for 3.5 months), even if there are no major issues. However, I've seen MacMed around and I know him to be a decent editor. So I spent some time digging into his contribs, particularly his WP-space edits. There are some negatives: for instance, this GAN which was quick-failed (the associated FAC, too), and closing an AfD you voted in. Those were a bit of time ago, and, based on the rest of MM's contribs, I'll assume they were learning mistakes. He has thin experience in the areas he said he plans to work in per Q1. However, all of his present experience (reports and such) seem to be good, and a quick review of his deleted contribs [admin only] reveals reasonable CSD tagging. He responds well in the face of opposition or correcting personal mistakes, which I see as a positive. The sheer lack of time spent on Wikipedia likely means that you're not sufficiently familiar with processes, so I can't say that this is fully a "real support" for adminship. Instead, since this RfA is not going to pass, I felt obligated to offer a theoretical support. I honestly am not finding any problems, however, so most likely he would do fine with the mop. Come back in a few months with more experience, keep your nose clean, and I'm guessing that the community will be supportive of a second RfA. Best wishes, JamieS93 20:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, somewhat low level of experience, but can be trusted 99.98%. I don't think edit count is all that important, so long as the editor has proved s/he can edit responsibly and knows what s/he's doing. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Looks good. I'm not blinded by the low edit count. MacMed has done some fine work for this encyclopedia and is ready to wield the mop. Airplaneman talk 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Although I am usually neutral with someone like him, the support of others with extremely great standing is enough to convince me to support him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support MacMed is an intelligent, sincere and dedicated editor. The fact he has only been here 3.5 months does not dilute his positive attributes -- we need to pay attention to the person, not the calendar. I am happy to support MacMed. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. →javért breakaway 02:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral Support. I have moved up here because you have the confidence of many users I trust, and I cannot see any evidence you would misuses the tools. I still am concerned about the lack of experience, however, and my suggestion to get dirty still stands. This RfA will likely not succeed, but I wanted to register my support for your good work so far, and hope to see you back here again real soon. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, I don't see any reason that MacMed would not make a fine administrator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  17. Support There's enough of a record to discern that the user's trustworthy, and if the user's slightly unfamiliar with policy in certain areas, the user seems aware of this. Since I believe adminship is no big deal, I'm pleased to support. RayTalk 05:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I got admin rights after only five months, and the first month had under 50 contribs. I don't see a problem here. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak support According to MacMed his brother, CanadianNine introduced him to WP, told him about some of the more obscure parts of its backend but didn't explain syntax? Also according to MacMed, he became so familiar with the backend by reading the policies, but he didn't bother reading the syntax pages as well? I'm not buying it. HOWEVER, because there doesn't appear to be anything really wrong with either MacMed or CanadianNine's editing habits, I will grant this nomination my weak support.--*Kat* (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not following you. You think that MacMed is lying about the CanadianNine account but you trust him as an admin? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that it is hard to believe, but I am not the same person as CanadianNine. He didn't teach me syntax because that isn't what he chose to do. He showed me (using AfC as an example) AfC, saying "I deny this because of notability, and I let this one go live." The other thing is, why would I lie? As *Kat* said above, my brother's editing habits were good. He was a trusted user with good habits, so why would I deny being him? And lastly, why would I mention him in my answer? I could have simply left that out, and no one would be the wiser. I don't think I can say anymore on the matter, and I'm just going to hope that you can all assume good faith. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pascal, I'm assuming that if he was formerly known as CanadianNine then there is a good reason for the name change as well as his reluctance to not admit to it. I am attempting to assume good faith. I am not attempting to be naive. MacMed, you only brought up CanadianNine only after someone asked how you knew so much about Wikipedia's inner workings. Had you left it out, people might may have remained "none the wiser" but they would have also been somewhat suspicious.--*Kat* (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support Partly for [1], and the promise that you will take things slowly. But you have been here long enough to establish that you have clue and and civility and won't break the pedia. Weak because you are only just ready. ϢereSpielChequers 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I'm sick of having unofficial limits on when we should give out adminship. Quite frankly, I don't think the fact you've only been here for 3.5 months has anything to do with how well you can handle the mop. So far you have showed a lot of clue, civility, good-faith and intelligence with how you edit here, both in regards to content editing and behind-the-scenes work. Since you've demonstrated maturity and sensibility in your time here, I see no reason why time should be a limiting factor. There is an, albeit inefficient, system to remove disruptive administrators, and I doubt we'd need to in this case anyway. I doubt this will pass, merely because people will oppose based on the little time you've spent here, but in all honesty I cannot follow those concerns. Best of luck, if you need anything feel free to ask. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support; While the candidate could perhaps use a bit more experience, I think his answers to the questions asked, along with the quality of the edits he has made, make him a good prospect for adminship. I hope to see the user run again in a couple of months. –Andrew Holzman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC). [reply]
  23. You know, I doubt the wiki would break if we made MacMed an admin. WJBscribe (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. MacMed seems okay, and 3.5 months is more than enough time to get past the basics and a bit more: I've been here nearly three years, have been a reader for even longer, and am still finding out new things about the project. In addition, I do not believe that WP:NOTNOW applies to MacMed, and don't like that some opposes cite that essay as their opposition: WP:NOTNOW is for obvious snow candidacies, which MacMed isn't (this RfA is still open, and is running at roughly 50/50 support-to-opposition). I believe this is a case of "not right now" rather than "WP:NOTNOW". Acalamari 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Moral support I think some more experience will be beneficial. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per WJBscribe. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Cubs197 (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose 3.5 months just isn't enough. Come back in November, we'll talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a second look out of respect for Julian. It's still no, both due to thin edit count and lack of very much content building. However, the user is doing a good job and will be good with the mop once he gets it. I just don't think it should be yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. I could see this one being closed under the snowball clause.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of support would say otherwise. I do wish Snowball was used more appropriately. Snowball ought to be used when the Communism vandal requests Stewardship, not when a constructive contributor is honestly asking for assessment of their edits. Crying Snowball in this case is quite demeaning to the poor candidate and not at all helpful to anyone. +Hexagon1 11:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, not enough experience for me. Come back in a few months, and try again.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I appreciate anyone who is willing to get their feet wet with mediation, as well as the desire to serve in the capacity as an administrator, but the candidate's relative thin contribution history in the stated areas of intended admin activity leave me unable to support at this time. I'm no fan of editcountitis but I need to see more to go on prior to being able to judge a candidate's abilities/knowledge and must oppose at this time. Shereth 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose although working if WP:AFC is a good start, a copyright violation was accepted with Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Immunology of pregnancy and the Fair use rationales need some more work eg File:Laser ghost screenshot.jpg File:Laser ghost.jpg. Also Curse of Chick Hearn was closed as merge in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Chick Hearn, yet the candidate tagged it for deletion. Merge is not delete per GFDL history requirements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I have restored the article & fixed the merge. Merges also require proper documentation as outlined at WP:MERGE and Help:Merge. (Why didn't anyone else do this in 5 days time??) In the process a second admin deleted the article as G6 again before I could remove the old tag & properly redirect it. It's trout day I guess. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged Curse of Chick Hearn for deletion after merging it. I assumed that there was no point in a redundant page sitting around, after it had been merged into another. My apologies for that mistake. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good that you are learning. When you stay around a bit longer at look at more debates and policies you will find out more of these sort of non obvious things. Keep up the good work! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Other things to learn from if you become an admin are: Smother (film). This one you tagged as advertising speedy delete, It had only one sentence of promotion and a plot summary. The promotion line could have been easily removed and a prod tag added instead. Also NPWatcher does not seem to supply edit summaries as good as twinkle so it is not so easy to see why soething was tagged. Gu chocolate puds was tagged db-spam with this tool, but not clearly promotion, probably an A7 case though. Cardo Systems was another marked as spam, but not really. When an author blanks their own page the idea is to use G7 rather than A3. In an A3 case it is good to check history to see if there was a better version in the past and why it changed into a problem. However you seemed to have got the no context correct for The Marcus Institute! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support, but not now I've had some degree of contact with you, and you seem to be a perfectly good guy. However, slightly more than 1300 edits, without many "extensive" edits (ie No FAs or GAs) and Huggle, just doesn't provide enough for me to judge you with. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate your contributions to wikipedia, but this just isn't enough. Cheers, I'mperator 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Keep up the good work and come back in about three to six months; as stated below, it's not all about time, but about wanting to see more contributions as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge and experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you.
    For the most part, it requires at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
    However, if you work on vandalism patrol, most people would like a few thousand more.
    The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
    As an admin, you will inevitably have to...
    1. Explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions.
    2. Review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so.
    3. Review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so
    4. Negotiate a compromise.
    Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
    Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
    If you are not the type of person who likes to write content, there's plenty of other article work you can do (WikiGnomeing for start).
    My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3,000 edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to submit an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. iMatthew talk • take my poll at
    I personally think it's a bit unfair to blindly apply NOTNOW to a clearly dedicated user. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I look at it, not now is saying that you're just not ready yet. Since I don't believe the candidate is ready yet, I'm listing the (templated) advice to give them a guide on how to come back fully prepared. iMatthew talk • take my poll at 23:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Unfortunatley. MacMed does good work around the project but a few months more experience wouldn't hurt. Suggesting early closure per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW -FASTILY (TALK) 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Not enough edits/experience for me to make an accurate assessment of trustworthiness or knowledge. Tan | 39 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Wehwalt, Shereth and Graeme say it well. On the subject of SNOW, you can always revert a SNOW closure. The only downsides to having a full-on RFA are that this RFA has gone on long enough that you'll probably have to wait 3 months in order to succeed the next time around, and a full RFA gives people a chance to tell you what they want to see ... which may not be what you want to do, and negotiation is fine, but if you get a lot of advice and don't follow any of it, the next RFA will almost certainly fail. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: Not now. Come back in three months time and I will have no problem supporting. My oppose is not about edit counts, it is about personal experience. My first RFA was at a similar time in my Wiki career, and I too thought that I knew the policies well enough that I could wield the mop. I was mistaken. Since then I have learned so much more then I could have ever imagined. I would love for you to spend more time working, watching and learning. Per your answers to the questions I feel I should be supporting. If you decide to follow through and come back later on, I will be happy to support, even nominate you.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Would consider supporting after some time and a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very weak oppose .... because I largely wrote WP:NOTNOW I would like to think I know what it's intended for :) Clearly a good editor, but as Tan rightly points out just not quite enough material to review for me to confident in offering support. As per the notnow page I trust the opposes will provide good feedback for you, and that we will see you back at RFA later in the year. No particular issues but some more experience/tenure needed I think. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose per Pedro and others. A couple months just isn't enough time for us to get to know you and figure out if we can trust you with the tools; unfortunately, it isn't enough to just take your word for it. Hang around for a couple more months and prove you have the dedication, write some good articles and get a feel for the collaborative process that goes along with getting an article to GA or FA. Get involved in some discussions, show that you can keep a cool head under fire. If you come back to RFA with all that under your belt, I'm sure people will have no problem supporting. GlassCobra 00:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sorry Oppose Sorry, I dont feel 3 1/2 months is enough time to fully now how to use the tools. Sorry. America69 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Opppose Way too soon. No prejudice against a later RfA. Drawn Some (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose It takes a while to really, really understand how Wikipedia works. This editor is too new, and doesn't have a history with dispute resolution. Coming into a major conflict is when having the tools can be most dangerous, and until you've demonstrated your ability to navigate contentious situations, I'm not willing to trust you with the tools. Now I'm not saying you have to get into a drama-fest to be a good admin, but your lack of experience doesn't give me a clear reading on how you'd actually react. AniMatedraw 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose It's not for the candidate to tell people the basis on which they're allowed to oppose him. Even thinking that that's acceptable shows a fatal lack of experience with how this place works. You've started exactly one article, that's no basis for judging a stream of articles begun by others. Nick mallory (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I would like to point out the line I believe you are referring to: "I would like to respectfully request that such opposes not be made "vanilla"". I am in no way demanding editors to expand their answers, I am simply asking for constructive criticism that could help me improve as an editor. I understand and accept your concerns, and I was not trying to boss you around. My apologies if it sounded that way, and those apologies go out to anyone else who has misunderstood my meaning. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 13:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. People can oppose for whatever reason they want though and this is an RFA, if you want comments on your editing with a view to improve it then there's another forum for that. Anyway, I hope you learn from this, I'm sure you will, better luck next time. Nick mallory (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. I'm not familiar with most of this editor's work, and thus usually wouldn't comment; I arrived here through a revert made to Ovanir Buosi, an article on my watchlist. Here is the edit made by MacMed, which resulted in a template on the IP's page telling him/her that the edit was unconstructive. However, while one could argue issues with neutrality and/or verifiability in the IP's edit, it was a valid edit, and IMO didn't merit a template, but rather an explanantion for what needed to be changed. Without looking through contribs, I can't tell whether this sort of situation happens often, but IMO it demonstrates a lack of experience and/or care. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I am impressed that he took the time to apologize on the anon's talk page after I voted here - shows some maturity. Thus, changing vote to Neutral. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Q6 notwithstanding I just don't understand the current support this request is getting. Don't get me wrong, I've long advocated against the ever rising standards of experience for RfA candidates. But I still find it hard to argue that MacMed has accumulated sufficient experience. MacMed wants to work at AIV but he has a total of 5 AIV reports, only 3 of which resulted in blocks (but at least, they were the last 3). Wants to work at UAA but has a total of 7 UAA reports. Wants to work at RFPP but has only 5 edits to that page including this one two days after the last edit to the article and another one which was declined. Wants to work at SPP but has participated in 4 cases there. Wants to work at AfD but his limited experience with AfD is mostly in relisting or sorting debates and a couple of non-admin closures, at least one of which is dubious because he had participated in it. By my count (let me know if I'm wrong) he's commented on 6 AfD debates, including the ill-advised nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Solis. Content contribution is also very limited: if one takes out the vandalism reverts and AWB-like edits, there are at the very most 150 mainspace edits left. In the various Talk namespaces, I don't find enough instances of interaction to evaluate how well he does in that respect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose because it takes longer than 3.5 months to learn the culture of this large, sprawling, and heterogeneous community. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Reasonable contributions ... so far. I would like to see more collaboration with other editors, and more content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Because of lack of contributions. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose: per WP:NOTNOW..South Bay (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. being eager to try out various roles (mediator, admin) is fine, but as Gordonrox24 indicated above, sometimes more experience is needed to appreciate how important experience is. fortunately there are abundant opportunities around here to gain the experience the candidate's expressed an interest in, so ... go forth and do that! and enjoy the process Sssoul (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I'm opposing basically per WP:NOTNOW like most others, but I think this deserves a bit more explanation. I think that it takes time to develop the empathy necessary to handle the tools properly. In particular, a person who hasn't contributed much to articles might not understand the ramifications of applying those tools in a punitive/preventative manner. This oppose isn't based on any glaring mistakes or incorrect behavior so I think some time "in the trenches" would show that you're ready. -- Atama頭 21:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. With regrets because I'd like to think such enthusiasm contains plenty of constructive potential. But rushing an adminship candidature this rapidly suggests a dedication to schmoozing influences rather than the necessarily carefully-built and considered assessment and incremental experience in areas of particular interest and need. I'm sick of having to say this here but peer-group-pleasuring nods cannot compensate for a fundamental lack of experience within the pedia itself, never mind the increasingly complex requirements and knowledge-base needed for adminship. A pass at this stage suggests screams well-meaning puppet-pal. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And by 'puppet-pal' I absolutely do not mean any class of a sockpuppet (I'd be astonished, to put it mildly, if MacMed wasn't entirely reliably kosher). I'm referring to what I feel would be an inevitable follow-my-leader class of decision-making given the recent arrival and involvement of the candidate. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify for me? Thanks, MacMedtalkstalk 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Two things. One, I would like any canadate to have year round experiance editing, and 2, admins are usually conflict resolvers, so not having experianced one, as you said on Q3, is also a factor in my oppose.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per iMatthew. Tony (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose – You're a nice enough guy, but 427 article edits is simply not enough to know whether or not I can trust you with the mop. Not now. Alan16 (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per Alan. While I don't believe in editcounts, 415 edits to the mainspace wouldn't even give you AWB access. Please come back later. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have AWB access, along with ACC and rollback. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You miss my point. I meant to say your editcount is too low. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - sorry just far too soon to become an admin, wait a couple of months and im sure it will be accepted then, also i always worry about self nominations. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Too short time in Wikipedia and edit count is not enough to merit my !vote. I will only support candidate if his edit count is 2,000+ and has at least 5 or 6 months experience in Wiki-editing. BejinhanTalk 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose The Curse of Chick Hearn is a good example of why more experience is needed. Wikipedia is a large and complicated place & it takes a long time to learn enough to be an effective admin. I also note that while the decision on the AfD was likely correct, it shouldn't have been a non-admin closure as it didn't fit into any of the criteria of WP:NAC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - Per above, and the fact that you were on Wikipedia for only 3.5 months, isn't really enough to be an admin. I mistakenly had my first RfA only two months after I joined, but I immediately withdrew after it was clear that users posted oppose (or at least oppose comments) on my RfA immediately. I would suggest, wait at least three more months and get some more experience. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Far too soon. One two three... 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Anyone who thinks 1500 edits is insignificant is completely out of touch, so I want MacMed to view such opposition with a grain of salt. For me, 3 1/2 months is not long enough to judge your patterns of behavior though (and some probably think that I am out of touch for that). I'll be honest, I like to see at least six months, and preferably more, but there are cases where I would support 3.5 months or less. This is not one of those instances, although you are very much on track to gain my support in a short time if you maintain your current contributions. Find something here that you like doing, do it well, and do it for a good period of time. Three things it takes to be an admin here, and you have 2 out of 3 already. Not bad at all. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral because I'd like to support, but really can't do so with so little to look through. This isn't just a meaningless "wait a few months, we ancients don't let you newbies run RfA" kind of oppose. It's just ... you're asking us to support this RfA because you haven't made any major screwups in the time you've been here. But, the thing is, someone with 50 edits could make the same argument, as could someone with 50,000 botlike edits but no experience dealing with content disputes. There are editors with 6 years of experience and gigantic edit counts that would get a "not enough experience" oppose from me; it's not just about time spent or raw edit count. It really takes more than "I haven't done anything bad" to convince me that someone will make a good admin. That said, I have seen you around and I do think you would be good with just a little more experience first. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Moved to Moral Support. I am the last person who would oppose simply for lack of "X" number of months of service. However, it is important for an admin to have experience as a non-admin in the administrative areas of Wikipedia, regardless of how long it takes him or her to gain it. From your contributions, I can't see that you've had much experience in administrative areas such as AfD, AIV, etc. You've done great article work, but your participation in project space is minimal. My suggestion is this: I'm not going to give you an arbitrary number of months to wait, but I would suggest that you dive in to areas of the project where administrators lurk. Get your hands dirty. (Keep up your excellent content creation work, though!) When you feel that you've had enough experience in a broad range of project areas, come back, and you will get a support vote from me. Regards, Vicenarian (Said · Done) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral While I am unhappy with only 3.5 months can anyone highlight where this users lack of experience has been problematic. Otherwise it looks as we are rejecting based on editcountitis  Francium12  17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Lack of experience" doesn't mean that the candidate has created any problem. It means, to the contrary, that a candidate has not even tried many things that did turn out a problem for other candidates. It would be highly problematic and unfair if we opposed candidates who made a few mistakes among a lot of good work and promoted candidates who never exposed themselves to those difficult areas. — Sebastian 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Definitely a worthwhile user, especially for someone who has not been here for very long. However, I typically expect admin candidates to be here for a longer period of time, since I need evidence of time commitment. Otherwise, I would support. @harej 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support While contributions are good, with c. 3009 edits, I don't see much of a 'breadth' of knowledge with article creation or building (such as FAs or GAs), project collaboration, images, templates, and many of the other areas that an admin would be called on to help on without "the tools"! Not editcounting, but just not a lot of time. I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, but would like to see more working/experience with various aspects of the site. Skier Dude (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Won't pass, so it is pointless to oppose the candidate. Please concentrate on content contributions. AdjustShift (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Seems ok on the surface, but quacks a bit. Anyone checkusered this candidate? AKAF (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's already been asked and answered. There is no compelling reason to checkuser since the candidate has already said they edit from the same ip as their brother. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just CU somebody without a good reason (see WP:CHECK). Like Beeble said, it'd probably be fruitless anyway because he's apparently editing under the same IP. JamieS93 22:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. That wasn't what was bothering me. I'm prepared to 100% believe his explanation, but I find even the combination of those 2 accounts to be possibly not sufficient. Most sock-pupetteers have more than 1 sock. AKAF (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard reply to statements like that is to either submit your evidence at WP:SPI (if you have any) or stop making baseless accusations. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think you need a bit more experience before adminship. Maybe try reading through WP:ARL for a start. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Encouragement I would like to support you because you said you want to go into mediation, and some of the admin powers certainly help with that. What I've seen so far is promising. However, per my reply to Francium12 above I can not support you at this time. Pls drop me a note when you're running again. — Sebastian 17:23, 29 August 2009 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MacMed