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

Ended (75/0/0); 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

MaxSem (talk · contribs) - Where to start discussing this fabulous user is truly a challenge. A steward since December 2006 and an administrator on the Russian Wikipedia since April 2006, MaxSem has also been an active contributor to the English Wikipedia since November 2005. He is a regular to vandal fighting and disambiguation link repair, and partakes in a slew of Wikipedia-space activities, including, but not limited to, articles for deletion, requests for adminship, articles for creation, bot requests for approval, the administrators' noticeboard, and the incidents noticeboard. He is also a leading developer for AutoWikiBrowser, the famous semi-automated wiki editor. He is extraordinarily easy to work with, and is always in a good mood. With over 20,000 combined edits between all projects, it is obvious that MaxSem is one who can be fully trusted with the tools and responsibilities of being an administrator. —METS501 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, Mets. How could I decline? :) MaxSem 17:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement

• In my opinion, not only becoming administrator should be no big deal, as should losing this access level, therefore I will be available for recall.
• Certainly, my English is far from native level, but I've been told that it is quite good enough.
• Like every human being, I sometimes make mistakes. But at least I can admit them.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Things I'm already experienced with on other wikis:

1. As always, reducing infinite speedy deletion backlog and blocking vandals.
2. I have done a great deal of image deletions on ru: and participated in elimination of fair use images on Meta, so I will work on image backlogs, simple cases first, more complicated later, whn I gain more experience.
3. Closing AfD discussions (I'm not too experienced with other XfD's, but can learn later)
4. Editing protected pages would be extremely useful for me: fulfilling requests for updating protected pages, editing protected templates (on ru:, full deprecation of {{qif}} was done mostly by me) and making neccessary interface changes in the MediaWiki: namespace. I have plenty of experience with m:Spam blacklist, therefore I anticipate working with enwiki's local whitelist. As an AWB developer, I could really use ability to edit its checkpage for adding new users and updating its format.
5. I'm not a member of the bot approvals group, but I'm frequently to be found at bot-related discussions and anticipate using sysop tools for bot-related things, e.g. blocking malfunctioning/unapproved bots and unblocking them when things have been sorted out.

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

A: I'm not the greatest article writer ever, and even on my home wiki I have only written one GA and a couple of DYKs. My main contribution to Wikipedia is programming - I devote much of my free time to AutoWikiBrowser. Yet after extensive referencing of the List of United States Presidential assassination attempts (which I found by clicking "Random page") I've put it up for a peer review, hoping to bring it to featured list status.

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:It wasn't a personal conflict, however I participated in this RFC regarding Lupo. I felt that such changes need to be thoroughly discussed first, and only then implemented. When discussion on Commons was over and it was decided to get rid of pre-1973 Soviet images, I participated myself in deprecation of {{PD-Soviet}} on ru: and performed the same kind of edit myself[1].

Optional question 4. I notice your willingness to be available for recall. Don't you think the category creates a unnecessary differentiation between users who belong to it and users who do not, making the last group appear as if they have a problem with losing sysop access? Just curious. -- ReyBrujo 18:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Probably, it is. But I always thought so, and made similar statement during my Russian RfA, even though there is no CAT:AOR analogs on ru:. Easy come, easy go, admins should always have community's support. MaxSem 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. What would you do as an administrator about ideological or profit motive attempts to manipulate Wikipedia? Bear in mind this statement from Brad Patrick as well as this news story, this conference summary, this press release, and these blogs. Durova^Charge! 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Of course, there should be no hesitation whatsoever for editors to nominate promotional articles for deletion, and for administrators to delete them. But that doesn't seem to provide enough protection from abuse. One litte example. How can I help? Probably, by paying more attention to arguments on AfD, mercilessly ignoring those that contradict our policies. I'm not so good at mediating, so I can't help much with POV disputes, sorry. By the way, I was recently interviewed by a SEO-related website, and they were extremely interested in things such as rel="nofollow" and other counterspam measures. I tried to assure them that spamming here is pointless as we fight spam effectively, but I don't think they believed me:) MaxSem 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See MaxSem's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• Links for MaxSem: MaxSem (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• I'm leaving for a brief business trip and will be back on Friday, so this RFA will end without me. MaxSem 08:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MaxSem before commenting.

Support

1. Strong Support - As Per Mets501's Nomination. Helpful, happy down to earth guy, who always helps out when help/advice is requested. Reedy Boy 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - this is a bit of a no brainer, given that the user is already a steward, as well as an admin on meta: and ru:. His work here, as well as there, is invaluable, and, as a member of en-wiki, I feel honoured that he has accepted Mets' request to become a janitor here. Martinp23 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Good user, won't abuse the tools. --kingboyk 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support definitely. MaxSem is a very experienced Wikipedian who would make a great admin. A user with his level of dedication should be granted the tools. —Anas ^talk? 18:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support I've seen this user all over the AWB pages. Seems a very helpful and dedicated user. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support I don't see any problems with this user having the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support: Of course a steward can handle the job :p ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per nom and candidate's record. No issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Absolutely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support as nominator —METS501 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong and obvious support. no concerns.DGG 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Obviously can be very trusted with the tools since he is already a sysop. Evilclown93 20:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. «Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» obviously supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
15. One of the Wikimedia Foundation's best volunteers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Seems like a good, reasonable and levelheaded editor. -- Seed 2.0 22:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Unable to find anything against you. --St.daniel ^Talk 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support- strong editor, friendly and levelheaded. Thunderwing 22:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong support I first encountered MaxSem back in January (I think it was then). I have seen this user various times and I am glad to strongly support. Acalamari 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong Support MaxSem is a knowledgeable of policy, and I'm sure his experiences at the Russian Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and as a steward make him qualified for adminship here at the English Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, surely. --Phoenix 23:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Every reason to trust this user with the tools. Will (aka Wimt) 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support of course -- Samir 23:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Strong support He's been a pleasure to work with, here and on Meta. Definitely an asset. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. Stewards are some of the most trusted people in the whole Foundation. I certainly trust MaxSem with the tools, because he's already got cooler ones at Meta. Sean William 23:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Very Strong Support-Ummm....he's a steward. If we can trust him with control of all levels on every single foundation wiki, I think we can make him an admin on one. (By the way, when this passes unanimously, can he promote himself :) ) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No he cannot, that would violate Steward policies. Majorly (talk | meet) 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that his adminship request on en.wiki should be treated like a request from any other editor. We must primarily examine the work that he's done here at the English Wikipedia, and then use his other Wikipedia experience as secondary reason for granting/denying his adminship request. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but it shows trust (and the fact that he's not likely to go rouge :)) --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    omg steward! droolz! Really, some of the comments in this debate are a bit silly and irrelevant. There's plenty of reasons to promote MaxSem based on his work here (knowledgeable, helpful, trustworthy, AWB dev) and that's what we should be looking at. It's not unknown for admins on other wikis to fail at RFA here, we have a different culture after all. --kingboyk 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but he's a steward on all Wiki's, and that's a lot harder to pass than an RFA. Anyway, I'm going to stop about it, he's great on this Wiki also, and also helpful with AWB. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

27. Most definitely. Errabee 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. He'll certainly be useful. John Reaves (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. No doubt -- Y not? 01:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support His history speaks well for him. JodyB _talk 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - yep, sign him up. Philippe 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per others comments. Captain panda 03:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Very, very reasonable. English is very good (who cares if it's not native?), and an additional level-headed, sensible admin is always a good idea. Jmlk17 04:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per Nishkid's comment above. – Riana_ऋ 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - one of the best admins on Russian wiki Alex Bakharev 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. WjBscribe 10:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - a very trusted user in many wikimedia projects, however, we should judge the candidate on this one: A very level headed user who is knowledgeable about policy, I like the answers to questions, he will do well. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. I support this candidate. Conscious 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Yes --Rettetast 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. I think he'd make a fine admin here. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - if this editor can do more by having the tools, then he should have them! LessHeard vanU 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - an obvious one. Yonatan ^talk 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support: Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also good. Should be an asset as an administrator considering he is already experienced.  Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support While I may have a small bias as a Soviet (привет!), it's not that hard to see that he'd be a perfect candidate. ~Женя 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support without question, a very experienced Wikipedian indeed. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Clearly trustworthy and a valued contributor. JavaTenor 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support never had any trouble with this user. Prodego ^talk 01:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Already wears many Wikipedia hats - if he wants this one too, great. -- MarcoTolo 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - as per nom..----Cometstyles 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support dedicated contributor.--cj | talk 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Should definitely have an admin hat due to his role on AWB alone. --Ligulem 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Strong Support -- has already provided the English Wikipedia good spam-fighting support in his role as a Meta admin handling the spam blacklist. Some of his pithy one-line responses to spammers complaining there about blacklisting have been classic "keepers" (I wish I'd kept a few). --A. B. ^(talk) 11:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support I can't think of anything else to say that hasn't already been said, so I will stick with: excellent contributor. :-) GDonato (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support D. Recorder 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. PeaceNT 05:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - no question --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Helpful guy. Voted for his stewardship before, so, if he declares himself available for recall, how could I possibly not vote for him here? --Pan Gerwazy 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, Meets my personal standards. --Random ^{Say it here!} 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. A bit of a no-brainer, really, but even so his work on enwiki when segregated from his meta duties still show him to be an excellent candidate. Daniel 11:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support If I could find one reason not to support then I would point it out. But I can't. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - A no brainer.↔NMajdan•talk 14:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Support *gets pen* *signs on the dotted line* I already voted above. My apologies. -- Seed 2.0 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65. Support I like the answer to my question. There appear to be no worries in other areas. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Bueno - Georgewilliamherbert 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. I see no problems with him being an administrator. -- ReyBrujo 12:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. All indications that user will use the tools judiciously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Aye. A superb diplomat. — Feezo (Talk) 09:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. He isn't one already? --Rory096 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Default support. —AldeBaer 12:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support: Total edits = 4513. Inexperienced? NO he's already a sysop, bureaucrat and steward of Meta :-) Good luck --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 13:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Terence 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Strong Support Knows the ropes? Yes. Experienced? Yes. Gonna support him? Yes. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support without slightest doubt. Intelligent and reasonable person. --Irpen 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.