Speedway

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mecu

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

Mecu

Final (18/29/10); Ended 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mecu (talk · contribs) - Yet another great user who is clearly deserving of adminship. Has helped out everywhere, and has a chunk of edits spread out between main, talk, wiki, and image spaces. He has more then enough edits and has been here long enough. Plus, any frequenter of IfD should be an admin without any trouble. I'm proud to be able to nominate him. Wizardman 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --MECU≈talk 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open for recall per the terms I laid out on my userpage, or other generally accepted terms, if one becomes available.
  • I had an editor review at: Wikipedia:Editor review/Mecu.
  • I have prepared answers to some optional questions that have been listed here at RFA in the past. Please see User:Mecu/RFAQ. If you wish you ask another question, please list it here. I selected questions that were asked several times in the time period I looked at of active RFAs in December.
  • My edit count is slightly skewed, since I use the Quick Image Delete tool by User:Howcheng. By installing this, a user can make one click (and perhaps fill in some other info in a questionbox) and the script will make up to three edits (listing for IFD for example). Thus, I say that dividing my edit count by 3 for Jan and 2 for December (since I didn't discover it until into December) would be a better approximation of my "worth" towards working on Wikipedia as defined by the edit count, if such things can be determined by such numbers.
  • I also have accounts on:

--MECU≈talk 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Specifically, image deletion as part of the IFD and Speedy Delete/Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and the sub categories for images Category:Replaceable fair use images, Category:Orphaned fairuse images, Category:Images with no fair use rationale, Category:Images with unknown copyright status, Category:Images with no copyright tag and Category:Images with unknown source where there seems to be a constant backlog. Once these areas are kept up, I would likely resume my Image Patrolling and working on writing articles, rather than seek out other admin areas to work on. I would specifically stay away from AFD, and go for "less glamorous and ignored" areas. Providing admin support in the IRC channel(s) where some issues arise and are not posted at on Wikipedia as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: 2005 NCAA Division I-A football rankings, a featured list, and its successor I have helped create and populate with data. But I am even more proud of some of my Template edits, specifically {{NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader}} and the series of templates {{1ColPollTable}}, {{2ColPollTable}} ... {{8ColPollTable}} ... {{15ColPollTable}}, {{16ColPollTable}}, {{17ColPollTable}}. While the latter are not heavily used yet, I have used them on the 2006 BCS computer rankings page I created and they are amazingly better than editing the raw table forms like is contained on 2006 NCAA Division I-A football rankings. I believe others will enjoy using them as much as I have next college football season and the college basketball group might use it as well. The first template I mentioned I believe is quite a unique template that gives the few, but plenty, articles that warrant its use a special style and prominence to help set it aside from the other articles. Also, I'm quite proud of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/MasterTeamTable. Although maybe not the official starter of the page, I did come up and propose the idea to the College Football WikiProject and populated a lot of the table and figured out how to get each line it's own edit "section" to make maintaining it easier. I think this single page helped the CFB project and bring a sense of "status" to the project - that is, it is quite easy to see how effective the project has been in getting this information and tasks done. It's hard to glance at it now and get that information, but in the beginning when most of the coach templates were red links and there were red links all over the rest of the table and to now see it mostly blue, I can earn a sense of accomplishment from it. I also created 30-50 of the coach templates listed there. Most recently, I'm proud that Fifth Down achieved the GA status. Although the article already had the base there when I got around to it, I polished it up to GA. I'm also proud of my work on Ralphie, which I'm currently grooming for GA. See User:Mecu/Contributions (or my usepage) for other contributions I'm proud of.
One thing I forgot to mention at the initial creation of this answer is the help and initial idea for the creation of BJBot. Although I can barely take credit for most of the work that User:Bjweeks did, the concept and idea were mine and Bjweeks provided the programming while I attempted to support him. Of last report, the bot had marked 4100+ images as orphaned fair use. Since I am the reason a large backlog will soon exist in these CSD categories, I must be willing to provide the time and energy to delete these images (yesterday's category has 1100+ images, todays has 3200+). --MECU≈talk 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 had plenty of stress from the Fair Use issue regarding logos that I specifically "left" Wikipedia for a short period (week or two) to cool off. However, when confronted with a disagreement with another user my first instinct is to take it to the talk page, which should be the first step for all users. I did start a mediation cabal on the fair use of sports logos that went relatively nowhere, but typically users, if they can remain level headed and cool enough, can work things out and typically for the better. It should be a users primary concern during a dispute and discussion to try and understand the other side's point. As too often, trying to get your point across seems more important, but understanding and refuting with intelligent arguments is likely more valuable in the end. I plan to continue this in the future: Take it to the talk page.
General comments
  • See Mecu's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • Is it just me or does it seem that every RfA comes with arguing about petty details of a person's WP career. Not to say that the ones here are meaningless, but this seems like something that needs to be worked out of the process! └Jared┘┌talk┐  00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's how the process is meant to work. The only way to get an idea of how any editor will act when given the tools is to look at their past record. While it may not be a perfect mechanism ("past performance may not be an indicator of future results" etc.) its the only one we could possibly use. If we worked it out of the process as you suggest what basis would we have to judge an editor? How could we know what they might do with the editing tools if we aren't allowed to judge their past actions? Gwernol 01:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that the past should be looked upon, but I don't think people should dwell on sole instances of conflict or error. We're all human! I had an incident...just one...about a couple months ago. I recently applied for Adminship and was literally gunned down because of the one thing, among other big picture things I'll admit. Bottom line, though: voters are too critical of one time flaws. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that an RfA isn't a one-time thing, and that incidents older than six months or so tend to be ignored. If an RfA fails, it's not a big deal to come back in two or three or four months and demonstrate that valid criticisms have been taken to heart (by working in new areas, by not repeating past mistakes, etc.) -- John Broughton (☎☎) 00:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. And because I have to leave for a few hours, Support as nom. No one beats the nom :) Update- I do see Prolog's point though, that hurts you somewhat.--Wizardman 22:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I wish I had beat the nom Support. Great user and I like the answer to number 1. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nomination--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Does great work with image tagging, would work well on CSD image backlogs. Had a minor disagreement with the user and I can only congratulate him in the way he delt with it much more civil than I was RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support I've worked with you and you seem to be a good user overall, but I think that you are too heavy on your deletions, and need to analyze them more before deleting. Cbrown1023 00:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, based on my experience with Mecu I don't think he would abuse the tools. VegaDark 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. based on seeing user around. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Based upon what I've seen of this user, he knows what he's doing. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support - excellent editor to work with, very civil and level headed, and does lots of thankless maintenance work. Give him the mop! BJTalk 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I've seen a lot of good work from Mecu in a variety of areas. He has worked hard on orphaned image patrol and has an obvious need for the tools. Take a look at the administrative backlog in areas of image deletion and the benefit of giving Mecu the bit is obvious. --BigDT 02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support: a diligent user working on deletion field. If we don't have such member like (s)he, Wiki will become a mess. Causesobad --> Talk) 13:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - per nom.↔NMajdan•talk 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: per nom MrFirewall 14:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Candidate has provided thoughtful answers is aware of his shortcomings. ~ BigrTex 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, while concerns about speedy deletion/blocking are valid, I'm satisfied with Mecu's answers to these concerns. Rhobite 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support User is dedicated and has gathered a great deal of edits. I don't quite see eye-to-eye with the opposition. You do not have to spend every waking minute of your life on Wikipedia to be admin-worhty. Not doing anything for two days is OK.Ganfon 23:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, out of the twenty-seven opposers, offering some serious worries, did you pick the one who gave a wacky reason to represent "the opposition"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per answers on your subpage. You saying "A block, by definition, is a punitive action. It is a "punishment" for someone whose actions have been detrimental to Wikipedia and fails to comply with requests to act on the benefit of Wikipedia" seems to conflict with the blocking policy, which says "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure." Unless I'm missing something, that shows a fairly major misunderstanding of the blocking policy, which wouldn't be encouraging for an admin. Trebor 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the blocking policy and believe it conflicts itself. However, if you read my full answer to the question, I do not believe in seeking out punishment to users. It's only after they have not complied with policy and do not appear to be attempting to correct themselves that a block is warranted. I consider blocking a "punishment" because you did not follow policy and you do not appear to want to. It is a punishment of "future crimes" as it is, as your disruption to Wikipedia has caused problems and wasted the time of good editors. I do not believe that blocking should occur for "future crimes" with no past history. I do not believe that punitive ("Inflicting or aiming to inflict punishment; punishing.") is the goal of blocking, it's the removal of a user from editing Wikipedia, which however, is a punishment for past "crimes". I hope you can see the very fine line that I am drawing to make this distinction. If not, I can attempt to clarify further. --MECU≈talk 23:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a block has nothing to do with punishment, it's preventative. Punishment is "to subject to a penalty for an offence, sin, or fault" and that's not the aim of blocking; blocking should attempt to prevent future offences. And how do you feel the blocking policy "conflicts" itself? Trebor 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prevent future offenses" is a punishment. It conflicts itself for this reason. The "punishment" for being disruptive to Wikipedia is a block that user from further disruptive edits to Wikipedia (of varying lengths for various crimes). I believe reading the full answer to this question answers the true intention of this question while taking this one line out of context is quite unfair. --MECU≈talk 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I've read the full answer and I'm still not convinced by it. Later on: "Blocks are merely a way to "suggest" to a problem user they evaluate why they are here." No, blocks are "merely" a way to prevent future offences; they may have the side-effect of suggesting to a problem user that they evaluate why they are here. This is either a case of you misunderstanding policy or a (very) poor use of language to express what you mean. The fact you would use the phrase "A block, by definition, is a punitive action" when the policy says "They should not be used as a punitive measure" worries me. Trebor 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly oppose — Fair Use Policing, lack of activity (stopped 25th, back 28th), Lack of contributions (to the encyclopaedia - contributions are imperative for an admin), shows no need for the tools, claims to be an eventualist yet (s)he tags for "RFU". (+ per Trebor) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fighting copyright violations is never reason to oppose someone, Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point Jaranda wat's sup 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am currently working with User talk:Archiemartin on resolving the fair use claims he is making. I was absent the last 3.5 days while on a long vacation, I made the announcement on my user and talk page for the duration. What does RFU and being an eventualist have to do with anything? I'm enforcing the Wikipedia policy? I am male, which is clearly stated on my userpage. Image:Pelosi Official Photograph.JPG doesn't have source information. The "Speaker's website" could mean several things and mean the different between the image being PD-US-GOV as it is labeled and needing to be under fair use (which then would most likely fail a fair use replaceable). Image:Richclementi.jpg is fair use replaceable. What specific action does this show? Him winning? There is little content on the image description page (let alone a rationale) to explain why this is okay under fair use and not replaceable. I have a direct need for the tools per my response to standard question #1 and I have provided many contributions to the encyclopedia, aside from my image contributions. --MECU≈talk 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may of been willing to reconsider had I not been accused of "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" and then having the candidate argue with me and another opposer above. Jaranda: You may not believe it to be but I do believe fair use policing to be, it's my criteria. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think someone accusing you of WP:POINT is not relevant to this RFA nor a valid reason to not change your stance. I am not arguing, I'm attempting to explain my positions and actions. This is far from an argument, it is suppose to be a discussion, for which I do believe is taking place. --MECU≈talk 00:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. The candidate wants to work with CAT:CSD, but I have serious concerns about his/her knowledge of WP:CSD, even if he was to concentrate on image deletions. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] Prolog 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to any other instances of inappropriate CSD usage/nomination, other than the band series of ~18? My thought is this: I could understand everyone arguing that I am "took quick with the speedy trigger" if this was a pattern. But 18 nominations on one scope that I admit to not being fully qualified in is not a pattern, it is a one time mistake. Shouldn't my judgment in the ~1000 (guess) times I've applied CSD correctly (which are more difficult to find, since they are deleted) weigh more than the one time error in judgment? Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent. Anything written can be removed and removed can be restored (even images, for those that didn't know that). No admin will be perfect in their judgment, I have never claimed to be perfect in mine: everyone is human. But to fault someone for one instance (one period) of error for which they admit was wrong and hold them to that one time is erroneous and no one would pass RFA, unless they have never really done anything at Wikipedia, for which then lack of experience would apply. You have seen my errors and how I handle them. That should be the judgment for RFA, not the errors (unless they are a pattern). My knowledge of all areas I am interested in being an admin are quite sound and users have specifically sought me out in requesting help for their image questions. (this next sentence/thought is similar to my words posted previously below) Expecting an admin to be able to perform all tasks in all areas is impossible. No admin could perform all tasks as well as specialized admins, for which there certainly is. My knowledge of CSD, specifically under images, is unquestionably the level that anyone could expect of an admin. --MECU≈talk 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not noticed other similar CSD tagging by you, or anyone else actually. I think you are a very civil user and your work on images is certainly valuable to the project. These 18 speedy tags are still very worrysome because this happened only two weeks ago, and demonstrated lack of understanding of A7, which is a CSD criterion that every admin is bound to run into, probably sooner than later. I appreciate that you admit your mistakes, but in the case of these band articles, I also found your Afd nominations insufficient. "Non notable band" should have been backed by more reasoning, as many of these articles asserted notability through several criteria of WP:MUSIC, and only lacked references to prove it. As WJBscribe mentioned below, this could indicate unfamiliarity with the guideline. I think you will make a fine admin some day, and not only in image-related work, but at the moment I'm not comfortable with you having the delete button. Prolog 10:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Prolog. For now. Bubba hotep 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Trebor, who is correct in highlighting the candidate's misunderstanding of blocking policy. "Blocking is never punitive" is a maxim every admin needs to know; trying to "finesse" the exact language of policy pages is useless. Just remember, "Blocking is never punitive." This is true, no matter what one might think one has read to the contrary. Admins do not have the time to mete out "punishments." Xoloz 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Very quick on the trigger with speedy. Specifically this one. Decent article, good content with 6 linked albums. I dont know if, as of now, I could trust this editor with deletion capabilities. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong oppose per Trebor - unapologetic misunderstanding of policy WP:BLOCK. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. blocks are not punitive. Voice-of-All 02:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are not punitive. My attempt to draw the fine line between punishment for past actions as a block to prevent future actions seems to have failed. I completely agree that a block should only be used to protect Wikipedia and other users. My inability to clearly define the small distinctions between the line that I was drawing as a "punishment" use of a block is my major failing. I would never (and my answer on the RFAQ attempted at this) give a block to HARM someone. My intent was that, based on past actions and the user's current intent to not comply with WP policies or requests to stop, that protecting Wikipedia (or other users) by blocking (... removal of a privilege is also known as a punishment, but not a harmful one, not to inflict harm) is the final resort and not to be applied without serious thought or casualness. My answer on my RFAQ was never to imply that I would not comply with WP:BLOCK in any manner. --MECU≈talk 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per [5], unless you can explain how this could be something other than a specific vendetta toward a specific record company. — CharlotteWebb 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing items for CSD or AFD (I skipped the prod since I believe it would have been contested, I was correct) is not disruptive or trying to make a point. Further, is it not a vendetta as it is not destructive to myself or Wikipedia, I accepted the terms of the AFD. Had I gone further with trying to get these article deleted, I would agree with you that it would have been a vendetta or being disruptive. What I did though, was neither. --MECU≈talk 03:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the first punch, by definition, cannot be a vendetta, maybe it was more of a "sucker-punch". What earth possessed you to mass-nominate those pages for deletion — pages which had nothing in common other than a business affiliation shared by the articles' subjects? Nowhere did you cite any particular issues relating to the quality of the articles themselves, nor did you provide any reason at all other than "db-a7 was contested". The fact that you tagged all of these pages for speedy deletion suggests that you wouldn't have hesitated to shoot, on sight, articles that would be unanimously kept on AFD. This scenario uncomfortably reminds me of Improv vs. Cookies. Despite your fair-use patrol work, I fear that giving you admin tools would be a net loss for the project. — CharlotteWebb 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the band articles I nomimated, one acheived no consensus and the others were all keep (though some voted keep on all without looking deeply into each individually). The "No consensus" was a second nomination for the article (first not by me) and was a "band" for 6 weeks with 1 album (or 2, the article was contradictory). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorr's Hammer2. As for why I did it, see [6]. I did say a little more than "speedy failed", I claimed they were non-notable bands (which was the csd a7). I would not "pull the trigger" on an article for which I am not familliar with. I would nominate for speedy per the criteria on any item I wanted a "second" opinion on. It is impossible for you to see the large volume of items that I have nominated speedy which were "successful", seeing ~16 "failures" of the (guess) 1000 total items I have nominated speedy is an error rate less than 2%. If you look at my area of expertise (ie, images), that error rate is near zero. Nor is visible the items I've brought to admin attention on IRC or ANI that were handled/deleted by admins and as an admin, would have had the "correct" success rate of pulling the trigger. Admins can specialize in areas, but they must be knowledgeable of all areas. Some admins focus on vandalism (and have been granted adminship on that premise alone). My focus upon images and high success rate there should be the focus, not the assumption that I would delete all articles in other areas I do not maintain expertise. --MECU≈talk 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose per Prolog. Incorrect speedy tags are a big problem, especially with someone who wants to work with CAT:CSD. As an admin, you can, and probably will, just delete things you would have speedy tagged before. -Amark moo! 03:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per Prolog. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per answers regarding blocks and "staying away from AfD". Bit too trigger happy on images. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 09:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose - not satisfied with a few of the responses on the RFAQ page (e.g. age, blocks) Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 09:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Prolog. Terence Ong 10:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - misunderstanding of blocking policy, very indiscriminate use of the speedy tags on decent articles. Moreschi Deletion! 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per CharlotteWebb. CiaranG 14:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Prolog – PeaceNT 14:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I share the above concerns about the candidate's understanding of deletion policy. This especially should not have been tagged as speedy. In his reply to Gwernol below, the candidate accepts this but claims all were appropriate for AfD. This appears to me to cement the lack of understanding of WP:BAND. On a quick glance the band seems to meet criteria 5, 6 and maybe 9. Also, the last change prior to its being tagged as speedy was a link to the Italian Wiki article on the band! (not bad for an allegedly non-notable band Maryland!) Strong deletion policy knowledge is crucial to adminship and I think Mecu would be overzealous in using the tools in this area. WJBscribe 14:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Prolog. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Prolog. The speedy tags on the provided example articles are very troubling. This would not be a big deal if the edits had been (for example) two years in the past. As it stands, however, the listed examples are a mere two weeks in the past. Seventypercent 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I do not trust this user with the deletion button at this time. Proto::► 10:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Prolog (but certainly not for "lack of activity" in taking a 3 day break, per Matthew Fenton, for heaven's sake!) Johnbod
  23. Oppose the second paragraph in WP:BP states: "[blocks] should not be used as a punitive measure." -- Selmo (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per diffs given by Prolog. With better understanding of CSD criteria possibly support in the future. feydey 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, need more time to understand Wikipedia's policy. Shyam (T/C) 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Trebor, prolog, et al. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Trebor. Kncyu38 11:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Charlotte. Too deletionistic for my liking. --Rebroad 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Very Strong Oppose per Trebor. Candidate's failure to understand the blocking policy deeply disturbs me. Dionyseus 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Your edits seems to be too one sided, focusing too much on images. Given that each image you deal with requires a couple of user talk space edits, some wikipedia edits, and some main and images space edits, it's deceiving how your counts add up so fast. I think you need more experience in other neighborhoods of WP. I can't oppose though because you're a good editor otherwise. └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your compliments. All my image work started in December, so you can see other more representative works if you look at my edit counts (and edits) before December. I have a large volume of work in the College football WikiProject which is largely non image related. --MECU≈talk 00:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Excellent fairuse fighter that's isn't very agressive like some, but I seen him make some questionable tagging, like Image:SIng.jpg. May change vote later Jaranda wat's sup 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the license on that image is still incorrect. It should not be PD-US-GOV, the source page does not describe it as being such, and reading the copyright notice on the source page clearly states "all rights reserved" and not "website design and layout reserved, image is in the public domain because it is the work of the US Government." The source does not agree that the license it was given is that it's public domain because it's the work of the US Government. If anything, the tag should be PD-old. Thank you for your comments. --MECU≈talk 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is the U.S goverment, the treasury is part of it. Jaranda wat's sup 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's true, then the website can't be copyrighted. Works of the US Government can't be copyrighted, yet the page is copyrighted, indicating something else. Looking at [7] indicates that someone else may own copyright of this item. --MECU≈talk 01:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Great contributions, great guy, but I simply cannot bring myself to support someone contributing to the fair use issues we're having here at this point. Thumbs up to sticking to the policy, but I can't be comfortable with it right now, but I could be swayed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Good and dedicated user, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with your zealousness in deletion.-- danntm T C 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral but leaning towards oppose. First, let me say I really appreciate the great work you have been doing on images. I've been working through your contributions and you are definitely helping Wikipedia a great deal and for that we all owe you our thanks. I was worried about the blocking policy discussion because blocking is the most impactful tool that admins have. I think that in reality your interpretation is very close to the preventative meaning of the policy. However I am disturbed by the speedy deletion examples that Prolog gave. Three of these four very obviously assert notability an should not have been speedied, and the fourth is borderline enough that you should not have speedied it, in my opinion. Speedy deletion, especially under criteria 7, will only work if nominators and (particularly) admins understand how it should be properly applied. Sorry, and please don't be disheartened by this RfA. Some of our best admins needed a couple of attempts to get the bit. Gwernol 01:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree I should not have CSD'ed any of those band articles. But all were completely appropriate to list at AFD. I am not disheartened, but I appreciate your warm wishes and compliments as well. --MECU≈talk 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I know you're a great Wikipedian and a dedicated editor, but the diffs provided by Prolog really make me not to comfortable supporting. Sorry. ← ANAS Talk? 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral [er Anas. I would support, but the diffs provided Prolog keep me from a support. S.D. ¿п? § 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral diligent no doubt, but prone to being trigger happy with CSD. Close but not close enough either way. The Rambling Man 13:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral, needs more time in understanding process. May support in future. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Has good and bad points; maybe I'll support next time.--Osidge 18:14, 2 February 2007 (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/Mecu