Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marcus Qwertyus

Marcus Qwertyus

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (3/5/0); Scheduled to end 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Marcus Qwertyus (talk · contribs) – ^{(Formerly known as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and User name one)} I principally work on tedious tasks such as New pages patrol and vandal-fighting but have also created lots of articles (74 to be exact but I've created dozens of others over redirects). I help new users by moving userspace drafts, answering the occasional question and providing encouragement.Marcus Qwertyus 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Mostly deleting articles with speedy tags and expired prods. I hang around requested moves a lot and perform moves on userspace drafts and in the future I'd like to assist moving uncontroversial moves (e.g. over redirects and stuff.) I would also monitor AIV and in addition have over 2,700 articles on my watchlist and will issue blocks accordingly. At some point I'd like to help clear out Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons. There are ~20,000 images in the backlog there. I would also like to edit twinkle and already have to some extent by asking administrators to implement the changes I make.

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

A: My best contributions have been to the mainspace. I have cleaned up dozens, no, hundreds of articles. Here is an example [1]. I am also particularly skilled at article mergers. FCS Manned Ground Vehicles was consolidated from 8 different stuby articles.

I have also worked extensively on the main page. On my trophy shelf there are 6 DYK's (and rightfully there should have been a couple of ITN's but the ITN talk page's atmosphere is not conducive for democracy). I often check the factual accuracy of the main page and report problem and updates to Main Page Errors.

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 do not edit war though there is the occasional edit conflict. I made Jansport87 quit (I think I was the straw that broke the camel's back) so I apologized.

Slightly random question from WFC

4. I appreciate how random this will seem, but I ask it in good faith. This was my first thought on seeing your username. Do you have a reasonably strong password?

A: L3tt3r$ & numb3r$ and I change it all the time too. Marcus Qwertyus 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Beeblebrox

5. Since you took a moment put of your time while preparing this RFA to re-address the situation at User talk:Jansport87, it can hardly come as a surprise to you that it is on my mind as well upon seeing this nomination. Would you care to explain your actions in this matter?

A: I would have accepted any explanation during that 36-hour time frame I gave. If the same problem occurred today I would take it to Request for comment instead. Marcus Qwertyus 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. First to support. Good balance of contributions for an admin. --WFC (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Good balance of audited content creation and vandal-fighting. Clearly here to build an encyclopedia, have never had any negative interactions with him. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
3. Support - Personally I don't find the opposes convincing. The Jansport incident was a one time thing. Everyone makes mistakes. Even admins sometimes makes mistakes. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Additionally, this was a month ago and he did apologize, which is a good thing. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I find both your actions and your explanation for them in the Jansport thing disingenuous. You didn't seem to care one bit about this until earlier today, when you went over there and asked them to come back right in the middle of putting together this RFA. (look at the timestamps on these edits:[2] [3][4]) That looks to me like just trying to cover your tracks and make an apology for the sake of appearance to help you at RFA. You completely ignored my postings your talk page about this incident[5] and about a bad CSD tagging you made the same day[6]. Admins are expected to be skilled at communicating with other users, and should respond to legitimate criticisms of their actions. Your answer to my question about this did nothing to persuade otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   My lack of a response to your critisism should not be interpreted as me ignoring them. Recently I have taken to writing "duly noted" or just "noted" on such posts. Marcus Qwertyus 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   You didn't respond, and you didn't do anything about it for a month. Looks like ignoring it to me. I might be more willing to buy that reasoning if you had given a more direct and sensible response to my question, but that ship has sailed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose. No rationale given to Jansport87 as for what makes the username promotional (I honestly have no idea!), and a lack of follow-up on this article's speedy G11 tag, which you self-removed without explanation after the material was sent to OTRS for G12 compliance. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   never heard of Jansport? Marcus Qwertyus 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Never. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   It wasn't me that removed the speedy. There's talk about getting Twinkle configured fo db-multiples. Marcus Qwertyus 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   My bad. It was the creator (but it was done in good faith). Still, I don't see the relevance of this response when, even with an OTRS ticket, the material submitted was way too promotional to accept as is. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose: Beeblebrox's rationale is just too compelling to ignore. I don't think you have the right attitude to become an admin at this time. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Sorry - I can't support, having seen the diffs for the Jansport87 incident. I also have some general maturity/attitude concerns from reviewing some contributions, and from the responses to questions and criticism here.  Begoon^talk 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose. Opposing an RfA is not something I enjoy doing, but something just doesn't sit right with me. In my own interactions I've found you abrupt and uncommunicative. My most recent interaction was an {{editprotected}} request, where you demanded that code from your userspace be copied over, your request comprising simply of "implement this." You only added the word "please" after an administrator all but refused to make the change until you did so. The only justification you provided for your lack of common courtesy was that you were going to request adminship in a few weeks. If that was my only concern, I would abstain or put my comment in the neutral section, but everywhere I turn, I find yet more niggling concerns- Beeblebrox above does nothing to put my mind at ease. I'm also unimpressed with "and rightfully there should have been a couple of ITN's but the ITN talk page's atmosphere is not conducive for democracy"- the bad grammar and use of apostrophes raises an eyebrow and Wikipedia is not a democracy, but much more concerning is your refusal to accept the consensus when it didn't go your way and the desire to take on a role that often involves sorting out some bitter disputes when you can't accept. All in all, I have deep concerns about your maturity, communications skills, ability to accept consensus and understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. TL;DR? Sorry, I don't trust you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

   Just a little clarification. The news item was about a string of bombings and shootings in Afghanistan. The reason the ITNs were not put up on the main page was that they were buried under piles of irrelvant news.

1. Oppose Although vandalism fighting is definitely a plus, I don't feel that the user is fit to become an administrator at this time due to the run-in with Jansport87. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now at least. Although contributions look great overall, I am a bit concerned with multiple converted taggings as recent as July 3 (found here). I am impressed at the amount (2500+) pages he has patrolled, but am not confident he holds a super-firm grasp of CSD policy. Since this is a place he intends to work in, I am uncomfortable supporting at this time. Airplaneman ✈ 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)moved to oppose

Neutral At least until there's a more in depth answer to Question 5.  Begoon^talk 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)...moved to oppose