Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Milton Stanley

Milton Stanley

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 21:25, June 26, 2007 (UTC)

Milton Stanley (talk · contribs) - a dedicated and hardworking wikieditor. Onopearls 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept Onopearls' gracious nomination and kind words. --Milton 21:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: The biggest complaints I've heard directed at Wikipedia are first, that anyone can edit, and second, editors frustrated with other editors' seeming violations of WP:NOR and so on. As an admin, I will not only have frequent access to the internet, but the ability to better combat vandalism and edit wars. I intend to make myself available to editors in need of assistance in these matters. I also have found that the activities I enjoy the most are of the mindless/repetitive type. As such, I will endeavor to monitor {{editprotected}} request, and the like, especially the various adminstrative backlogs.

Could you specify what administrative backlogs and how you intend to combat vandalism and edit wars? (blocking vandals? 3rr blocks/protections? what?) Thanks.--Chaser - T 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Whilst browsing the speedy-delete category, I happened to notice a backlog there, and also at editprotect requests (which I happened to mention in my answer before noticing it was a problem). As for combating vandalism, as Wikipedia grows and becomes more recognized in the mainstream world, the amount of vandalism will continue to grow. I've noticed an increase of vandalism to pages on my watchlist in the past few months, and as an admin would be able to deal with vandals faster. A lot of the vandalism seems to be from a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, and the best way to deal with that is a kind warning on the talk page, followed by sterner warnings for continued problems. As for Blocking and Page protections, I tend to err on the side of blocking, over page protection, due for the most part to the fact that blocking restricts one user (or IP), whereas page protection affects more. On the other hand, IP blocks won't be for as long a duration, since I've observed the majority of vandals moving to fresher pastures after a short while. Of course, much of this is contingent on the nature of the vandalism - WP:FAITH doesn't cover continued vandalism after warnings, or blatant mistakes (i.e. inserting a paragraph of vulgarity-laced conjecture on a non-notable's questionable ancestry). My overriding philosophy, though, is rooted around WP:FAITH and WP:BITE. Hope that answers your question, feel free to ask for further clarification. --Milton 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A: The majority of my contributions are under the auspices of Wikiproject Disambiguation. I have assisted this project by fixing thousands of links to disambiguation pages. I also use the "Random Article" link to find articles that are deficient in the areas of grammar and/or spelling. I have also attempted to settle disagreements between editors, such as those at the Anna Anderson page. As previously stated, most of my edits are of the 'minor' variety, but that is only because I find those the most enjoyable (again, mindless/repetitive tasks).

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 don't believe I have been involved in edit warring in the past. If another editor reverts an edit I make, I post a comment on their talk page requesting an explanation. The majority of the time, it is an unintentional error, and the matter is settled. If it is a conflict of opinion, I attempt to settle it on the article's talk page (since that is, after all, what the talk page is for). If another editor causes me undue stress, I walk away from the computer and take a walk/have dinner with friends/read a book/etc. until I feel that I am calmed enough to respond appropriately. On a few occasions, I have realized that I have a conflict of interest if I continue editing an article, and in those cases, I stopped working on it and remove it from my talk page. I feel that doing this helps me deal with conflicts while still continue improving Wikipedia.

General comments

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

• Links for Milton Stanley: Milton Stanley (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral 1) Your long standing account only has two actual months of contributions and these appear to be heavily automated. 2) You nominator has, with respect, hardly outlined a convincing case. 3) Your answer to Q1 demonsatrates little understanding of what can be achieved with admin tools that can't be achieved in the ordinary course of working here. 4) Your transclude comment of "not a self nom though it looks like it" seems to be vaguely anti self nominations. However your work is valuable so I will not oppose, and wish you well in this RFA and your editing. Pedro |  Chat  07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)