Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Midas02

Midas02

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (4/15/3); Scheduled to end 14:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Midas02 (talk · contribs) – It's a good sign that someone is a candidate for adminship when they correctly bring needed admin actions to the attention of their neighborhood admin. When someone develops an eye for when the mop needs wielding, it makes sense to give them the mop. In this case, User:Midas02 has been editing here since 2010 (heavily over the past three years). I am confident that he will push the mop appropriately. bd2412 T 23:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I'm happy to accept. --Midas02 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2016 (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: I'm currently mostly involved in the disambiguation project, so my editing issues are usually related to the problems you come across doing that kind of work. Reverting or executing page moves, doing some anti-vandalism work. Sometimes speedy deletions or cleaning up article histories, restoring & fixing cut-and-paste moves. Probably venturing into the closing of page move discussions as well. But it might change over time.

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

A: The answer is rather diverse. Probably rather unusual, but coming from a multilingual upbringing I spend a lot of time on interwiki work. I used to help WP.NL clean up the list of interwiki conflicts they had, then did the same on Wikidata, spent some time on WP.FR cleaning up disambiguation conflicts, and have been doing much of the same on WP.EN. This also means I edit a lot, or fix things, across Wikipedias. So when I find an issue on one, I tend to correct other WPs as well. It also helps to bundle knowledge. I was recently looking for a long-forgotten cycling track, started asking for it on WP.FR and ended up getting help on WP.DE. Similar for trying to find sources or new references.

The same goes for the tools I'm working with. I found DisamAssist so useful that I ended up porting it to four or five other WPs, where it caught on. Same for Zeusmode (don't try to understand it, I'm probably one of the only ones using it), which I ported to six or seven other WPs. I'm currently also in the process of trying to get WP.NL's disambiguation links-to-fix bot repaired. It's been broken for two years, and being tired of doing manual updates for them, I'm getting some expertise from this Wikipedia to help out.

A vast amount of my content work is in the Disambiguation project. There I tend to have a track record of leaving 'clean sheets' behind, also cleaning up a lot of idle red links in the process, going a long way to get links fixed. I am also quite vocal in terms of improving project guidelines and procedures.[1][2][3]

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: Not too many, and it's decreasing. I believe there's some advice out there that tells you to steer away from it, so that's what I tend to apply. I don't often challenge people on content, but more on the application of policies and guidelines. When I'm doing so, I'm usually quoting the guidelines which explains why I'm making that change. Or I go through the talk page when it's more complicated to explain. Most people take notice and leave it at that, or they thank me for the information. It's only once in a while you tend to come across people, usually junior editors, who feel they can still go ahead just 'because they can'. When I notice the issue isn't going to get resolved, I usually call other senior editors to weigh in as well. That tends to help people understand I am making a valid point.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from xaosflux

4. How would you resolve our oldest open MFD? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from WereSpielChequers

5. You have four sections on your talkpage about possible copyvio in the last 18 months, and you only responded to one on your talkpage; Though that one looks well resolved. Specifically, what is your understanding of this incident? ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A: All of the copyright violation warnings I received were false positives. They were related to sections of articles which were moved to start a new article, where that piece of text had been copied by a rogue internetsite, which in turn triggered the bot. If you check the link provided in the one you are referring to, you will notice that site contains a copy of the text I was moving. I'm usually adding the 'Copied' template to the talk page to stop this from happening, but sometimes I'm not doing it quick enough, or I get caught out anyhow. In any case, I have never received a positive copyright violation, nor have I copied such text to Wikipedia. --Midas02 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Winterysteppe

6. What will be your legacy to Wikipedia? And what edit would you put on a resume?

A: A bit of an unexpected question. There are probably better ones, but here's one interesting one that springs to mind.[4] I came across a contradiction in the data on different football related articles. Took me about an hour to figure out that some homonymous players had been mixed up, including on Fifa's own database. Quite rewarding when you finally manage to figure it out, and leave a note to others to warn them about the issue. --Midas02 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ajraddatz

7. I've come across this ANI post following name-calling and edit-warring by you in response to a requested move that you felt was improperly closed. Can you think of a better way to handle this dispute, and disputes like this in the future? Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A: Ajraddatz, from memory, I believe this is the only ANI that was ever lodged against me. I guess some people are worse off. I feel I was wrongly accused, and am still not happy with the way in which I was being dealt with. I had made my case to the closer, but at some point she refused the conversation and made accusations against me. I guess you wouldn't feel too happy about that either. She took it to ANI, but by the time I got round to having a look at it, a matter of a couple of hours, other people had already gone along with her story without even hearing me. I didn't believe that was very fair. I am still convinced I had a valid point, but instead of wasting everybody's time with long-winded discussions, I decided to just leave it and move on. It was a minor issue that wasn't worth everybody's time, and I believe there were more important things needing attending. --Midas02 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Ches

8. I'm personally concerned with the fact that you haven't engaged in a lot of dispute resolution, and when you do, you are the person whom the report has been filed against, or you have not dealt with it adequately. Dispute resolution and dealing with conflict are major aspects of an admin's work - would you be able to "stay cool when the editing gets hot" in the future? --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A: User:Chesnaught555, is it ANI you're pointing at? As stated above, I believe I only had one ANI report against me. Have filed a handful and participated in some, but just as many others, including admins, it's a place I don't tend to go to often because issues quickly become long-winded and throw up more dust than needed. I only get involved when I know there's a clear case at hand that will receive a clear and rapid decision, otherwise you're quickly wasting many people's time. Most of the dispute resolution I get involved in goes through talk pages, and when I feel the discussion isn't likely to go anywhere, I ask third parties to get involved so they can add another perspective on things. --Midas02 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from Mike1901

9. I note you mention in your answer to Q1 that you plan on carrying out anti-vandalism work. Please can you outline how you would deal with a report to WP:AIV of a user named 'BLdotUK' editing the British Library page, referencing all their added information properly with links to primary web sources. Mike1901 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Esquivalience

10. Can you explain these following diffs: [5][6]. I would question any admin who reverted an automated edit with such a summary, so do you a) still think your summary was justified or b) take that as a lesson for the next time you disagree with one's edits?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Midas02: Midas02 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Midas02 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support as nominator. bd2412 T 15:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Support lack of ANI participation is a plus. Not all admins need to be (or indeed, ought to be) involved in drama. clpo13_(talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Support but pending answer to questions above. Whiskeymouth (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Looks goods from my standpoint. Reading the opposes, since when is being admin more about fighting vandalism then it is building on the project? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

   @VegasCasinoKid: Assuming this question was applied to my oppose among others, I'd say "since the candidate states they wish to do anti-vandalism work". ~ Rob^Talk 19:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

   There is a reason the tool set is called the mop. Things are not built with a mop they are maintained with it. The primary areas of maintenance this user has not taken part in. If they wish to continue building they are more then welcome to continue and in fact I applaud them for their work so far, but they have not demonstrated that they know what to do with a mop. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: The lack of experience in which the admin tools are primarily used are lacking here, of the few AFDs the user has taken part in have demonstrated a general lack in understanding of the applicable inclusion criteria. There seems to be very little experience in either CSD or Vandal fighting. I do not feel the tools in the hands of Midas02 would benefit the project at this point. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose; I would like to see more experience in ANI and other fields. Evidence does not suggest a high level of experience in vandalism nor ability to resolve disputes. Also to point out, Midas02's edits suggest that he was only active in the past year. As of now, he made 25,413 of 33,165 edits in the past year. The rest of the 8k edits suggest he did 2,000 a year. This alone suggests that he only knew what he was doing within the last year. This is not enough information to say he is experienced except in disambiguation pages. Therefore, the admin tools only marginally benefit, if not none. Honestly, it reminds me of the RFA by GeneralizatiosnAreBad, where he started last year. Looking at the information, I must strongly oppose. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose (edit conflict). Very little AFD participation and not much AN/I participation, which leads me to think that dispute resolution is something this user won't be comfortable with. The fact that 93% of this editor's contributions are in the article mainspace may initially look great to those who wish to Support, but this demonstrates a lack of counter-vandalism work and very little communication between other editors. Returning to my point on AN/I participation, the fact that this user has had AN/I reports filed against them for edit-warring and personal attacks is very concerning - maybe their actions did not warrant a block, but this still really puts me off supporting this RFA, I'm sorry. The ostensible six years of experience is a little skewed - as Winterysteppe said, most of their edits were made in the past year, and shows that this editor does not have as much experience as what is implied by the nominator. The copyright violation flagged by Coren's bot is also concerning, and definitely shows a lack of understanding of some of Wikipedia's basic policies. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Lack of vandal fighting or anti-spam work. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose (e/c). I'm uneasy about perspective, and I'm torn. Q1 starts out OK with the page move issue. Yes, disambig fixes can use that; there's a good argument for a narrow technical. Then Q1 strays into anti-vandal and CSD. That means I look there. Edit stats show 32 edits to Requested moves/Technical requests out of 30K edits, but that's a poor indicator. AIV reports don't make the top ten, so they are 3 or less; that's a no to an antivandal candidate. CSD requires skill, but I don't see a CSD log on the toolbox. That's a no. AfD relates to CSD, but 13 entries are not enough. The first AfD miss I clicked found "You might wanted to have noted that you were the writer of this article, so you're not entirely objective in this matter."[7] Candidate's talk page suggests Q1 admin interests are not as broad; see User talk:Midas02#Your persistent nagging has left me with no choice.... Other parts of the talk page raise some issues. The BHG/forum shopping incident raises an eyebrow. No matter how the CorenSearchBot copyvio notices sort out, there should have been an edit comment on this revert; bots are not vandals; also, the text is wikipaste, but had to come from somewhere. Q3 doesn't have what I want to see about conflict. I think the candidate was nudged in a little too soon. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Adminship is not just about smacking vandals in an infinitesimal amount of time, nor is it just about XfD. However, about four months ago, this attack using pseudo-legalese against BrownHairedGirl is severely concerning, with statements such as

   ... [A] long string of aggressive and libellous comments ... Independent of this case you have recently been charged with bullying by another user, and I'm going to charge [charge?] you with the same here, bullying ... However, if you desire to continue the bullying and the abuse of admin rights, which I have noted on issues not related to this one, you will leave me with not choice but to file a request asking for your rights to be removed, and your conduct to be reined in. I have never been involved in a simple move discussion leading to this much trouble, nor have I challenged one before, so I hope wisdom prevails.

   Looking at their contribution logs for December 2015, they did not subsequently apologize or at least stopped pushing. If the candidate reacts like that when an outcome is against their opinion, then we might get a messy wheel war or ANI feud. In another addition, this edit summary ("Great, destroy a whole edit because you disagree with a detail. Very polite!") is snarky, and the candidate expects an apology for their own attack. Esquivalience ^t 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I've come to realize that you don't need experience in all areas in which the admin tools are useful to gain access to them. If that were the case, we'd have to de-sysop just about every admin for lack of template knowledge, since the template editor user right is bundled with the tools. In this case, though, the candidate specifically wants to do anti-vandal and CSD work without significant experience in those areas. I recommend gaining what experience is available to non-admins in the areas you want to work before submitting your next RfA. If you do, I'll likely support. ~ Rob^Talk 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose, based on review. I also would like to see the editor gain further experience, along the lines stated above. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
9. Oppose I do not think an admin needs to be accomplished in every area before we give them the mop, but what I'm seeing here is a very narrow expertise with disambiguation. I much appreciate the effort they have put into that area. However, I cannot support a candidate without substantial experience with deletion (CSD or AfD); without substantial content contributions (a few stubs, often split from a DAB page, and many DAB pages); without substantial anti-vandalism work; without particular experience with dispute resolution or mediation; and with a few behavioral concerns brought up above. Any one or two of these shortcomings could have been overlooked, but right now the only thing I feel comfortable trusting them with is WP:RM, and that is not enough, especially given their interest in working outside that area. I'd be happy to support in the future, if they have more experience by then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose due to a combination of aggressive and irrational behaviour as demonstrated in the Alejandro Villanueva incident, and a lack of attempt to understand procedures even when they are pointed out, such as when creating new articles with a cut and paste of other articles (there should be attribution) and with the guidelines for PRIMARYTOPIC, an important port of the Disambiguation area he feels himself competent in. I have no problem with someone making mistakes, but I do have a problem with someone who does not learn from those mistakes, even when they are pointed out. Given that Midas02's editing history consists almost exclusively of minor semi-automated edits, I'm seeing nothing substantially positive to balance my concerns. In short, there is very little here for me to base an assessment of suitability for adminship, but enough to give me reasons for concern. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose—"...your racial prejudices have been noted. "I will allow you now to retract your accusations." Not the temperament I want to see in an admin. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
12. Oppose I'm not expecting admins to be perfect "all-rounders" (Opposing someone who has minimal AFD participation when they work hard in other admin areas is just absurd), but I do expect them to be polite and patient. Too many times have I seen editors on Wikipedia with foul, uncivil tempers, and frankly, I don't care whether someone works furiously hard and well in admin areas — if their attitude is reminiscent of a school bully or someone who flips over tables at the sight and sound of criticism, they should not be given the mop. This is Wikipedia, not WikiImpolitetopia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
13. Oppose - at first I was going to wait and see the answers to questions, but after further review I don't think I could support this request. I'd first like to say that this has nothing to do with their CSD, AIV, ANI, etc. record - none of these are hard to figure out, and even with limited experience in them a good admin candidate would be able to pick up the common practices without much issue. I am particularly impressed by the lack of drama-mongering at ANI. However, in my experience, a critical aspect of admin work is being able to collaborate with others. This candidate can do so well, when people agree with him. But as soon as they don't, he adopts a battleground mentality. He doesn't back down or listen to other opinions, and doesn't drop issues which clearly are not important to the overall mission here. We don't need that pattern of behaviour in admins. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose Per Glrx, SilkTork, Lesser Cartographies and Esquivalience. Being passive aggressive is unacceptable for an admin.--Catlemur (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose per above. Concerns with demeanor and limited experience in admin-related areas of the project. -FASTILY 21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Parking here pending responses to questions. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Neutral Tending towards Oppose, but only fair to see what the responses to questions are, as I just have an inkling I may be pleasantly surprised here. Mike1901 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Neutral I don't think Midas02 shouldn't get the mop. But what purpose does adminship serve to someone who mostly works with disambiguation pages? Eman235/talk 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
   • It helps, actually. We have a never-ending string of incidents where an editor will say, "hey, it turns out that a hundred years ago there was a single-season minor league baseball player named 'Bruce Springsteen' - I guess I'll have to move Bruce Springsteen to Bruce Springsteen (musician), and turn the original title into a disambiguation page". This requires admin action to clean up. bd2412 T 21:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
     • True, but that's not solely a dab issue. Eman235/talk 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
       • Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have more admins who understand (and address) the issues peculiar to our disambiguation efforts. bd2412 T 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• The assumption that someone without a Twinkle CSD log doesn't work with speedy deletion irritates me, so I took a very cursory look through the candidate's deleted edits (as in, I only looked at the edit summaries). There's 416 total. 334 are semi-automated disambiguation fixes. There's two afd nominations and two rfd nominations among the remainder, and exactly zero mentioning a csd tag of any sort. —Cryptic 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)