Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkdw

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DrumstickJuggler (talk | contribs) at 20:09, 8 May 2013 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mkdw

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (13/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Mkdw (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to be able to offer up Mkdw for your consideration as an administrator. Whilst I'd seen him around, I only really became aware of him when he asked me if I'd consider adopting him - I declined to do so "officially", since he was already more a more-than-competent editor, but I kept a casual eye on his editing after that and liked what I saw. Recently he suggested he might think about running for adminship at some point in the future, so I took a closer look to see which areas he would need to improve in before filing an RFA. My verdict was that he's perfectly ready for the bit right now, and so I'm putting him forward.

Mkdw has been here since 2006, generally editing gnomishly but still managing to get Vancouver, History of Solidarity and Portal:Vancouver to Featured status, and getting James Gwyn to GA pretty much single-handed. He's worked in a wide range of areas, from CSD (his Twinkle CSDs have only been logged since December, but there's still enough red there to paint a London bus) to AFC to ANI to numerous other three-letter acronyms, generally pitching in wherever a helping hand is needed. In his interactions with other editors, I've found him to be courteous, thoughtful and thorough in his explanations, willing to defend his position but also capable of re-assessing it and learning from new information. In short, I can think of few people who would be better suited to the tools; he's got bags of CLUE and I have no qualms about recommending him to the community as a sysop. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Thank you. I accept. Mkdwtalk 17:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 have spent most of my time involved in the cleanup and maintenance of the Wikipedia article space. In particular the deletion process; CSD, PROD, and AFD. I would also be interested in the undeletion process at WP:REFUND. I tend to explore new areas cautiously and would stick to those places for now. I do like to help out in areas where there are backlogs and if I could be of use there I would consider it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have always valued article writing. In 2006/2007 I was heavily involved in the WikiProject Vancouver and we were able to get Vancouver and the Portal: Vancouver to featured status. I had to take a significant hiatus from editing due to school. I did my best to maintain a small presence with spikes around the winter break. Now that I am ‘back’, I have committed myself to some writing and was able to save a new article, James Gwyn, and bring it to GA. I have created, expanded, and improved several DYKs, one of which I created reached over 5,000 views. I have also been helping out around WP:AFC and #wikipedia-en-help connect IRC channel.
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 think invariably when you work with people closely on collaborative projects conflict is bound to rise. I have done my best to stay calm and make a genuine effort to make things ‘right’ when conflict emerges. The only somewhat immediate example I can think of a heightened disagreement was my NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat in late Feb early March. I was reported at ANI over the closure and no action was taken. I certainly could have handled the ANI better and learned a lot about the controversies of NAC. I've subsequently sought to seek advice from other admins and respected editors over issues that may be considered controversial and it's worked out pretty well thus far.
Additional question from AutomaticStrikeout
4. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A: Thank you for asking. I consider myself to be a 'below average' writer which is why I'm very proud of the few articles I have written. Where some people are natural born writers, I often struggle in doing so. If anything, I am a reader, and Wikipedia has always had a special place in my heart. As such, I've always wanted to give back to the Wikipedia community through my gnomish edits and involvement in the custodial maintenance. I feel comfortable in the tasks I've been doing so far, and have identified a few areas, where if I had the tools, could do more to help out.
Additional question from TParis
5. Between April 2008 and Dec 2012, you had only a handful of months where your total edits reached over 100. As you know, long breaks are perfectly acceptable. However, exactly six months after your activity picked up you've posted an RFA. Were you waiting for any sort of magic number with an RFA in mind?
A: Not particularly. I definitely considered what would be an appropriate amount of time between my return and asking for the tools when I accepted this RFA. For me, this felt like the right time. I wanted to have a good foundation and feel confident in my contributions. It has taken me up until now to find that sense and to truly 'own' my contributions. I would not have accepted this RFA if 8 or 10 months had gone by and I had not written a substantial article, or been involved in what I consider a decent amount of AFDs. Fortunately I've found what seems to be my routine and I'm still thoroughly enjoying my time here so now seemed like as good a time as any.
6. I see you've listed a number of religious articles for deletion ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) and voted keep on one ([13]). I'm not opposed to deleting articles simply because they are religious, but half of these nominations did not succeed. What is your position on religious topics? Should they be presented as folk lore, as truth, strictly according to the reliable sources, or something in the middle?
A: I nominated those articles out of a pro-guideline position. I had recently been looking into the larger scope of WP:CORP and WP:ORG and came across WP:BRANCH. The other criteria I looked at was WP:LOCAL and WP:NGEO. Because Wikipedia fundamentally does not have a solid guideline regarding buildings I differed to BRANCH. So to answer your question about the nominations, I actually nominated because they were buildings and purposely did not focus on the religious institutions in which they belonged. In terms of presenting religious topics, I can't say I've had a great deal of experience, especially from the philosophical side. If the subject, no matter which religion, has been covered by reliable and independent publications, then whatever information is citable can be included in the article. I would hesitate to start with an opinion and build an article off that position. I did notice that you included some examples where I hadn't nominated the article for deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of Leather in Relation to the Jewish Tradition where I !voted keep because the Jewish Encyclopedia covered the topic making its assertion to SIGCOV very strong.
7. Do you believe that theology scholars are reliable sources as was discussed here?
A: Because I am unfamiliar with how theology scholars are generally regarded, I would feel uncomfortable formulating an opinion. That linked conversation jumps around a bit from accuracy, to synthesis, to criticism over the consensus process, and also to the matter of whether the technical wording of the source is reliable and suitable for the balance of the article. Upon that discussion alone I could not make a reasonable assessment. If had I to, I would likely seek to research the matter from reliable sources on how theology scholars are viewed by both the academic and religious institutions that surround them, as opposed to the opinions of editors in a heated discussion. If I were asked to make a comment or mediate that discussion, I would openly state my lack of knowledge over the subject matter, recommend they seek mediation from another who do have experience on issue, or in the very least, to continue their discussion (as long as they remained civilized and on topic). Sorry to give you a bit of a non-answer, but I feel like a fish out of water on that subject matter.

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Do you really want to say that you feel like you "own" your contributions? I think I know what you meant, but that could be easily misconstrued. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support per nom. INeverCry 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, obviously (dammit, got beaten to the punch on the first vote!). Yunshui 雲‍水 18:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (edit conflict × 2) Support - I've reviewed his contributions, which largely seem fine. His CSD nominations are on par with the accuracy that one should expect of an administrator. His AFC reviews also looked fine. James Gwyn is an example of a well-done good article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support in general. I see good work at CSD and some very good content work, at James Gwyn and elsewhere. I'm a little concerned about some of the AFD activity in early-to-mid March of this year - and I see now that the candidate addressed that while I was supporting, here. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - looks okay to me.Deb (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support under the principle of "I thought he was already an admin". Mkdw has already demonstrated his ability to work in the back office realm to help keep the machinery running smoothly. - MrX 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I saw this RfA coming a mile away. It's finally a reality. Kurtis (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support excellent candidate. Answer to my question was good too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. You mean you're not an admin already? Someguy1221 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per clean block log, willingness to engage in discussion (such as at Talk:Iron Man in film), sensible comments at film-related AfDs, and clueful contributions on articles like sheng nu. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support I spent a long time reading back contributions for Mkdw. I was actually glad to find some minor flaws and times when he got a little hot under the collar, since his recent history of flawless admin-grooming type edits didn't impress me much. I believe Mkdw will be a fine admin, one willing to go beyond groupthink, with a nuanced understanding of policy and its application. Some may like to see thousands of flawless bot-type edits for many months, but I think such edits indicate little about someone's character. In any case, his recent history has plenty of that too, if it floats your boat. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I'm not worried about the vague non-answer to Q7. My Q6 was a concern that the user was too focused in removing religion topics. No matter a person's position on the subject, which I wouldn't judge someone on, an all out vendetta against religion would've been concerning. Obviously that's not the case at all which renders Q7 moot. Happy to support.--v/r - TP 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support some good answering to questions.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mkdw&oldid=554181167"