Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Madman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Madman

[edit]

Final (44/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madman (talk · contribs) - I'd like to present another user who I believe has the experience and the loyalty to become an administrator, Madman bum and angel. If you work a lot in bot requests (his bot is User:MadmanBot), or Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, you might recognize him. Madman does quite a lot of speedy deletion work, making him yet another user we should add to our CSD-backlog-fighting corps. For those of us afflicted with edit-pox, Madman has an adequate 6600+ edits and about 6 months of experience. While some of you might complain that his mainspace or Wikipedia edits are not enough, I believe that his tenure of vandal fighting, copyright-vio finding, and CSD tagging has given him more than enough experience to become an administrator and to make it a better place than it was before. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Many thanks, bibliomaniac15. — madman bum and angel 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have an older account, HoodedMan (talk · contribs). When I stopped editing more than a year ago, I didn't expect to return; when I did (apparently Wikipedia is addictive... who knew?), I no longer had the account password (my KeePass database was lost when my hard drive crashed.) I didn't feel my contributions as HoodedMan were anything of note (my usual vandal-fighting and WikiGnoming), so I didn't attempt to regain the account. An administrator inquired a month ago as to the state of any previous accounts (my first edit was installing WP:TW, after all), so I recreated my old e-mail account on my server and had my password reset. User:HoodedMan and User talk:HoodedMan now redirect to the more pertinent pages.

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: As aforementioned, the venues in which I work most needing an extra mop are recent changes patrol and (suspected) copyright problems (speedy deletion). CorenSearchBot also notices cut/paste moves, and I'm learning quickly how to deal with those. However, I've always been willing to lend a hand to whatever backlog looks most shiny, and I welcome greater opportunity to do so.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I actually like to think that some of my best contributions are among those that our encyclopedia's readers are least likely to notice. I'm fond of drawing a parallel between my current work on Wikipedia and my former work as a theatrical lighting/sound technician. If I'm doing my job right, the audience members won't notice the light cues that give the play its atmosphere. They're subtle and natural; the atmosphere is just there. The thespians on stage shouldn't sound miced; they're just having an argument, or a conversation, and the audience is a part of that. And just as the audience will notice if the lights or sound go out, our readers would notice should WikiGnomes such as myself stop contributing. We keep the gears of Wikipedia running smoothly and remove the sand so readers have the best impression of the project possible.
On a less abstract note, I have 6634 edits as of this writing, and 296 deleted edits. The elimination of copyright-infringing content and of vandalism is what I do to help maintain the reputation of our encyclopedia. I'm also an active, elected member of the Bot Approvals Group, and I'm proud of my participation in the requests for approval process. When there's consensus for a change that requires major page modifications, a bot request should be approved quickly, but there also still needs to be room for community input, and it needs to be proven that the bot is harmless and useful. I believe I've done the best I can to make sure that when bots reach their production stage, they're as well-developed as can be, and they cause as few complaints as possible.
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: Every bot operator receives complaints, but I've done my best to comply with users' wishes as much as possible and to make sure my bot has a minimal impact on the project. Our editors are the most important contributors to Wikipedia, not our administrators, our bots, or our bureaucrats, to name a few of our more "powerful" usergroups. My bot has been blocked twice, both times while it was executing a trial approved by the Bot Approvals Group, once during execution, and once twenty-four hours later. Such blocks cause Wikistress, especially as multiple tasks are halted while the bot waits for my response, then an administrator response. But both times the bot was unblocked quickly, and I withdrew the bot task request of my own volition, as it was clearly controversial. My bot has also been affected by two rangeblocks of class B networks; those were sorted out quickly. I was also blocked once because an administrator believes I was running an unauthorized bot, when I was simply using a semi-automated tool -- this was early in my Wikicareer and caused a bit of stress, but it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience.
In short, most of my stress is not Wikistress; it's coming from outside the house. If I'm too overworked, I take a short break from everything non-essential. I'm fully cognizant of the fact that we're all volunteers.  :)

Question from Majoreditor

4. Please discuss what articles you've written or expanded.
Well, as you can see from my user page, I'm an avowed metapedian. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of free time on my hands, and the amount of research I do in real life pretty much precludes any research I do for Wikipedia, which is my escape from said work.  ;)
So I'm not sure that I have an answer that'll satisfy you. Sometimes when I spot a new page, instead of flagging or tagging it, I'll do my best to clean it up (example: [1] [2]). But otherwise, my modus operandi is WikiGnoming and performing other "quasi-administrative" tasks; I can't recall any articles that I've created. — madman bum and angel 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from 201.216.215.177

5. Please tell us why you should be an admin when you haven't written any articles, and may not a clue with article disputes and edit warring.
A. I believe I've answered the first part of your question, and I'm not sure I understand the second part. I'll expand, however. I don't believe that adminship has anything to do with writing articles. There are no additional "article-writing powers" granted to administrators. I do realize that the purpose of the project is to write an encyclopedia; that's why I think that the editors are the most important persons working on the project. I believe that administrators are here to help the editors, so they're not bothered by the "minutiae" and can focus on their task at hand. Does that answer your question? — madman bum and angel 21:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% optional question from Alpta

6. Should we really make a Madman an admin :) ?
A. Probably not. :D — madman bum and angel 17:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from —[[Animum | talk]]

7. What has your aim on wikipedia been? Have you reached that apex?
A: I know this question is optional, but I'm going to answer anyhow, even though the answer is a hard one. I don't know. I'm not afraid to say it, and I'm not afraid to continue saying it if I need to. I'm not sure what the long-term goal of my involvement in the project is. Taking that into account, I doubt I've reached that apex. Right now, I'm satisfied with both learning as much as I can about Wikipedia and its philosophy and doing what I can to contribute positively to Wikipedia. — madman bum and angel 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Madman before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]


Support

  1. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 15 years of trouble and general madness 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support This user has a lot of experience. I don't see why adminship should be denied. Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Don't see a reason to oppose user. good luck!--SJP 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. I was going to check your HoodedMan contribs but preferred checking your old talk page and thanks was the main word used by many contributors seeking help. That's a proof and evidence of a very helpful and easy-going attitude though w/ a mad skin now ;) → Mad support. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I like what I see, and I trust the nom quite a bit. Jmlk17 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Seems to know what he's doing. WjBscribe 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support For a bot operator to have a talk page that's not a mess of hate-mail, you must really know what you're doing — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Most definitely. Helpful, friendly, open, honest, able to leap tall backlogs with a single bound. I asked about his previous experience and am completely satisfied with response. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support forthright, intelligent answers and a solid experience. VanTucky Talk 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - informed answers to the questions, good edits, nice bot. Have fun with the mop. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. The tools will greatly add to this user's contributions. •Malinaccier• T/C 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support with plenty of edits, no problems or concerns, good work so far. Bearian 00:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Absolutely. As per Rick Block. Pursey Talk | Contribs 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Why not? --Hirohisat Kiwi 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, impressed with Madman's participation in most areas of Wikipedia. Sebi [talk] 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - in similar fashion to Moonriddengirl, such a lot has been achieved in a relatively little amount of time. Good candidate. Lradrama 08:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Impressive. The request for the tools to aid your work within the copyright violations area sits very well with me. As the 'pedia grows and becomes ever more popular on the net the community needs to focus strongly on this problem. You contribution history demonstrates how much more help you will be able to bring with a couple of buttons. In addition, previous interaction has allways been positive and, of course, civil. Best. Pedro |  Chat  09:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, looks fine. Melsaran (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Looks fine with me. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support will be a good administrator. Acalamari 17:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support OK. Use the tools wisely!  : ) AdamBiswanger1 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support seen him at the speedy delete world and his judgement is good. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seems like Madman will be valuable in the ongoing struggle against copyvio and vandalism. :)--Fabrictramp 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I really did think you were an admin until very recently... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as per above. Tireless contributor, and great knowledge of areas where he will mainly be working in. Phgao 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I've not supported yet? I feel ashamed. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Concordo — Slade (TheJoker) 20:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. We badly need admin gnomes. •Malinaccier• T/C 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You already supported in #12. Miranda 22:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Great Track has done well in relativly short span of time.Pharaoh of the Wizards 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Yep, yep, yep. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 00:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support this madman – Adminship is no big deal, and he is, after all, a madman. Who can dream of a madman misusing the admin tools? —[[Animum | talk]] 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Alpta 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, An admin must work behind the scenes for Wikipedia. I see many Wikipedia space edits. Marlith T/C 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Whaaaat, he's not an admin yet? -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Smokizzy (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I haven't edited in some time, but I've known Madman for too long not to vote. If there's anyone I'd trust to use the admin tools wisely, it's him. — Zazou 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Madman knows and follows policy, is active, operates a bot responsibly, and has a cool name. Give me a good reason not to support. :) Nihiltres(t.l) 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I'd prefer a bit more article work, but my personal interactions with you have been positive and you certainly have benefited the encyclopedia. You've done enough to convince me you wouldn't abuse the buttons, so you have my support.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I see this man around a lot, good contributions, good answers, honestly I also thought this man was already an admin. Kudret abi 10:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A great contributor who would undoubtedly benefit from the extra tools. -- Chris B • talk 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Fails my criteria. Matthew Richardson 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Sorry, but I'm concerned about your hasty actions towards long time users. I know you do good work in on suspected copyright violations, but I see you tagging articles created by long-time Wikipedians for speedy deletion. Such as here, on this article created by User:Liftarn who is a long-time Wikipedian. The article was tagged by User:CorenSearchBot [3], then Liftarn removed the tag, with a comment saying the text came from "his own site". The next edit was by Madman, placing a speedy tag on the article,[4] despite Liftarn's comment. He did that before discussing anything with Liftarn. As an admin, I'm concerned that instead of placing speedy tags, he will simply delete the articles. Treating long time users with lack of good faith is not the way to retain good users. I've seen too many leave the project. I'm simply not assured that Madman will not hastily delete articles in such situations. --Aude (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologized to you for the article of yours that I tagged; we got it sorted out quickly enough, and Liftarn got sorted out even more quickly (fifteen minutes). You "expect admins to be cognizant of copyrights", but to the contrary, I believe that anyone can make mistakes. I tagged the article, as I felt was necessary, given that it met CSD g12, and immediately left a note on Liftarn's talk page regarding his edit summary which seemed to indicate that he was the copyright holder. You want experienced users to be able to "opt out"[5] of checks for copyright violations, and it seems you want them to be able to opt out of the "formal procedures"[6] as well. But the procedure for donating copyrighted materials is utterly necessary to ensure we are upholding the third pillar of Wikipedia: that all of its content is free. Thanks, — madman bum and angel 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I also find your assumption of bad faith disturbing, in that you assume that I will immediately delete articles, without following the speedy deletion procedure and without giving the author a chance to dispute the speedy deletion criterion. — madman bum and angel 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you speedy delete articles rather than tagging them? Sorting out copyright violations may mean more than tagging articles for speedy deletion, in some cases. A templated response isn't always suitable for regular users when there are problems. It may mean asking the user on their talk page. If the user doesn't respond, then deletion would be appropriate. But, please first give them a chance to explain. Your approach seems to be the opposite of WP:AGF. It concerns me. In my case, the WP:COPYVIO policy is clear that "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL." --Aude (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Will I follow the speedy deletion procedure? Absolutely. When I tag articles, I expect that other administrators will follow up on the tag, just as I will follow up on other users' tags. That's how it's always worked at WP:SCV; a great deal of the backlog fighters are administrators. I didn't template Liftarn; I quoted a relevant section of policy and immediately gave him a quick, easy way to confirm his authorship. Some cases will be false alarms, yes, like these. But when it's impossible to tell that the Wikipedia contributor is in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere, I think it's important that that be confirmed. Does that address your concerns? — madman bum and angel 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Madman&oldid=1149967763"