Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mo0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Mo0

final (36/1/2) ending 06:57 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mo0 (talk • contribs) – I've been wiki-ing since October 20, 2004. I've accumulated 1705 edits, according to Interiot's tool, with... another 150 to 200 deleted ones. That's a guess, I last checked that number with Kate's Tool about a month ago and it was about 125. I took a wikibreak from June to early November, which, to be honest, wasn't exactly intended to be as long as it was. Right now I focus pretty much entirely on vandal-fighting and AfD, along with correcting spelling errors and grammar stuff. Mo0[talk] 06:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: After careful consideration of my own nomination, and wondering if I should accept it from myself, I accept. Mo0[talk] 06:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Awsome vandal fighting skills. --Shanel 07:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support good vandal-whackers. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 07:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support Without question, or hesitation. Great vandal-whacker, always calm, and helpful. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support seems like a good user who uses edit summaries most of the time and is big on vandalism fighting. Go for it!--Alhutch 08:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Last week it seemed hard to imagine that reasons for opposition could get more utterly absurd, but the hole keeps getting deeper. Hopefully Mo0 will pass despite this; he is not likely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Support good anti-vandal device, works well under fire. Alf ^melmac 09:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support Good vandal fighter, we could do with someone to block persistant vandals. --Adam1213 Talk + 09:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support - 1,700 edits is 400 more than I had. Vandal-fighters can use a rollback button, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe he would abuse admin tools. FCYTravis 09:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Support — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Merovingian 12:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
12. You get your talk page vandalised a lot. I think that's a good enough reason. Aside from that, this is a good user. Hedley 17:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
13. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support - Well maybe I should opose because he likes to hurt people, and his userpage is vandalised alot: but I wont. I can't see any visable signs of reasons to not support him, and he seems an overall good and worthwhile member. (Rephrased due to objection/confusion) Ian¹³ 17:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support - Have seen MoO around anti-vandalism efforts. Always stays calm. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support - Of course! Great vandal fighting work! delldot | talk 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Support see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 21:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Per everybody else.--Sean|Black 21:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Excellent editor. Single oppose vote poorly reasoned. Xoloz 21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Support Looks good, give him the mop! xaosflux ^T/_C 04:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support - what a travesty that he isn't already... --Celestianpower ^hablamé 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support Excellent editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
24. Support. El_C 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support User has been consistently active in areas that always need another admin, and I think it highly unlikely for him to abuse the tools. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Straightforward support. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
27. Support 100% - Wezzo 14:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
28. Support good enough and really weak oppose vote needs to be neutralized.Gator (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
29. Support, HGB 01:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
30. Support, A veritable Power Ranger of vandal-fighting. --InShaneee 03:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
31. Support Izehar (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
32. Support. My interactions with Mo0 (usually in AfD) indicate to me he'll make a good administrator. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
33. Support, looks like he is ready. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
34. Support as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Also, editcountitus is bad; "I've got X more than you so I oppose" is just sad. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
35. Support. -- DS1953 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
36. Support. the wub "?!" 00:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - if number of edits is all that matters, I am up to 2512 [1], and I've only had this username for 3 weeks. I think that you should need a bit more in order to be admin. Also your talk page seems to be vandalised a lot. I don't think that's a good sign. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the amount of vandalism on his talk page has anything to do with his qualifications to be an administrator. Please explain. Also, I think most people would agree that number of edits is not the only thing that matters.--Alhutch 07:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're fighting vandals, yet find yourself getting attacked more than reaching peace, I think its a very big factor. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious as to what you define as vandalism of my talk page. I can only name one incident, and that's the "**** off" entry in there, which consisted of two edits. That was someone responding to a warning I posted on their talk page, along with a subsequent response to me telling him I didn't appreciate the language. Out of all the warnings I've posted, that was the only one that's ever responded that way. I'm curious how that means I'm getting attacked more than I'm reaching peace. O_o Mo0[talk] 07:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that...for us vandal fighters, getting our talk/user page vandalized is a fact of life. Just how it is. It doesn't mean anything except that we anger vandals by erasing what they add to pages. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's his fault that his talk page was vandalized. Am I missing something here?--Alhutch 07:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll update the tool tommorow morning to show the unique number of pages edited and the average number of edits per page. From cursory examination though, it looks like Mo0 has probably edited more unique pages than you have. --Interiot 07:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think vandalism of one's user page, is a good sign that they're doing a good job. The vandals are no doubt upset that their vandalism won't stick. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I second the opinion of негіднийлють above - vandalism of one's user/talk page is very much a non-issue. Many/most of the prolific vandal-fighting admins have long userpage histories for this very reason. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 09:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed!--Alhutch 09:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, someone asked me to elaborate on this, so here we go. For one thing, I don't know Mo0. For all I know he could be the most wonderful person in the entire world. Most of the people voting here I have never before seen on Wikipedia. But I was troubled by one point. If this was an article, we would be saying "Delete - no claims to notoriety". It is not that Mo0 is bad so much that he hasn't done anything yet. He is effectively a newbie. I checked out his edits, and, whilst he signed up in August 2004, 90% of his contributions have been in the last month. So what is to say that he will continue to contribute so regularly in the next few months? He is for all intents and purposes a newbie. Not only that, but how many actual contributions has he made to Wikipedia? A few, sure, but the vast majority of the edits have been reverting vandalism. Now, that's all fine and good, but I would like to know for sure that they really were vandalism first before making a big commendation. A lot of people do reverts on perfectly legitimate text and call it vandalism, which is not a good thing. But beyond that fact, there is the fact about what an admin is. An admin on Wikipedia, for all intents and purposes, is an admin for life. It is extraordinarily difficult to be dismissed, the only conceivable way either being from retirement or from an ArbCom decision. To highlight just how difficult it is to be dismissed by ArbCom, I believe that it has happened all of 4 times, and all of these were lengthy things. So, put simply, by making an admin, we are trusting them with an awful lot. This is not something that should be given to someone who has just started editing and hasn't really contributed anything. I would be happier to nominate someone who has written 100 articles, 10 of which were featured articles AND has done a few reverts of vandalism. If anything, we should be erring on the side of caution, and voting Oppose unless we are absolutely sure. Too many of these votes are just automatons. It is strange that they go in the exact opposite direction to most AFDs. It almost seems as if people vote Support just so long as they can't see any reason to Oppose. This is the wrong way around. We should vote Oppose unless we have a very good reason to vote Support. This is my opinion. If Mo0 is still contributing by February next year, then I will look at him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess, maybe read over WP:ADMIN, as this deals with alot of what you are saying. Specifically, admin-ship "should be no big deal." --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 09:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to be a nitpick, but I joined in October 2004, and I just ran a calculator, and 62% of my edit count was made before my wikibreak, making 38% of it after my wikibreak. Mo0[talk] 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I second PeruvianLlama's comments and offer this from the top of this page: "Almost all admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins."--Alhutch 09:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So because mo0's user page was vandalised (may of been by a persistant vandal that mo0 kept reverting and warning)mo0 should not be an admin??? I really dont understand the logic behind this. Maybe mo0 previews so many times that here is only one save unlike you possibly, maybe mo0's edits are much more detailed and of a higher standard in most cases and take longer this is possible --Adam1213 Talk + 09:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add this bit. It popped up as one of the bad deletions, which seems to have been done by Mo0 (I didn't think you could close unless you were an admin). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/6_References. Go looksie. Speedied a vote which was 1/0 in favour of keep. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not a good example. Non-administrators can not delete pages. If you look at the history of the 6 References page, you will see that Enochlau deleted that page.--Alhutch 10:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit conflict I don't see how this reflects on Mo0. Please see the deletion log for that article. It was deleted by Enochlau for a valid reason. Mo0 simply made note of the fact that no further discussion need occur. If you believe it was a good article (I haven't seen it, myself), be bold and rewrite it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

On AfD, if I see an entry with a red link, I close it for being speedied. That's the role I've chosen to take, you could be the delete-o verifier and we could be the SUPER AFD RANGERS or somethin'. :) Mo0[talk] 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For one, I take exception to being presumed an 'automotaton'. And for two, editcountitis is evil. Please do not judge this user simply on the number of edits, but on the quality of said edits. As the user said, after all, he was on a wikibreak. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Why all the bullying? Its my vote. I am entitled to my vote. I have said my reason, there is no reason for the bullying and harassment. Thank you. Also you should have a look at User:Mo0's bio. I am not saying that he will definitely abuse the powers. He may well be very good. But writing in there that he loves to hurt people isn't something I find overly trusting. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Zordrac, I don't think anyone above was intending to bully you: Wikipedia is not a democracy, so RfA's like this need to build a consensus. When concerns are raised that could be seen as serious, I believe it is a fairly standard tradition for other Wikipedians to step in with counter-arguments if they believe those concerns to be misfounded, or misrepresented. In any case, this is of course not a reflection on you as a user, and is entirely specific to this RfA. To this end, I think you have clearly conveyed your stance, and that the counter-points have been equally clear. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that I like to hurt people? I can see that I wrote that I want to OBLITERATE THE VANDALISM, but that whole thing right there is just sarcasm and goofiness. Mo0[talk] 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand what Zordrac's point is. ::shrugs:: ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Good vandal fighter, with great potential as an admin. Give it one or two months and I will gladly support. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I think this person is possibly too inexperienced to be an admin yet, but I don't know the person well enough to oppose on these grounds. Dan100 (Talk) 18:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• I have seen pretty lousy RfA comments ranging from threates to leave wikipedia if X is adminised to granting SPUI adminship rather than X. Paranoia produces lousy RfA comments. One should only be commended for reverting vandalism. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• I should vote oppose on more RFAs. People should ask me to vote oppose, since whenever I vote oppose, everyone goes against me lol. Go look at the one poor guy who I voted support on. He's losing badly lol. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I expect to use the rollback button quite a bit to fight vandals, as well as close AfDs and block irritants that clog up the system. In all honesty, though, I wouldn't really mind doing just about anything. Most of the things in the backlog I'd have to feel my way around (and as people in the IRC channel might know, I ask questions when I don't know something ahead of time), but I'd love to expand whenever needed.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm pretty tickled with all of the various seasons of Survivor having "Elimination Notes" in them, since I started putting those in during the Vanuatu season, and someone actually took the time to edit those in elsewhere. I realize that me myself not doing it doesn't sound quite as good, but the idea is the accomplishment, you could say. Also, I wrote the original write for Arcana (video game) which has since been fleshed out. If anything, that article shows why I'm more suited to vandal-fighting than article creation... I'm more prone to move on from something after I've touched it. Oh, speaking of vandal-fighting, I'm particularly proud of my valiant efforts to save U.S. presidential election, 2004 from its basically 5 times a second vandal attacks on the day of the election. That was some VERY interesting vandals.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. The only real conflict that I can recall personally getting into (other than IPs screaming at me for telling them to stop vandalising) was over Ashlee Simpson's little debacle on Saturday Night Live, and User:Everyking's pushing of a particular version of the story on that article, as well as on her article. I recall (and just went over and looked on SNL's talk page) being one of the people that discussed the issue, but I remember there being some actual discipline involved, and I wasn't exactly a major player in that. This ties into my main point, which is that I personally don't like the idea of conflict unless it's necessary. If someone's going to try to rile me up, I'm going to try to remain civil as long as is humanly possible, and then when it's no longer possible, try to... I guess the word isn't run away, but find someone else to help me out so I don't get overwhelmed. I wish I had more examples of this, but "conflict" and "Wikipedia" just don't seem to go in the same sentence, in my mind.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.