English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requests for adminship/Marcus Qwertyus 2

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Marcus Qwertyus

Final (21/29/13); closed as unsuccessful by WJBscribe @ 12:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Marcus Qwertyus (talk · contribs) – I know self-noms have a low success rate, but asking for one is too desperate for my taste.

I'm a Wikipedian of three and a half years, contributing primarily to technology and military topics.

My last RFA in July 2010 burned because of some incorrect interpretation I had of WP:CORPNAME. To be fair, the wording was less clear than it is now: "Explicit use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. ...Accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." Now the wording is a lot more prescriptive and more forgiving.

This does not excuse my approach with Jansport87. I issued an 36-hour deadline for either an effort to change usernames or an assurance that he was not in the employ of JanSport. Maybe I thought of it as an extension of the normal time I give users, but Jansport certainly didn't. He made edits leading up to the deadline and none thereafter. In retrospect, WP:RFC/NAME would have been a much better place to discuss the issue had I suspected Jansport87 were actually employed by the world's largest backpack company. Hindsight is always 20/20 right? I'm ready to give this another go if you are willing to let me prove myself. I have the enthusiasm and maturity to serve this project for many years. Marcus Qwertyus 00:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: From the get-go I would like to close move requests, and CSD and XFD nominations. After getting comfortable with the tools in these areas, I would master more advanced tasks like merging histories and investigating accused sockpuppetss. I have extensive experience participating in proposed page moves and I can gauge consensus pretty well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm a believer in the saying that perfect is the enemy of good. As a result of this and my poor motivation, I have very little featured work to show. I have Ground Combat Vehicle as a GA and its companion article, GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle, which I gave up on making perfect when the project was canceled for the umpteenth time (see FCS Manned Ground Vehicles, ASM Program and that failure called the M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle). I have gotten other articles like Pinterest, main battle tank to a respectable quality but I have never pursued GA status for them.
I enjoy working on the main page where I have spent many hours whipping main page news items into shape on short notice. There is a dearth of willing administrators monitoring WP:Main Page/Errors or putting new items on Template:ITN in a timely manner. These are tasks I am willing to do.
On the gnome-ier side of things, I've saved people lots of extra clicks with my work at Wikiproject Disambiguation and made article titles more recognizable by making them adhere to WP:AT. (list of all page moves)
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: Talk:Propaganda in the People's Republic of China#Move to Propaganda in China. Here I get a little hot-headed over the false conclusion that I had deliberately contravened the established consensus. Lesson learned? The takeaway from this is that you should read the edit history and talk page before making bold moves.
4. Recall?
A: Although voluntary recall should not take the place of establishing consensus for a mandatory de-adminship policy, I am willing to relieve the bit after a week-long simple majority vote on my talk page.
Additional question from My76Strat
5. Please describe the entire admin action you would take if you observed what you reasonably believed to be an adult user soliciting a minor child for sexual favors?
A: I would email the Arbitration Committee the evidence and revdelete any public comments and accusations by others about the matter. Marcus Qwertyus 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from RegentsPark
6. An editor shows up on your talk page complaining about the way another admin has closed a controversial move request and moved the article. You look at the move request (A --> B) and your reaction is "What the heck was he smoking - A is obviously the right title!". What will you do?
A: First I would ask the admin for a better rational or to reconsider. He or she may have been Editing Under the Influence. This will solve most problems. Failing that, I may reopen another requested move in a weeks time and ask the admin to allow someone else to close the debate. It probably isn't worth going through dispute resolution for something as menial as an article title.
Additional question from Cntras
7. Using an example, explain your understanding of WP:IAR.
A: An administrator has un-protected an article. The next day another admin re-instates the protection and promptly suffers a fatal accident. At this point it is fair to wheel war the second admin, if there is consensus to do so, so that the article does not languish in its protected state untill the end of time. IAR is necessary because it is impractical to foresee every loophole and exception. That said, I have never seen a successful argument for IAR. Marcus Qwertyus 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from ItsZippy
8. Your nomination statement is a bit thin: could you explain more fully why you believe you think you need the tools, why you can be trusted with them, and why we should support you as an admin candidate?
A:
Additional question from Hahc21
9. How would you determine the difference between reverting vandalism and edit warring, and how will you consider (in those cases) the 3RR rule to be violated?
A: Vandalism is done with bad intentions and . If it can be reasonably assumed that the accused editor is earnestly trying to improve the Wikipedia, it is just a fundamental disagreement between the two editors. Even if the accused editor's head isn't screwed on quite right, sometimes you can at least assume the presence of a belly button. Marcus Qwertyus 02:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from Ktr101
10. Hey Marcus. Would you be willing to explain the large number of blue "db-banned" tags on this page? I'm quite curious, as DarkFalls helped address some of the blue links here, but I'm wondering why you didn't pursue getting them deleted. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A: All were creations of the incarnates of banned copyright violator OSUHEY. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/OSUHEY. I cannot continue pursuing deletion due to a lack of a response from said user. Marcus Qwertyus 02:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from Ryan Vesey
11. This is a spin off of some of the above questions. I notice that you have placed {{db-banned}} on a couple of obviously notable articles, generally politicians, many of which included edits by non-banned editors. Articles include Ross Boggs, Bill Holtzclaw, Paul Bussman, Fred Dyson, and Cooper Snyder. More recent examples are from January 2011 and include Charleta Tavares, Anthony DeVitis, and John Hagan (Ohio politician) among numerous others. As it has been some time, please explain your understanding of criteria G5, specifically in respect to its requirement that all substantial edits be from the banned user in order for the article to be deleted. In addition, please explain your interpretation of Ignore all rules as it applies to obviously notable articles created by a banned user. As an administrator what steps would you take if you saw this on a page with an edit history as it existed to the point of the tag?
A: G5 applies to entries originally created by a banned or currently blocked contributor that lack content contributed by non-banned users. Does the article stand on its own at all without the banned users contributions? Remove problem user's contributions delete if no.
Maybe there is a place for IAR if the situation calls for it and there is consensus, but for thieving, litigious, lying scum like OSUHEY? I think not.
For the Holtzclaw situation, I would definitely delete the article in question. It was tagged before any intervening edits and the nature of his ban makes it all the more important to remove the article quickly. It isn't a great loss to not have an article on an individual nobody cared about enough to write his article before hand. If an individual who is not OSUHEY want's to re-create it, that is fine. Marcus Qwertyus 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from Maxviwe
12. How would you react in a situation, when you have created an article after your one month's efforts and it is voted for 'Delete' at WP:AFD by your enemy with the help of meatpuppeting?
A: In a perfect world, debates would be judged based on policy-related arguments and impartial debaters would side with their actual assessment of the article rather than the masses. Because Wikipedia is far from this utopia, socks and meat-puppets can easily upend debates they set their camp up under. I've handled my share of puppets. First I would discuss with the suspected editors what I perceived they were doing. This is a required step before AN/I and would help with getting to the bottom of the investigation. I would take it up with the closing admin and let him know that I believed the discussion was swayed excessively by recruited editors. I would ask that the admin re-assess the debate based on the merits of the points given. I would report the incident at AN/I for more eyes and if I had a reasonable suspicion of socking, I would make a pit stop at SPI for a checkuser if necessary. Next stop would be the admin noticeboard for discussion of bans and such. Marcus Qwertyus 01:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
13.Let me change the words of my question. How would you handle meatpuppeting? Not the Sock-puppeting.
A: I was indeed referring to meatpuppets. Is there anything specific you'd like me to go into more detail about? Marcus Qwertyus 19:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
14. Briefly evaluate and analyze this article. What are your thoughts on the points raised?
A: While I'm surprised Pinterest didn't ever try to create it's own article, it is inadvisable for a company to try to fill the holes in coverage of their brand on the world's go-to website for unbiased information. It is mostly impossible for the average inexperienced editor to cover their brand neutrally. There are places like articles for creation, where veteran contributors review, give input, and help neutralize articles. Marcus Qwertyus 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
14.5 Just out of curiosity, I was wondering what you think about a website where anyone can set the foundation for a brand's online representation. (Does it sound reasonable to you? Preposterous? Does it necessarily improve neutrality, as even non-corporate users often create articles about topics in which they are interested or involved? Do we have enough protections in place to prevent damage to these brands? Do we need to improve the way we work with brands? Should executives be "wary of spaces where 15 year olds can yield equal or greater power over their names"? etc.) Feel free to address all or some of these questions; I'm just intrigued by the topic and I wanted "your side of the story" in contrast to the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A: A place where companies can chat with willing volunteers to learn how to market their brand the "non-evil" way would solve a lot of problems on both sides. Start-ups can benefit from the platform of discovery that Wikipedia is and Wikipedia could benefit from the extra clicks we get when we find the next big thing. It seems too logical to succeed though.
At a meet up I attended in St. Louis, User:Elonka mentioned that esteemed professors have a problem with being out-debated by teens with much more free time. This must be similar to what a public relations firm goes through, having hours of work destroyed with a single edit. Wikipedia may be too volatile for some firms to invest much energy into. Marcus Qwertyus 04:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Question from ObtundTalk
15. What would you do if a user was having many issues with a program such as twinkle, and was tagging articles for all the wrong reasons, or just tagging articles that were fine as is? Also what steps would you take to make sure the user does not make errors like them again? ObtundTalk 20:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A: I would take them under my wing through the Adopt-a-user program and hopefully show him the ropes in a way that reams of policy and guidelines cannot possibly hope to. Marcus Qwertyus 04:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from Lankiveil
16. In your opinion, how many minutes should elapse between an article being created, and an admin placing a CSD A7 tag on it (assuming the article is technically eligible for CSD A7)? Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

    The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

    It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

    The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

    It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

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

Discussion

  • Edit stats posted on the talk page. My76Strat (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, with 50% of !voters not supporting, why has this gone on so long? Seemed an obvious WP:SNOW several days ago. What am I missing here? ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    To my eyes, it appears in the form of collective respect. Any editor, including you, could have snow closed this from a perspective of good faith. That no one did, may relate closely to why you did not; nor me. I believe that we each recognized that elements of this RFA had gone awry; from the very beginning. From an abyss in our soul; where vestiges of goodness remain, we were constrained; knowing well that we'd each played a part; contributing even. The sum of our contributions ignored the human element at stake and shew us collectively as lemmings. Our number includes the many who undoubtedly arrived at this RFA, leaving without the courtesy of recording their presence. Pretending we have not known Marcus Qwertyus, or seen his zeal first hand; asserting distrust and elevating the metaphoric bit above plain decency was simply all the ill we could muster and still consider ourselves comely. That is my take on the matter, and I considered these before your question was raised; in fact days ago. My76Strat (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic points My76Strat. In fact I am going to move to moral support, as your inspired words have helped me see this nom in another light. Thanks for reminding me of the "human element", that wikipedia, as many websites are sometimes lacking. I hope Marcus Qwertyus 3 returns here, should this RfA fail. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Support
Support Experienced editor, who also has rollback, file mover, and autopatrolled rights. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I must change my vote to oppose because of the CSD concerns. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Trusted, experienced editor who has over 30,000 edits. Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   17:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Changing my vote to oppose because of the CSD concerns. Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support. One or two good points are raised in the oppose section, but I think Marcus has come a long way since his last RfA (almost two yeas ago). He has done some excellent work dealing with sockpuppets of a particularly prolific, copyright-violating sockpuppeteer, and he wants to work in possibly the most visible area of admin work on the project (the Main Page and surrounding templates and process pages)—an area which is chronically short of admins. I think the biggest risk is that his zeal will get the better of him, resulting in hasty and ill-considered actions (which I suspect is at least part of the reason behind the CSD tags mentioned below). However, that same zeal, properly channelled, is what gives him the potential to be a great admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support I think we are being too strict at RFA, the candidate is an established editor and the areas he wants to work in need more admins. While the CSD concerns below give me pause, in light of his declared commitment to a specific recall process, and the one he has chosen, I don't see why we shouldn't give him a chance. (Not to say that I think recall related questions are generally helpful at RFA, particularly when they ask for a commitment to some vague and undefined recall process) Monty845 02:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support I support this candidate OrenBochman 06:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support - Worked with Marcus in the past, and can find no reason to not support. -Scottywong| comment _ 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. I support this candidate for allegiance to things known. While the Q&A paints a distorted picture, I am resolved to rely on what I have observed in real time. My76Strat (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Moral support Marcus is a good editor. Despite some legitimate reasons to oppose, I feel like some editors pile into the 'oppose' or 'support' section based on how they see the RfA going (following the crowd) instead of on the merits of the candidate. Marcus deserves way more support than this even if the RfA doesn't pass. I'm disappointed we could drag someone through the mud like this.--v/r - TP 13:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support I was planning on staying away from this RfA but, like TP, I hate the idea of a long term and prolific editor being blasted to bits :) in an RfA. But, MQ, if you're planning to work in the RM area, you really need to rethink your response to Q6! --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Blade is right. Given his commitment and demeanor, I'm sure MQ will figure things out along the way with discretion and without damaging Wikipedia and that's all I care about. My support is no longer moral (and I don't mean that sort of moral!). --regentspark (comment) 16:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  9. Moral support - I concur with TParis and RegentsPark; if you want some admin-related mentoring, I'd love to take you on. In either case, please don't let this get you down! Keilana|Parlez ici 14:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support because Marcus Qwertyus is clearly a competent user; that this RfA looks headed into the tank is a fault of ridiculously stringent standards, not him. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support Marcus has now addressed some of the concerns I raised in neutral. While the opposers raise some legitimate concerns, I'm impressed with his tenacity in dealing with long-term vandals and disruptive users. I believe Marcus is sufficiently competent to use the tools responsibly and per Blade's point about stringent standards. Pol430 talk to me 16:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  12. Moral Support, despite sub-optimal answers to questions 6 and 7. Nevertheless, both of these questions were philosophical, rather than practical in nature. They don't give us any evidence of what this candidate would actually do in any specific situation. Yes, the responbses are wooly and poorly thought out; my hunch is that if faced with a task that was relevant to these domains the candidate would say (as I do in such a case...) "this is beyond me, I'm going to leave this to someone who has more of a clue". There is nothing significant in this candidate's previous actions that gives me major concern. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support. The CSD tagging isn't the best, and this RFA won't succeed, but I think the candidate is serious, intelligent and helpful. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support - per User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards - especially as he seems to have learned from his mistakes at CSD. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  15. Support - "I have the enthusiasm and maturity to serve this project for many years." That's the most I could ask for in an admin and feel confident in taking his word on it. -- Ϫ 03:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  16. Moral support (Has anyone ever offered Immoral Support at an RfA?) Has the enthusiasm and maturity, but needs to improve the understanding of certain areas. Fairly certainly will do. Or else it's the 'scenario' problem - one's reactions to real situations are often better than the reactions to a faked up scenario. I've struggled with first-aid scenarios, but have gone into an real emergency situation with a cool head and correct actions. When one actually has the buttons here, one thinks differently... Peridon (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support Good personal interactions with the candidate at WP:ITN/C. SpencerT♦C 00:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support - After reviewing his history, the candidate seems to be a great user to receive the mop. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support - Looks like a good and hard working contributor to me.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support both moral and immoral. Moral, since Marcus has been a helpful editor with a pretty cool user name. Immoral (well, that's pushing it) since Peridon asked, and since this is a horrendous RfA that should probably be closed early: unfortunately, Marcus did not think this out carefully with his nomination, and came up with some pretty bad answers. MF might say he also failed to make the proper friends, given the opposes below--I can't speak to that, but some of the answers above will not make him anymore. Let's consider this a learning moment and move on. Sorry Marcus. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support Good Candidate. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 06:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. CSD tagging is poor. A high proportion of tagged pages/files were not appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Mind pointing out a few recent ones so that I can address them? Marcus Qwertyus 18:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Looking at June 2012, Marcus Qwertyus's CSD log has seven entries. 1 was a "Non-free" tag placed on a free file. 2 was tagged as "unambiguous copyright infringement", although the image is old and the original copyright holder is not identified. This is not "unambiguous". 3 & 4: again the original copyright holders are not identified and the pictures are clearly old. With 5, Marcus Qwertyus applied the tag too speedily, before checking to see if the name "Ultra Twister" had any other meaning, although he soon realized this and corrected the mistake. Number 6 has been deleted; I am not able to view the deleted content, so I assume good faith and believe that it was an appropriate tag. Number 7 looks like it was probably a reasonable tag prior to a disambiguation page move. (Again, I am assuming good faith with this one.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
        • 1 is a copyvio because all or almost all of the logos are copyrighted and Nouveller did not have permission to liscence them the way he did. Clearly the responding admin has erred greatly in flagging the image for transfer to Commons. 2-4: You got me there. I must have slipped through the cracks because I have never seen this license before in my life. The vast majority of the images I upload on Commons are CC or PD-Gov. By the way, the contributor of the files is being investigated for plagiarism here. Please take the time look over a few of his contributions. 5 is more the fault of the original mover not dab'ing the page after moving Ultra Twister to Ultra Twister (Six Flags Great Adventure). There was know harm done because I realized instantly what had happened. Marcus Qwertyus 01:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • With number 1, you incorrectly applied tag F6. The F7 tag would have been appropriate. It is disappointing that you still failed to realize that after I pointed out a problem with the tag. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
            • With 2–4, the criterion requires "unambiguous copyright infringement". If you don't know who the copyright holder is, this cannot be "unambiguous". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose While a lot of the blue links on User:Marcus Qwertyus/CSD log is a result of it being {{db-move}} or {{db-histmerge}} etc. so care needs to be taken when analysing that page, there has been a few worrying images CSD nomination only recently. While the license listed at the time of the nominations are obviously incorrect, they are not "Unambiguous copyright infringement" for the purposes of CSD. The nomination statement and answers to question at the moment does not provide me with enough to overcome this concern. I would be willing to change my !vote if the nomination statement and answers are expanded satisfactorily. -- KTC (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I've seen the candidate act imperiously in the past, and the way the self-nom is presented here, sort of as a series of rebuttals, does not make me believe that things have really improved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I've read some support comments from editors I respect, and I want to make it clear that I, for one, was not piling on, nor following the crowd. And I sympathize with arguments that RfA is becoming too stringent, but that doesn't invalidate the appropriateness of some requests failing. Once someone becomes an admin, it's too hard to take it back. I guess I'm sort of saying that I find the arguments for support unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Fails criteria 4.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not picking this particular comment because I'm supporting the candidate, but because it's not the first time I've seen you make a comment like it. Creating your own arbitrary criteria and sticking to them rigidly rally isn't a helpful thing to do. Evaluate the candidate, and make your mind up on whether you think they would be a decent admin or not; statistics and criteria can aid you in that, but only to a very limited extent. If you don't have the experience to properly evaluate a candidate, or you don't know a candidate well enough to be able to decide, don't vote. There are no awards to be won by voting in every RfA. Finally, a four-word oppose rationale is even less helpful. If you're going to oppose, especially early on, it would be decent of you to provide the candidate with useful feedback (and again, if you have nothing to offer, offer nothing—there are no prizes for being one of the first voters, either). After all, if this RfA were successful, Marcus would have very little to go on from your comment if he wanted to use the criticism from this RfA to work out the admin areas in which he needs to take things more slowly. Oh, and b the way, "criteria" is plural; "criterion" is the singular form. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    My apologies, I forgot to write the reason as to why they fail that criteria. If I may elaborate, criteria 4 is demonstrating experience in admin related areas. I primarily evaluate those that the candidate wants to take part in. Now going through that, I am scared at the number declined CSDs this candidate has, which obviously is enough for me to oppose. Although the candidate has improved, they merely limited themselves to {{db-move}} deletions. To the candidate, study up on CSD policy tag articles properly for deletion that need to be deleted and re-apply for adminship if this one doesn't pass.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    Admin-like work I've done: Flagging of several dozen sockpuppets here and subsequently investigating his copyright issues. Also a lot of page patroling and vandal work. Marcus Qwertyus 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    You also wish to work on CSD deletions as well according to question 1. Looking at your log, it is scary to see how many of those declined. I'm no CSD expert myself, i tend to stay away from them, but, if a candidate wishes to do CSD deletion, I would expect them to have a very good knowledge of that area. Keep tagging articles for deletion, not limiting yourself to just{{db-move}} and reapply for this RfA.—cyberpower ChatOffline 09:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. Oppose User's answers have an unbecoming and worrying defensive tone to them. Moreover, they are lacking in substance and essentially have no explanatory power whatsoever. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. Regretful Oppose Per CSD tagging history. Admins have the delete button, and are expected to know when to delete a page, and you seem to lack these skills. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Due to the lack of feedback to the questions asked and CSD problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per the aforementioned CSD tagging issues. Logan Talk Contributions 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Two reasons. 1) CSD may be a problem. 2) Unconvincing answers that could lead to ambiguous interpretations not permitted on a future admin. We need concise response. Maybe a month or so with CSD will do the trick. —Hahc21 04:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - I don't like doing this but the answers to the questions seem rushed, not thought out at all - an error I myself made in my first RfA. Take your time, think about what you are trying to say. GiantSnowman 10:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Oppose His answer to question 7 shows a misunderstanding of the spirit of ignore all rules. I am more upset by his answer to question 11. The fact that removing the non-banned users edits will make the article unable to stand on its own does not mean that there are no substantial edits. The banned editor will normally have contributed at least the lead to the article with other editors expanding. An article like Paul Bussman with this improvement certainly shouldn't have been deleted. In addition, in a normal situation for a page like Bill Holtzclaw's it takes less time to look at the article and realize that the topic is notable and doesn't contain puffery-in fact is in line to be greatly expanded-than it does to figure out who the banned editor is and delete it. While this article doesn't contain copyvio, a viable argument would have been that the editor was banned for introducing copyvio and it would take too much time to check for the copyvio. The fact that the editor was " thieving, litigious, lying scum" isn't. I particularly dislike your comment "It isn't a great loss to not have an article on an individual nobody cared about enough to write his article before hand". The man is a current legislator and I believe our responsibility to have the article outweighs our desire to remove material contributed by banned editors. If you want to delete OSUHEY's contributions in that case, create a stub yourself. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    Moved to Neutral Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Care to explain why q. 7 is wrong? Marcus Qwertyus 13:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • To begin with, your example was so outrageous that it seemed like you really had to search. If an admin died in a car accident you can wheel war them? Ignore all rules is a fairly open ended rule and there are numerous instances where it can be, and oftentimes is, used correctly. One instance that occurs often is when a page doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but a deletion discussion is closed early because the encyclopedia is hurt by its inclusion. It seems that your experience with ignore all rules has been in cases where it was used as a justification, rather than a tool for something in which a justification already exists, but an admin should have a clear understanding of it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    To be fair, OSUHEY was banned for serial copyright issues; I actually think the kill it first attitude in that setting is fine. In other instances I wouldn't be thrilled to see it, but if you're trying to clean up from a banned user who does nothing but create serial copyvios, playing it safe by requesting deletion is all right with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    I played that card once: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Boggs. Marcus Qwertyus 17:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    I did remark that in the case of this user deletion under suspicion of copyvio would have been a valid reason. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Question seven's answer really unnerved me, so I asked you Question 10 to see what you would say it is about. Unfortunately, you didn't really give a good answer, but did answer to virtually the same question on Question 11 with a bit more detaill, which confirmed my suspicions. Ryan echos my sentiments entirely, in that you completely show a lack of understanding for CSD G5 and IAR, through your answers. A lot of those articles were expanded quite well by other users, even if they once had the kiss of death on them. The IAR scenario provided earlier actually almost had me opposing you outright (reasons echoed above, by Ryan), but I decided against it at the time being, because I wanted to see what the rest of your answers would be. Better luck next time, Marcus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  12. While I'm very lenient and mainly support all non NOTNOW candidates, I can't support because of question 7 which is probably one of the worst answers I've seen to the question. Maybe in another six months with more experience. Secret account 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Mainly due to the very poor answers to questions 6 and 7 (assuming that other admins are editing 'under the influence' is extraordinary - any solid evidence that this is occurring should be taken to ArbCom immediately as it may be grounds for an emergency removal of the tools). I'm also concerned that Marcus Qwertyus wants to start his admin career by working in areas in which single admins have considerable discretion over the fate of articles - these aren't suitable areas for new admins to work in. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Per CSD log. Cheers,
    Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - Poor CSD log, AfD opinion (65%), rebuttals/badgering of opposes, threatening to stop editing should this RfA fail, very poor answer to questions 6 and 7, a lack of understanding of G5 and IAR per Ryan, per Wisdom89: "unbecoming and worrying defensive tone to [answers]". — GabeMc (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  16. I'm usually lenient on supporting, but the answer to question seven is horrendous. Good lord, poor might be putting it lightly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  17. Ack, the CSD questions and #7 made me cringe, bigtime. Sorry, I'm not comfortable with entrusting you with the delete buttons. – Connormah (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  18. Oppose for now. I suggest looking over your answer to question 7 and your CSD log. After months of improvement you should be good to re-apply and I may support. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 11:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, sorry, I have to. You are a very good editor and you're civil, which is what we want here. But one thing that concerns me is that though you've participated in a number of AFD's, your votes match with the consensus only 64.1% times, which is a poor thing I'd not like to see from an admin. Your CSD work is also hasty. I'd suggest you wait for another year and withdraw this nomination. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 11:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  20. Such a misunderstanding of IAR and the shaky CSD history are putting me off here. I realise that the image CSD are harder to get used to than the rest, but I personally choose not to work with files, as do many admins, and I think you might be wiser to follow suit. - filelakeshoe 11:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, sorry, I have to too; normally am happy to vote in favour, but in this case NOT NOW! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 12:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - I've read neither your supports, opposes, neutrals, or your answers to any questions below #1. Frankly put, your CSD failure rate is simply far, far too high for someone who wants to be actively involved in that process. Achowat (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, reluctantly - I came to this RFA intending to support, because Marcus is a wonderful editor who has done a lot of great work; but his answers to questions 6 and 7, and the severely high CSD failure rate, are more than worrying! →Bmusician 12:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  24. Candidate has said: "I don’t see myself ever quitting Wikipedia. If I don’t get that time, then I get the jitters." I generally do not support candidates who admit that they are very attached to Wikipedia. A good admin should be able to disengage when necessary. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    A good admin should know when to disengage in a particular situation and one can do that while still having a strong commitment to staying on Wikipedia. Just saying :) --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Fetchcomms is referring to Rock Hill teen is prolific editor for Wikipedia. The question asked was something to the effect of "Is this hobby something you are going to be doing for the rest of your life?" The answer is, indubitably, yes. Marcus Qwertyus 17:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Your badgering of opposes is only making your case for adminship less likely (I learned this one the hard way), I suggest you do not reply to any oppose commments that do not expressly ask you a question. But that's just one editor's opinion. — GabeMc (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Or does it just show my engagement and communication skills have improved? Marcus Qwertyus 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    It really doesn't. Engaging specific opposes is almost always detrimental to an RfA. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Case in point Marcus. You responded to my comment with a question, which could be construed by some as badgering and since I only offered you friendly advice, which may prove helpful at a future RfA, you should either agree with or ignore my comment. — GabeMc (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'll let Fetchcomms decide how he/she want's to interpret it. Marcus Qwertyus 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    Knowing the question asked by the interviewer only makes me less likely to change my vote. Wikipedia is a hobby that no one should be doing for more than a few years, much less his or her entire life. When users become too attached, judgment and feelings conflict. Supporting free content may be a passion, but if Wikipedia ever becomes something from which one can't separate, it's unhealthy. Never invest too much in Wikipedia, because when you're in danger of losing it, emotions tend to take over. I would cite several examples, but I'm deliberately trying not to compare the candidate to other users. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, and as for the badgering—I'm more concerned about the sloppy punctuation (want's, among others). I don't always care for "badgering" on certain other comments, but I invite dialogue on anything I've said so that I can better explain my rationales. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  25. Oppose per Axl, Wizardman, Wisdom89, and Fetchcomms' rationale. --IShadowed 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  26. Oppose I believe I came here expecting to support. Although I have supported some self-nom's, there are some key benefits to actually being nominated: it means that someone trusted by the community trusts you and thinks you're ready, and their support adds a lot of weight to your nomination - indeed, it can turn some neutrals into supporters. The problem with this being your third nom is that each failed RFA basically doubles the amount of time you need between them (i.e. 6 months minimum between first and second, 12 between second and third, 18-24 between third and fourth). Although you wish to work in deletions, your grasp of them is tenuous ... and that is, indeed, the biggest challenge. I have not gone back to look at your previous RFAs to see if that was noted before, or even if you have fixed the things you were suggested to because this issue is big-and-bad enough on its own. I also find your IAR answer to be ... well ... an unbelievable choice. Not sure what you were thinking there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  27. Oppose user knows how things work around here, but doesn't understand them fully, try again in a few months and get more experience too. Also I oppose because of CSD concerns. Wish you best of luck when you try again. Work on your deletions. ObtundTalk 23:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  28. I'm sorry if this comes across negatively, but I have to be completely honest in saying this — your answer to question 7 made me feel very uncomfortable. If someone just died, the last thing that'd be on anyone's mind is whether an action they undertook was appropriate or not. Even so, there's no need to "wheel war" when misunderstandings can be resolved through communication with others. Everyone makes stupid mistakes sometimes, and I speak as someone who is prone to saying things on impulse when I'm at my worst, but an admin should generally have the ability to think things through before saying them. This is especially true in a venue like this where your every action is heavily scrutinized by members of the Wikipedian community who invest most of their spare time skulking around RfA. And besides, IAR is actually quite simple: you don't have to follow every single rule right down to the letter. They're really more like general guidelines for how to do things around here. Nothing is set in stone. I'd say come back in a few months time and submit another request. Make sure you take the time to give thorough and insightful answers to the questions asked at your next RfA. You're definitely capable of intelligent commentary, I've seen it from you many times before. Good luck! :) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  29. Oppose A wonderful editor with many contributions to the project, but the CSD log does seem worrisome. Michael (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
Marcus, as this is effectively your third RfA, I would have expected a little more in the nomination statement about how you feel you have overcome previous concerns and how you have developed as an editor. I have seen you around but don't have any direct, personal interaction experience with you. It would have ben nice to see a little more info. I also recommend you expand on the answers to questions 5 and 6... I'd love be able to support, but neutral for now. Pol430 talk to me 13:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) moved to support Pol430 talk to me 16:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with above; a bit more feedback would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Neutral As much as I hate opposing people, I am really not seeing any effort to take this seriously (the nomination statement really doesn't even say why you want the tools in the first place, but just addresses something from almost two years ago. I have seen you around and can attest that you have done a lot of good work, so I am not going to oppose at this time. The answer to Question 7 is a bit off in my opinion, as I am sure the community self-correct this issue on their own should they be notified that someone is dead, or decide if it is worth it to continue the protection. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Moving to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Q7 is definitely off, as WP:IAR is an actual policy. Myself and others could legitimately argue it is the most important policy on Wikipedia. Understanding it is paramount, as it is typically the most incorrectly used rationale at AFD and other venues. Q6 seems off as well. Wikipedia:Move review is new and not fully operational but close enough. Review of some kind is the preferred answer, not dispute resolution or a new discussion, particularly since the first one in this example was already controversial. I get the feeling you have good intentions but are not quite ready to assume an admin role yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't recall saying IAR wasn't a policy. Does this edit help clarify anything? Marcus Qwertyus 08:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • If IAR is such a vital policy, why do we just have a single sentence on the policy page, merely stating that it exists, with no guidelines for its use whatsoever? I frankly think the candidate was making a relevant point about its absurdity, as a policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you really think the purpose of his answer was to make a political statement as to what you perceive as the absurdity of the policy? Has he given you any reason or made any other statement to indicate that this is why he answered the question like he did? Or is this just your opinion that you think the policy is absurd? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes (and yes), I did interpret his final line "That said, I have never seen a successful argument for IAR." with the link as indicating that he saw it as a bit of an absurd question. And if so, I would agree with that statement, given what I find -- or don't find, rather -- on the policy page. But of course I'm not the candidate here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It's funny, as I use IAR from time to time, and have used as a rationale more than once to not take administrative action when an editor was technically in gross violation, but the good that came from their efforts far outweighed the technical "mistake" they made in doing so. I guess it is all in how you use it. In AFD, for example, it is usually a fool's argument, but this fool has used it successfully once or twice. ;-) It is more of an bureaucratic tool than a content tool, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm not leaning one way or the other on this, but if this RfA is successful (which unfortunately, doesn't look like it will be), I want to ask you to please stay away from the admin area of the CSD process until the community thinks you have a better understanding of it. This is not to say to stop doing it completely, as you can still very well perform an editor's role in the CSD process to practice even more. Trust me, I used to be a trigger-happy CSD-er, but a few people got angry with me, so I stopped for a while. I still plan to redeem myself by showing I can perform CSD nominations correctly, so I would like you to join me by doing the same, whether or not this RfA succeeds. :) Happy hunting! Rotorcowboy talk
    contribs     01:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Experienced editor but I'm concerned with your CSD tagging work so I can't support this RfA--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - No need to pile on with another Oppose, but the lack of understanding of and appreciation for the policy of Ignore All Rules is deeply troubling. Carrite (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. Neutral my apologies but I expect an admin to use edit summaries 100% of the time and while you are close I cannot support. [[1]], after a few months of 100% I could possibly support. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There are situations that don't always need edit summaries. For instance, I don't always leave edit summaries when I'm replying to a message on my talk page. What good is an edit summary that just says "re"? I've tried enabling the "force edit summary" option but that has caused me to hit save, switch tabs, and come back only to find I've lost hours worth of work. Popups is a wonderful tool and is favored heavily over reading cryptic two-word edit summaries by it's users. Marcus Qwertyus 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I think you're a good editor, but I see too many concerns here to support. As for edit summaries, above, the two letter summary "re" says to me that you were replying to something someone else said. If it shows up in the watchlist, I know there's discussion taking place. I'll be honest, I'm also a little uneasy about your edits here - 37 at present. Call it personal preference, but I like to see a candidate who can stand on his record, and my inclination to support goes down with every subsequent response from the candidate. Maybe that's just me, though. Like I said, you do good work - and more than half of your edits are to the article space, which is as it should be. Keep at it, avoid CSD for a while, and we'll see what happens. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  7. Neutral (Moved from Oppose) The issues with IAR and G5 are enough for me to continue to withhold my support for the present; however, upon review of the rest of the contributions of the editor and the passion the editor has for the project, I am unwilling to oppose. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You can test my knowledge with a question above if you are undecided. Marcus Qwertyus 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I almost made an oppose vote very early in this RfA and the rationale would have been very much on the lines of what many other opposers have since voiced. There's no need for me to pile on now, but I would just like to record my presence here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  9. Neutral The discussions around seem to strangle me.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 17:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yngvadottir said that he didn't understand the !vote and in addition "strangle" was a strong word. So, I mean that the other support and oppose !votes were so perfect with their point, that I couldn't decide to vote for which. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  10. Neutral- Capable editor, dedicated to the project; will be looking for your return. Dru of Id (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  11. Neutral - considered about spelling issues on a nominal basis. Good luck! Monterey Bay (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  12. Neutral - I always abstain on further basis. Sorry! Next time, Marcus.... TruPepitoM (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  13. Neutral I have no doubt that you are a good faith editor who is here to improve Wikipedia as much as possible, but a large number of concerns expressed in the oppose section are convincing and quite serious. You have made many good contributions to the project and i hope you continue to do so. Unfortunately due to many points raised on different issues specially on the CSD tagging leave me with no other choice but to vote Neutral. All the best for your future work Marcus Qwertyus. TheGeneralUser (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
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://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Requests_for_adminship/Marcus_Qwertyus_2&oldid=7044199"