Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MathCool10

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

MathCool10

Nomination

Final (2/9/1); Ended 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC) - closed per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW by non-bureaucrat —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MathCool10 (talk · contribs) – I am an experienced editor on Wikipedia with around 5 months of active editing. I currently work on vandalism reverting and participating in WP:AFD (mainly the vandalism reverting part). I only have about 3.2k edits, but edit count does not matter, and I've found that most of the 10k or 20k edits from an editor comes from vandalism reverting. I only plan on working in the areas mentioned in question 1 as an admin until I receive more experience in other areas. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom.

Note: This editor will not be available today (Saturday) because of personal issues ongoing. So don't expect replies to questions until Sunday.

Questions for the candidate

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan on working with WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:RPE, and WP:RFP, as they are where I mainly focus on.

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

A: I think that my edits to Igor Panarin, the belt problem, and to Odle Middle School are my best contributions because I contributed and revised the two articles.

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 have had a conflict with download over the article Odle Middle School. We discussed the issue on our talk pages and we resolved the problem. In the future, I would use the article talk page instead of the user talk pages used in this situation.

Optional question from download

4. Would you use your administrator priviliges for constructive work only on Wikipedia, and not use them as a bragging right or for personal reasons?

A. Of course not. As Jimbo Wales said, "Adminship is no big deal". Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't, if this RfA passes. -down load | sign! 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? Personal comments to my talk page, please. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from GT5162: 5a You say that you plan on working with WP:RPE. What would your criteria be for granting rollback?

5b If this RfA is successful, will you list yourself at CAT:AOR?

General comments

Links for MathCool10: MathCool10 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for MathCool10 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MathCool10 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Looks alright to me. Wizardman 03:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support — Doesn't appear likely to abuse the tools, and I appreciate the honesty he displays in his nomination statement. I cannot find any particularly salient references to suggest this user does not have a decent understanding of policy; the only concern I found in my (somewhat brief) glance at his contributions to WP:AfD is this, where he argues that the article in question is notable simply because "it is in the news" - not necessarily, unless it is a particularly significant event (see WP:NOTNEWS). WP:AIV work looks good. I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments with regards to this editor's suitability for adminship. I would, however, like to advice MathCool remembers to avoid labelling criticisms of his work as personal attacks. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry, but I'm afraid I must oppose. The first thing I notice is that 36.63% of your contributions consist of userspace edits, while the mainspace only accounts for 22.05% of your editing career. Your user talk: percentage is also unusually high. I see very little experience in the way of article-writing; in fact, I had to dig rather deep into Special:Contributions/MathCool10 to find a substantial mainspace contribution, and even then I was unable to find any content additions. Also, a quick glance at your recent talk page archives reveals primarily cookies/smiles, with little evidence of collaborative editing. While it seems you have good intentions, you have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Best, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for those, I've stopped giving them away. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be sorry about spreading WikiLove. It's a great thing to take your time to do, and encourages your fellow users. The issue is that you need more collaboration in articles and more mainspace, non-automated edits. -down load | sign! 03:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to say that I'm changing my vote to oppose. Although I am a friend of MathCool10, I would have to say I would not normally support another user of the same contributions yet. In addition, most of MathCool10's edits are to the userspace, and less than 25% are to articles. I would also like to add that some of MathCool10's recent edits and their summaries are "bad", for example, here: [1] Firstly, my reminder about not editing others' comments was not unjustified, as MC had been editing other users' comments on my talk page. In addition, MathCool was butting against me about bad use of Huggle and AWB the first days I had started using the tools, even after other editors had also told me about them. (See User talk:Download/Archives/2009/February.) Also, MathCool10 has just stated "stop attacking me with my edits; I was just giving a suggestion", basically saying that bringing up matters of his bad edits is an attack. Finally, I know this user in real life. He has good intentions, but will use the tools for personal reasons and is immature. -down load | sign! 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seriously, stop. If you have a grudge against me, you don't apply it for WP:RFA. And you don't just assume bad faith. Ever heard of WP:AGF? Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a grudge against you. You just do not qualify under my standards. I would support if you had a better record and more mainspace articles on your next RfA (if this does not pass). I am also not assuming bad faith. -down load | sign! 04:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...is immature". Any evidence? Also, "...but will use the tools for personal reasons". Didn't you just read my answer to Q4? You don't assume bad faith, as I've said before. Finally, download states, "basically saying that bringing up matters of his bad edits is an attack". Those were suggestions, not "bad edits". If you have a grudge against me, stop, take a deep breath, and don't use it for Wikipedia. Also, take a Wikibreak. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MathCool, Download's concerns seem valid, and I'm afraid that labeling them as bad-faith won't help your case. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat; I am not assuming bad faith. I know that you have good intentions; however, I have concerns over your maturity and whether you are ready or not. After more experience, I would gladly support. -down load | sign! 04:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting fact: Saying 'you have a grudge against me' actually means that you are the one making the assumption of bad faith. — neuro^(talk) 06:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Opening an RFA and announcing you won't be available to discuss anything the first day of it indicates your perspective here might be a little off. You could have just waited a couple days to open the RFA. And your AFD contributions, which were largely of the "vote" rather than "discuss" variety in the spot checking I did, indicate you're still a little inexperienced yet. Keep at it though, and thanks for volunteering to help out in this role. Townlake (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Download. Removing reminders/warnings and leaving an edit summary of WP:NPA? Either the user doesn't understand the policy or used it for… well, I don't really know. And to add, I don't see much experience in the admin areas the candidate plans to work in. The candidate only has eighteen edits in both WP:RPP and WP:AIV, which doesn't significantly prove that the user has much expereince. DiverseMentality 05:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Dislike his attitude when saying Download 'had a grudge against him' with absolutely no evidence presented, which would appear to be nothing less than an assumption of bad faith and an inappropriate statement. This is ridiculous too, and I am inclined to say that you are, if not were a rather over-social character. I'm not usually one for content creation, but at least some editing to the mainspace is a want for me, unless it is superseded by other points in priority. So, in a nutshell, I dislike the way you interacted with Download, I think your policy knowledge is off - it would have to be to think that templated warnings were personal attacks, and I need more time to see that you are not still in that 'phase', if you like. To be fair, it just seems like the whole thing between you and Download is a bit over the top and full of assumptions of bad faith, which is something which I would certainly not like to see from a prospective administrator. No prejudice towards further RfAs, but this one is clearly not at the right time. — neuro^(talk) 06:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per no consistent pattern of editing, almost no significant article contributions (yes, specialisation as good, but I'd like to see some evidence of serious building; a GA or two would be good), and per neuro above. More alarmingly, download demonstrated above that he has no grudge ("Don't be sorry about spreading WikiLove. It's a great thing to take your time to do..."..), and was accused of holding a grudge half an hour later. Sorry. Give it six months, work on getting at least one article from nothing or stub to GA, and basically just focus on mainspace. //roux 07:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MathCool has the best of intentions. I've also seen evidence that he/she's pretty good at template coding. But he/she's not ready for this yet. And I think Download should consider taking a step back from this RfA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems like a good editor, but does not seem to have enough edits to articles in the mainspace(in my humble opinion).Wacko Jack O 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too few article edits.--Giants27 ^T/C 13:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Didn't really look over MathCool10's editing, but I do know that they know their way around Wikipedia fairly well. They've helped me in the past, but since these issues have nothing to do with being an admin, I can't say Support. Still, I do lean towards support, and a neutral is better than an oppose ;)

Neutral I have to say I'm neutral. I am a friend of MathCool10, but I would have to say I would not normally support another user of the same contributions yet. In addition, most of MathCool10's edits are to the userspace, and less than 25% are to articles. -down load | sign! 03:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that some of MathCool10's recent edits and their summaries are "bad", for example, here: [2] Firstly, my reminder about not editing others' comments was not unjustified, as MC had been editing other users' comments on my talk page. In addition, MathCool was butting against me about bad use of Huggle and AWB the first days I had started using the tools, even after other editors had also told me about them. (See User talk:Download/Archives/2009/February.)

Recent? Two/One month ago isn't that recent. And please direct any complaints to my talk page. And stop attacking me with my edits; I was just giving a suggestion. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 04:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are on your record, and show that you cannot be trusted with the tools. In addition, I am not attacking you with your edits; you edits simply give you a bad record. Because of a bad understanding of "good faith" and personal attacks, and because of edits, I'll have to change my vote to oppose. -down load | sign! 04:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Sorry, just not enough time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.