| Revision as of 00:51, 23 January 2005 editWile E. Heresiarch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,722 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:53, 23 January 2005 edit undoJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,538 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| ''' (4/12/2) ending 02:01 ] ] (UTC)''' | |||
| While I'm very impressed with Mike's progress, he is not eligible for Adminship at the present time. He's under Danny's mentorship and I agree with Danny that this RfA is ill-advised and unhelpful at the present time. | |||
| Mike has contributed immensely to the Misplaced Pages. Since the time when he was he has made immense progress and now displays none of the previous behavior that was problematic. This should be an excellent chance for us all to recognize his reformation, and PROVE that Misplaced Pages can, indeed, look beyond the "sins of the past". I'll admit that when I initially conceived of this Rfa, it was not in the best of faith... but upon reflection, I realized that I became convinced of its merits. There really is something to be said for Mike's progress and moreso, for our ability as a community to be willing to accept that people can change. I have been unwilling to accept this in the past, but it seems my earlier views were likely in error. We already have one "reformed" troll/vandal as an admin (although I can't recall who at the moment, I do remember the conversation), so it's not as if this is totally without precedent. People DO change, however uncomfortable that makes some of us some of the time. --] | ] 02:01, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The voting has progressed far enough already to see what the outcome would be, and I see no reason for this hurtful process to continue. So, it ends here. | |||
| :This user has the nomination on his ]. ] 04:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Kindness to others includes maturity and thoughtfulness about not goading people. If you want to raise some issue with Mike's edits, please raise them with me personally or with Danny, and I can assure you that the concerns will be attended to promptly. But don't nominate Mike for admin when it is obvious that he will not win and when it is also obvious that the process will only bring up negatives. | |||
| '''Support''' | |||
| #]] 02:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) Six months ago, I was an admin that would have quickly removed this nomination. Ironic, isn't it? | |||
| #I'll never go with herd on this one, Mike's a great user.--] 10:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #:So we're mindless sheep because we share one view? --] 10:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #I've had some difficulty getting others to understand my viewpoint here. Being an admin really, honestly, SHOULD be no big deal. It doesn't seem that way now. We have a perfect oppurtunity here. We can simultaneously acknowledge that Mike has done exactly what was hoped... become a good contributor, we can show that adminship is indeed "no big deal", we can short-circuit a variety of complaints about our admin process and the cliquish and cabalish nature of the admins. Ultimately, if you stop to think about it... why CAN'T Mike become an admin? I understand that arguing that he should be one because "why not" seems a little odd, but look at it this way... if being an admin is no big deal, if Mike is indeed reformed... what's the problem? I've come to the point of view where I believe it's time to start asking "why shouldn't" rather than "why should". Mike has expressed desire to be an Admin previously. Our policy is, as stated, to rather liberally grant it to those who ask. Sounds straightforward to me. --] | ] 20:03, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Absolutely. Mike has improved a lot, and we should just give him a chance. He does really good work. --] ] 22:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This vote is closed, and the nomination withdrawn. | |||
| '''Oppose''' | |||
| #]<sup>]</sup> 04:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #:I urge you to read my rationale above and reconsider. --] | ] 20:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #No offence, but I doubt I could ever support someone with such a history. ] 05:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #:It would be quite a feather in Misplaced Pages's cap to show how welcoming we truly are, even to those we turned aside in the past. He's reformed now, shouldn't that count for something? --] | ] 08:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #I forgive Michael for the crap he pulled, and for the pain he caused people i respect, and for his pointed disruption of my work. i will not forget it though. i am happy that his ban ended, and that he has been working hard. i am still not ready, however, to give him admin powers. ] 10:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #:I was initially VERY strongly against his unbanning. I see, at this point, that my prior position was, ultimately, untenable. I ask you to reflect, is there REALLY any reason to keep Mike from being an Admin? --] | ] 20:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Judging from his Talk page and comments below, Mike seems to not be familiar with policy, one of the cardinal necessities of adminship. Maybe later. --] 10:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Not yet, not now, maybe in six months or a year or so. ] 10:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Oppose. Ex-vandals should go straight for much longer before being given responsible positions. Maybe in a year or two. —] 12:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Oppose. He does not have the familiarity with policy that I would expect of a prospective admin. Aside from that, I think he needs longer as a regular editor to fully regain the trust of the wider community. ] 13:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Adminship is not a reward for a sufficient number of good edits — or at least it shouldn't be. It's a set of additional responsibilities bestowed on users who have shown to have both the dedication and the opportunity to follow up on them. For what he does, as good as his contributions may be, Mike doesn't need to be an admin, and the community doesn't need Mike as an admin, certainly not just to demonstrate how forgiving we can be. Having had no personal involvement with Mike or his edits in any way (though I'm well aware of both), I want to make it clear that this is a not a vote of non-confidence on a personal level. Perhaps a nomination for Mike will make sense one day — to me, that would at least require that others stop being even partially responsible for his actions, as they are now. ] 14:20, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC) | |||
| #:Well said. I am strongly opposed to adminship becoming an honor for respected users. We already have barnstars for this. Furthermore, some of our finest contributors self-confessedly have nowhere near the time to be admins - some don't even have accounts. ] 14:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #:I don't see that Danny is, any longer, "responsible" for Mike in any other than a most superficial sense. --] | ] 20:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Oppose. I agree with above comments. ] 15:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Oppose, for reasons set forth supra. Maybe if he shows that he can conform his conduct to the norms of this community for a year, he could be re-nominated. ] 17:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. I think it's great when a former bad user becomes a responsible one. However I recall Mike Garcia under his various sock-puppets spewing out some of the most vile insults at other Wikipedians, generally responsible users and admins, that I've seen here. (None at my self that I recall, or if there were I missed it.) I'm willing to give him a "good for you for reforming". I am certainly not ready to give support for adminship. -- ] 18:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #:As I've stated above, given his change in behavior, are we really justified in "holding out" on him because of his past behavior? I used to think so, but on reflection I changed my mind. I urge you to reconsider. --] | ] 20:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #Recently (post-reform), Mike has made the following troubling edits: 1) Purposely made an edit summary look like he was an admin using the rollback button. 2) When asked, claimed to be an admin — he had just "decided" to become one. 3) Changed the year he was born, twice. These were nothing like the level of his previous (pre-reform) behavior, but they do show, IMO, that he is not ready for adminship. ] | ] 22:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #*I don't think there's anything wrong with using the rollback format for reverts, in fact it's very helpful, if a little over the top effort-wise. I don't find the talk page diff too damning, it might well have been a misunderstanding. --]] 22:33, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC) | |||
| #*:Maybe I am guilty of not assuming good faith, but I see using the rollback wording in one's edit summary as an attempt to pass oneself off as an admin. ] | ] 22:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #*::If you poke around in my edit history I'm pretty sure you'll find edit summaries like that too, mainly because I wasn't aware of rollback at the time and thought it was the customary revert message. --]] 22:44, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC) | |||
| # Oppose. It's going to take a long time to make up for all the ill will generated by ]. Try again in 10 years. I don't see any good reason to reward a troll with adminship. ] 00:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Neutral''' | |||
| #] (]) 05:03, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #I am still not sure that this nomination isn't a deliberately pointed troll, but okay: Mike's past history entirely aside, I don't think he's a suitable candidate for adminship just yet. His editing has certainly been competent and useful, but he hasn't had the level of community involvement that admins, in my opinion, ought to have. Maybe later. —]]] 08:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| --] 00:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comments''' | |||
| *Who's the other admin who used to be a troll/vandal? ] 02:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't recall, I know we have one though... someone will remember who. --] | ] 02:41, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Has he been notified of this nomination? —]]] 02:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **He has. He has yet to respond. --] | ] 02:41, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***He has accepted. --] | ] 08:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] has 5285 edits, starting at 19:56 on ] ], 70% to article space. ] has 1073, starting in March 2003. ]. {{User:Brockert/sig}} 03:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't understand your comment. --] | ] 08:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Let's reward Dante with a cookie instead. ] 04:19, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC) | |||
| **Hey, I'm just trying to "forgive and forget", it was advice from Jimbo-on-high. --] | ] 08:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm unclear on policy, do I get to vote, even though I nominated? --] | ] 09:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, you do. ] 10:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''Questions for the candidate'''<br /> | |||
| ''A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:'' | |||
| :'''1.''' What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about ] and the ].) | |||
| ::'''A'''. | |||
| :'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why? | |||
| ::'''A'''. | |||
| :'''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 will deal with it in the future? | |||
| ::'''A'''. | |||
Revision as of 00:53, 23 January 2005
Mike Garcia
While I'm very impressed with Mike's progress, he is not eligible for Adminship at the present time. He's under Danny's mentorship and I agree with Danny that this RfA is ill-advised and unhelpful at the present time.
The voting has progressed far enough already to see what the outcome would be, and I see no reason for this hurtful process to continue. So, it ends here.
Kindness to others includes maturity and thoughtfulness about not goading people. If you want to raise some issue with Mike's edits, please raise them with me personally or with Danny, and I can assure you that the concerns will be attended to promptly. But don't nominate Mike for admin when it is obvious that he will not win and when it is also obvious that the process will only bring up negatives.
This vote is closed, and the nomination withdrawn.
--Jimbo Wales 00:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)