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

MacMed[edit]

Final (2/6/0); ended 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC) - Sorry, but it doesn't look like this request is going to succeed at the present time. To invoke "not now" for a candidate with over 2,000 good faith edits to his name spanning two years of activity is more than a little patronising, so I'm closing this in the spirit of preventing further drama, both in the interests of the project and in those of MacMed. It seems that most of the concerns revolve not around the lack of experience which forces so many early closures, but around a lack of activity in recent months—16 months is a long time (it's worth remembering that the newest editors to get through RfA have probably only been active for about that length of time), so I for one hope to see you back here with more activity on which your peers to evaluate you in a few months. I think it's worth a nod to some of the opposers to thank them for the relative collegiality with which they expressed their views—all too often, well-meaning editors are shouted out of RfA, but most of the opposers here seemed, to me at least, to be making an effort to make it less personal. I take that as a good omen for a future RfA. - HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

MacMed (talk · contribs) – Hi there, my name is MacMed and I would like to take a second shot at adminship. My first RFA did alright, especially considering the short amount of time I had been with the project. Although I have just returned from a 6 month break (taken for schoolwork reasons) I am back and feel I have addressed the concerns from the first RFA. Most of the opposes at that time were due to experience, and I now have 7 months of editing experience behind me. In addition, I did follow the Wikipedia community over that 6 month break, I just didn't want to let it take precedence over school. I know I have been back only a short time, but a look at my contribs should satisfy any concerns about my policy knowledge, etc. Feel free to give me example situations so that you can assess my ability to determine consensus. Thank you for your consideration. MacMedtalkstalk 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: This is the link to my past admin coaching stuff. It's a little old but I think it might still be of interest. MacMedtalkstalk 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: To begin with, I would continue to work on clearing out the requested moves backlog, which I have been doing the past couple days but have been stopped now due to the need to delete redirects. I would also start working with histmerges. I would stay away from aspects like CSD, SCV, blocking, XfDs and page protection until I am more familiar with tools. I think I would be able to perform satisfactorily in these aspects but would like to take it slow rather than dive in quickly and possibly make mistakes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm a wikignome. I am not a huge article contributor, but I have done some content work. I created Laser Ghost, did some work on John Tavares (ice hockey), and have started doing some editing with WP:MILHIST as part of their backlog drive. I am also active on the IRC -help channel, and work with ACC. I was one of the co-ordinators of abuse response last year, and am getting involved again. Lastly, I have applied to be a WP Online Ambassador.
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 not been in many significant conflicts myself, but I have seen enough to know how to handle it. In a stressful situation, it is best to take a step away and calm down before getting involved again. First starting out as an admin, I would tend to avoid extremely contentious closes or situations, acting only in an observatory sense and taking no administrative action unless highly warranted.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Moral Support You've done good work and I respect that. However, you took a really long break and only returned three days ago. You need some more experience before you're going to be able to pass an RfA. The message is the same as it was in your last RfA: get some more experience and come back. Swarm X 02:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Why not? My dealing with you on FS and IRC have been admirable --Guerillero | My Talk 02:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Per experience since you only have about 3000 2270 edits. Baseball Watcher 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. Absolutely not, this is way premature. And your school work ought to come first in any event. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I came back because I have gotten accepted to my first choice program, so high school is not as big of a concern. Once at university, it will be easier to find time for the project with the spread out classes and more free time (no job). Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have the advantage over you that I've already been through university, and it's far tougher than school. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't argue that the workload is tougher, but it will be easier to manage my time. I wanted to focus on marks in high school because I wanted my first choice. Now I have it. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I certainly don't hold this self-nom against you because you've done a lot of good work, and I never grade off because someone didn't anticipate the reactions of RFA voters ... Wikipedia is what you're supposed to be learning about, not RFA. I'd be quite happy to see you back here, possibly in as little as 3 months. But since you just got back, I have no way of knowing if you're going to lose interest next month, and admins who aren't paying attention can, innocently, cause harm. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I firmly believe in the project, and I plan on being here to stay. I would be open to a probationary period of sorts to alleviate this concern: should I be inactive for 2 weeks post-sysop, take my bit away, no questions asked. Unless I have a really good reason for the absence, and plan on returning (in which case I would have made such info public prior to leaving), then I would not argue with you one bit. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm quite certain that you're honest and genuine in making that offer, but unfortunately the system does not allow for the enforcement of such RfA promises. Malleus Fatuorum 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose - So, from what I see in your edit history, you had your first RfA in the last week of August of 2009. You continued to edit until early December, racking up about 400 edits in that time period. You then stopped editing for almost sixteen months, and then returned three days ago. This massive gap in editing followed by an RfA three days later is worrisome to me. I have no prejudice against you as a young administrator, being one myself, but I do need to see a substantial recent editing history before I can support. Now that you've gotten into your college of choice (and congratulations on that, by the way!), stick around for a few months and keep up good editing to show that you're ready for the mop. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I will stop commenting after this to avoid getting pointy, but I am perfectly willing to answer any policy questions, do an example closure, anything along those lines to show that I understand policy and procedure. If your concern is me becoming inactive, then I am sorry I cannot sign some sort of probationary type deal similar to what I proposed to Dank above. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 02:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've briefly looked over some of your recent edits, and from what I can see, they all seem fine. Many of them are minor (and would benefit from being marked as such), so it's hard to judge that. My concern does not lie with your knowledge of policy, but simply with the fact that you've been inactive for sixteen months. If this RfA does not succeed, I would suggest that you wait for a few months before running again. Those few months could serve as your probationary period. If you're waiting to become more familiar with the tools before you participate in CSD, SCV, blocking, XfDs, perhaps you could spend some time on new page patrol, AIV, XfD, AfD, etc. There are many ways to familiarize yourself before you have the extra buttons. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. The first RFA turned on lack of experience. It was followed by three months of limited editing, a fifteen-month hiatus, and three days of very active editing. I don't see how this could satisfy the community concerns expressed at the first RFA -- and, to be blunt, not meaning to be harsh, I don't understand how the candidate could think it satisfied the community's concerns. An administrator needs to be able to read community sentiment accurately in order to carry out admin responsibilities, and to miss so badly in the request alone is a very bad signal. Very sorry if this comes across harshly; I can't find any less severe way to say it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Concerns with judgement, lack of experience, and a fifteen month-long vacation. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
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.
Category