Midas02 (talk·contribs) – It's a good sign that someone is a candidate for adminship when they correctly bring needed admin actions to the attention of their neighborhood admin. When someone develops an eye for when the mop needs wielding, it makes sense to give them the mop. In this case, User:Midas02 has been editing here since 2010 (heavily over the past three years). I am confident that he will push the mop appropriately. bd2412T 23:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks, I'm happy to accept. --Midas02 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: I'm currently mostly involved in the disambiguation project, so my editing issues are usually related to the problems you come across doing that kind of work. Reverting or executing page moves, doing some anti-vandalism work. Sometimes speedy deletions or cleaning up article histories, restoring & fixing cut-and-paste moves. Probably venturing into the closing of page move discussions as well. But it might change over time.
I'm adding an additional statement here because many people seem to take issue with the mentioning of anti-vandalism and speedy deletion work. I want to make it clear I'm never venturing into areas I'm not familiar with, and those in particular are not areas I have spent a lot of time on. I find there's plenty of interesting work in other areas that keeps me busy, so I have no intention of spending a major part of my time in those areas. But when cleaning up pages, and going through changes that were made, you often come across anonymous IPs that have shown disruptive behaviour on a large scale or redirects that don't need to be or have lost their meaning. My comments were related to those particular cases where I'm familiar with the situation. My intentions are not, at least for the time being, to participate on a larger scale in those projects. --Midas02 (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The answer is rather diverse. Probably rather unusual, but coming from a multilingual upbringing I spend a lot of time on interwiki work. I used to help WP.NL clean up the list of interwiki conflicts they had, then did the same on Wikidata, spent some time on WP.FR cleaning up disambiguation conflicts, and have been doing much of the same on WP.EN. This also means I edit a lot, or fix things, across Wikipedias. So when I find an issue on one, I tend to correct other WPs as well. It also helps to bundle knowledge. I was recently looking for a long-forgotten cycling track, started asking for it on WP.FR and ended up getting help on WP.DE. Similar for trying to find sources or new references.
The same goes for the tools I'm working with. I found DisamAssist so useful that I ended up porting it to four or five other WPs, where it caught on. Same for Zeusmode (don't try to understand it, I'm probably one of the only ones using it), which I ported to six or seven other WPs. I'm currently also in the process of trying to get WP.NL's disambiguation links-to-fix bot repaired. It's been broken for two years, and being tired of doing manual updates for them, I'm getting some expertise from this Wikipedia to help out.
A vast amount of my content work is in the Disambiguation project. There I tend to have a track record of leaving 'clean sheets' behind, also cleaning up a lot of idle red links in the process, going a long way to get links fixed. I am also quite vocal in terms of improving project guidelines and procedures.[1][2][3]
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: Not too many, and it's decreasing. I believe there's some advice out there that tells you to steer away from it, so that's what I tend to apply. I don't often challenge people on content, but more on the application of policies and guidelines. When I'm doing so, I'm usually quoting the guidelines which explains why I'm making that change. Or I go through the talk page when it's more complicated to explain. Most people take notice and leave it at that, or they thank me for the information. It's only once in a while you tend to come across people, usually junior editors, who feel they can still go ahead just 'because they can'. When I notice the issue isn't going to get resolved, I usually call other senior editors to weigh in as well. That tends to help people understand I am making a valid point.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
5. You have four sections on your talkpage about possible copyvio in the last 18 months, and you only responded to one on your talkpage; Though that one looks well resolved. Specifically, what is your understanding of this incident?ϢereSpielChequers 16:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: All of the copyright violation warnings I received were false positives. They were related to sections of articles which were moved to start a new article, where that piece of text had been copied by a rogue internetsite, which in turn triggered the bot. If you check the link provided in the one you are referring to, you will notice that site contains a copy of the text I was moving. I'm usually adding the 'Copied' template to the talk page to stop this from happening, but sometimes I'm not doing it quick enough, or I get caught out anyhow. In any case, I have never received a positive copyright violation, nor have I copied such text to Wikipedia. --Midas02 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. What will be your legacy to Wikipedia? And what edit would you put on a resume?
A: A bit of an unexpected question. There are probably better ones, but here's one interesting one that springs to mind.[4] I came across a contradiction in the data on different football related articles. Took me about an hour to figure out that some homonymous players had been mixed up, including on Fifa's own database. Quite rewarding when you finally manage to figure it out, and leave a note to others to warn them about the issue. --Midas02 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. I've come across this ANI post following name-calling and edit-warring by you in response to a requested move that you felt was improperly closed. Can you think of a better way to handle this dispute, and disputes like this in the future? Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A: Ajraddatz, from memory, I believe this is the only ANI that was ever lodged against me. I guess some people are worse off. I feel I was wrongly accused, and am still not happy with the way in which I was being dealt with. I had made my case to the closer, but at some point she refused the conversation and made accusations against me. I guess you wouldn't feel too happy about that either. She took it to ANI, but by the time I got round to having a look at it, a matter of a couple of hours, other people had already gone along with her story without even hearing me. I didn't believe that was very fair. I am still convinced I had a valid point, but instead of wasting everybody's time with long-winded discussions, I decided to just leave it and move on. It was a minor issue that wasn't worth everybody's time, and I believe there were more important things needing attending. --Midas02 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. I'm personally concerned with the fact that you haven't engaged in a lot of dispute resolution, and when you do, you are the person whom the report has been filed against, or you have not dealt with it adequately. Dispute resolution and dealing with conflict are major aspects of an admin's work - would you be able to "stay cool when the editing gets hot" in the future? --Ches(talk)(contribs) 18:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A:User:Chesnaught555, is it ANI you're pointing at? As stated above, I believe I only had one ANI report against me. Have filed a handful and participated in some, but just as many others, including admins, it's a place I don't tend to go to often because issues quickly become long-winded and throw up more dust than needed. I only get involved when I know there's a clear case at hand that will receive a clear and rapid decision, otherwise you're quickly wasting many people's time. Most of the dispute resolution I get involved in goes through talk pages, and when I feel the discussion isn't likely to go anywhere, I ask third parties to get involved so they can add another perspective on things. --Midas02 (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. I note you mention in your answer to Q1 that you plan on carrying out anti-vandalism work. Please can you outline how you would deal with a report to WP:AIV of a user named 'BLdotUK' editing the British Library page, referencing all their added information properly with links to primary web sources. Mike1901 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. Can you explain these following diffs: [5][6]. I would question any admin who reverted an automated edit with such a summary, so do you a) still think your summary was justified or b) take that as a lesson for the next time you disagree with one's edits?
11. I'm a little concerned with this edit. Although I agree that the edit was the right thing to do, the way you acted was not appropriate in my opinion. I feel as if you should've given a better edit summary, because threatening a user that they'll be blocked is not appropriate for something like that. If you had to go through that same incident again, how would you deal with it? — Omni Flames (talkcontribs) 08:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support lack of ANI participation is a plus. Not all admins need to be (or indeed, ought to be) involved in drama. clpo13(talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support but pending answer to questions above. Whiskeymouth (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks goods from my standpoint. Reading the opposes, since when is being admin more about fighting vandalism then it is building on the project? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VegasCasinoKid: Assuming this question was applied to my oppose among others, I'd say "since the candidate states they wish to do anti-vandalism work". ~ RobTalk 19:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a reason the tool set is called the mop. Things are not built with a mop they are maintained with it. The primary areas of maintenance this user has not taken part in. If they wish to continue building they are more then welcome to continue and in fact I applaud them for their work so far, but they have not demonstrated that they know what to do with a mop. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 19:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Going to swim upstream here: Lack of experience in certain areas mentioned in the oppose comments is a plus, in my book. Not all admins have the same skill set, temperament, interests that will be part of having and using the mop. For what it's worth, I think an editor with no blocks and little interest in AN/I and other noticeboards is a good thing for a new admin - that tells me they aren't craving the drama and are less inclined to be a drama-monger and make more neutral decisions at AN, AN/I, AN/3, and so on. Another added plus with this editor is their contributions log shows an amazing 93.3% of their 6 years and 33K+ edits have been in the way of content. Definitely someone dedicated to making Wikipedia a better place, in my estimation. We need more of all this for better balance among administrators - not every RfA candidate needs to be ready to jump into a fight. After all, our focus is supposed to be on building an encyclopedia - this RfA candidate obviously has their contribution focus in the right place, I think they will also have their admin focus in the right place. -- WV ● ✉✓ 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WV, I believe there is a distinction between "net positive" and "trustworthy with the mop." I definitely believe, (as do many other opposers, probably) that Midas02 is a net positive to Wikipedia. They have done massive amounts of work, and I salute them for it. That does not answer the question "Can I trust their judgement in the admin areas they have expressed an interest in working in?" For me, that answer is no (or not yet). With all due respect, I don't think your !vote answers that question. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All due respect, Vanamonde93, my !vote doesn't have to answer that question because it's your question, not mine. -- WV ● ✉✓ 22:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WV, you're right, you're under no obligation to answer it. In my opinion, it is the question implicit in every RfA, and therefore I would be curious as to your reasoning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I already gave my reasoning. You appear to object to my reasoning, which is fine, but asking me to expand further in regard to your personal litmus test really isn't appropriate. Any further comment from you on this will start to look like badgering/bludgeoning. Hopefully, you're not intending to go that far. -- WV ● ✉✓ 00:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: The lack of experience in which the admin tools are primarily used are lacking here, of the few AFDs the user has taken part in have demonstrated a general lack in understanding of the applicable inclusion criteria. There seems to be very little experience in either CSD or Vandal fighting. I do not feel the tools in the hands of Midas02 would benefit the project at this point. McMatter(talk)/(contrib) 17:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose; I would like to see more experience in ANI and other fields. Evidence does not suggest a high level of experience in vandalism nor ability to resolve disputes. Also to point out, Midas02's edits suggest that he was only active in the past year. As of now, he made 25,413 of 33,165 edits in the past year. The rest of the 8k edits suggest he did 2,000 a year. This alone suggests that he only knew what he was doing within the last year. This is not enough information to say he is experienced except in disambiguation pages. Therefore, the admin tools only marginally benefit, if not none. Honestly, it reminds me of the RFA by GeneralizatiosnAreBad, where he started last year. Looking at the information, I must strongly oppose. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (edit conflict). Very little AFD participation and not much AN/I participation, which leads me to think that dispute resolution is something this user won't be comfortable with. The fact that 93% of this editor's contributions are in the article mainspace may initially look great to those who wish to Support, but this demonstrates a lack of counter-vandalism work and very little communication between other editors. Returning to my point on AN/I participation, the fact that this user has had AN/I reports filed against them for edit-warring and personal attacks is very concerning - maybe their actions did not warrant a block, but this still really puts me off supporting this RFA, I'm sorry. The ostensible six years of experience is a little skewed - as Winterysteppe said, most of their edits were made in the past year, and shows that this editor does not have as much experience as what is implied by the nominator. The copyright violation flagged by Coren's bot is also concerning, and definitely shows a lack of understanding of some of Wikipedia's basic policies. --Ches(talk)(contribs) 18:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose (e/c). I'm uneasy about perspective, and I'm torn. Q1 starts out OK with the page move issue. Yes, disambig fixes can use that; there's a good argument for a narrow technical. Then Q1 strays into anti-vandal and CSD. That means I look there. Edit stats show 32 edits to Requested moves/Technical requests out of 30K edits, but that's a poor indicator. AIV reports don't make the top ten, so they are 3 or less; that's a no to an antivandal candidate. CSD requires skill, but I don't see a CSD log on the toolbox. That's a no. AfD relates to CSD, but 13 entries are not enough. The first AfD miss I clicked found "You might wanted to have noted that you were the writer of this article, so you're not entirely objective in this matter."[7] Candidate's talk page suggests Q1 admin interests are not as broad; see User talk:Midas02#Your persistent nagging has left me with no choice.... Other parts of the talk page raise some issues. The BHG/forum shopping incident raises an eyebrow. No matter how the CorenSearchBot copyvio notices sort out, there should have been an edit comment on this revert; bots are not vandals; also, the text is wikipaste, but had to come from somewhere. Q3 doesn't have what I want to see about conflict. I think the candidate was nudged in a little too soon. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: Adminship is not just about smacking vandals in an infinitesimal amount of time, nor is it just about XfD. However, about four months ago, this attack using pseudo-legalese against BrownHairedGirl is severely concerning, with statements such as
... [A] long string of aggressive and libellous comments ... Independent of this case you have recently been charged with bullying by another user, and I'm going to charge [charge?] you with the same here, bullying ... However, if you desire to continue the bullying and the abuse of admin rights, which I have noted on issues not related to this one, you will leave me with not choice but to file a request asking for your rights to be removed, and your conduct to be reined in. I have never been involved in a simple move discussion leading to this much trouble, nor have I challenged one before, so I hope wisdom prevails.
Looking at their contribution logs for December 2015, they did not subsequently apologize or at least stopped pushing. If the candidate reacts like that when an outcome is against their opinion, then we might get a messy wheel war or ANI feud. In another addition, this edit summary ("Great, destroy a whole edit because you disagree with a detail. Very polite!") is snarky, and the candidate expects an apology for their own attack. Esquivaliencet 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I've come to realize that you don't need experience in all areas in which the admin tools are useful to gain access to them. If that were the case, we'd have to de-sysop just about every admin for lack of template knowledge, since the template editor user right is bundled with the tools. In this case, though, the candidate specifically wants to do anti-vandal and CSD work without significant experience in those areas. I recommend gaining what experience is available to non-admins in the areas you want to work before submitting your next RfA. If you do, I'll likely support. ~ RobTalk 18:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose, based on review. I also would like to see the editor gain further experience, along the lines stated above. Kierzek (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I do not think an admin needs to be accomplished in every area before we give them the mop, but what I'm seeing here is a very narrow expertise with disambiguation. I much appreciate the effort they have put into that area. However, I cannot support a candidate without substantial experience with deletion (CSD or AfD); without substantial content contributions (a few stubs, often split from a DAB page, and many DAB pages); without substantial anti-vandalism work; without particular experience with dispute resolution or mediation; and with a few behavioral concerns brought up above. Any one or two of these shortcomings could have been overlooked, but right now the only thing I feel comfortable trusting them with is WP:RM, and that is not enough, especially given their interest in working outside that area. I'd be happy to support in the future, if they have more experience by then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose due to a combination of aggressive and irrational behaviour as demonstrated in the Alejandro Villanueva incident, and a lack of attempt to understand procedures even when they are pointed out, such as when creating new articles with a cut and paste of other articles (there should be attribution) and with the guidelines for PRIMARYTOPIC, an important port of the Disambiguation area he feels himself competent in. I have no problem with someone making mistakes, but I do have a problem with someone who does not learn from those mistakes, even when they are pointed out. Given that Midas02's editing history consists almost exclusively of minor semi-automated edits, I'm seeing nothing substantially positive to balance my concerns. In short, there is very little here for me to base an assessment of suitability for adminship, but enough to give me reasons for concern. SilkTork✔Tea time 19:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm not expecting admins to be perfect "all-rounders" (Opposing someone who has minimal AFD participation when they work hard in other admin areas is just absurd), but I do expect them to be polite and patient. Too many times have I seen editors on Wikipedia with foul, uncivil tempers, and frankly, I don't care whether someone works furiously hard and well in admin areas — if their attitude is reminiscent of a school bully or someone who flips over tables at the sight and sound of criticism, they should not be given the mop. This is Wikipedia, not WikiImpolitetopia. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - at first I was going to wait and see the answers to questions, but after further review I don't think I could support this request. I'd first like to say that this has nothing to do with their CSD, AIV, ANI, etc. record - none of these are hard to figure out, and even with limited experience in them a good admin candidate would be able to pick up the common practices without much issue. I am particularly impressed by the lack of drama-mongering at ANI. However, in my experience, a critical aspect of admin work is being able to collaborate with others. This candidate can do so well, when people agree with him. But as soon as they don't, he adopts a battleground mentality. He doesn't back down or listen to other opinions, and doesn't drop issues which clearly are not important to the overall mission here. We don't need that pattern of behaviour in admins. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Glrx, SilkTork, Lesser Cartographies and Esquivalience. Being passive aggressive is unacceptable for an admin.--Catlemur (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above. Concerns with demeanor and limited experience in admin-related areas of the project. -FASTILY 21:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per many others in this section. Although I'm glad but kind of surprised that they have stayed out of the dramaboards, at least in terms of blocks or other major actions, their demeanor is quite concerning. Combine that with the fact that they don't seem to be experienced in many admin areas, and I can't support this RfA. Johanna(talk to me!) 22:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think Lesser Cartographies said it best. The candidate does not appear to have the Midas touch. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose I think that the reasoning for a strong oppose is per Esquivalience; you cannot be passive aggressive as an admin. However, if you change this, and maybe do some more counter-vandalism work, if you try again in a few months, I'll support. Jdcomix (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I just took a look at your AFD stats, and I was surprised to see that you've only participated in 14 AFDs. What's more, you're not active in CSD either. Generally I would expect RFA candidates to be at least active in one of those, because it shows a good understanding of policy, and administrators need that. What's even more disturbing, however, is your answer to question 7. Your behaviour which led to that report at ANI was clearly unacceptable for an admin hopeful, but the fact that you still believe what you did was right is even worse. These concerns and the fact that you're simply not active in enough admin areas means that I'm going to have to oppose this RFA. — Omni Flames (talkcontribs) 22:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, that is a clear misrepresentation of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline:
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics: * A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. * A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
Usage is not primary over long-term significance; they are two equal pillars for discussion. I'm concerned that based on this misunderstanding of policy, you accused a respected admin (and top-20 editor by number of edits) of "misbehaving". – wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Oppose. No anti-vandalism work and also no experience in maintenance tasks. I don't even understand why this user needs admin rights, even in the nomination questions above, this user doesn't really say much about what he will do with admin tools. You don't need to be an administrator if you're just looking to help with disambiguation pages. I also agree with Esquivalience. — Music1201talk 00:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to use my admin tools quite frequently with respect to disambiguation issues. If you get your name in the Disambiguator Hall of Fame, I'll credit you with understanding when and how administrative help is needed with disambiguation pages. bd2412T 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What?! He doesn't need you to credit him with anything, not on your terms or at all. Outrageous put-down by the nominator. --Stfg (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - No participation in any admin areas whatsoever (IE AFD, RFD, CSD etc etc)... then there's the snarky replies, All in all I don't have any confidence in this candidate at all and I don't see the need for the mop either.... –Davey2010Talk 02:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose and suggest a WP:SNOW close. Not active in admin areas which is already a big red flag, but based on temperament and the way he handles disputes, I don't trust the tools will be utilized well in the cases that crop up "when cleaning up pages, and going through changes that were made". Wugapodes (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Lacklustre nomination; no experience of maintenance tasks whatsoever. Clearly a candidate who hasn't bothered to read any of the advice pages, giving rise to concerns that as an admin, they wouldn't read instructions either. Clearly not ready for adminship and not likely to be for a long time to come. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you care to strike the "lacklustre nomination" comment? The merits of the nomination statement (over which the candidate has no influence) should in no way affect your judgement of the candidate. If you wish to "improve the environment" at RfA, I suggest that this may be a small step in the right direction. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose. This editor enforces a ridiculous amount of beaucracy in places which they participate, and most times enforcing beaucracy incorrectly (such as regarding page moves; this editor will request moves reversed whether or not they think the move is controversial themselves, as they did for the move at Talk:Mike Jordan (racing driver)#Requested move 24 May 2015) ... so much that sometimes, it is hurtful for the project. For example, per this discussion on my talk page, this editor seems to lack understanding of WP:CWW and when history merges are necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Lack of experience in areas the user wants to focus on; additionally, the temperament issues are concerning. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Many issues have been identified by respected colleagues, which I can only concur with. I would respectfully suggest you take on the many suggestions for areas that you can work on for improving your skills, and look on them on a positive light. I suggest this RfA be closed at this point. Further opposes may damage your morale, which is not the intention. Please re-read User:Kudpungs guidance, work solidly, try some content creation and other user interactions on AfD etc, and maybe come back in a year. Good luck mate. Irondome (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose on WP:NOTNOW criteria. I'm by no means one of those who feels that a contributor must have extensive experience in every major process area, but I'm significantly underwhelmed by the degree of demonstrated familiarity with community forums, exercise of dispute resolution, and involvement of complex policy issues. There's just a lot of tools in the box which I'm not sure this user is yet prepared to use effectively and without issue. That being said, they've also racked up quite a lot of edits in their time here; those edits may be small, by and large, but we genuinely need contributors willing to work in the areas of rote, meticulous examination Midas02 specializes. And we arguably need admins who appreciate this area. Still, I think broader experience in other areas is needed. So I can't support the nomination at this time, but hope this user will re-apply in the near future after broadening their familiarity into areas where their prospective tools might be applied. Snowlet's rap 04:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTNOW is intended for very new editors, the type that nominate themselves at RfA after 2 weeks and 500 edits. Quoting NOTNOW as a reason for opposing this RfA is insulting to an editor who has been here for almost 6 years and with 33k+ edits. SSTflyer 08:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose. The December 2015 ANI report referred to by question 7 documents a surprising level of abrasive and uncooperative behavior that was, by all appearances, completely unprovoked. (Out of an abundance of caution, I've checked the provided diffs and the relevant page histories and have confirmed for myself that the report was truthful.) I would oppose on that ground alone, but the candidate's apparent attempt above to paint himself as victim is, in my view, disgraceful. Rebbing 04:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Apart from what others have said above, I'm not understanding the proliferation of secondary dab pages such as wormwood (plant). Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The diff highlighted by Esquivalience is worrying. Lacking content creation. Few AfD comments. Axl¤[Talk] 09:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The Villanueva affair is enough. Too confrontational by far. --Stfg (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the lack of experience in admin areas, the confrontational attitude is a show stopper for me. Philg88 ♦talk 09:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Fails my criteria, particularly in the answer to #6. Winterysteppe has asked this question twice before on recent RfAs (Widr's and GAB's). It should be no surprise. Your nominator hasn't helped much, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but the incident referred to in Question 7 demonstrates that the candidate doesn't have the temperament for adminship at this time. —DoRD (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - per reading the above. fredgandt 13:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per reading through questions and agreeing with pretty much every other argument given to this point. Also strongly suggest this discussion be considered as WP:SNOWBALL as the dissonance is very overwhelming so far. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose AFter reading the candidate's responses to the questions, specifically Question #7, it concerns me that they may not have the correct mindset for adminship. Being an admin requires having a thick skin at times, and requires to stay even-tempered and as neutral as possible. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Parking here pending responses to questions. — xaosfluxTalk 18:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Tending towards Oppose, but only fair to see what the responses to questions are, as I just have an inkling I may be pleasantly surprised here. Mike1901 (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I don't think Midas02 shouldn't get the mop. But what purpose does adminship serve to someone who mostly works with disambiguation pages? Eman235/talk 20:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It helps, actually. We have a never-ending string of incidents where an editor will say, "hey, it turns out that a hundred years ago there was a single-season minor league baseball player named 'Bruce Springsteen' - I guess I'll have to move Bruce Springsteen to Bruce Springsteen (musician), and turn the original title into a disambiguation page". This requires admin action to clean up. bd2412T 21:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but that's not solely a dab issue. Eman235/talk 21:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevertheless, it would be helpful to have more admins who understand (and address) the issues peculiar to our disambiguation efforts. bd2412T 21:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree; it seems that disambiguation doesn't get enough respect as an admin task. You need the delete function (specifically "move over redirect") to work the WP:MALPLACED queue, and to change a primary topic. It's a shame he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the criteria for determining primary topics, and argues about it rather than working to fill in the gaps in his understanding of the guidelines. wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral, pending response to q.7, which concerns an incident of you edit warring over a move discussion closure and your belief that the admin should be desysopped because of the close. I'd appreciate an insightful answer into what you did wrong and how you'd approach things differently. Fences&Windows 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral but moral support - Take a while to work in some areas that need some help. Pick up some CSD work, more AfD, some antivandal, and perhaps 2 other areas of admin interest that interest you. Put on a bit of a smile and work on your interactions with others - Do all this, and do it well, and I would support you if you were to run in another 6-18 months. --allthefoxes(Talk) 04:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral but moral support (same vein as Allthefoxes). I want to see more of this candidate's critical reasoning ability under pressure than the RfA Q&A allows. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The assumption that someone without a Twinkle CSD log doesn't work with speedy deletion irritates me, so I took a very cursory look through the candidate's deleted edits (as in, I only looked at the edit summaries). There's 416 total. 334 are semi-automated disambiguation fixes. There's two afd nominations and two rfd nominations among the remainder, and exactly zero mentioning a csd tag of any sort. —Cryptic 19:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.