Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Myleslong

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Myleslong[edit]

Final (42/3/11) ending 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Myleslong (talk · contribs) – now entering his fifteenth month with us, Myleslong has been a member of Wikipedia since January 2005. [1] Since he joined, Myles has shown a special interest in Texan culture, and is an active participant in the Wikipedia:Texan_Collaboration_of_the_Month project where he assisted in raising the Texas Ranger Division article up to WP:FA status, [2] later becoming Today's featured article on January 16, 2006. In addition to Texas-related topics, Myles also holds an interest in the field of computer security and horror films, and is involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting as well. Approaching his 5,000th edit, Myles makes exceptional use of edit summaries, and can frequently be found welcoming new users and removing vandalism during the course of his work here. I believe that Myleslong has proven to be an exemplary contributor who is now ready for adminship, please join me in support of this nomination. Hall Monitor 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honored to accept the nomination. --Myles Long 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. great guy... would make a good admin  ALKIVAR™ 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Good contributor; entrust him with the crystal mop and bucket. --Jay(Reply) 00:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as per nominator.  ;-) Hall Monitor 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support a very careful editor who is both polite and uses useful edit summaries. 121 space edits is enough to know your way around IMO, and he shouldn't be punished for simply doing more in the main encyclopedia body. Staxringold 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support--Jusjih 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Yamaguchi先生 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support The low user_talk participation is more of an issue to me than the low project space participation, but the user is clearly committed to Wikipedia in a long-term way, so I don't see any problems here, or anything missing that can't be learned on-the-job. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nominator. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I'm sure he will make a great admin. —A 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I see nothing wrong with this user. May the good times roll! --NomaderTalk 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looks like a good candidate. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - I think he could be a good admin. bbx 09:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support seems good.  Grue  12:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. User:Go for it!/Vote Support This user focuses on the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. I looked over his contribs, and I'm impressed. We should give him admin tools, as they'll only help him improve his contribution to Wikipedia. --Go for it! 15:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Go for it! above. Impressive contribution history, and to those who are concerned about lower wikipedia space edits, remember we do need some people to write the encyclopedia, too! Would make a good admin. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A user that actually edits the encyclopedia?? Wow hes a shoe in! Mike (T C) 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support without reservations. Silensor 18:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, answered my question in haiku format. More seriously, seems a valuable addition and unlikely to abuse things. --Yamla 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, after careful review, I find this editor easy to get along with and light-hearted. Although determined when necessary, this editor would not dwell on the negative aspects and continue in the effort to create the encyclopedia. --ZsinjTalk 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Nice contributions and seems level-headed and pleasant to work with. --NormanEinstein 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - all my reasons are metnioned above. Yeah. All of them. --Rob from NY 01:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support no reason not to --rogerd 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. While Wikipedia space edits are less than I'd like, answers to questions convince me he is well-versed in policy. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. --Terence Ong 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support.Ok, wikipace edits are low...but I'm going to support anyway, since this editor has done enough good work, that I hope he will expand his horizons. pschemp | talk 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, altho so more edits on the main namespace wouldnt hurt :) // Gargaj 03:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nice bloke, around awhile/ Support should be/ Miles long. Thumbelina 18:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Steering clear of Wikipedia namespace is a plus in my view. Grace Note 02:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. — FireFox • T • 17:47, 11 March 2006
  33. Support. Definitely. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, a solid editor. Deckiller 21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. No big deal. youngamerican (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Good contributions. No reason to expect misuse of sysop powers. deeptrivia (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, We need more people like him at the helm. --Froggy 13:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support although I would agree with some of the Neutral vote comments. haz (user talk)e 19:20, 14 March 2006
  41. Support hope to have him as an admin.Gator (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support looks a good editor, adminship is no big deal and a little on the job learning don't hurt. Hiding talk 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose due to lack of Wikipedia: space edits, although I like the haiku. Stifle 09:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak tiny Oppose Due to low edit count on Wikipedia namespace. Also because I'm not convinced he has a good working knowledge of policies, but I could be wrong about that. Moe ε 18:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Due to low number of Wikipedia:space edits.Prasi90 09:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: [3] Hall Monitor 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'm thinking about it. Myles, can you please explain your relatively low (121) number of Wikipedia space edits (about 2.5%)?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wiki-space edits are low, but editor seems to have done pretty much everything else. Whether this succeeds or fails, I'll remind editor that it is a good idea never to assert yourself in an area where you are inexperienced; until you edit more in Wiki-space, you are unprepared for those admin tasks that depend on it. Still, I get the impression editor is solid, so I won't oppose. Xoloz 00:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Xoloz, needs more wikiname space edits --Jaranda wat's sup 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above, just barely fails my standards due to process-related edits. If you can answer my questions well I might change to support. NSLE (T+C) at 00:41 UTC (2006-03-08)
  5. Neutral, leaning to Weak Oppose Sorry, but there is not enough project namespace edits in my opinion. DaGizzaChat © 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Lot of great work but is borderline with my standards for an editor. Would like to see more Wiki-space edits. I am sure that user is an excellent contributor however I just like to be reassured that admins are extremely familiar with all aspects of the project.--Looper5920 10:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. Seems like a good editor with good taste in music, but needs to demonstrate more familiarity with administrative tasks, i.e. Wikipedia: namespace. — Mar. 9, '06 [20:37] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  8. Neutral, low Project namespace edits, but too good to vote oppose Prodego talk 23:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Purely due to number of namespace edits. However, this guy is far too good to oppose! --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. I'm afraid I have to agree with the comments above. Raven4x4x 08:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral -- per above. I too might be persuaded to support if I though nominee could promise good use of admin powers without project namespace involvement. John Reid 02:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 80% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Myleslong's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I expect that I will mostly help out in the ways that I already have (vandal fighting, etc.). I am also interested in cleaning tasks (rollback of vandalism, page moves). I would also assume that adminship would allow me to help make the encyclopedia better by reverting linkspam and blocking vandals. I am sure that there are other sysop activities that I would pursue, but these are the ones that jump out at me. Independently of this nomination, I look forward to becoming more involved in many facets of Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. As mentioned by Hall Monitor, I was one of the editors that helped bring Texas Ranger Division to featured article and Today's featured article status. However, I do not wish to take any more than my fair share of the credit for that article; it was definitely a team effort. I am particularly pleased by Lubbock High School, an article that I created and am slowly but surely trying to improve to featured status.
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 how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have not had many conflicts over editing; the few that I have had were resolved through discussion with the other editor(s). As for how I will deal with conflicts in the future, I will deal with them the same way I do in other areas of my life: try to reason with the other party/parties and try to work towards a compromise. I do my best to not let emotion get the best of me in such situations.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

A. Thanks for your questions. I'll do my best to answer them.
1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A. Since the editor is well-known and well-liked, I think that the appropriate thing to do would be to bring it up for discussion at WP:ANI.
2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
A. The first thing that I would do is bring it up on the other admin's talk page. If it could still not be resolved, I'd bring it up at WP:ANI to try to gain a broader consensus.
3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
A. I would respect that I have a conflict of interest with this user; I am sure that it is generally considered bad form to block someone with whom I am engaged in a dispute. However, you did say that this person was a vandal, so I guess it really depends on the situation.
4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A: "Well, let's see, we have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third..." [4] In all seriousness, I would ask the those responsible for the hostile edit summaries to please remain WP:COOL while the editing gets heated and to take things slow. Since this is hypothetical, why did the ArbCom reject it? Could it have been the result of a misunderstanding (hence the rejection)? I would do my best to resolve the issue amicably. If that fails, I would request additional support from my peers in an attempt to reach an agreement everyone can agree on. Basically, WP:WW are bad.

Questions from Yamla:
 The following questions are entirely optional. These aren't trick questions, there's no definite right answer.

1. Assuming you are willing to block users, under what situations would you issue a permanent block on a user account?
A. Permanent blocks, of course, should not be taken lightly. If I discovered that an account was being used for "high speed page move vandalism" or other types of high speed vandalism where it appears to be a bot, I think that it should be blocked indefinitely.
2. Again, assuming you plan on blocking people, under what situations would you issue a permanent block on an anonymous user?
A. Although I know that some administrators do this upon the detection of a compromised open proxy or zombie computer, I have no plans to block anonymous users and will leave that up to other administrators.
3. If you caught an anonymous user vandalising several pages and you reverted the edits several times, eventually blocking the user, then right away, another anonymous user from a different IP started making the same sort of edits to the same few articles, how would you respond? For example, would the new user get four warnings before the block?
A. In most cases, yes, the new user would get the four warnings. The exception would be if it was obvious that they were from the exact same IP range and committing the exact same types of vandalism.
4. Extra-optional, will have no bearing to my vote whatsoever. In three sentences or less, comment on OpenBSD.
A. I will phrase my response as a haiku:
OpenBSD
You are pretty cool, oh yes
Better than Windows.
5. Extra-optional, will have no bearing to my vote whatsoever. In three sentences or less, comment on the recent L0phtCrack developments.
A. Are you referring to Symantec's announcement that it is going to stop supporting LC (and the fact that it has already stopped selling it)? If so, I find it as no real surprise given the shakeups in @stake since they took over. As for LC, older versions still work, right? :-)

Questions from beyond:

  1. If made an admin, will you make an increased effort to improve articles to Featuredom, or delete userboxes?
  2. If improving is your goal, will you regular Featured articles like OpenBSD, in order to make sure it says Feature-worthy?


The above 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Myleslong&oldid=1142574347"