Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MCB


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

MCB
Final (50/0/0) Ended Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:53:34 UTC

– Michael C. Berch (MCB), from Pleasanton, California, has been editing on Wikipedia since August 15, 2005. The user has amassed 4400+ edits during that period, contributing mostly in the article and Wikipedia namespaces. If you check out his user page, you can see some of his major article contributions and a little personal bio. I met MCB a few weeks ago and was immediately impressed by what I saw. This user has contributed to vandal fighting, article-building, AfD discussions, and has helped a great deal of users at WP:HD. I believe MCB would make an excellent admin, based on the user's knowledge and experience in all things Wiki. This user has the level of maturity that most other users can not equal, and I have strong confidence that Michael's age and wisdom would not lead to any possibility of admin abuse. Nish kid 64  21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with appreciation and enthusiasm. --MCB 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: I see adminship as having essentially three roles: first, the everyday responsibility of reducing backlogs in the areas that can only be done by admins (closing AfDs/xfDs, closing move discussions and performing complex moves from WP:RQM, deletion of copyvios and associated issues listed on WP:CP, analysis of image use problems in CAT:NT, CAT:NL, etc., and the everpresent CAT:CSD; second, to be able to respond and intervene quickly in cases of vandalism or other abuse (RC and NP patrol, various flavors of page protection, issuing blocks, responding to unblock requests, and monitoring and responding to requests on WP:AIV and WP:ANI); and third, helping build the Wikipedia community, enouraging collegiality and civility, and providing a positive example in preventing and resolving disputes. (Of course, that's not a sysop chore per se, but I think it is something all admins should do.) In addition to the above, I have a particular interest in the area of copyrights and analysis of free-use and fair-use issues on Wikipedia.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: In the article space, much of what I've worked on has been related to food and travel, including creating some small but hopefully well-crafted articles such as Hôtel Lutetia, Arthur Bryant's, or ORBIS International, and contributions to a number of airport and aviation articles and participation in WikiProject Airports. I've contributed a number of photographs of food, particularly cuts of meat, and hope to identify a good FA candidate in the food/drink category (we're leaning toward Beef). I also do a fair amount of wikignome-type editing, from simple copyediting to structural changes, as well as finding and citing sources. In the project namespace, I am a regular participant in AfDs/xfDs and in my early months learned an amazing amount about Wikipedia from that. As a relatively new editor, I also created a centralized discussion on sports results that did not reach consensus, but did illuminate a number of issues regarding sports result articles. In the community area, I enjoy answering questions at the Help Desk.


 * 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've probably been involved in significantly fewer conflicts than most editors with the same level of participation, but there have been a few, largely over NPOV issues. All have (I hope) remained civil, and none have progressed to the level of anyone seeking outside intervention (mediation, RfC, RfArb, ANI, etc.) Naturally, some of conflicts have been stressful, but the key realization I came to was that there are so many good editors at Wikipedia, that I didn't have to fight every battle; over the long run, the majority of good editors tend to win out over the bad ones. So I don't tend to worry about it as much, and I am encouraged by the depth and breadth of Wikipedia's avenues of dispute resolution. I'd be happy to answer questions or discuss any specific cases.


 * 4. Optional question by trialsanderrors: While I like your three "showcase" articles from Q2 editorially, I see a lack of sources. Do you have any other articles you would like to showcase for the work you did in sourcing, or examples of research on articles you did in AfD or other debates? Thanks.
 * A: Of the articles I created, one of the most enjoyable to research and find sources for was Court of Historical Review. A more recent example of source research (in a policy sense) is from Articles for deletion/David Asimov, involving sourcing and application of WP:BLP; my analysis can be found in the two posts and especially . And sometimes a couple of good sources can save an article: MV Umoja was tagged with prod, but I was able to save it with a short rewrite and sources.
 * Beyond that, I'd agree that a number of my early articles did not adequately cite sources. They were written from reliable sources, but I was unfamiliar with the requirements of WP:CITE; I think my later edits have shown improvement, and one of my planned tasks is to go back and cite sources for some of my earlier articles.

Question from 
 * 5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
 * A: The first thing to remember, I think, is that WP:IAR is not something that you wield like a sword to justify a controversial action. Ideally, it should not be invoked explicitly (unlike, perhaps, WP:BOLD) but should stand as a guiding principle that our goal is improving Wikipedia, and not building an edifice of rules and policies. It's also important to remember that IAR remains a controversial policy; the straw poll in the Talk page archive shows a very diverse set of views. It's difficult for me to imagine a situation that IAR would cause me to take an administrative action out of process... but it's not literally impossible, either. The good thing is that almost every action here, whether an edit or an admin action, can be reversed.


 * WP:SNOW is similar, in that it is a reminder that our business here is to build and maintain an encyclopedia, and not to provide practice in bureaucracy, and that common sense should prevail. Many processes here have explicit time frames, but in order not to tie up the time, attention, and energy of editors, it is sometimes an entirely reasonable idea to end a process early when there is substantial unanimity. What SNOW does not mean, to my mind, is that the proponent of a particular position is justified in watching a discussion, seeing three or four favorable votes, and swooping in with "Aha! WP:SNOW!" and closing the discussion. It's a common sense reminder, but it is not a policy or guideline, and should not be invoked as such; instead, it can be a shorthand citation in an explanation of one's action.


 * 6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
 * A: First of all, WP:BLOCK, which is an official policy, states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. They should not be used as a punitive measure."  So issuing a punitive block is, as such, a policy violation, and I can't think of a justification for violating it. That doesn't mean that long-term or permanent bans/blocks are not justified -- only that they should be applied in order to protect Wikipedia (which extends to a large number of areas), not to act as amateur penologists.


 * 7. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?
 * A: It's important for every Wikipedian to maintain a sense of humor. It's especially important for admins and those engaged in tasks like anti-vandalism patrol, because otherwise seeing and reverting "HAHAHAHA SAMMY SUCKS" for the 47th time that week (and issuing the appropriate warning) just gets depressing and leads to burnout. Often we can share the humor in a situation, or a light remark -- or even a tongue-in-cheek edit summary -- and that helps break up tedious tasks. None of us are getting paid, so the more fun and enjoyable editing Wikipedia is, the greater their participation will be.


 * That said, it's also important not to let humor become an excuse for biting the newbies, or be aggressive or a cover for personal attacks, or be used to make fun of people with less-than-stellar English language skills. Some edits are clearly made by people who are beginners at English, and while we might have to edit their contributions heavily, it's important not to make them feel unwelcome; as their skills improve they may well become excellent editors.

Question from 
 * 8. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
 * A: I don't think so, because article editing is something I truly enjoy and find relaxing, but of course it's hard to predict something like that. My best prediction is that since I spend a fair amount of time in semi-administrative tasks like reversion of vandalism, marking and analyzing copyvios, participating in AfD/xfD/RQM/etc., with the admin tools some of that time would be diverted toward admin-level actions like closing xfDs, performing non-trivial page moves, deleting copyvios, and so forth. Or, for example, responding to things on WP:AIV and WP:ANI rather than posting them there.

'''Question from
 * 9. Do you feel Wikipedia should be regarded as a source of sacrosanct knowledge, or a structured yet exploratory knowledge (e.g. Encyclopedia Galactica v The Hitchhiker's Guide)?
 * A: Philosophically, I don't believe there is such a thing as "sacrosanct knowledge"; knowledge is constantly being reassessed, refined, reconsidered, and revised, in the light of new information. That's one of Wikipedia's great advantages -- it's never frozen in time, like a particular edition of a paper encyclopedia. But in some ways we approach the universal scope of the Galactica, by not being restricted to particular topics or branches of knowledge.


 * General comments

MCB's editcount summary stats as of 23:30 October 18 2006, using Interiot's tool.-- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 00:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See MCB's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)



Support
 * 1) Support Good edits, very good answer to question 1.--Grand Slam 7 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as nom. Nish kid  64  22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Good amount of edits, and great answers to the questions. Hello32020 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Mike | Talk 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good user, meets my criteria.-- danntm T C 01:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support Met him through the San Francisco International Airport article; constructive edits and good answers to questions (especially question #1) all lead me to support. --210physicq  (c ) 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per good and friendly response to my previous vote-- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 02:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per nom. John254 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Smart, trustworthy fellow with whom I've had positive discussions. Xoloz 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - per nom and experience --T-rex 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support&mdash;Had a similar initial reaction to that by User:Ageo020; 1602 AfD nominations, votes or discussion seems rather high. Since I lean toward saving articles whenever possible, I usually find that such a heavy AfD tendency is a bad indicator, particularly when the contributions, although solid, aren't spectacular. However after reading a number of the AfD discussions I see enough logic and balance to believe that this is not representative of a seriously over-narrow focus. I am willing to trust with the ability to block/unblock/delete/undelete. Williamborg (Bill) 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Merovingian ※ Talk 07:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Exir   Kamalabadi Join Esperanza! 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) May consequently block.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support great judgement, could always use another attorney as an admin ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom, and great answer to Q1. --Alex (Talk) 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Good answers above. (aeropagitica) 15:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support I am impressed with his answer to question 1. A good editor as well. --203.125.28.98 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Moved from Neutral per ruling of the Court of Historical Review. ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Looks good. --Calton | Talk 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - fits -- Tawker 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support with pleasure. riana_dzast a  04:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support' Will use the mop wisely. Krakatoa  Katie  05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Great user SOADLuver 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support--Jusjih 06:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per nom. Michael 15:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support per nom and strong answers, good user, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) California Uber Support definatly a good user ~  IAMTH  EEGG  MAN  Δ dar  k s  ide 22:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - why not? --Ixfd64 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support  Doctor Bruno  16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-21 19:04Z 
 * 34) Strong Support seems to be an excellent candidate who can certainly be trusted. Good luck!  hoopydink Conas tá tú? 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support as there is a reasonable explanation for the imbalance in editing, which isn't really a problem on this scale in any event. -  Tewfik Talk 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Zaxem 05:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Pile-on support - Excellent editor and extremely unlikely to abuse the mop and bucket. FCYTravis 05:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Can't oppose.  J o r c o g a  06:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. His smile is enchanting! Edits are more beautiful. --Bhadani 15:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. MCB an admin soon.  :o)  Great contributions in many different facets of Wikipedia.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. Good editor, thoughtful comments, no doubt about sensible use of the extra buttons. --VirtualDelight 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support, can't see any reason not to. Lankiveil 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
 * 43) Support - User has made many valuable contributions. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Tnfiddler 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Will make a good admin. Iced Kola  T  -  C  22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support per nom. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support Looks like a well-rounded, responsible editor. Send more like him. -MrFizyx 01:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) SupportLooks fine to me :-) Wissahickon Creek talk 12:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support Great answers to the questions, excellent background. -Blackjack48 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) support: Great on the upside, little or nothing of significance on the downside.  Ombudsman 19:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * Neutral Weak support really. Just concerned that around 40% of the user's edits are on voting for AFD's. especially the first 1000 edits shows that around 70% of the user's edits were on AFD. Could shift vote to support, if satisfactory answer given. Also No barnstars received by this user. -- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 00:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A good deal of the last 500 Wikipedia namespace edits made by this user have been in other AfD's, project pages and the help desk. Nish kid  64  00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ageo020, I think that's a fair question, and I'd agree that it definitely looks somewhat odd & unbalanced in retrospect. It wasn't an attempt to run up an edit count, if that's what your concern is; more the case that as a new editor I was fascinated by the workings of actions-by-consensus mechanisms like AfD, and it held a very strong attraction just to see and participate in the dynamics. AfD is one of the most revealing places in Wikipedia, I think, sort of "where the sausage is made". So to some extent I served sort of an apprenticeship there, and in the natural course of events my interests broadened to other parts of the projects, and of course, more article editing. For a long time I tried to keep up with every AfD on the daily log; needless to say, I don't do that any more, and I'm happy to keep an eye on it in a more balanced way. --MCB 01:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral awaiting response to Q4. ~ trialsanderrors 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending responses to optional questions, but your answers so far are highly impressive. I'm sure I'll support, this is just a formality :p riana_dzast a  12:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral pending responses to optional questions.--Jusjih 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.