Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Max Naylor


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

Max Naylor
Final (8/17/14) Ended Tue, 1 May 2007 21:17:37 UTC

- I joined Wikipedia on 25 November 2004. First of all, I began very minor edits and started expansion of the Rainham, London article, my hometown. Since then, I have expanded the article thoroughly. Lately, I have been making larger contributions in the form of article and template creation, and I plan to actively carry on with this in the future. Max Naylor 17:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to help with general article maintenance, article deletion and so forth. Many times I have seen redundant articles on Wikipedia and wished that I could do something to clean up the disconnected or irrelevant articles. Whenever I spot an error or layout issue on a page, I edit the page, even if it’s just a minor spelling error or a misplaced punctuation mark.
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have greatly expanded the Rainham, London article, which is now comprehensive and fairly well referenced. I intend to finish referencing in the next few weeks, after which I will put the article up for good article status for the third time. After each good article review, I have improved the article according to the criteria and now I believe the article is ready for GA status. I have expanded the Icelandic language article, indeed it is one of my areas of interest; as a result of this expansion I have created the Icelandic grammar, Icelandic vocabulary and Linguistic purism in Icelandic articles. I have also created the Icelandic language navbox. I have incrementally expanded the main Icelandic language article as my knowledge of the language improves. I also recently drastically improved and reorganised WP:ICELAND’s main page. In addition, I have expanded Aqua (user interface) article and created BT Home Hub, resolution independence, Template:Biome, Template:Infobox Online music service and Template:Passports.
 * 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 really been involved in any edit conflicts per se, the only bone of contention that I have come across is the uploading of images that can’t really be claimed under fair use. However, that is not say that I would be unable to deal with conflicts in the future; I will try to see both sides of the argument and will ask the opinions of other contributors so that a compromise or agreement can be reached.


 * Optional questions
 * 4. What is the proper action for an administrator to take when they come across a redundant article? What about an article that lacks context, but is long enough to give some grounds for expansion? What should a non-administrator user do in such cases? --ais523 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: A redundant article should be judged to see if it falls within the notability guidelines, if it does not, it should be nominated for deletion. If the article lacks context, it should be tagged with a template like Template:expand or Template:expert, both are tasks which a non-adminstrator can perform. In this particular area, however, there are no adminstrator-specific tools which would be that useful for improving an article in that state. To be honest, it also depends on the definition of ‘redundant’—some articles may have potential and qualify in terms of notability—however irrelevant articles that have recently been created are candidates for speedy deletion, I want to be able to take part in the deletion of such articles. I think that I have earned the trust of other users and that I will be able to contribute usefully with administrative powers.
 * 5. What do you feel is the biggest problem facing Wikipedia today? Since you've been around for several years as an observer rather than an 'insider', I am hoping this will give me more insight into why you nominated yourself for the sysop tools. -- nae'blis 23:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Of the many problems Wikipedia faces today, vandalism is the most predominant and destructive. The ability to quickly revert vandalism to articles is the main reason I am asking for administrative tools, instead of having to edit a previous version of the page and save it over the existing one. Another tool that I will find useful is the ability to protect articles, even if only for a short while, because I have witnessed spates of persistent vandalism on articles such as Havering Sixth Form College which seem to be too minor to grab the attention of other administrators. Many a time have I been frustrated at my inability to instantly take action against vandals, having to go through sometimes frustrating channels to try and get the attention of a sysop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Max Naylor (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

General comments

 * See Max Naylor's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Max Naylor before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Moral Support &mdash; I don't think there's much chance of this RfA being successful, unfortunately, judging by the current weight of consensus; however, don't let that get you down! Get in some sysop-related chores under your belt (e.g., closing unambiguous "Keep" Deletion Debates) and keep up your civility; check the option in your preferences which reminds you before you save without an edit summary; and thoroughly review the advice given to you by your peers below, and I'm sure you'll make a fine janitor one day ~ AGK  16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you need an admin coach, keep AGK in mind. ;-)  He's a good one. The Transhumanist 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * I'm not entirely sure why you're applying for adminship; it seems as though you're not doing, or intending to do, things that require admin access. (I like the answer to Q4, by the way; I was trying to find out whether you misunderstood the nature of adminship, but you seem to understand what it's about.) I can only find 4 occasions on which you've requested something that needs help from an admin, or commented on a page which is used to help form consensus for administrator decisions (and one instance of requesting an action from a 'crat, not counting this RfA); this leaves it unclear to me exactly what you want the tools for. However, there isn't anything obviously wrong with your contributions; it's just unclear why you want the tools or what you'd do with them if you became an admin. I've looked through what you've been doing, and it seems useful to Wikipedia but unrelated to adminship; as such, I can't really come to an opinion, as I have little data about what sort of admin you'd make or whether you understand when it's appropriate to take admin actions or not (you might do, for all I know; I don't know whether you do or not), but I can at least put this information here to help other people come to a decision. --ais523 17:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus not numbers: I don't see any reason to hold off on sysopping this Wikipedian of long experience and many good edits, who understands Wikipedia policy as well as any Wikipedia-space junkie. Since he's bound to get his bit soon anyway, I propose that we sysop him at the end of this discussion rather than waste another month or two. --Tony Sidaway 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support - Not really a high enough editcount when compared to general RfA standards, but seems like a trustworthy user. Adminship is no big deal. Wal  ton  Need some help?  17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Max is quiet but effective.  Looking at his contribs, which are not watered down with talk posts like the rest of us, one finds that Max is both constructive and meticulous.  The quality of his edits is consistently high, with virtually no opposition to his edits (which accounts for his low talk edit-count), and this shows he has a feel for the project.  My guess is that he reads Wikipedia more than he edits.  Applied over time, the nature of Max's contributions, in my humble opinion, qualifies him for the mop.  I believe Max will utilize the admin tools in the same way he has done with the general tools, and that is: responsibly. Please take the time to look over his contribs carefully.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Adminship is about trust, not a reward for number of edits. Grace Note 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Adminship is no big deal. Also, what Grace Note said. Frise 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. RyanGerbil10 (Don't ask 'bout Camden) 06:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral Support You seem to be a good editor so I'll support, but I suggest you withdrawl and apply again in about 3 months. Otherwise, a 'crat will probably close this early per WP:SNOW I&#39;m a newcomer so please don&#39;t bite me 14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User's first and so far only edit (under this account). --kingboyk 13:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A.Z. 06:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --dario vet (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose I really hate to do this, but I'm opposing for lack of experience. The edit count is lower than I would prefer, the edit summary usage is insufficient (about 50%), and the candidate has not experienced any difficult situations (e.g. vandalism, content disputes) that would lead me to know how he would deal with those situations.  Other than that, the content contributions are first rate, and a second request in a few months is likely to earn my support if I'm still around. YechielMan 17:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Editor is very inexperienced, especially in project-space, a necessary realm for administrators. Xoloz 18:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Not enough experience in the few admin areas in which he wishes to participate. I'm not sure he needs (or would ever use) the tools. --- RockMFR 19:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per low Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and total edits. Also, I see very little need for the tools. Captain   panda  21:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The editor seems like a respectable editor, but has a lack of experience and low edit count. I don't think he's ready for adminship yet. — Wenli 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak oppose for the same reasons as YechielMan. I would definitely support if the current level of contributions continued for the next few months. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak oppose. Low edit count generally isn't a deal breaker for me if there are compelling, or at least good reasons for handing over the standard-issue broom and super-sized bucket. Like Lankybugger, I am somewhat concerned with the lack of talk space edits though. Personally, I believe that communication is good and using talk pages (even if it's just to add templates in order to explain one's actions to new editors) is important. I'm also not to thrilled with the answer to Q1, to be quite honest. This may all be a misunderstanding but especially redundant articles are something that can usually be dealt with regularly. And, frankly, I just don't really see the need for adminship in this case. Sorry. -- Seed 2.0 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Your edits show quality work and thought, and I'm not a believer in edit count for its own sake. You could be a great admin. But I have to agree with those who say you need more experience on the project including more interaction on Talk and Wikipedia pages and in dealing with policy issues, user problems, and problem users. Come back in three months or so and I'm sure things will go just fine. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Simply put, some things can only be learned through experience.  While you seem a fine editor, I would like to see more interaction - i.e., edits - throughout the project before I would support.  Raise a few articles to GA/FA, participate more in the wikipedia space, etc.  Not because those things are good in and of themselves, but because in doing so you will learn more about the way the project works.  -- Pastordavid 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Only approximately 1500 edits, very low edit summary usage, too inactive for an admin and showing little need for the tools, you could be a sysop in the future with about 3 months of solid contribs and improvement.  Te ll y a ddi ct  20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose: While the user has been around for a while edits have not started to pick up until recently. Until this user's edits level out and become active in the many different aspects of the project I will have to oppose.  Orfen   User Talk | Contribs 02:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose needs more experience. — xaosflux  Talk  04:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) This editor does not demonstrate a need for the admin bit. Nacon kantari  23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication to the project for me to trust this user with the tools.  Daniel Bryant  05:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. This user does not need the tools at the moment. Sr13 (T|C) ER 05:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per low Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, and total (mainspace) edits.-- VS talk 08:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Weak Oppose a good editor, but more experience would be needed before I can give support. Jmlk17 05:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Basically for a low edit count and a lower project-space count. Also, your biggest activity was this month; I don't consider 60-100 edits per month active. You can continue your good article work with out the tools. :-) — An as  talk? 17:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral while you have a decent amount of good mainspace edits, there's little evidence of your understanding of policy here. Your edit summaries could do with improvement as well and I'm not 100% of exactly what you need the tools for.  However, your contributions are good and with some more experience I'm sure you could succeed here at RFA.  The Rambling Man 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no obvious problems with this candidate; I am therefore withholding support pending a WikiProject endorsement per my policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral - as per The Rambling Man...-- Cometstyles 17:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral While this user has made positive contributions they should make more use of the cleanup tools available to everyone before requesting access to the admin tools. Also needs more recent activity. Monty845 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral for the same reasons as those noted by The Rambling Man. Adambro 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral While the user's contributions are very good and the edit count doesn't concern me at all, I'm somewhat concerned with the low use of talk pages or edit summaries. I would be willing to support if the user agrees to alter their preferences to remind them when they've not added a edit summary and if they could expand the answer to Q1. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral leaning heavily towards oppose. I'm not at all sure why this user wants the admin tools, since none of the things he mentions in his answer to Q1 require them. Contrary to those above, I do have a bit of a problem with the edit count - he has a much lower edit count (both in mainspace and generally) than I do, and I certainly don't consider myself ready for sysopship. He has very few talkpage posts (less than 40 so far this year), which makes me think he doesn't have experience in either discussions or disputes. His last contribution of any kind on any XfD was a year ago, implying he doesn't have much interest in the matter. If he doesn't intend to get involved in either vandal-fighting/protection/blocking, deletions or interface redesign, I'm not at all sure what admin tasks he does intend to do. —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral A nice self nomination, but I don't think you're ready just yet - keep up the good work though my dear, and you'll be an administrator before you know it :) Lollipop Lady 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral leaning toward support per adminship is no big deal. Edit count may be "less than average" for successful RfA candidates, but in my opinion is enough to establish the user is trustworthy.  The only thing keeping me from supporting the candidate is the weak answer to why he wants the tools - as has been stated above none of the things he states he intends to do require a sysop bit.  If the candidate would like to elaborate on what adminstrator duties he plans to partake in I would likely be persuaded to support.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) I can't oppose someone for inexperience who has been editing a year longer than I have, but I guess I would prefer to see a little more recent activity. Pick up the pace and come back in three months and this might become a landslide support. Grand  master  ka  04:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral. Largely because of Q4. The failure to mention merging as an option when encountering redundant articles bothers me somewhat. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Neutral I am not going to oppose just because of low edit count:I hate that. But you do not show much experience in namespace, and while you may well have been there, without edits to show we don't know that. Experience in the major pages on namespace is really necessary for an admin. Get that, then re-apply.--Anthony.bradbury 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Neutral, needs to be more active on the project. Answers are slightly weak and do try in five to six months time. Terence 14:35, 26 April 2007 (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.