Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Milton Stanley


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

Nomination withdrawn by candidate Pascal.Tesson 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Milton Stanley
Final (talk page) (3/6/3); Ended 16:21, June 28, 2007 (UTC)

- a dedicated and hardworking wikieditor. Onopearls 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept Onopearls' gracious nomination and kind words. --Milton 21:25, 26 June 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 do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The biggest complaints I've heard directed at Wikipedia are first, that anyone can edit, and second, editors frustrated with other editors' seeming violations of WP:NOR and so on. As an admin, I will not only have frequent access to the internet, but the ability to better combat vandalism and edit wars. I intend to make myself available to editors in need of assistance in these matters. I also have found that the activities I enjoy the most are of the mindless/repetitive type. As such, I will endeavor to monitor editprotected request, and the like, especially the various adminstrative backlogs.
 * Could you specify what administrative backlogs and how you intend to combat vandalism and edit wars? (blocking vandals? 3rr blocks/protections? what?) Thanks.--Chaser - T 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Whilst browsing the speedy-delete category, I happened to notice a backlog there, and also at editprotect requests (which I happened to mention in my answer before noticing it was a problem). As for combating vandalism, as Wikipedia grows and becomes more recognized in the mainstream world, the amount of vandalism will continue to grow. I've noticed an increase of vandalism to pages on my watchlist in the past few months, and as an admin would be able to deal with vandals faster. A lot of the vandalism seems to be from a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, and the best way to deal with that is a kind warning on the talk page, followed by sterner warnings for continued problems. As for Blocking and Page protections, I tend to err on the side of blocking, over page protection, due for the most part to the fact that blocking restricts one user (or IP), whereas page protection affects more. On the other hand, IP blocks won't be for as long a duration, since I've observed the majority of vandals moving to fresher pastures after a short while. Of course, much of this is contingent on the nature of the vandalism - WP:FAITH doesn't cover continued vandalism after warnings, or blatant mistakes (i.e. inserting a paragraph of vulgarity-laced conjecture on a non-notable's questionable ancestry). My overriding philosophy, though, is rooted around WP:FAITH and WP:BITE. Hope that answers your question, feel free to ask for further clarification. --Milton 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The majority of my contributions are under the auspices of Wikiproject Disambiguation. I have assisted this project by fixing thousands of links to disambiguation pages. I also use the "Random Article" link to find articles that are deficient in the areas of grammar and/or spelling. I have also attempted to settle disagreements between editors, such as those at the Anna Anderson page. As previously stated, most of my edits are of the 'minor' variety, but that is only because I find those the most enjoyable (again, mindless/repetitive tasks).


 * 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 don't believe I have been involved in edit warring in the past. If another editor reverts an edit I make, I post a comment on their talk page requesting an explanation. The majority of the time, it is an unintentional error, and the matter is settled. If it is a conflict of opinion, I attempt to settle it on the article's talk page (since that is, after all, what the talk page is for). If another editor causes me undue stress, I walk away from the computer and take a walk/have dinner with friends/read a book/etc. until I feel that I am calmed enough to respond appropriately. On a few occasions, I have realized that I have a conflict of interest if I continue editing an article, and in those cases, I stopped working on it and remove it from my talk page. I feel that doing this helps me deal with conflicts while still continue improving Wikipedia.

General comments

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


 * Links for Milton Stanley:

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

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Moral Support you're on the right path try again in a couple months, and don't be discouraged.  Black Harry  (Highlights|Contribs) 13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support - you're a good editor, however this isn't going to pass - suggest you withdraw and try again in 6-8 weeks. Addhoc 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support per above. I personally think you have enough experience in terms of editing, if not time - over 5000 edits is more than I had when I passed RfA - and I don't think the Oppose voters should be bringing your nominator's record into this. But, as per above, try again in 2-3 months, and first get some more experience of community discussion - WP:AFD is a good place to start. Waltontalk 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Although your work here during your short period of activity is applaudable, I don't feel comfortable about giving sysop tools to an account which has only been active for less than two months. That, and per Pedro, nearly everything seems to be automated, meaning I am yet to be able to be confident in your decision making ability and communication methods during disputes. Sorry, but not right now.  Daniel  11:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose As noted by others, the bulk of your edits (1199 and 3600) were made in May and June. In the nine months prior to that you made between three and twenty-eight edits per month. I'm concerned whether your recent surge in editing is sustainable. But mostly I'm troubled that you would accept a five word nomination from someone who has 162 edits and who has only been editing for three weeks. I'm sorry Milton, but something just doesn't smell right to me here. Looking through your nominator's contributions and his/her interaction with you, I really get a bad feeling here. Sarah 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I too noted that your nom's contributions where, well, poor and combined with about a 50% edit summary. Also it appears from the noms talk page and yours they kind of proposed you and then left it at that.However your nominator is not the one requesting adminship so whilst I totally respect and agree with User:Sarah's comments I have ignored those findings in reaching my own assesment. Pedro | Chat  12:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pedro, I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion that it is the candidate who is being considered for adminship, not the nominator. However, my personal view is that the nominator can be relevant because it can reflect poor judgment in the candidate. If someone is willing to accept a nomination from a person who is questionable at best, I would see that as possibly indicative of poor judgment and therefore a relevant factor in evaluating a candidate for adminship. A factor only, though, and not the only factor, to consider. Sarah 13:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Going through the non dab related contributions, I came across a fair attempt at mediating on Talk:Anna Anderson (for which you don't need to be an administrator), but also encountered what seems to be a misinterpretation of WP:COI  which may in-advertely even have contributed to the problem of sock-puppets encountered afterwards. --Tikiwont 12:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The candidate needs more experience and needs to articulate a better RfA next time around. Majoreditor 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Pretty much everything has been said already. I particularly agree with Sarah wrt to the nom, and also with the others that the very short burst of edits you've had doesn't give much opportunity to judge your essential stance on various issues. In addition, not to bring edit countitis into this, but you have 4.500 mainspace vs all in all ca. 270 talkspace edits (that's user talk and main talk combined ), so some more involvement with other editors would do no harm. —AldeBaer (c) 13:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after three months and you will have my support. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral 1) Your long standing account only has two actual months of contributions and these appear to be heavily automated. 2) You nominator has, with respect, hardly outlined a convincing case. 3) Your answer to Q1 demonsatrates little understanding of what can be achieved with admin tools that can't be achieved in the ordinary course of working here. 4) Your transclude comment of "not a self nom though it looks like it" seems to be vaguely anti self nominations. However your work is valuable so I will not oppose, and wish you well in this RFA and your editing. Pedro | Chat  07:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for seeming anti-self nominations. I've seen a lot of talented editors self-nominate, and have nothing against it. I merely wanted wanted to avoid any confusion that might arise from my listing myself here, while another user doing the actual nomination. As for Wikipedia Cleaner, IMO the largest improvement over "old-fashioned" editing is the highlighting of all dab links. The user still must determine which article to link to. Regards --Milton 07:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral -- I stand neutral beside and because of Pedro's concerns expressed above. Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Per Pedro. The Sunshine Man  11:11, 28 June 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.