Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mims Mentor


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

Mims Mentor
'''Final (1/21/1) ; ended as candidate has withdrawn. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) at 15:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– I'd like to nominate myself as an administrator because I've been a long-time extended confirmed member on Wikipedia and have made a considerable number of revisions that have contributed to the good presentation of various pages in both the English and Malayalam language editions. I am a sharp observer, an enlightened reader, and a journalist who collects and enjoys gathering true material and making timely changes to articles as needed. I have made numerous modifications to bring out the most relevant and accurate material for the COVID-19 pandemic in India article during the 2019-20 timeframe in order to provide sufficient knowledge to the audience. I'd want to request adminship for all of the reasons stated above. Thank you very much! Mims Mentor (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The candidate may make an optional statement here. The candidate is required by policy to answer if they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay, and may do so in their acceptance. If this request is a self nomination, feel free to remove this line after subst'ing.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
 * A: I've been a extended confirmed member on wiki for a long time and have made a considerable amount of positive changes within my rights. Now, I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator, moving on to using various other tools to ensure a page is free of vendalism and contains the most accurate and precise information.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: One of the most valuable additions I've contributed to Wikipedia is the page COVID-19 pandemic in India for which I recieved a barnstar. I have spent significantly more time researching and locating the most precise data to ensure that the viewers do not misinterpret the counts and specifics. It was difficult to collect data on such a large population's resistance to the virus. However, I have done my best to make it easier for people to believe the figures on Wikipedia.


 * 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: No, I have not been in any confict ever so. If ever I have to deal with one, much of sense and logics, I would talk to the person and would make myself clear with all the statements made with proofs so that it is clear from my side and if anything goes wrong from myself, I would hearlty apologise and revert my mistake if possible.

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.


 * Optional questions from Dolotta
 * 1. I may have missed it, but have you ever edited for pay?
 * A:
 * 2. Of the areas you plan to be an active administrator, where do you have the least experience?
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Mims Mentor:
 * Edit summary usage for Mims Mentor can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) Weak support The candidate has been making significant improvement to India \ Kerala related articles for several years, with focus on both the pandemic & entertainment. This has been recognised with a barnstar. Great to have improvement to such content, Malayalis used to be well known as exemplars of how folk with different cultures & faiths could live together harmoniously.  It's good to see how the candidate always seems to have avoided letting any difference of opinion about their editing escalate into conflict. Still, while there is no reason to think they'll misuse the tools, I would have liked to have seen more interaction with other editors, so I could be more confident they'll be useful as an admin. Hence why my support is only weak. But if this attempt isnt successful, I very much hope the candidate runs for adminship again after gaining a few years experience. They could do much good with the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Thanks for your interest, but looking at the history of your talk page (that you recently blanked), I don't think you are responsive enough to concerns raised by other editors about your edits. This seems at odds with your answer to Q3. DanCherek (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) You suggest that you would like the toolkit to be able to use the counter-vandalism tools, but as far as I can see you don't have any edits to AIV, and only 4 to RFPP. As such, I am concerned that you can demonstrate sufficient "small-a" activity to indicate impending competence with the toolkit. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I understand about your enthusiasm, but, I don't think you have the experience to become an admin yet. 1, you don't have much experience in the AFD/PROD/CSD area, in which you've casted a mere 3 votes at AfD, and for the anti-vandalism work, I might've missed some reverts (if there's any,), but you've never warned editors. And 2, there was a number of concerns raised for your articles, only to wipe them out, which you don't seem to comply with WP:ADMINACCT, in which DanCherek stated above. Sorry, but maybe after gaining more experience, maybe next time! Tails   Wx  13:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) I hate to be the first—and might be the last!—to oppose, but I'm not seeing signs of the experience we require in admin candidates. I don't mean experience measured mechanically (both tenure—at over three years—and edit count—over 5,000—are fine), but rather indications of a sound understanding of policy. I'm afraid you make handwaves towards vandal fighting but have only made four edits to RFPP and none at all to AIV . You have commented in only three AfDs where your success rate is 33% . Likewise, that you've contributed ~40 articles is great, but a quarter of them are deleted  and look to a body to be about living people. The last occasion was June 2022. I am not particularly comfortable in granting advanced permissions to someone who seems—shall we say—unsure about one of our most important policies.   SN54129  13:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose – I don't see any of the sort of activity that I would expect from a prospective administrator. You don't seem to have a clear reason for why you want access to administrator tools and your contributions don't show you have the experience you would need to get them. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 13:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) To add to what I hope is a helpful list of areas to brush up on especially in the event you need a second RfA to pass, 28% deletions among the articles you’ve created is fairly high in my book and gives me concerns about mastery of basic content policies. I appreciate the enthusiasm for the project tho. Thanks for your efforts. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - insufficient experience. GiantSnowman 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose your 4 edits to WP:RFPP/I were for the same request and you asked for indefinite protection which is not appropriate for the article. Please read up on protection policy before your next RFA. Lightoil (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Great to see such enthusiasm, but I see to many deleted edits and articles and not enough action with the non-administrative maintenance tools. Maybe invest some time there and make sure you know enough about our policies and then try again. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: temperament is my primary criterion. The issues that multiple volunteers have established with the candidate's knowledge of WP:N on Special:Permalink/1140893836 would have been a good opportunity for them to establish a good reputation for this, but I cannot see evidence that they have taken this feedback seriously, responded politely to it, and learned from it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose failure to answer paid-for-editing statement as required, overall lack of experience, especially in desired areas of adminship, and a high number of deleted articles makes me question suitability of being able to assess other articles.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Due to lack of experience. Noah Talk 13:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose for now. We generally look for more experience in admin candidates. If you haven't yet, you may want to read WP:RFAADVICE, in particular the bullets on low edit count and talk page scrubbing. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia so far. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose I think you need more experience, and you should work more in areas such as AIV, etc. --Harobouri • 🎢  • 🏗️ (he/him)  14:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose - Not quite yet. Their answer to Q1 indicates an interest in anti-vandalism, yet the complete lack of WP:AIV contributions and nearly-complete lack of WP:RFPP contributions means it's hard to judge how they'd handle those tools if granted, and is unfortunately a lack of demonstrable experience in that area. I also have to concur with DanCherek's assessment about responsiveness (which as an admin is required). - Aoidh (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose well intentioned self-nom. Unfortunately they do not currently meet my criteria for RfA candidates. I respectfully urge the candidate to withdraw as there is no chance of their passing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose - I agree with NOTQUITEYET per above. Although you've contributed a lot to mainspace over a relatively long period of time, you don't quite seem to have a good enough understanding of policy, or enough activity in policy areas, for adminship. AryKun (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose because the nominee's talk page history shows that they are not receptive to feedback. For instance, they have had numerous notifications letting them know that they are wikilinking to disambiguation pages, quite a few notifications that articles they've created have been nominated for deletion, and multiple notices that they have made edits without properly citing sources or explaining why they made their edits. Some of these notifcations were as recent as February of this year. Blanking their talk page doesn't look great either. The canidate clearly does not meet the expectations laid out at WP:MRFA. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Lack of experience on Wikipedia namespace; e.g. WP:ANI and WP:AIV. I suggest you try other User access levels. They might be more helpful/useful for your case than WP:ADMIN user right. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose - Sorry, not ready. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, not yet, in a few years and a few thousand more edits. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 15:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Rather than a straight oppose, I do urge a withdrawal here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

General comments

 * 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.