Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mixwell


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

Mixwell
I have decided to close by WP:Snow and thank you all for your opinion. -- Mix well ! Talk 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
(2/6/4); Ended 03:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC).

– I've known Mixwell for quite some time, both on wiki and on IRC, and I think he would make a fine administrator. Mixwell is very active in reverting vandalism and tagging articles for speedy deletion, and would be a definite plus in both of those areas. Mixwell is also a friendly and kind person. Since admins interact a lot, these two qualities of his are very good to have, and I can see his behavior setting an example for the newer users.

Mixwell is not perfect, and has made a couple of mistakes as a newer user. However, I believe that he has learned a lot in the 10 months he's been here on the straight and narrow. It's really impressive to me that he can take the mistakes he made and improve from them.

Lastly, Mixwell has a great understanding of the admin tools. He knows how to use them, and last I checked, won't go off the rails :P. In my mind, Mixwell would clearly be a net positive to the project. :) Sam  Blab 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I hereby accept the nomination. -- Mix well ! Talk 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to work with investigations of Sockpuppeteering (as i was a former sockpuppeeter, i learned that the hard way, but now i'm totally reformed). I also intend to be in the WP:AFD, WP:CSD and image management (finding out copyvios, correcting tags and of course, blocking users on the WP:ANI and managing the queue for the usernames for administrative attentions.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia is currently being worked on with my native biggest city wich is Montréal. I am working on it because i want it to have a equivalency and full french translation from the french wikipedia wich is one of the featured websites. I have created and modified a few public transportation templates for the area.


 * 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: Sadly yes... As i was blocked 2 times (one for a sockpuppeter) and one joke block by User:DragonflySixtyseven. I came over it and i am so done in sockpuppetering. As for any conflicts, i have been involved in the WP:NOTCENSORED drama with User:Bedford to remove his controversial parts. I have stepped away... Please note that i am so done with sockpuppetering.

General comments

 * Links for Mixwell:
 * User:Mixwell was previously User:Cream. Important to know if we are reviewing all your contributions. Ironholds (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mixwell before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Sockpuppetry here and here for all interested. &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 01:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave up sockpuppeteering a long time ago. -- Mix well ! Talk 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but it is still relevant to the RfA. &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 01:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Beat the nom support Appears to be reformed and appears as though he would be a net positive so support.-- Iamawesome800  Talk to Me   01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Nom Support Living proof that people can change. Sam  Blab 02:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: I'm quite willing to accept that a user can change over time, but you were edit warring less than a month ago and your response showed you completely fail to understand that you did anything wrong. In addition your answers to the questions are very unsatisfying, and coupled with your answer to the edit-warring comments on your talkpage I have no reason to believe that you have moved on from your personal disputes and sockpuppeting days. In addition I see very little article work; AV work is fine, yes, but I've looked 2-3 months back and can't find any evidence of the montreal-related article work you claim to have done. Ironholds (talk)
 * 2) Oppose per [[File:4chan raid.pdf]] and associated edits. Icewedge (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: This is too soon after . I am really uncomfortable with this user as an admin. Maybe people can change, I don't want to take the chance. --NrDg 01:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AGF. Sam  Blab 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think he is saying 'people cannot change' but more 'people can change, but I'm not sure how long that process takes, and given the damage one can do with the tools and the severity of his previous actions I am not willing to take that risk at the moment'. Ironholds (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also in WP:AGF is "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." He has been given a chance for redemption, so to speak. It is too soon for me to feel comfortable about his motives and reactions in the future. --NrDg 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I haven't seen enough serious article contributions to counter this and this. I know it was a long time ago, but it is way too aggressive to simply write off as ancient history - especially since it continued until Feb 08. &raquo; \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Uploaded a 27 page copyvio from 4chan as GPL just a few days ago. Mr.Z-man 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The few diffs already put forth should be enough to derail this. Tool2Die4 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral leaning oppose. Ranked in order of concern: the edit warring cited by IronHolds; This personal attack makes me nervous; copyvio uploaded images, most recently [[File:4chan raid.pdf]]; this revert conflict and the one below it and a couple others you can see throughout his archives, however most of them are old, and I'm ready to assume good faith and reform; and of course, the block log, though of course, that was a long time ago as well . And what was going on here? Oh, and though I find the edits listed by Backslash Forwardslash funny, they're definitely not appropriate. Some awesome work with Twinkle, though. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I'd support, but chances are that you might not play well with a few people in particular. Some of the stuff linked from 07 is a little inappropriate, but also linking to it in 09 is a little inappropriate to. So here I am, at neutral. I'll be keeping an eye on how things develop and possibly reassess later. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'm thinking the same thing that Ottava Rima's saying. But that by no means that I think you'd make a terrible admin. Ginbot86 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per Ottava Rima. I just can't decide...  Little Mountain  5   02:56, 23 January 2009 (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.