Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MoRsE 2


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

MoRsE
Final (37/14/11); Ended Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:49:05 UTC

- This is my second attempt. I would like to nominate myself again to the admin position. The first time I tried, was by the end of September 2006 (link), but my RfA failed, mainly due to the fact that I was relative unknown to the community at the time. However, almost 4 months have passed and as my record show, I am a far more active contributor now, with about 250 edits/month. As for experience; I am not new here, I have been around enwiki since the beginning of May 2005 and I have been a major contributor to other language wikipedias too (mainly the Swedish and Finnish ones). I have about 1,700 edits on enwiki, 21,600 edits on svwiki, and 140 on fiwiki.

I would also like to mention that I am not unfamiliar with the tasks of an administrator. I have been one since February 2006 on svwiki. Last November, I was elected into the Swedish Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. I do not wish to use this as an argument to get elected here, but it might show that I am an responsible editor and that I enjoy faith from the ones who have encountered me there.

I am involved in the following projects on enwiki: Military history, Nordic military history, WWII, Weaponry, Aviation, and Maritime warfare and that is also where you most likely would find me, I have an active e-mail address and I am also active in some IRC channels - I am not hard to get a hold on. Furthermore, being in Sweden/Finland, I can be active when e.g. US/Australian administrators aren't.--MoRsE 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self nomination --MoRsE 22:22, 22 January 2007 (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 participants:
 * 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: Administratorship for me, means the tools to be able to work more efficiently with the structuring of the Wikipedia and maintaining it an Encyclopaedia. I have been active in reporting abuse on enwiki and I would especially use the tools in the WP:AIV process. I would also participate in the WP:SD and the ones listed in CAT:ABL. With time, I would become more familiar with the specialties of enwiki and also participate elsewhere, where needed.
 * I often scan new edits when I have the reason to suspect there might be malicious edits and I undo the damage when I find it. I would also block pages when there is repeated vandalism or never ending edit wars going on.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am a writer and I do a lot of translations, mainly Swedish and Finnish to English, but sometimes also from German and French (as far as my knowledge of the language go). I have also been involved in the translation of metawiki pages into Swedish. As for examples, I can give you a few articles that are all mine: Jorma Sarvanto, Finnish torpedo boat S2, I have also largely been involved in the restructuring and remaking of the Battleship article. On the Swedish Wikipedia, I recently had my seventh article reaching "Featured article" status and I have also written four of their "Good articles".


 * 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: Yes, I have been in some minor conflicts or disagreements, but I do not wish to get entangled into the never-ending ones. I have always tried to avoid breaking the 3 revert rule - I am de facto trying to follow the 1RR - and I would say that I am doing my best to stay civilized. I always try to solve the matter through discussion.

Optional questions from 
 * 4. What is the difference between a block and a ban and under what circumstances would you apply either?
 * A: Blockings are used to temporarily prevent an IP-range or a user from e.g. vandalizing an article, treathening other users, revert articles excessivly, prevent inappropriate usernames, to prevent abusive sockpuppets, to temporarily stop a bot that is not following the rules set up for them, or to block a user that is making personal attacks whick places users in danger.


 * A banning means that a user's is restricted to edit parts of, or all parts of Wikipedia. An administrator can not directly ban a user, the decision has to be taken through a decision, either by the Wikipedia community, or by the Arbitration Committee. Further, both Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation have the right to ban a user.--MoRsE 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 5. Under what circumstances would you protect or semi-protect a page?
 * A: Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only reasonable option left to deal with vandalism on a page or to stop a banned or blocked user from editing it.


 * Apart from the semi-permanent full-protection of high visibility pages, site logo's, press releases, and key copyright and license pages, the full-protection can also be used to cool down edit wars and to prevent abuse of the privilege or other disruptions from a blocked user on their talk page while they are blocked. There are also other uses, but these are some examples.--MoRsE 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from User:BigDT


 * 6. Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" an article. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete an article that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 00:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A :No, the general criteria sums it up pretty well, and the rules are here to be followed, I would not become a rogue administrator. There are other means to deal with more uncertain cases, e.g. WP:AFD or WP:PROD--MoRsE 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. As a follow up question - what about other kinds of pages?  As an example, a user in good faith creates a poorly named template (for example,  ) that is an exact duplicate of an already existing template.  Would you delete this template and refer the user to the correct template, infobox? Are there any circumstances where you might delete a non-article page not specifically covered in WP:CSD? Thank you. --BigDT 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A :I would inform the user that a similar template is already existing and in use. I would kindly ask permission of the user if I could delete it. I have also an AWB-account here so I could easily change the template into the one already being used. I believe that I could consider the same if I find another template that is some sort of "forgotten experiment", or sometimes, for instance, users on other language wikipedias come up with some great template and it is simultaneously copied here, but under two different names. Then I would contact the ones involved and try to make some sort of agreement. If all that went well then I could erase the redundant one.--MoRsE 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)
 * 7. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All  stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs.


 * A :I want Wikipedia to be free from advertisement. Until now, I have erased spam whenever I have stumbled upon it, and I have also warned the user who uploaded the information using the and an explanation, plus the tagging of the article accordingly with  or . From my experience, good faith spammers usually will take notice of that and stop their behaviour. In more severe cases of spamming, where simple warnings doesn't help, I report the user to the WP:AIV. I do check the contributors other edits to see if anything else has been done that follows the same pattern.
 * Youtube and Myspace links might pose copyright problems (for example links to a bootleg video of some artist), therefore I do not really consider them proper here. However, I consider Imdb to be fine with me, as the site usually provide good information on their content.
 * I have a long watchlist of articles that I watch over (mainly in the projects that I participate in) and I try to see to that no harm is done to them.--MoRsE 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See MoRsE's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
 * I am very frustrated with admins just focusing on urgent request tasks, that they have forgotten Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit, which is 1,119 articles at the moment. I guess admins are too bored with copy editing? --Parker007 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that copyediting can be done by any user, and there is no need to be an admin to do it. Thus it is not especially relevant to an RfA, because being an admin doesn't make it possible or even easier. Well the problem is no normal user cares about copy editing. --Parker007 23:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)



Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support per editor who needs admin tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Evidently trustworthy editor with good judgement.  No reason for him not to have the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I opposed last time due to inexperience, but he has plenty of that now. Good luck. --Majorly (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Full support (edit conflicted) This time I see no cons about this user who'll certainly make a fine admin. Good luck.-- Hús  ö  nd  22:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support While I'd like to see a bit more activity, that would be a poor reason to oppose you, as you're obviously qualified for the job, and I have no qualms about your handling a wiki-mop for the English project. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Seems to be a good solid candidate who I believe will do a good job with the additional bit. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good editor, plenty of experience. --Plum couch Talk2Me 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) '''A very well qualified editor who will, I am certain, use the tools as well here as he does elsewhere.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, excellent candidate, and we need admins. ST47 Talk 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - last time around I seem to remember there was consternation about your low edit summaries - pleased to see they are now 100%! Having an overall edit count of 20,000+ is very impressive and you have sufficient edits here to demonstrate understanding of our procedures. Addhoc 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I supported before, and nothing in the intervening time convinces me this editor ought not be made an admin. Agent 86 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support again; I believe he has addressed the main concern of opposers to the previous RfA, namely his inexperience in english wikipedia. Roadmr (t|c) 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Obviously a fine choice. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. He's a Swedish arbitrator! Certainly familiar enough with tasks. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Trustworthy and dedicated to the spread of information, regardless of the language.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. The only concern for me was lack of knowledge of English. You can be trusted with the tools. If you make a mistake due to lack of knowledge specific to the English Wikipedia, I dare say as an arbitrator you can be trusted to learn from the experience. --Deskana (request backup)  03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Weak support per above. Those opposing your promotion have a point, but I think you are responsible and reasonable. Cheers. Yuser31415 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak support - I won't count anything on other language Wikipedias because of possible slight variation in the policies, but I can still trust this user.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  09:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support let's give him a chance --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Weak Support Answers are alright, tons of contribs., but as an admin. I'd like to see you boost that Wiki. Edit count. Good luck, Gan fon  00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) - Obviously a user that could use the tools and is trustworthy enough to use them properly. Arguments per his low mainspace contribs are ridiculous - mainspace edits do not have any bearing on someone's usefulness as an administrator. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, clearly trustworthy, which is all that matters. His English is certainly better than certain admins who are 'native' speakers yet can't string a coherent sentence together, and to oppose on those grounds is ludicrous.  Proto ::  ►  11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Since there's no reason to think he's gotten himself into trouble with the tools on other wikis, it seems clear that he can be trusted with them here. I can't see why perfect English is necessary for adminship; if someone doesn't understand something he writes, the reasonable thing to do is ask him to explain what he meant, which I think most people would.  I can't think of that many situations where poor English alone (not that I think his is very poor!) would get him into trouble in the first place, and I don't see why having admin tools would really exacerbate that extremely hypothetical situation.  delldot | talk 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support (edit conflict) he has clearly demonstrated his dedication to Wikipedias, of various languages, and he meets my guideline for number of edits.-- danntm T C 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. SynergeticMaggot 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support G  e  o . 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support per delldot, Proto, ToaT, et al. Policies may not be identical across wikis, but process is broadly similar, and good judgement is always in style. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support unlikely to misuse the tools. Flyingtoaster1337 10:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Strong Support Has experience with adminship tools in Swedish Wiki, & member of Swedish Wiki Arbitration Committee. Thus I believe he can be trusted with the tools. --Parker007 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Strong support. I am utterly unpersuaded by the oppose votes. This candidate is an admin of good standing (and arbcom member) on Swedish Wikipedia. Re: the Serbian example- what extreme POV might a Swedish Wikipedian have? From my knowledge of other language Wikis, differences in policy are minimal- unless someone demonstrates that Swedish Wiki policy is very different from ours I see no reason not to grant the tools. WJBscribe 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Has plenty of experience. It is time to give him the mop. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support per WJB. Khoikhoi 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Has enough knowledge of tools and proceedures, good english ability, seems trustworthy. Doe's he have enough time to attend to en and swedish wiki's? Fr33kMan 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support 1700 edits is adequate for a user who is clearly trustworthy and willing to learn the rules before enforcing them. In my day (it's crazy that I sound like an old fogey already) admins were just trusted users who learned to use their new tools while "on the job." -- SCZenz 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support: admin tools can only help a good editor. Stephen B Streater 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support as last time. While our policies are probably somewhat different then Swedish WP's, he's certainly shown he can be trusted. BryanG(talk) 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. His English is fine, he seems very reasonable and measured, his articles are of good quality, and his experience on sv.wiki, though not entirely applicable here (after all, he can learn about any differences while on the job), is enough for me to trust this user. Biruitorul 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose No doubt he is an outstanding person, but his English is not good enough to be an admin on the English Wikipedia. (I know, it is no doubt vastly better than my Swedish or Finnish!) --Holdenhurst 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Certainly a fine user, but the enwiki contributions both in the mainspace and in projectspace are simply too few. Each 'pedia has its own distinct policies, and besides, adminship requires lots of community interaction, for which achievements on another wiki cannot make up. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 23:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose - as others have said, you are an outstanding editor, but have little participation in any administrative process. If you are going to receive a block or delete button on en, it is important to see that you understand en's policies for blocking or deletion. --BigDT 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per above. Knowledge of policy does not transfer across Wikipedias. -Amark moo! 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - not enough proven experience on the English Wikipedia. I generally do not believe that automatic transfer from one Wikipedia to en.wikipedia is correct. En.wikipedia has a very diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious user-base, so that any user will need to have a nice, well-rounded world-view and NPOV sense to become an administrator. However, on the small wikis, there is only one ethnic group and one religion usually, so somebody who is a terrible POV pusher - fascist/fundamentalist POV, does ethnic/religious hate speech etc on en.wiki could be considered mainstream on another Wikipedia. I am not saying this about MoRsE at all, but simply to point out why I value en.wiki participation. I can give two examples. I can remember the banned User:Bormalagurski - Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski - who was a senior admin on the Serb wikipedia, was banned in Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, for using multiple sockpuppets, continuously taunting and flaming Croatians, Bosnians and Albanian users, pushed strong POV using words like "terrorists" etc, kept on whitewashing articles like Srebrenica massacre, etc, called Muslims terrorists, AfD vote stacking along ethnic lines, etc, etc. There is another current user, who is currently under a multi-week block, who is an admin on another small mono ethnic and religious wiki, who does the same whitewash blankings, insults other religions, edit wars incessantly, and on an off-wiki forum has called for a "keyboard jihad" and engaged in other inappropriate speech about Wikipedia conspiracies and admins along religious lines. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose I must apologize, but you simply don't have enough experience on This Wiki to prove that you would be a good admin. Even though, as mentioned above, your english isn't so great, if you showed more tried and true enwiki edits, I'd be happy to support. Alex43223Talk 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Very low level of participation in wiki-space suggests unfamiliarity with process of the English Wikipedia. As others have said, wiki-process in each language is different, and one needs experience here before being given the mop here. Xoloz 05:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Low contributions to all of WP, including little demonstrable process edits. Participation in XFDs would definitely help the candidate.  The Rambling Man 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I've not been impressed by his behaviour at Treaty of Nöteborg, I'm not clear that hius English is really up to admin duties, and he just hasn't done enough here. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think hius English is fine. Proto ::  ►  11:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [Blows prolonged raspberry.] --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ;P Proto ::  ►  13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per enwiki edit count. Diez2 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. His ability to communicate in English is adequate, but I would like to see more experience here on enwiki. I'm quite certain that tools wouldn't be abused, but I'm afraid they might be misused due to lack of experience and knowledge of policy. SuperMachine 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per all of the above, except those that don't believe his English is up to standard. I think it's fine.  Jorcoga Yell!  07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The applicants comments : I am currently on a business trip and I haven't been able to follow the voting process until now. I would also like to answer a few of the questions that have arised. As I have understood it, the RfA is about trust and I would like to contest some of the reasons given against me - I consider myself to enjoy trust and that I have proved that. I would certainly not misuse the tools - otherwise my participation in the svwiki arbitration committee voting process would have been a very short one - we also have the system there that every administrator is only elected for one year terms. So far I have been re-elected very year...without any "oppose"-votes. I would say that the language issue is a minor one. I do know English, and I understand the language to its full extents. I know where t find the admin information and I do know and understand the rules. (also, for the minor spelling errors, I am a quick typer and right now I am typing on an unfamiliar laptop (where the key pressure is different from my regular one) and that might partly explain the missing letters.) --MoRsE 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - adminship is not a reward, I'm certain you wouldn't abuse the powers however you show no actual need for them, you are hardly active and you don't contribute to the encyclopaedia much either. We really do not need another administrator who doesn't do anything to compliment the 1,000 or so we already have. Sorry! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose far too limited interaction in Wikipedia space to demonstrate that we should trust this user. --Dweller 13:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose has created many new articles and left them uncategorized. Last of them today. Julius Sahara 20:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral a per my comments at your previous RfA, I still think that you are a good editor but I don't see a lot of participation in admin-related tasks such as vandal fighting and associated user Talk page warning edits or a lot of XfD participation on the English Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral He seems a fine user, but I see no need to give him the tools, as I see little evidence he participates in the areas where they would be useful. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral per above two comments. I think he'd be alright but does not show a particular need for the tools and wonder if he might get confused with differences of policy between here and svwiki. Trebor 23:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral good editor, but need a lot more participation in admin-like tasks such as xFD participation, vandal fighting and the like. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral (leaning toward oppose) - Was going to oppose, but saw your large edit count on sv. I don't have a problem with international editors (I think we should encourage it), but I believe you need more experience in projectspace: you have <100 edits to critical pages. But, with some more experience, I would gladly support, as you have shown yourself trustworthy on the other wiki. Patstuarttalk 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Netural per Patstuart. Carpet 02:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral for now. I think you would make a great admin, but don't want to see you getting to it just yet. You may know enwiki policy well, but you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of it. Personally, I like to see some more Wikipedia: space edits… though I'm not sure the entire community feels that way. That being said, I believe you have much potential! − Twas Now 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral definitely experienced and trustworthy, but your low activity here is the problem. ← A NAS ''' Talk? 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral. Your edits and answers are quality-wise very good, and I'm not going to oppose someone. However, you seem to lack expericnce in the XfD areas. Take out FA's in other languages and the new artices and you have under 100 wikispace edits. I'll certainly suport you at a later time, just not yet.-- Wizardman 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral: Good answers, but low activity keeps me from a support. S .D. ¿п?  § 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Neutral: per langauge issues.  Voice -of-  All  06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per language issues72.159.134.195 17:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs may not vote. Flyingtoaster1337 10:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I think the candidate understands how to be an admin, given his Scandinavian experience, but he has not earned enough stripes on the English edition to receive my full support. YechielMan 03:47, 29 January 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.