Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Momusufan


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

Momusufan
FINAL (1/10/1); Closed per SNOW and NOTNOW; Ended 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC). -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– Self Nomination I have been on Wikipedia since 2007 mainly dealing with vandalism. I mainly specialize in reporting vandals to WP:AIV, finding pages that need protection due to vandalism, disputes, etc. and report them to WP:RPP. Marking pages for speedy deletion that fit the criteria, and sometimes getting into discussions at WP:ANI. I have also made a couple articles most recently Nintendo Dream. I feel I have what it takes to have a few "extra buttons" and to use them in an appropriate manner. Momo san Gespräch 16:24, 28 December 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: If I do become an administrator, I would mainly take part in dealing with vandals at WP:AIV because I am familiar with how it works and the policies there, I also am familiar with WP:RPP and would accept or deny a page per the protection policy.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Fixing inaccuracies in articles, adding new information based on sources. Although I mainly tend to deal with vandals, I do contribute to pages that interest me.  There have been alot of articles I have improved since I have been here.


 * 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: There was one conflict the other day where someone thought the user was vandalising when he wasn't, see here. I ended up telling him that he had a point and he should give his opinion on the talk page.  The user that warned him was in the wrong and I explained that to him and he understood that.  As for vandals, I do not retaliate againest them and will not do it as an admin because it's not right and only aggravates them.  With persistent vandals and long term vandals, I basically follow the WP:RBI mentality and not give them attention.  In the end I try to resolve disputes peacefully and without an incident.


 * Additional optional questions from SoWhy
 * 4. a.) Can you explain why your editing history consists of multiple spikes in activity, followed by months with (almost) no activity? Will this continue if this request were successful? b.) Please explain why your editing history shows such a very large percentage of edits in the User talk: namespace.
 * A: Refer to NuclearWarfare's question below regarding question "A" as I explain my months of edit history and those months without. To answer question "B", It could be that I tag Vandal talk pages either with  or redirect them to the userpage for persistent vandals.  I respond to questions by others on their talk pages and ask questions, but mainly it's because I tag IP pages with the whois, isp, sharedip, schoolip and other sharedip templates.


 * Additional optional questions from NuclearWarfare
 * 5. From looking through your contribution history, it seems that you are often very active some months and not so active other months. I am interested to know why that is.
 * A:I'll take "wikibreaks" once in a while, although I do understand that admins need to have a little more activity than regular users. But yes there have been those times and I will become more active if I am an admin.   Momo san  Gespräch 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from TomPointTwo
 * 6. In two years and almost 12,000 edits you've created two articles. What do you consider to be your most substantial original content contribution during your time as an editor and why?
 * A: I have mostly added original content to the Morning Musume article since I know information about the J-pop group from other sources and contribute information for when their new singles come out.
 * 6.(Q2) The majority of you work there seems to be maintenance and reversions. Is there significant body of referenced work you've created here that demonstrates you understand how to apply core rules and guidelines on content contribution?
 * One time, it was recent. I added a New York Times reference to when Curtis Granderson got traded to the New York Yankees DIFF


 * Additional optional questions from Coffee
 * 7. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
 * A.Looking at that AFD, it's a hard one i'll admit, there did appear to be reliable sources there (initially it was just blogs). But even if there were reliable sources, is this person notable you would ask.  Notability has to be established by any BLP and I don't think there was notability.  I probably would have deleted the article.


 * 8. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
 * A.I think the policy is fair, I have mostly reverted potentially libelous and poorly cited material. There was one case yesterday regarding this user claiming to be Alan Iverson who supposively wanted his page deleted but never gave proof to who he was.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted to talk page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is strange - this RFA appeared on my watchlist, despite never having put it on there. I've been out all day and it just appeared, despite only being created this afternoon. Maybe I'm going mad or something but I swear I didn't watch it...  Majorly  talk  18:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Momus has been a regular around RFPP, and I would have preferred to nominate him. Standards vary on what pages are protected and which ones aren't- in addition, revoking talk page access is something that is normally requested through RFPP, so that shouldn't be held against Momus. A little bit of WP:BEANS should be excused for anyone working on RC patrol. Momus would be a great net win as an admin. tedder (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose - You seem to have a very poor understanding of what warrants semi-protection. You do not request semi-protection of a blocked user's talk page, nor a redirect that one user blanks., . Other instances, you appear to be too hasty with your reports and I am afraid that you will use the protect button unwisely.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A user's or an IP user's talk page can warrant reblocking with talk page editing disabled if the user is clearly abusing the talk page. In the second Diff, this was a returning vandal with a history of vandalism and removing the shared IP header which cannot be removed per WP:BLANKING.  About the first diff, I may have gone a bit overboard with that one as in the end I talked it out with the user and understood what was going on.   Momo san  Gespräch 17:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, but my other concerns are not allayed. I think you report to RPP prematurely and your talk page makes me a tad uncomfortable.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose makes too many mistakes in administrative areas. In addition to above (with protection), a quick glance on the candidate's talk page shows three mistaken speedies in a row from 13–15 days ago; two were declined and another was deleted on a different criteria. Additionally, I don't see much evidence of the communication that will be required in an admin. Mm40 (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I did make CSD mistakes, I use the function in Twinkle which gives the Criterion and at the time I couldn't decide which one to use for a user talk page that was being used as a social network. I typically don't CSD pages very often but I guess a re-reading of WP:CSD doesn't hurt here.   Momo san  Gespräch 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Have to agree with Wisdom. You're doing decent work so far, but I've noticed far too many inconsistent or incorrect protection requests to feel comfortable endorsing this request. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I'm not impressed with your knowledge of the BLP policy, per your answers. Yes BLPs should be notable, but that applies to every article, and your personal opinion of whether or not the article is notable, should not interfere with your reading the consensus at the AFD. Also the other opposes bring up some very valid reasons why you shouldn't have the bit quite yet. The vast majority of your edits are to user talk, which I find quite odd. Come back in 6 months with a better understanding of protection and deletion policy, and I'll be glad to support. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'd like to see a bit more content work, sorry.  The left orium  18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose there are many reasons to chose from. I'll stick with the fact that he placed an unreferenced article on the website ten days ago. Nintendo Dream.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I am not comfortable with the answers to the questions (along the lines already mentioned above), and do not feel that the candidate is ready for adminship at this time. I would suggest that you carefully read the comments made here, learn from them, and then if you still feel that you want to be an admin, re-apply in a few months. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Dropping an unreferenced article into mainpace would be completely ignorable- if it had happened 3 months ago. Everyone's first couple articles made that mistake! However, 11 days ago you left a completely unreferenced article, and haven't been back to clean it up. If you didn't have the sources, why did you write it?  I just don't think you're ready, not yet. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Q5. An editor that needs Adminship to "become more active" is either power-hungry, or not very commited to the project. > RUL3R >trolling >vandalism  19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per A5, Wisdom, and MM40. You shouldn't need the motivation of the mop to become more active, that is not a valid reason for becoming more active.  You should WANT to be active to help the project, no matter the situation.  Granted, there are times when life gets in the way, and that should be taken under consideration, but the reason you gave is just plain wrong, IMHO.  ArcAngel (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral I'm not convinced that this editor would be counter-productive or abusive with admin tools so I'm not inclined to actively oppose. At the same time nearly 60% of his edits are in user talk space, he has multiple and recent CSD mistakes, a history of being too quick to tag and an inability to demonstrate any substantial content creation per his answers to Q6. This leaves me unwilling to support giving this editors the tools. Still, he seems like a good editor and I'd like to be able to revisit this in a few months. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:11, 28 December 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.