Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mythdon 2


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

Nomination
Final (1/10/0); Ended 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)- Closed per WP:SNOW. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

– I would like to be an administrator. I have been part of Wikipedia since December 2007, and for the last few months, have been contributing to vandal fighting. Yes, I did run for adminship just last month, but I feel some things have improved. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 04:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:44, 17 March 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 wish to help in deletion nominations WP:AFD, help block vandals reported at WP:AIV, block editors for violating policies, and other things. However, I will not block qulckly, but when they persist on violating policy after I warn them. I will only block when necessary, and will not use blocks for punitive purposes, but rather prevention as wanted by the community. I will not block editors just because they made edits I dispute, which I think is wrong, because blocking for that reason stops editors from reaching a consensus and hurts the community. Blocks like that not only hurt the blocked user, but the blocking administrator, and/or other disputants as well.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Contributions such as and  are just a few of my best contributions. If someone types the titles in, they would be redirected to the for the time being appropriate article. I have made others that were good, such as this merger which I would praise as one of my best in my recent months here as it merged proper content that may be worth keeping.


 * 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: Many, edit wars and disputes. Such as these. I link the users to our policies and/or guidelines and keep discussing until they listen, I am convinced that I am wrong or walk out of the discussion.


 * 4. Question from  Were Spiel  Chequers  What is the difference between wp:verifiability and wp:verified?
 * A:

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * I don't really like the answer to question #3 - "Many, edit wars and disputes". Being involved in edit wars and disputes is not a good thing you know.... - Fastily (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) The candidate generally meets User:A_Nobody. So, support per reasonable arguments in Articles for deletion/Mesogog and Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction and as candidate has never been blocked.  I vaguely recall something on AN about a Power Rangers nomination that bothered me, but it is not so memorable that I feel an urgent need to search for it and anyway, I'd hate to see someone get no support.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose: I'm sorry but just over a month is too soon in my opinion to run again. The main concern stated in your previous RfA seemed to be related to interactions with other users and while a brief glance over your recent contributions seems to show an attempt at improvement, it's just too short a time to be able to judge whether you would continue to do so in the medium and long term. I'm also concerned about your answer to question three in that you see to think that consensus has to be that someone admits they are wrong rather than there being a possibility of compromise. I think that you do positive work and that your heart is in the right place, I would just like more time (another 3 months at the very least, but ideally 6 or more) to see how you follow through on your efforts to improve on the areas mentioned in the previous RfA before you are given the responsibility of being an administrator. Camw (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I support virtually everyone but I'll make an exception here. Running very soon after a VERY failed first attempt, and a look through your talk page gives me pause. Definite no. Wizardman  05:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Wizardman and Camw. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 06:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Opppose. I, too, see an attempt an to improve your communication with other editors, however, one month isn't enough to be indicative of a change in habit/behavior. To pass an RFA after only thirty days since a failed one, it would take an absolutely amazing turnaround evidenced by a lot of incredibly thoughtful and insightful comments paired with a lot of amazing content contributions. I don't know if anyone has pulled it off in recent memory. Anyway, I would recommend putting at least three months between RFAs and with continued improvement in your communication, you'll be well on your way. Useight (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - You appear to improving quite a bit, but three months is generally the community norm for times between nominations. &lowast; \ / (⁂) 06:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Mainly per user talk:Mythdon. I'm not a stickler for the three month minimum gap and would happily have defended a candidate for running sooner if they were fairly close to consensus on their previous attempt, but that clearly doesn't apply here.  Were Spiel  Chequers  07:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above. I, too, suggest you wait a bit longer before running again. On a side note, I think you should start using edit summaries with every edit, especially minor edits should always be accompanied by an edit summary.  So Why  07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose largely due to the rush to RfA#2 and the continued battling with admin Ryulong. I have witnessed many interactions between Mythdon and other editors in the last few months and have seen the same general conclusion each time - both sides remain on their polarized sides with no compromise. If Mythdon can't compromise with fellow editors as "merely" an editor, what will he do once he has the mop? Plus, I'm kind of dumbfounded by Mythdon linking the creation of two redirects as "just a few of my best contributions." JPG-GR (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Oppose Simply looking at Mythdon's talk page gave enough reason for me to vote a strong oppose. This conflict, this, and this occurred very recently, within the past four weeks.  From what I can see in just these few conflicts, mainly with Ryulong, this candidate, if an admin, may create his own rules and abuse the tools.  If it were not for that, I would have supported. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Interactions with Ryu gives me doubt about his dispute resolution skills. &mdash;Dark talk 09:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 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.
 * 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.