Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mythdon 3


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

Mythdon
Final: (0/12/2) Closed as Withdrawn by non-crat. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two minutes prior to this closure the candidate posted on my talk page asking this be closed as "withdrawn by candidate".  — Rlevse • Talk  • 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have been editing Wikipedia since December 2007, and throughout my time have taken part in vandalism fighting, policy enforcement, etc. I wish to become an administrator, as I feel that making me one will help Wikipedia out. I have ran for RfA before, back in February (the 1st) and March (the 2nd). Please read my past RfA's before participating. I won't force you, but I would like it. Thank you. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I withdraw — Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:57, 21 July 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 in areas like WP:AFD, WP:AIV, WP:AN, WP:ANI, etc. While I do perform vandalism fighting efforts, I wish to take that to the next level, by protecting articles that need protection, and by blocking users who persistently vandalize Wikipedia despite warnings, or have proven that they're intentions are to vandalize. I also wish to enforce talk page guidelines, civility and no personal attacks policies, biographies of living people policy, and other policies.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would say a few copyedits to articles, reversions of vandalism, enforcement of WP:V policies (by removing unsourced information), etc.


 * 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: As I always have to say: I've had many edit wars, and disputes over content on the Power Rangers articles with editors. These disputes end with no result, unfortunately.


 * Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
 * 4. How would you have closed this AfD?
 * A:


 * 5. An IP inserts "I like cheese" into an article and is warned with uw-test4im. After he/she vandalized again, he/she is reported on AIV. Would you block him/her?
 * A: While doing something after being warned is not a good thing, I would not block, but issue a warning to the talk page asking the editor not to do it again, and asking the editor to contribute. However, I would be keeping an eye on the editor for a reasonable period of time as to see if the disruption stops.


 * 6. In your opinion, what is consensus?
 * A: Please clarify.


 * Additional optional questions from Juliancolton
 * 7. I'm genuinely curious: is there any reason in particular why you want adminship?
 * A: Because it will further my goals in what already I do; vandalism fighting, etc. Please be aware that this question is also to an extent answered in question #1. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

 * Edit stats are on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as some of you wanted me to do, I'm withdrawing due to this clear opposition, and that it seems clear that this will fail. Sorry to disappoint some of you, but, that's how it is. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 06:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong oppose Editor is under ArbCom editing restrictions. BJ Talk 05:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Restrictions (and case) at Requests for arbitration/Ryulong. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per BJ. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above. Plastikspork (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong oppose per above comments; and anyone power-hungry enough to post three RfAs in just over 5 months is never getting my vote. I'm not sure why the candidate encourages us to review those RfAs—they both had strong opposition and no support.&mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 05:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The second one had one support, and that was by A Nobody. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that, sorry for the mistake, but one support vote in two RfAs (possibly 3?) is almost as bad as none, and A Nobody's support vote was in part sympathetic due to unanimous opposition. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk &bull; contribs) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The concerns related to ArbCom restrictions are indeed concerning, but with all due respect, I find the fact that you nominated yourself for adminship in spite of an issue which would almost certainly cause it to fail further indication of questionable judgment. Nonetheless, I wish you good luck. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for various reason ranging from arbcom restrictions to temperament to judgment as mentioned by JC above. Viridae Talk 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose (Edit Conflict with Juliancolton) Sorry, since the last RfA where I also opposed I don't see enough improvement in the areas of concern. That you were just admonished by ArbCom for "harassing behavior" should have been a clear indication to you that another run at adminiship would not be a good idea for some time. Camw (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Not only were you recently sanctioned by ArbCom for "harrassing behavior", the fact that you ran an RfA so soon after it is a sign of questionable judgement. ( X! ·  talk )  · @287  · 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I would recommend withdrawal per WP:SNOW. ( X! ·  talk )  · @289  · 05:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually had a few thoughts about withdrawal. But, I'll make a decision later, but given this immediate opposition, I think that's going to happen anyway by someone else. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose Editor is under editing restrictions from ArbCom, this is his third RfA of 2009 (and it's only July), his recent behavior toward Tiptoety at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard, and his continued misinterpretation of both WP:RS and WP:V. Honestly, based on his actions and the situations Mythdon has been involved with in the past couple weeks, I question the actual purpose of starting another RfA at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. I recommend withdrawing and putting an end to this exercise in futility. I also recommend not trying this again for at least a year, perhaps longer due to all the issues you've had. If you can show that you can act appropriately for at least a year, you might have a chance of passing an RfA. Again, I recommend withdrawing (just post on the talk page of this discussion) as there is absolutely no chance of this passing right now. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'm sorry - but way too much drama for this at this time. No reflection on Mythdon intended, but I just can't see any way clear to supporting this right now. — Ched :  ?  06:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: I do not believe candidate has the proper temperament to be an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I seldom ever comment on RfA's that are clearly doomed to fail unless I am pressed to support despite the opposition. In this case, however, I'm making an exception, because I feel compelled to offer my opinion. I'm placing my comment in the neutral section, because I do not want to add to the negative pile-on above. Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that arbcom restrictions, while definitely a huge negative in my books for adminship candidacies, do not preclude any sort of support I may give. Circumstances are different for every editor, and after a certain time period has elapsed and they have demonstrated improved judgment, I would gladly give my support assuming they'd be trustworthy with the tools - which is ultimately my only real requirement when it comes to entrusting an editor with adminship, experience may vary between people but if I feel they can be trusted, then I will support. For instance, I have supported Everyking and Rootology for adminship before - both of these editors have been given sanctions from ArbCom for very serious lapses in judgment, but their actions since have demonstrated obvious signs of growing and a willingness to continue to improve. Had Mythdon waited for several months and demonstrated the same willingness to improve himself and his mannerisms towards other people whom he disagrees with, I would have supported. Hell, even if everybody else were opposing due to something way in the past, I would have looked past and supported for the fact that I couldn't see any harm with him becoming an admin. What gives me pause for thought, is how Mythdon thought that requesting for adminship at this point in time was a remotely good idea. I'm sure he was already aware of the lack of confidence the community has in his judgment, based on the fact that all of his RfA's have been unanimously opposed and the fact that he was sanctioned by ArbCom. I doubt there will be any criticism from the opposers arguments that will honestly help Mythdon grow as a Wikipedian, because they will be focused on the fact that this RfA is poorly timed. The only real recommendation I can give him now is to withdraw this RfA and let a good amount of time pass, then come back with a much improved record and request again. It definitely won't be an easy road, but I think Mythdon can do it if he really tried.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Frequency of RfA’s should not be the sole basis for the decision; however having limited interaction with the editor limits my degree to see the entire picture of his edit history. I would like to exercise my vote to be neutral as not to pass judgement to someone whom I've not encountered as frequent as the others would.--TitanOne (talk) 07:01, 21 July 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.