The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mysid[edit]

Final (44/4/2); Ended Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:34:19 UTC

Mysid (talk · contribs) – Mysid is an experienced user, having been on en.wiki since July 2005 and amassing over 6600 edits. She specialises in topics related to Finland, especially Finnish national parks. Another of Mysid's areas of expertise is radio. She's also active on the reference desks and new page patrol. She has been instrumental in converting a number of images to SVG format. I feel Mysid will make a good admin because of her willingness to communicate, as shown by her replying to every message on her talk page. Also, there are no admins in WikiProject Radio; I feel that one is needed to deal with vandalism on relatively obscure articles. ~Crazytales (Talk) 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. –mysid☎ 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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 voters:

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: I am most familiar with the speedy deletion process, so I might be interested in cleaning up the CSD backlog. I have worked a lot with images, so I am also familiar with IfD and copyright questions – this would include images with missing or inadequate licensing information and replaceable or orphaned fair use images.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Of articles I've created, I'm quite pleased with Great Evening Bat as it is a difficult species to find information about. I am also content with my additions to slow-scan television, as well as several vector images I've drawn, namely Image:Gray1193.svg, Image:Pioneer plaque.svg, Image:Submarine cable cross-section.svg, Image:Flag of Los Angeles, California.svg, and Image:Flag of NATO.svg.
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: In the beginning of my Wikipedianity, when I was actively nominating articles for speedy deletion, I had at least one conflict or dispute with the creator of one article. I attempted to be civil and not be provoked by any personal attacks. I was also thrown in the middle of another dispute (User talk:Mysid/Archive02) which I did not have time to get familiar with.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?
A: The five pillars are all policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in a nutshell. They have been and still are important in making Wikipedia what it is – a free-content and open yet verifiable and neutrally-written encyclopedia.
5. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: Wheel warring is a bad idea in the same sense as edit warring – when there is no consensus over a dispute, it cannot be forced. Wheel warring can be avoided by the means of thorough discussion on the subject matter or through dispute resolution. The issue can also be brought to other administrators' attention via the Administrator's noticeboard. Remaining civil or taking a break when it feels difficult will also be necessary.
6. Who has the authority to ban users?
A: Bans can be decided on through community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales.

Optional question(s) from WJBscribe (talk · contribs)

7. What do you think of WP:CIVIL? Are there any circumstances in which you feel the policy can be disregarded?
A: I think the policy should be observed in all situations. I have managed to cool some hostile-looking conversations down just by being civil and referring to well-proven Wikipedia policies.


General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support. ~Crazytales (Talk) 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. Very helpful, hardworking and high quality user. West Brom 4ever 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes a really nice user. Per West Brom 4ever. --Majorly 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support-clearing backlogs is good. Experienced user. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support. I'd like to see more XfD participation, but i don't see any other problems.--Wizardman 20:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support Dedicated, friendly and helpful editor. I'd prefer to see (a lot) more participation in countervandalism and XfD, but willingness to clear the perpetual backlogs on CAT:SPEEDY seems fair enough. Furthermore, I don't think that she'd abuse the tools.--Húsönd 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Appears to be a great user, however the answers to leave something to be desired. Ganfon 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support per Husond and Ganfon. --tennisman sign here! 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support -- per nom and answer to first question. Willing to help out with images while having a ton of experience[1] is very welcome --T-rex 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I have not met this editor, but contributions are well balanced and knowledge of policy appears good. Answewrs are short, but to the point.--Anthony.bradbury 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - helpful, intelligent, will use the tools wisely. I think there's a zero chance of abuse and a 100% chance that Mysid will be a helpful, knowlegeable admin. — Editor at Large(speak) 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I don't think that the admin tools will be abused. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support We can trust you. :-P Cbrown1023 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Supporting trustable candidate. —S.D. ¿п? 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A great candidate, who will definitely be great as admin. Nishkid64 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support Great editor, but is not really a vandal fighter. I think that article writers really don't need the tools as much, but just because someone is a article writer is not a good reason to oppose. Cheers. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good editor; good to hear she's willing to tackle image issues. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I am satisfied that the nominee could use the tools and use them well, good contribution history. Agent 86 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support! Yuser31415 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, good candidate. The Rambling Man 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Good editor and an active member of the IRC community. --PhantomS 07:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak support - Marginal due to relatively weak answers to questions. But otherwise experienced enough. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 08:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Terence Ong 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak support No problems here. User is not likely to abuse the tools, but her answers just do not satisfy me. ← ANAS Talk? 12:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support looks alright, although make sure you are familiar with policy.-- danntm T C 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I think the answers above ought to give a little more detail, but everything else looks unobjectionable. Coemgenus 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support.--MariusM 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - good, devoted users make good admins Alex Bakharev 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. It's interesting that the candidate is being opposed for superficial answers, when the questions themsevles are utterly superficial and timewasting. I have no concerns. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. No reason to think she will abuse admin tools. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. SynergeticMaggot 22:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Per the nom, this user would make an excellent sysop. Somitho 23:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - serious user, good contributions. MoRsE 23:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I think she'll grow into the extra bit and use it wisely. I can see nothing that makes me think otherwise. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Conscious 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. --A. B. (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. No problems here, and as an international project we can use multilingual admins very well. Sandstein 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support There are no major concerns here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, very unlikely to abuse the tools, and a nice person to boot. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak support. I would have been happier with fuller answers to questions, but don't think she'll misuse the tools. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 13:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. PeaceNT 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose for now. Please expand your answer to Q1. Changed to Weak Support. ← ANAS Talk? 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Question 5 is problematic; wheel warring is more than just edit warring which happens to include admin powers. It's much more of a problem than edit warring. -Amarkov blahedits 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose - Mysid has great contributions, but the superficial nature of the answers to questions above make me rather nervous. As a "normal" user who relies on admins to take actions, such as blocking users for vandalism and deleting articles, the answers to quesitons 1 and 5 are a little underwelming. I would greatly appreciate seeing a more through consideration of these questions by Mysid. --Matthew 08:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You do not appear well-versed in process, other than answering refdesk questions. I think you need more experience. >Radiant< 13:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. i hate it when ppl use speedy delete, unless someone posted porn or obvious materials that are meant for foolishness, i think speedy delete should be less frequently used. --Juju 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujucabana (talk • contribs)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Carpet9 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I don't like the answers to the questions but they aren't bad enough to warrant an oppose from me. James086Talk 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category