Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Markovich292 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Markovich292[edit]

Final (7/19/7) Ended Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:05:40 (UTC)

Markovich292 (talk · contribs) – I started editing wikipedia about a year ago (mostly minor edits while researching topics), but it was only late summer in 2006 that I decided to get more involved. My first edit as a registered user was on 23 August, 2006. Since that time, I have been doing a great deal with keeping article content neutral which is indicated by relatively high talk page edit count. Through involvement in these discussions, I have become very familiar with wikipedia policies and guidelines. I feel that my knowledge is comparable to many of the admins here on wikipedia. I know there are a lot of things to remember in fulfilling admin duties though, so rest assured that I will not just go ahead and do things without double checking the required documentation first.

Although much of my time had been spent with article content discussions at the time of my last RfA, I have since branched out into many different parts of wikipedia. I been involved over at AfD, and have also taken part here at RfA as time permits. I have also fought against vandalism as I come across it. On October 3rd I officially joined the Mediation Cabal as well. Since then I have not had a huge amount of time to devote to it, but I have completed one mediation (going from "I think further compromising may be out of the question" to "Now that sounds good. I think that's a reasonable middle ground.") and am currently beginning work on two more. Markovich292 02:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Markovich292 02:42, 17 October 2006 (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 anticipate that most of the work I will find myself doing will be related to protected pages. I look forward to helping people get the unprotection that they need once a dispute has been resolved, or simply adding content that people request be added to an article if it is protected because of edit warring. On the flip side, I no doubt will come across disputes, so I would protect the page if there are edit wars going on. Since I am involved in mediation, I think that these abilities would be especially helpful for. As evidenced by my edit distribution, I will also probably be spending a decent portion of my time at AfD. Lastly, I feel that unblock requests and anything going on at AN/I are very important to take care of, so I would do what I can with those issues as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I would have to say my work on the People to People Student Ambassador Program and People to People International articles are the ones I am happiest with. I went in and found dissatisfaction with alleged POV problems in the article, and was able to work with the people involved to resolve the situation. I wrote much of the actual content of these articles as well, so I am pleased that people are happy with it.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in a decent number of content discussions, but only one of them has caused an appreciable amount of stress. I started out logical and stuck to the facts, but through the course of the debate other editors began with incivil behavior. To begin with I just brushed it off, but more incivility and personal jabs followed. I acknowledge that these led to a lapse in civility from me. Here is something I said on the talk page about this issue: "...I know that I have not been civil in every single one of my posts unfortunately. If I may add, however, my incivility stems from the extremely hostile attitude of one or two other editors...I know that is not an excuse, but considering the things that have been said to me I think I handled it much better than many other editors would have." The lessons learned from this will be with me in the future; if another editor gets as incivil as happened here, I will opt for filing an RfC on behavior rather than say anything myself.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:I feel that IAR is most important when an issue comes up in which something has encyclopedic value by many people's standards, but it is not accepted by strict interpretation of policy. I don't feel that there are any circumstances relating to user conduct, etc. that should be covered by IAR, however. My personal feelings on WP:SNOW is that since it is not official by any means, I think it is a bad idea to cite this essay in order to bring a quick end to something, since it is supposed to be working toward a concensus.
5. Can you give examples of how you would apply them?
A:I would stick to IAR in only special circumstances, but in the types of issues I anticipate working on it would be irresponsible for me to cite SNOW just to end something. For IAR, one example in which I would cite this policy is in an AfD debate where many people feel something is encyclopedic, but others insist on a strict interpretation of guidelines/policy. As an example, I mentioned IAR when many people found an article on a pidgin language (in Singapore) encyclopedic, but others insisted that the article was something wikipedia was not (because it included a listing of words).
6. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?
A:When an admin is just "wandering around" looking into content disputes and the like, I think humor is a very important thing to keep in mind. Humor is perhaps the easiest way to diffuse a situation, so an admin that will keep up a sense of humor when performing their duties can make a big difference. For just regular content work, excessive humor is not a good idea (this is an encyclopedia after all), but the occasional joke is always appreciated. Small example of mine: [1] and another person's that I particularly liked [2]


General comments

Markovich292's editcount stats summary as of 04:35, October 17 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • I see that many people are concerned because of a lack of mainspace edits, so I just want to bring that up where it can be discussed further. I understand the need for a good editing history, but may I ask why a low mainspace count should preclude candidates from serving as an admin when they plan on fulfilling their duties elsewhere? I for example could start fighting vandals tomorrow and come back in a week with 1,000 extra edits, but that is not how I choose to serve wikipedia. One does not need to know policy inside and out to make thousands of edits, so I ask you; what exactly will be different in 2 months from now when it comes to my ability to perform admin duties competently? I know that this probably sounds confrontational so I apologize, but I think it is the best way to get a good discussion going. Markovich292 22:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just thought I'd mention that my workload, etc. is picking up for college, so my number of edits will almost certainly not raise as quickly as it has in recent months. That is part of the reason I re-applied for adminship so soon (I have observed this board in the past, and I see objections similar to "well his edit count per unit time is to low for my taste"). I also feel that having admin tools available if problems arise in mediation would be greatly beneficial as well. Perhaps that is something I should have mentioned in my opening paragraph, although it sounded a little too much like political campaigning to me at the time I wrote my main entry above. Anyway, relating to a slowing down in my edit count, I was wondering; how many people here would outright oppose the next time I re-apply for adminship (assuming this one does not pull through) if my edit count per unit of time actually dropped? Thanks. Markovich292 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Moral Support. I assume good faith, so I think Markovich would be a good admin; however, I urge user to withdrawal and concentrate on some of the weaknesses cited in the oppose and neutral sections- especially in the mainspace. Write and edit more articles and then you will surely become an administator. Jcam 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Is a self nom, but I'll make an exception in this case. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support His determined involvement in Wikipedia (and in his harder work after his last failed RfA) demonstrate that he is trustworthy, and will not abuse the tools. While his edit count and time spent on Wiki may be low, those two things aren't the only indicator of a potentially good admin. It's quality, not quantity that counts. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per above.--Andeh 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support normally I wouldn't support an RfA if the user had this little experience, but based on what I've seen from Markovich and the fact that he has ammased this edit count in such a short amount of time, I don't see any indication that he would abuse the tools. - Mike | Talk 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral Support Eventually, you will have more expereince. Spend a few edits each day welcoming beginners and reviewing articles. Spend a few edits each day RCPatrolling. Find a niche in Wikipedia:Cleanup-- there are thousands of articles that need improvement. Take part in AfD and other discussions. Seek feedback from more experienced editors and admins. Submit to an editor review when you think you are ready. Heed that advice. Then try again. And ignore hecklers with fewer edits than you.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support (after scheduled time for close but prior to such close) Notwithstanding that certain concerns I had upon the commencement of this RfA apropos of the candidate's ability to respond to criticism, especially that which might be rendered incivilly (notably, I am not at all comfortable with the idea that, where an editor is incivil but where such incivility does not particularly disrupt the project, an RfC should nevertheless be essayed), remain unallayed, I am sufficiently confident that the candidate is, on the whole, possessed of the deliberative nature, sound judgment, and cordial demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin bodes well, such that I am reasonably certain that the net effect on the project of Markovich's becoming an admin will be positive (were this RfA to succeed—as it will not—I imagine that, qua admin, Markovich would act circumspect(ive)ly in view of the concerns raised here), and so, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I support. Joe 02:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. There don't seem to be that many mainspace edits in your contributions. --Guinnog 03:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I just wanted to take this opportunity to mention that vandalism has not been something I repeatedly seek out, so that is why my mainspace edit count may seem low compared to other candidates. I just want to stress that I concentrate on activities that make wikipedia better from "behind the scenes" so to speak, as opposed to vandal fighting (which has the side effect of boosting mainspace edit count substantially). Markovich292 07:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry, you're doing well but you need more experience. Also, no recent vandal fight.--Húsönd 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I tried to avoid using the term vandal in my edit summary so you may have missed it, but this edit on Oct. 16 was cleaning up after vandalism. Markovich292 07:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to consider using "revert vandalism" in your edits summaries when reverting vandalism. It helps keep things organized.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose More experience is needed here. I suggest you increase your participation in XfD discussions and improve the quality as well as the quantity of mainspace edits. In the meantime, I humbly suggest you withdraw from this nomination and look through past successful RfAs as well as unsuccessful ones. In that way, you would get a rough idea on how to achieve a successful RfA! --Siva1979Talk to me 06:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Someone who has been active as a registered user only since late August and already applies for Admin early September (and now again mid October) strikes me as too ambitious. I'm afraid this rash attitude will translate into ill-conceived actions as an admin. Errabee 10:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I kind of addressed this in my opening statement, but I just want to be very clear that if I were promoted as an admin, I certainly would not rush into anything. I have been bold up to this point in my editing, but I feel that for admin duties (especially for new admins) a different approach is required. It is very important to double check all relevant material and consult with more experienced users if need be, especially before doing anything that could be considered ill-conceived. I certainly plan on doing those, as I feel it would be irresponsible not to. Markovich292 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Hmm...your edits are just too low for me. I'm sorry. Please consider withdrawing for now and reapplying when you have more experience. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Needs a few more months. Michael 16:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, low edit count and experience, please wait for a longer time and try again in future. Try to read more RFAs (failed and successful ones), watch WP:AN (and other admin areas). --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose i just don't see what this user has done to earn adminship, sorry but you should perhaps work a bit more before trying to become an admin.--Fabio 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Oppose Markovich has been involved ina protracted mess on the Mahmoud Ahmedinejad page, in which he has readily and often dismissed citation upon citation, in order to push a baseless POV that MA is in no form anti-semetic. Depsite an RfA in which he bit the Admin, the issue was not resolved. His behavior was offensive and patently uncivil. At any opportunity, he sought to create tension among editors, and sowed discontent. After a while, he started trying to push for blocks on those who opposed his position on the issue, or would simply ignore what they had to say because they did not agree. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting 'la la la la' is not proper behavior for an Admin, so I have to oppose this nom.ThuranX 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to the Bureaucrats. I respectfully request that you view the following diffs when considering this person's input. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. He is also misrepresenting my positon at that debate, as I never have pushed "a baseless POV that MA is in no form anti-semetic." My base was wikipedia policy, and my argument was against a POV categorization that a few editors were trying to add to the article. Markovich292 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Calling those who help vote on this 'Bureaucrats' as if only those people would be concerned seems insulting. Further, mischaracterizing me as a 'small group' is disingenuous, as is trying to represent that you were defending Wki policy and those of us on the other side of the debate were not is a lie, as we repeatedly cited numerous policies to support OUR contentions. I recommend that those interested in this RfA should examine the history of the page in question to see how you conduct yourself in serious discussions. Markovich's behavior there, and his representation of such here further my decision to oppose his RfA, as he cannot discuss things neutrally, nor recount events in such a way, making his ability to adjudicate other disputes questionable. ThuranX 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Markovich292's first edit was less than two months ago. That's just not enough time. He could have the best edits in the world. He could have 1000 edits a day. That's just not enough time to understand the intricacies about wikipedia that I want an administrator to understand. --Cdogsimmons 01:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Give it six month, accumulate a quality track record in the article space, and especially try to reach outside the two articles you've edited so far. I actually had to double-check if I hadn't already voted on this one, your last RFA was so recent. ~ trialsanderrors 08:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Not enough experience with articles SOADLuver 06:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. STRONG Oppose I pity you, Mr. Markovich. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it really necessary to insult the candidate like this? It also seems to me that your standards would disqualify something like 95% of all current administrators (five thousand mainspace edits?). Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 11:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the new requirement of 1000 edits to !vote in RfA. Need I point out that this !voter lacks 1000 edits?Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Mr. M. doesn't even have the 1,000 edits needed to vote in RfA, much less become an administrator. Prematurely asking for adminship does not bode well for the future, does not indicate the kind of judgment needed. Wryspy 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think you've contributed significantly to ENWP yet. Low edit count shows it. zephyr2k 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Per ThuranX. Amoruso 18:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Appreciate the hint of stance on individual initiative, but not strong enough and no definite anti-deletionist message Tnfiddler 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong oppose. - in this comment he advises that persons who are waiting for mediation should file two RfCs, which is completely absurd.[11] Definately shouldn't be allowed near the buttons. Addhoc 11:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose. Still too new.--Jusjih 16:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral 734 edits in one year is rather low. The breakdown doesn't show a lot of participation in XfD or vandalfighting. I suggest withdrawing and either getting an editor review or working areas such as recent changes/new page patrol and reporting repeat vandals to WP:AIV; participating in XfD discussions, using this to demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; joining one or more Wikiprojects such as Featured Articles or Good Articles - these will allow you to edit articles in a directed fashion and to a high standard; interacting with other editors on article Talk and user Talk pages. All of these will add value to the project and raise your profile amongst your peers, making a future RfA nomination much more likely to result in a successful outcome. 2-3000 edits seems to be an unofficial minimum for editors to demonstrate some or all of the above. You have lots of potential, so this isn't an outright oppose. (aeropagitica) 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Presumably the Q3 answer was about talk regarding the Mahmoud Ahmadine article, such as this, in which case I agree with your assessment, and would further say you demonstrate competence in policy that most users with 700-800 edits usually don't have. Still, your spartan mainspace edits (mostly to two articles) prevent me from supporting. As others say, in a few months... . Good luck.--Kchase T 12:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Looks to me like you would make a great admin, though I don't see very many mainspace (article space) edits. Come back in a few months. Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 12:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'd agree that you most likely have a clear grasp of policy, but I too would like to see more main space edits as well as larger contributions. I think in a few months, with these things in mind, you'll pass an RfA with strong backing. AuburnPilot 19:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral to avoid piling-on. Spend time writing the encyclopedia first. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral without piling on, you must realise that encyclopedia-writing should be at the core of any Wikipedian, even if there is also a focus on AfD, RCP, or dipute resolution. I hope you stick around and get more experience. TewfikTalk 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Also to avoid piling on. I think that you are a great editor; however, a little more experience with article building will make you an admniship worthy editor. Spend some more time making substantial edits to articles and I will have absolutely no problem supporting! Wikipediarules2221 01:20, 23 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Markovich292_2&oldid=1143864117"