Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marcus Qwertyus

Add links
Source: 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.

Marcus Qwertyus

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final: (2/26/6). Closed per

SNOW by 67.136.117.132
at 18:06 20 July 2010.

I was going to withdraw but you beat me to it. P.S. I'm pretty sure IP's arn't allowed to close RFAs.
Qwertyus 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Nomination

Qwertyus 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mostly deleting articles with speedy tags and expired prods. I hang around requested moves a lot and perform moves on userspace drafts and in the future I'd like to assist moving uncontroversial moves (e.g. over redirects and stuff.) I would also monitor AIV and in addition have over 2,700 articles on my watchlist and will issue blocks accordingly. At some point I'd like to help clear out Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons. There are ~20,000 images in the backlog there. I would also like to edit twinkle and already have to some extent by asking administrators to implement the changes I make.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions have been to the mainspace. I have cleaned up dozens, no, hundreds of articles. Here is an example [1]. I am also particularly skilled at article mergers.
FCS Manned Ground Vehicles
was consolidated from 8 different stuby articles.
I have also worked extensively on the main page. On my trophy shelf there are 6 DYKs (and rightfully there should have been a couple of ITNs but the ITN talk pages atmosphere is not conducive for democracy). I often check the factual accuracy of the main page and report problem and updates to Main Page Errors.
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: I do not edit war though there is the occasional
edit conflict. I made Jansport87
quit (I think I was the straw that broke the camel's back) so I apologized.

Slightly random question from WFC

4. I appreciate how random this will seem, but I ask it in good faith. This was my first thought on seeing your username. Do you have a reasonably strong password?
A: L3tt3r$ & numb3r$ and I change it all the time too.
Qwertyus 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional optional question from
Beeblebrox
5. Since you took a moment put of your time while preparing this RFA to re-address the situation at User talk:Jansport87, it can hardly come as a surprise to you that it is on my mind as well upon seeing this nomination. Would you care to explain your actions in this matter?
A: I would have accepted any explanation during that 36-hour time frame I gave. If the same problem occurred today I would take it to Request for comment instead.
Qwertyus 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. First to support.Weak support Good balance of contributions for an admin. --WFC (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think this candidate will be a good admin. For that reason I am still supporting, and when this candidate comes back to RfA I will almost certainly support again, without the "weak". But Beeblebrox's diffs are hard to ignore. --WFC-- (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good balance of audited content creation and vandal-fighting. Clearly here to build an encyclopedia, have never had any negative interactions with him. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Personally I don't find the opposes convincing. The Jansport incident was a one time thing. Everyone makes mistakes. Even admins sometimes makes mistakes. ~
    NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    (
    NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    He apologized when he made this RFA for what it's worth. Additionally, the opposes do more than point out the Jansport87 issue, with which I personally would be disturbed if an admin made the same error. Nevertheless, I agree that if the Jansport87 issue was a one time thing, it would not be worth opposing. Airplaneman ✈ 23:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense I was on wikibreak when I discovered this. I could have apologized yesterday or the day before though.
    Qwertyus 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    And while I agree it could've been handled better, I am still supporting since I have seen some excellent work. Hopefully things like this won't happen again. ~
    NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I guess I was hoping for some indication of where the 36 hour deadline cam from and why he thought he could impose such a deadline. The report he made at
    talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Manners are something you're really going to have to work on, Marcus, if you want any chance of success in a future RfA. Less demanding, more asking nicely. The way I see it, if you want me to get off my arse to fulfil your request, the least you can do is say please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I find both your actions and your explanation for them in the Jansport thing disingenuous. You didn't seem to care one bit about this until earlier today, when you went over there and asked them to come back right in the middle of putting together this RFA. (look at the timestamps on these edits:[3] [4][5]) That looks to me like just trying to cover your tracks and make an apology for the sake of appearance to help you at RFA. You completely ignored my postings your talk page about this incident[6] and about a bad CSD tagging you made the same day[7]. Admins are expected to be skilled at communicating with other users, and should respond to legitimate criticisms of their actions. Your answer to my question about this did nothing to persuade otherwise.
    talk) 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My lack of a response to your critisism should not be interpreted as me ignoring them. Recently I have taken to writing "duly noted" or just "noted" on such posts.
    Qwertyus 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    You didn't respond, and you didn't do anything about it for a month. Looks like ignoring it to me. I might be more willing to buy that reasoning if you had given a more direct and sensible response to my question, but that ship has sailed now.
    talk) 23:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose. No rationale given to Jansport87 as for what makes the username promotional (I honestly have no idea!), and a lack of follow-up on
    this article's speedy G11 tag, which you self-removed without explanation after the material was sent to OTRS for G12 compliance. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    never heard of
    Qwertyus 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Never. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't me that removed the speedy. There's talk about getting Twinkle configured fo db-multiples.
    Qwertyus 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    My bad. It was the creator (but it was done in good faith). Still, I don't see the relevance of this response when, even with an OTRS ticket, the material submitted was way too promotional to accept as is. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: Beeblebrox's rationale is just too compelling to ignore. I don't think you have the right attitude to become an admin at this time. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry - I can't support, having seen the diffs for the Jansport87 incident. I also have some general maturity/attitude concerns from reviewing some contributions, and from the responses to questions and criticism here.  Begoontalk 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose. Opposing an RfA is not something I enjoy doing, but something just doesn't sit right with me. In my own interactions I've found you abrupt and uncommunicative. My most recent interaction was an {{
    Wikipedia is not a democracy, but much more concerning is your refusal to accept the consensus when it didn't go your way and the desire to take on a role that often involves sorting out some bitter disputes when you can't accept. All in all, I have deep concerns about your maturity, communications skills, ability to accept consensus and understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. TL;DR? Sorry, I don't trust you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Just a little clarification. The news item was about a string of bombings and shootings in Afghanistan. The reason the ITNs were not put up on the main page was that they were buried under piles of irrelvant news.— Preceding
    talk • contribs
    )
    The use of apostrophes in the example you cited is actually correct - well, half-correct. Apostrophes are in fact often used to denote a plural acronym - while most major publishing houses recommend against it, outlets as major as the
    New York Times continue to use them in this fashion. The second case is bona-fide correct, as it is being used to denote a possessive ("the atmosphere belonging to the talk page"). Badger Drink (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Oppose Although vandalism fighting is definitely a plus, I don't feel that the user is fit to become an administrator at this time due to the run-in with Jansport87. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunate oppose – Your contributions are great, but the Jansport87 incident killed it all. Sorry. That should have been handled much better, and the diffs make it worse. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait why are the diffs so damning?
    Qwertyus 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Since I cited the diffs as part of my rationale too, I feel I can answer that. Firstly you ignored the issue for a month, after it had been pointed out to you what was wrong. Secondly, you leave an audit trail in the history of this page showing that you made the apology as part of the process of preparing this RFA, in which audit trail you really seem to take it less than seriously. That's how I read it, anyway. The apology itself wouldn't overly impress me, were I the recipient, either.  Begoontalk 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The hidden comments you made on this RFA, as well as the talk page comments of Jansport87, just blew it. Sorry. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 2x(edit conflict)Oppose from neutral per CSD concerns (see my neutral comment), Beeblebrox, and HJ Mitchell. In addition, the Jansport87 incident tipped the balance for me; it should have been handled better. Airplaneman ✈ 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose He/she can't be an admin at this time due to the recent Jansport87 incident and CSD concerns. I might support you once the Jansport87 incident is 1 year ago and the CSD concerns has been addressed. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose largely per the Jansport87 incident. Just looking at your comments as well as the stuff on your talk page makes me hesitate about giving you the tools. My oppose can largely be summed up as "Per HJ".--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 00:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per HJ Mitchell. :( Diego Grez what's up? 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose [8] in regards to CSDs, what HJ said, and the odd Jansport thing. I appreciate the work in tagging articles, but having to be informed about it by multiple people in a relatively short time frame is hard to ignore; if you aren't sure about a tagging an article, you should ask for a second opinion if you didn't already. (for the record, the CSD thing is the least of my concerns, I'm just pointing it out)
    RN 01:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Oppose - Ouch, Jansport. Could have been handled a lot better... and I think we can see this is already in
    WP:SNOW territory, so let's not prolong the pile-on. Candidate should work hard and come back next year with a clear slate. Jusdafax 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Oppose Jansport oppose. Suggest withdrawal.
    Townlake (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Oppose per attitude illustrated above by candidate, not yet ready for the mop in my opinion. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 02:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per oppose reasons. Attitude matters a lot in this area! BejinhanTalk 02:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - the candidate had no basis for purporting to give a new user a 36 hour deadline to change his username. He assumed an air of authority that he had no right to assume. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - per Beeble. Suggest withdrawal, so as to avoid a pile-up of opposes, and trying again after a year.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose No, not a great idea. Jmlk17 07:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose.
    WP:NOTNOW. Sorry. elektrikSHOOS 08:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Oppose beeblebrox makes a good point and a valid issue of concern. I do oppose this rfa. Suggest a Not now and snow at this point. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Regretful Oppose. Lots of great work done, but looking back at the nominee's Talk archives I'm just not seeing the degree of helpful engagement with people that I think is needed in an admin. What we need is not just tagging articles for deletion and then telling people they're wrong when they disagree, but a constructive effort to help people understand and to encourage them to become better editors. And there have been some recent poor CSD taggings, and the Jansport87 thing.
    Additional comment: I've just noticed on the nominee's User page that he says he's 16 years old. I wouldn't oppose based purely on age, but it does suggest that the concerns voiced here can be addressed by a bit more maturity. Spend a bit more time, get a bit older and a bit wiser, and I can see myself supporting a future RfA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see the age on the User page, but I did pick up on the maturity issues in my review/oppose above regardless. Now the age is pointed out I agree with that entirely. Acquire age, wisdom and experience, and keep the dedication, sounds like a recipe for a good future RFA.  Begoontalk 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't want to mention his age, though I was aware of it at the time of my oppose, because I didn't want to give the impression that I was opposing on that basis (a very bad rationale imo) and I didn't want to sound patronising, but I agree that with age, so come maturity and wisdom and sometimes rather quickly. As such, I wouldn't rule out a future RfA, but for now, I would suggest withdrawing and forgetting about adminship for the foreseeable future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Nay clearly i missed something big in approving you for account creation team and there is no way i can support you for admin at this time. Your other edits to UAA looked good so i never got as far back as your reporting Jansport87. Jansport87 is not a flagrant violation of user name policy and your behaviour surrounding that user is not becoming of an admin. Hopefully you have learnt from this experience. And hopefully Jansport87 comes back. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 11:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Beeblebrox et al. The interesting bit here is that, despite the damning diffs above and the very serious concerns about your conduct, you still have several veteran admins offering encouragement. Add me to that list - I think you can get where you need to be, and that you can eventually be a good admin. But you'll want to find a mentor and work very hard on your communication skills. As we see with the Jansport incident, mistakes can have real consequences, and that's something every admin must consider all the time. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - Seems like a good content contributor, but the concerns raised above are a bit alarming to me. Perhaps a bit more experience will help. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Beeblebrox et al. I also have some serious conduct concerns that I just can't shake, normally, I support RfA's because I think RfA is too hard already, but I just can't here. Ronk01 talk, 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral for now at least. Although contributions look great overall, I am a bit concerned with multiple converted taggings as recent as July 3 (found here). I am impressed at the amount (2500+) pages he has patrolled, but am not confident he holds a super-firm grasp of CSD policy. Since this is a place he intends to work in, I am uncomfortable supporting at this time. Airplaneman ✈ 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)moved to oppose[reply]
Neutral At least until there's a more in depth answer to Question 5.  Begoontalk 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)...moved to oppose[reply]
  1. You could have just ignored the Jansport thing, which happened a month ago, and hoped no one mentioned it. But you chose to be honest and state it in the answer to Q3. Admitting one's mistakes is a good trait for an administrator to have. However I don't think you're quite ready yet, because of the other reasons brought up in the oppose section. —Soap— 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I don't know. He has had some good contributions, but that Jansport87 thing ruined it for me. At least he didn't make somebody else bring it up (then I would have certainly opposed). I agree with Beeblebrox's and HJ Mitchell's rationales, but also with the three supports. I'll need more time to think about this before (or if) I move it to support or oppose. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 00:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I think the Jansport87 thing was a mistake, but that and HJ's points are still too recent. Sorry. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per the Jansport incident. Sorry I had to change my !vote, but I am now convinced you aren't quite ready. Sorry. ~
    NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Neutral even after having a deeper look at his contributions, this one is a bit hard to decide, does he earn it or not. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral – and not for the Jansport87 reason (though it was a large mistake I am sure that with a majority of people opposing because of it, you have learned your lesson). I would very much like to support, but for other reasons brought up in the oppose section and your somewhat pleading replies to some opposers, I will stay neutral. ••Pepper•• 14:56, 20 July 2010 (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/Marcus_Qwertyus&oldid=1182416543"