Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MoRsE

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.


MoRsE

Final (38/29/10) Ended 22:56:00

30 September 2006
(UTC)

MoRsE (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself to the admin position. I am a long time user and a major contributor with almost 20,000 edits on all the different language Wikipedias combined. I am already familiar with the rules, tasks and duties of an admin, as I am one in the Swedish Wikipedia. Although I have been most active on the Swedish Wikipedia, I am constantly checking up on the English one making shure that the mother ship is flying. I am a devoted Wikipedian and I would like to see how far we can get with this fantastic project - it also saddens me when I see vandals destroying the work that has been done by the enthusiasts. As I am residing in Sweden, I think I could contribute with being here when other admins aren’t, also, since I am multilingual, I can check other Wikipedias too before I make a decision to erase a page. As for references, I can say that if anyone is interested knowing how I am doing my job as an admin on the other wikipedias, please post questions on the IRC channel #wikipedia-sv or send a personal message to any user in the svwiki. —MoRsΞ 20:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self nomination MoRsΞ 20:30, 23 September 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, if any, would 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 would first and foremost see adminship as a tool to ease the work of structuring the Wikipedia and maintaining it an Encyclopedia. I would work with the structure and move pages per request, or by own initiative, if the article name clearly is erroneous. I would also aid in the prevention and undoing of vandalism. I would erase articles that are up for speedy deletion or clearly “unencyclopedic”, á la “John is Gay LOL”, but before doing so, I would thoroughly check the article’s history to see if there had been a proper text before, and I would also check the other language Wikipedias for corresponding articles and the internet for verification.
When it comes to vandalism or breaking of rules I would do like this:
  • Minor one-time scribble: I would scroll back and recommend the user to try the functions in the sandbox.
  • Continuous minor scribble: I would tag a small warning on the user’s discussion page
  • One-time abusive editors: strong warning
  • Continuous abusive editors: stronger warning, blocking
  • First time rule breaker: mild warning, explaining the rule
  • Continuous mild rule breaker: stronger warning, explaining that if the behaviour continues, the user will risk being blocked
  • Continuous grave rule breaker: strong warning, blocking
  • Personal attacks: Strong warning
  • Continuous grave attacks: Blocking
  • Proved open proxies: Blocking
I often scan new edits when I have the reason to suspect there might be malicious edits and I undo the damage when I find it. I would also block pages when there is repeated vandalism or never ending edit wars going on.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have written or translated 4 articles to FA-quality 1 2 3 4 and a further 4 of Good Article-quality 1 2 3 4. I have done a lot of translations (from English, German, French and Finnish to Swedish and vice versa, thus contributing to the English Wikipedia as well). I have started over 3,000 geography articles and I am currently active with writing aircraft articles (see sv:Lista över finländska flygvapnets flygplan, where I have written all the articles). I also like to experiment with creating templates, and I although I have made some really complex ones, I am most content with the series of simpler templates that were created to restore order and create some sort of systematization in the military related articles, see here, they have really proven useful and are doing their job.


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: Yes, I have been in some minor conflicts or disagreements, but I don’t get tangled into never-ending ones. I have always tried to avoid breaking the 3 revert rule and I would say that I am doing my best to stay civilized and I always try to solve the matter through discussion.
4. Further question from User:Mcginnly
Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 21:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am not intending to start any crusade against established users. An "established user" means to me that they have made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. I would perhaps first try to make them meet in middle ground, if that isn't successful, then I would ask the established user and the antagonist to stay away from the disputed article. If the war continues I would start giving warnings, and if that doesn't work, then and only then, I would consider using the powers to block. —MoRsΞ 21:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that Morse, other than edit warring, are there any other circumstances you'd consider a block?--Mcginnly | Natter 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I feel that I have to react most severely when it comes to prevent serious degradation of quality to the encyclopaedic texts or when the legality of Wikipedia is at stage. That is repetitive vandalism and copyright infringement. I find it hard to believe that established users might begin doing such things, but if they did, and the would not follow the rules, even though warned, then it would have to be done. Also severe personal threats would certainly qualify for warning and banning.
I don’t see this administratorship as being above others, I would sometimes have to rely on the expertise of others judging the articles; it merely gives me the tools to work more effectively. I have for a long time intended to become even more active on the English Wikipedia and thus I am missing the tools that makes me an efficient cleaner and organizer. For instance, earlier today, I encountered a vandal that was erasing information at an alarming pace. Erasing goes far quicker than undoing damage, and I had to quickly try to find an administrator to block him. It took me about 10 minutes to find one in the IRC-channels, who blocked the user, and a further 30 minutes for me to undo the damage. (The vandals edits) —MoRsΞ 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Further question from User:Husond
Are you bothered by the fact that we have little chance to accurately judge your character, and little chance to witness how you handle with conflicts? It seems to me that not everybody speaks Swedish well enough to execute a thorough analysis of your performance on the Swedish Wikipedia.--Húsönd 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am not bothered, in fact I am happy that so many have voted for me – thank you! I knew that I am not a household name here yet, and that it would be quite difficult to attain the required amount of votes. As I wrote before, to make it easier to judge my work as an administrator, I recommend you to post a question here: #wikipedia-sv, or to send a private message to someone here. They can give statements about my work as an administrator. —MoRsΞ 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


6. Further question from User:Husond
Are you bothered by the fact that, in case of approval, your promotion would become a precedent that could lead to a spree of other non-English-Wikipedia administrators (with a very low count of contributions to the English WP) trying to be promoted here just for the sake of collecting multiple adminships?--Húsönd 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I don’t see the administratorship as the nobility of Wikipedia, I respect every serious editor, whether they have administrator privileges or not. The administratorship should, in my opinion be given to persons who have proven that they want the best for the Wikipedia and who wish to have these tools to contribute further and more effectively. I agree that the seriousness of a user might be a little difficult to judge when the user has only a few edits. I might not have gathered that many edits here on the English Wikipedia yet, but if someone has followed my contributions, you have seen that I have been fairly active here since I applied. I have been an active member of the international Wikipedia community since April 2005. And I am not only writing articles - I have for instance participated in the recent election process by translating several candidate pages. And I am not applying just to have multiple administrator positions, if so, then I would definitively not have begun by applying here (the English Wikipedia is known to have high requirements on their administrators), there are a lot of small language Wikipedias that screams for someone to administrate them. I applied because I am a user here, I love contributing here, and I intend to become far more active on this Wikipedia. And I would need the tools in order to help this Encyclopaedia get as far as it can get, by systemizing the articles, ridding the collection of un-articles and stopping the ones who just want to destroy the work of others. I am sure that the collective can judge which users are reliable ones, whatever their edit count might be. —MoRsΞ 16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

  • Not enough involvement here, and I cannot check the 20,000 figure as I don't know all the accounts.
    Voice-of-All 01:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I think this is the main user account he's refering to.[1] Yanksox 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A man's edit count is about an accurate of a guage of his worth as the size of mr. willy in regards to bedroom performance. It's a horrible reason to oppose. I spport morse because of the quality of what he has done. 205.157.110.11 03:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Moral support You are an outstanding contributor to the Swedish Wikipedia and you are already familiar with the administrative tasks. And I agree that your multilingualism could prove useful. However, it is my belief that this RfA on the English Wikipedia will not succeed. You will first need to show proof that you are an active contributor. Your current edit count is surely not helping.--Húsönd 22:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Suspended my position while waiting for the answers to my questions.--Húsönd 16:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed my stance to regular Support. I am satisfied with the answers. Furthermore, after a deeper search I also verify that you are a very friendly, communicative, and productive editor of the Swedish Wikipedia. No reason to believe that you will act any differently here. If this RfA doesn't succeed (which is likely), I strongly suggest that you try again in the near future. With a greater number of contributions here I am sure that you will find overwhelming support next time.--Húsönd 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I doubt this nomination will pass, but I think that your contributions to various other Wikipedia, particularly the Swedish, are outstanding and deserve to be recognized. You certainly have the experience, despite what your less than 500 edits on the English Wikipedia might say to some editors. They need to recognize that you are a Wikipedian with over 20,000 edits. So what if it's in a different language? - Mike 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support I have the odd feeling that people haven't really read his responses to the questions. I can trust this user, and he gives a good explanation that he understands how things around here function. MoRsE appears to be a dedicated Wikipedian whom is truly interested in bettering the project, and I think we need more assistance in the admin aspect of Wikipedia. Yanksox 00:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support MoRsE is a special case. He has broad inter-Wikipedia experience, and is already familiar with the tools, and can readily learn the policies and customs specific to en wikipedia. I further think it would be beneficial to have admins with inter-Wikipedia connections, to help build up the relations between the various Wikipedias.-- danntm T C 01:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I agree with danntm, screw the evil edit count.
    wat's sup 04:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Weak support. Limited experience on English Wikipedia is a problem, but given the broad experience elsewhere it's one I'm willing to overlook. I doubt this RfA will pass this time around, but get some more experience here and I'm sure you'll have no problem next time around. BryanG(talk) 05:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as long as he starts using edit summaries. T REXspeak 05:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ease-up-on-the-editcountitis-please support
    Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    We don't have editcountitis. We just require something called experience (on en, of course). Sv is not en.  Jorcoga  11:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    Sv is the same as en for the most part. It's Wikipedia simply in a different language. All of the admin tools and roles are the same there. Also, if you want to go with only en, although MoRsE only has about 300 edits on en, he's had the account for months. - Mike 14:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having an account for months doesn't show that an user has experience & it shows that he has minimal commitment to en.  Jorcoga  09:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had my account here for about a year and a half and I have been a daily visitor. I have used this account in my work with the svwiki, not only when translating articles and keeping track of the articles I needed and wanted to keep correct, but I have also used my time here to listen to ideas for policies, in order to solve specific problems in svwiki, to keep track of policy changes etc, and to help making the svwiki a better place by spotting new ideas. As an example, I was the one who implemented the dynamic templates code in svwiki after having found the formula in the the Hebrew wiki. I do think I have a quite clear picture of the enwiki policies, after all, it, and the dewiki are usually used as the guides in the policy making in other wikipedias. Now I have decided to start contributing more to the enwiki, and this is why you have seen that both the edits, and the edit summaries have increased, beacause I am listening to the constructive suggestions here. MoRsE 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support the oppose votes fail to provide diffs showing a lack of familiarity with English Wikipedia's policies. Unless evidence demonstrating contentiousness or incompetence on behalf of this user is posted, there is no reason to oppose. DRK 07:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support per
    eeb (chat/patch) 11:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support per Yanksox. I have seen far weaker candidates get the mop. Hell, I've supported far weaker candidates. —
    wreak havoc|damage report 12:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support I gave quite a bit of thought about the question "should an admin's record (or a users) from another wikiproject count on the english wikipedia". I think it should - the rules are the same, the problems are the same and how one deals with them are likely to be the same. The problem i have is assessing this users contributions in the swedish encyclopedia because I can't speak swedish. On the other hand I have no reason to distrust what this person tells me and unless evidence is presented to the contrary I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and support. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per McGinnly. - Kookykman|(t)e 14:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weakish support. This user is already an admin on another Wikipedia that happens to be very similar to en. Edit count isn't anything, and if it were, isn't 20,000 enough, even if it's somewhat spread out? My only issue with the user is the low usage of edit summaries. I'd like to see that up quite a bit: 90% overall is reasonable, I believe. Other than that, this user looks great. Srose (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Let's not start an international wiki-incident. :) RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Per experience with wikipedia. --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Plenty of experience and has shown a true dedication to volunteering on Wikimedia Foundation projects hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I still believe adminship ought to be no big deal. The primary core concerns are need and trust. I thing this nominee has both. Agent 86 17:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, opposition so far is unconvincing. The policy differences across wikipedias at most amount to technical detail, experience at any other large Wikipedia would substantially acquaint you with all our critical policies. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support has put in the hard graft and shows commitment to Wiki. Good luck- We need more like you! Downunda 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support translations are a difficult task to do - clearly proves your worth. Rama's arrow 02:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support-this long time user has great credibility. So i'm supporting him .Stanley simon 11:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support The candidates answer to Q2 and with 20,000 edits in another language Wikipedia shows dedication. His breakdown of Q1 dealing with vandals shows a civil minded approach to dealing with others. In my book, civility is the same in all languages. Here is my trust and support. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support An impressive candidat; it eems odd to discount his great experience on other wikis.--Holdenhurst 15:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support A multilingual user with strong admin experience regardless of the language, is a valuable asset to the admin staff. To me, his experience proves he has the basic qualities for a good admin and that's what we should look for; I'd rather choose him over someone with a higher edit count in english but no experience in admin matters or contributions in other languages. Whether or not he has a high edit count on english Wikipedia shouldn't be held against him; after all Wikipedians are encouraged to be adventurous; and I believe his previous experience in SV will also be a factor in him not being bold to the point of misusing his admin privileges. And if at all, our inability to read his contributions to swedish Wikipedia should be held against us, not him. Roadmr 16:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. He would quite obviously make a better admin than most existing admins (especially me, with my 31% major edit summary usage... maybe I should be de-adminned for that transgression). :) ugen64 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support. Per all above. 20,000 edits, and well-rounded ones too. Being on a wiki with far fewer admins means that an even greater responsibility was there. Impressive answers to the questions.
    Irongargoyle 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Support - trustworthy editor who won't abuse the tools. Metamagician3000 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Happy to see an editor from another wiki bring his admin expertise here.
    tips) 03:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Support, was going to oppose because of the fact that Morse doesn't know the English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia community as well as an admin should...but the fact is, after 20000 edits on another wiki, it is proof that this is a hardworking user who is nothing but an asset to en, sv and whichever other one's he visits. This user is to be trusted, and even after 1000 or 2000 more edits, this user is trusted to be be the same user that we are voting for here. Basically, I trust Morse. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support. RFA is about trust, if they can be trusted not to abuse the tools on another wikimedia project, I see no reason why we should refuse to extend that trust here. IMHO it wouldn't matter if they had 5 edits here in this case, if they have a legitimate reason to want tools, they should get them. Experience isn't really a big deal here - honest mistakes we can clean up after, malice is a bit harder to fix. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 21:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support (This is the first time I've contributed to an RFA) I really think we need more multi-lingual admins for cases such as
    WP:RFC and eventually being blocked on the English one. Just recently he's been blocked on the German one as well. If someone was an admin on all the languages, the disruption to English and German could have been avoided as soon as he proved problematic on Japanese. In the second instance, the users in question were creating accounts in the other languages just to add their points of view to that specific article. I believe they may have been using Google Translate to do so. A multi-lingual admin could have followed them around reverting their disruption and reminding them to keep disputes that began on the English Wiki on the English Wiki. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  33. Strong Support— per
    international driving license in which you can simply convert adminship from your native Wikipedia; however serious work on other Wikipedias combined with serious work here is a positive indicator (I wonder how many of the opposition even looked at the English edits by this editor before voting to oppose). Adminship is supposedly not a big deal and therefore, since he's trustworthy, he should be able to help out with the work load. Granted, I am biased; I can read his Swedish contributions; he does write well and is a sound contributor who should be brought into the English community. But even if I couldn't read them, what is it you fear—a mad Swedish rampage of deletion and blocking that would make Gustavus Adolphus proud? I've voted support for far weaker RfAs and they've worked out satisfactorily. Come on now folks - Williamborg (Bill) 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  34. Support. Although I was sceptical at first, after reading the Q&A, and many of the support and oppose statements, I offer basic support for the adminship of User:MoRsE (with the stipulation that if adminship requests from admins on other Wikipedias with low edit counts on the English Wikipedia becomes a regular occurrence, they will receive much greater scrutiny and scepticism). Basically, I found the oppose aguments unconvincing. BlankVerse 09:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support On the evidence, will be an asset.--Holdenhurst 12:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) - Duplicate !vote[reply]
  35. Weak Support He'll add a valuable viewpoint as a non-native speaker. Yankee Rajput 14:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. SupportStrong Support. (Changed from Neutral) As an admin on another wikipedia, this user has proven that they are reliable, and I trust them to make good decisions. No one has shown that this user has ever been irresponsible. Any responsible wikipedian can be trusted to understand policy and if they don't understand it, they can just look it up. Even if they don't do that, then they will easily stand to be corrected when someone points out unlikely mistakes. This user may only use the ability sparingly, but that's perfectly fine with me. Update: I didn't read any of the other support comments here before voting support, but after reading them, I changed to strong support, as I agree totally with them (Williamborg, et al). -- RM 17:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that an RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, but I feel strongly that MoRsE should win this, despite a vote hurdle to overcome. The main opposition to this is editing experience here at en. There is otherwise no real major opposition. And this user has lots of editing experience, thus proving trustworthiness. There is no malice in this user, and thus no real reason to oppose, since any errors will not be problematic. This user has experience and the most important policy accross wikipedias is basically the same, especially regarding admin activities. I bet that since this RfA started, the user has already brushed up on important admin related policies like blocking and deletion policy (if the user didn't already know them!). I just think the opposition arguments are weak and many amount to pure editcountitis, IMHO. The user is smart and knowledgeable. He knew enough about en to know that this RfA would be difficult. You wouldn't know all that if you just looked at edit summaries, which I believe isn't a valid oppose anymore because the user has already fixed that aspect. It makes no difference if he used to skip summaries if they are used correctly now. Edit quality matters far more. -- RM 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. This user is an administrator in another wikipedia, and that gives him a lot of knowledge about admin issues. Though he doesn't have as much experience here, he is still a valuable member and I think that he should become an admin. In my opinion, the experience on every wikipedia counts, not only in english. --Esteban F. (contribs) 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Szvest 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. OpposeWeak oppose low edit count (it's just the English Wikipedia that is counted), low summary usage and you can deal with vandals well enough without being an admin. --Alex | talk / review me | 21:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to weak after reading some concerns below. Edit count aside, I still don't believe this user needs adminship. Vandal prevention is only as small part of administrative duties. Way too low edit summary usage suggests he is not too familiar with policies here. Thanks. --Alex | talk / review me | 18:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And which policies are those? I just looked at the Help:Edit_summary page for the first time in my 4 years of being a wikipedian. I wonder how many others here have never looked at it. And wouldn't you know that it's a guideline, not official policy. Apparently it should be changed to official policy, since many opposers consider it to be! -- RM 18:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Sorry, I look at edit counts in the English Wikipedia only, not anywhere else. 300 edits here is not enough to show us that you know the rules, policies, etc. unique to the English Wikipedia. --physicq210 22:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Alex. Michael 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose edit count(254), no edit summaries. no good reason stated. possibly later.-- ExpImptalkcon 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. I wouldn't mind taking another look at a later time, however.UberCryxic 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those whom are opposed to this RfA, really are expressing their opinion through pure stastics and aren't even looking at the actual candidate. You can tell that he is a sysop on another Wiki, has contributed heavily there, and has assisted here. His answers have shown knowledge and interest in Wikipedia. Just read the nomination, and try to understand that we can't categorize everything by pure numbers. Yanksox 02:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And note that even if we could categorize everything by pure numbers, 17,000 edits on the Swedish Wikipedia gives him about as many edits as the first 4 opposers combined. Picaroon9288 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What he does on other wikis is irrelevant here. I'm very sorry to say this, but being an admin on another wiki doesn't automatically confer admin privileges here. If he sticks and continues on with his beneficial edits, then I will support (provided he starts using edit summarries ;) ). --physicq210 04:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The techinical aspect, however, is the same thing that he is alreadly used to. The response to question one infers that he understands what the purpose of the tools is. The main difference really between the Swedish Wikipedia and the English is the two languages. I think he is alreadly well suited enough to bare the tools, and has proved himself there, and has stated his loyality to this 'pedia. To be honest, the whole edit and time factors are used to assess if the candidate actually does have good intentions and is willing to truly help and they're not just here to troll or wield the tools with malintentions. He has shown that he is for real, and is willing to help. Thus, these comments about edit count are null, he knows what should be done. Yanksox 04:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at the candidate and that he doesn't use edit summaries is IMHO a sign, that he is not yet acquainted with how it is done in the English Wikipedia (I don't know anything about the swedish wikipedia). His edit count on the swedish wikipedia qualifies him to be an admin there (he is), but not here. I also believe (my opinion) that one only has 24h each day, and that he should set his priorities on the swedish or the english wikipedia. And, with respect, we (that have his edit count combined) don't request adminship, so the comparision is a weak one. Additionally I don't quite see what he needs admin rights for. But I'm happy to be shown otherwise. Greetings to all, and respect to MoRsE. It is not (in any way) personal. -- ExpImptalkcon 14:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reluctant, qualified Strong Oppose I know MoRsE is a special case, and I respect his contributions elsewhere; but, to grasp English Wikipedia, one needs to edit it. One language wiki is not equivalent to another. I know user has the best intentions, but he does not meet my minimum edit floor (which, at 500 edits, is very low in itself.) Xoloz 05:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, almost no use of edit summaries, and almost no edits here for that matter. Punkmorten 08:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose mainly per concerns raised by Xoloz and others above. Unfortunately, I don't read, write or speak any languages other than English, so I'm not able to review the candidate's contributions to non-English wikis and therefore do not feel I can take those contributions into consideration. Also, the different Wikis have different cultures and without MoRsE establishing a contribution history here it is impossible to know if he will be a good fit to the EN or not. I don't think it is asking to much to request that MoRsE establish a reasonable contribution history here before we decide to give him the extra tools.
    Talk) 09:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Oppose, 254 edits. I remind everyone that this is en, not sv. 17,000 edits is great, but I want some contributions to en before I support. But due to the fact that most of us can't speak Swedish, we are unable to assess most of MoRsE's contributions. En is not sv. Plus, answers to questions show a need for adminship on sv, which he already has. Sorry.  Jorcoga  11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose. Just because you're an admin on sv doesn't mean that you should be one on en. IMO you just can't become an admin with only 330 en.wik edits. Multilingual you may be but I spotted one or two grammar and spelling errors, which probably explains your meager en.wik contributions. No. Moreschi 12:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, being an admin elsewhere shouldn't be justification to be admin on another language wikipedia. If I ever become an admin I don't think I could use that for justification to becoming an admin on say the simple English wikipedia because even though they're one language I have not contributed at all to the other. The edit count on this specific wikipedia is way too low and would have no chance of passing if it was any other editor as well as the lack of edit summaries. –– Lid(Talk) 12:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm not picking on you, Lid, honestly - this is to everyone opposing: I do not believe that the support voters are just saying, "Oooh, he's an admin on another wiki, so let's admin him" - I think the general feeling is that adminship is not a big deal and therefore, since he's trustworthy, he should be able to help out with the work load. Just clarifying - for myself at least. Srose (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I would disagree with that view considering a lot of the votes in Support are on contributions to other Wikipedias. IF we were to start agreeing to RfA people because they were trustworthy and/or because adminship is not a big deal then we would never have opposition votes anymore except in cases of users with ridiculously low edit counts. RfA's are opposed for a plethora of reasons, not simply trustworthiness, and some of those reasons include not using experience elsewhere, even if relevant, to endorse election here. –– Lid(Talk) 02:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm merely expressing my dissatisfaction that you and a lot of other opposers seem to think that those of us in the support column are saying, "Hey! S/he's an admin on another Wikipedia, so that's an automatic yes!" A lot of us, myself included, have looked into this user's contributions on sv and are drawing our conclusions from what we see there. I'm just letting you know that there's more to our support votes than a cursory glance. Srose (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm also expressing dissatisfaction with the posters who are voting for him on the grounds of "don't be jerks" and "adminship isn't a big deal so support". In regards to your second comment I can tell they are a good admin on another wikipedia, but as I stated don't feel using evidence elsewhere should be grounds for here, if I were the admin for the encylopaedia britannica would that be grounds for adminship here? What about the admin of wiktionary? What about if I were the admin of simple English? If we start using information from elsewhere we go around the, usual, guideline of having experience here. –– Lid(Talk) 01:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think the view Srose means to express (one with which I agree) is that the only question that one ought to consider at RfA is whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive or negative. Where a candidate is able properly to discern whereof he does not know and otherwise is possessed of good judgment (as regards which many, as I, think an inference can be made quite readily), such that it's unlikely he'll act to misuse avolitionally the tools, there should be no problem. To the extent that there are areas here in which an admin is not required to analyze a debate so as to find where it is that a consensus lies (as in the execution of plainly uncontested requested moves), there are tasks an admin relatively unfamiliar with practice and policy can do so long as he knows, in the Rumsfeldian formulation, that which he does not know. In this instance, of course, I'm not at all sure that I can draw a conclusion apropos of the user's judgment, especially in view of his ostensible intent to act other-than-deliberately, which is why I oppose, but it should be observed that many of us do believe that one's being trustworthy is, on the whole, a sufficient basis on which he/she should be sysopped. Joe 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that just about summed it up. Srose (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: The edit count for me isn't high enough. I am glad you wish to contribute to the english Wikipedia, but I feel that just because you have an adminship elsewhere it shouldn't automatically give you adminship somewhere else. I think to get adminship you need to be able to prove that you willing to help on this project. You could be a great help to the community but right now I don't think I can say Support due to the amount of work you have done here.  Orfen User Talk 20:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Yes, the candidate seems to have extensive experience on the Swedish wikipedia, but he is applying for adminship on the English wikipedia, and therefore it is experience on the English wikipedia that is important. And 254 edits is not good enough. Cynical 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I fully trust that this user has a great record of contributions to the Swedish wikipedia, but this is the English one, and he does not have sufficient experience here. I think having solid editing and writing experience on the English Wikipedia is an absolute prerequisite for being an admin here. —
    ✎ 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. Oppose, firstly
    iablo 18:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Oppose. More time here, please. Themindset 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - has difficulty distinguishing plausible sources from nonsense, e.g. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs)
    Comment. Don't forget to check the follow-upMoRsE 16:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose for now. Not enough edits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per, among others, Mailer Diablo and Orfen. -- Kicking222 15:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per Mailer Diablo -
    talk/email 18:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Oppose - per Mailer Diablo, adminship for en requires involvement and experience same as on sv --T-rex 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Mailer Diablo. Just because you're one on another wiki doesn't mean you should be one here.The english Wikipedia is incredibly unique. -
    Desk) 22:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. Oppose per Mailer Diablo. Under 600 edits? and only ~50 in the wp mainspace? sorry.. --
    Review 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Oppose based on level of participation on en.--
    Peta 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. Oppose Per Mailer Diablo. Adminship not transferrable from other projects or languages inheirently and not a trophy. Involvement similar to sv should be shown first. Thank you for contributing to the english wikipedia, please continue to do so, and reapply when your contributions to the english are of the same caliber, in which case I will support.
    Kevin_b_er 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Oppose, MoRsE, only scores 14 of my Admin Assesment Scale, which falls below the minimum of 20 points -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 01:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose as per above. He isn't involved enough here and needs some more experience on the English wikipedia (I think I would be better qualified!). He is trustworthy though. -huntersquid <°)))>< Calamari Cove 21:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, MoRsE is probably more qualified than you since he alreadly has experience with the admin tools and what being an admin entails. Admin burnout is a serious issue and we should be getting all qualified candidates while they enter their "wiki-prime," since being an admin is very draining. Yanksox 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. The low edit summary usage - which has been a red area at RFA for many months - tips it for me. While I think that some of the opposers are overestimating the uniqueness of en (ja norms sound very different compared to those of the European langauges), I would expect to see a distribution of edits that show that, even if the user doesn't have in depth knowledge of policies and guidelines, at least have enough exposure to them to know what he or she doesn't know about the little cultural tics on en. With appreciation for this user's substantial contributions to sv, I do not see that level of involvement on en and would rather he demonstrated it before he got the mop rather than after. - BT 22:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Extremely low edit summary usage and experience on Swedish Wikipedia does not equal experience on the English Wikipedia. Sorry.
    es2221 22:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - Sorry you just dont meet my criteria for edit summarys (Less then 15% major and less then 10% minor); Also I do not believe you would require the tools to do what you wish to do. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral; close to Oppose nonething much to say, it's per Matt and Alex. Hello32020 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral You look like a good editor, edit summaries notwithstanding, but the answers to the questions above don't reveal a requirement for admin tools on this Wiki at this time. Article improvements and vandal warnings can be issued by any editor regardless of status. (aeropagitica) 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per above, as through his answers MoRsE has shown he more or less understands process around here, and is apparently a good contributor on svwiki, even if he doesn't have a gazillion enwiki edits. Remember, Wikipedia is a multi-lingual project. However, I'm neutral because edit summary use is really quite necessary, and answers aren't that strong. Picaroon9288 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral MoRsE seems to be a good editor, but needs a few more enwiki edits and better summary use. Try again in a few months and I might support.Grand Slam 7 11:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Grand Slam's comments. Moreover, I feel that this user does not deserve an oppose view as he is a trustworthy editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, good editor, looks like you need more edits is needed on enwiki. --
    T | C) 09:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Neutral Obviously a trustworthy editor, but I'd like to see more experience with the en.wp project before I can support nomination. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 'Neutral. It's great that he intends to pitch in here more (although I hope sv won't suffer for it), but I'm still not sure why he needs admin tools now on en, while he is still not all that active. -- Gwern (contribs) 22:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Leaning towards Weak oppose. The sparse use of edit summaries is only a little alarming. It is good to see that he wants to help out 'the mother ship'- my question is how good is he down in Swedish ? For all we know, he could be the roguest rogue admin there or perhaps even the best admin they have. Unfortunately, there is no witness here to attest his worthiness as admin on the Swedish wikipedia. Jcam 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Leaning towards Support.Changed to Support (See above). I don't care about edit summaries, and he has plenty of experience on other wikipedias. A little more experience here would be helpful however. It seems that the user mainly wants blocking ability and perhaps just to use it sparingly. I don't have a problem with that. -- RM 17:25, 29 September 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/MoRsE&oldid=1146639424"