Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MPF

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

MPF

final (74/1/1) ending 21:15 31 January 2006 (UTC)

MPF (talk · contribs) – Recently celebrating his two-year anniversary as a registered member of Wikipedia, Michael Frankis (MPF) has been a prolific contributor to the project since January 2004, managing to accrue over 25-thousand edits since he joined. [1] MPF is an active contributor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, with a special interest in Pinophyta, and plants and animals in general. He also makes exceptional use of edit summaries, assists with corrections at Wikipedia:External peer review, helps revert spam and vandalism where needed, and would undoubtedly make fine use of the admin tools. Please join me in support of this nomination. Hall Monitor 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Having resisted becoming an admin for some time for various reasons, I've finally decided to succumb to the idea, assuming the vote is in favour - MPF 22:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as per nominator. Hall Monitor 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Pollinator 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Michael is unfailingly helpful, kind, generous with his time and frequently works with other editors in a very positive manner. Moreover, he is an expert on plants; an invaluable resource for those of us that work in that area. He does his share of vandalism reversion, moves articles, etc., and will make good use of admin tools. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per nom. -lethe talk 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 22:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support really nice guy who's always there to help.  ALKIVAR™ 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Zocky | picture popups 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nominator. -- Eddie 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I'm glad he's nominated at last. - Darwinek 00:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, I've seen nothing but good contributions from him - and I absolutely trust the judgement of the nominator and many of the names above. – Phædriel ♥ tell me 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Edit history is good and I think he will make a good admin.--Dakota ~ ε 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 01:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Supportissimo -- Megamix? 01:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support you betcha--MONGO 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support nice guy - plenty of experience. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Ugur Basak 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support 25,000 edits wow --Jaranda wat's sup 03:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support -- I went through a bunch of his edits looking for fights, and liked, for example, the way he went about things here. Chick Bowen 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, per nom, very impressive. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - This excellent editor has my full support JoJan 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support — 25.000 edits! holy smokes! —akghetto talk 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, definitely. Proto t c 09:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Latinus 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, resistance is futile. feydey 10:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Terence Ong 11:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, looks OK. JIP | Talk 13:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, I like what I see, keep it up! --Zsinj 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, very experienced user. --Deathphoenix 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, for your tireless contribution. Berton 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, a ton of good contributions, I liked the answers to the questions, would probably make a great admin. - Bobet 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support (and about time!) Guettarda 16:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, very courtious to this newby. Zaui 17:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 17:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: He deserves it and will be a great help to the project. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Impressive wiki-career, obviously trustworthy. Xoloz 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. support that is a lot of edits Yuckfoo 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Was due for this a long time ago. -Colin Kimbrell 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Twenty-five thousand edits--did I read that right? What are we waiting for? Jonathunder 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - just a few edits then. Plenty of experience... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Speedy promote and delist. Silensor 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. King of All the Franks 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Good edits... Although I'm not sure why he wanted me practical joke to say "new massages"? No hard feelings you meany you.... : )... Spawn Man 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. great!Pschemp | Talk 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support I see no reason why he should not be an admin. He's an editor, and he edits, and does a damn fine job. He doesn't try to run the world, and perhaps that's a good thing. Improves practially everything he touches. --DanielCD 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, good track record. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 00:33Z
  50. Support good editor, should be admin --rogerd 03:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Certainly a very pleasant guy, who's just waiting for someone to hand him a mop. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support--Bling-chav 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Excellent improvements to all plant articles, has lots of expertise. --Schzmo 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Most definitely. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Mushroom 10:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support: --Bhadani 15:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Everything looks in order here, give him the mop! xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Gdr 21:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, good answers to questions. Ashibaka tock 01:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support very helpful Wikipedian. --HappyCamper 05:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support It is high time he had the mop. Banez 07:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. --Interiot 10:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Every possible reason to support. Alai 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Yes, he deserves the promotion. NoSeptember talk 12:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Strong, constant editor. Mihai -talk 15:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Huge contributions in the tree of life project. Very helpful user too. Having admin status will be a significant help to this project. David D. (Talk) 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. 25,000 contribs says a lot - a lot more than a few picky comments. --Jay(Reply) 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Excellent contributions and experience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support excellent editor; give him the tools. -- DS1953 talk 05:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. What are we waiting for?!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Michael is unfailingly helpful, kind, generous with his time and frequently works with other editors in a very positive manner. Moreover, he is an expert on plants; an invaluable resource for those of us that work in that area. He does his share of vandalism reversion, moves articles, etc., and will make good use of admin tools. --Username132 17:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Indeed, yes! Extremely valuable here on Wikipedia. --Young XenoNeon (converse) 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Guess what? Not everybody can love you. I'm one of them. No support whatsoever. Thistheman 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reason, or did you vote oppose just because you could? JIP | Talk 13:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well considering he's got about 4 edits in the main namespace and a few of the articles he's contributed to have been deleted (seemingly for being irrelevant), I don't think there's any note of seriousness at all in this vote. He frequently adds "Hello" messages on people's talk pages for no reason and changes people's User pages. Bit random, really. Deskana (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like you to elaborate on the "note of seriousness" comment. Add to that what differentiates this vote from 95% of the others that pass through here that makes it not "serious". --DanielCD 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll gladly elaborate... known proven trolls (WoW, NC Vandal, etc...), users repeatedly blocked (or currently under block), and anonymous users get their votes discounted. As said user is currently serving a block for repeat vandalism (or was last I checked) his vote will not be counted as an oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop jumping to conclusions. And my vote better be counted, else I will know that Wikipedia is a dictatorship. Thistheman 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not wanting to say I agree with any one side, but didn't we all give User:Boothy443 hell because he voted oppose on most RFA's, even though he did actually vote support on a couple of RFAs?... Spawn Man 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The 25,000 edits are exactly what make MPF a bad candidate for the adminship. There are too many edits for this user to become an administrator because Wikipedia could end up being used for all the wrong reasons. I would also prefer an elaboration to the answers for questions 1 and 3, before I am to lay off this case. Thistheman 00:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I'm sorry, I misread Deskana's comment as Thistheman responding to JIP. I'm really sorry to have caused this; I thought he was saying the vote for MPF was not serious. Crap, M'i bad. --DanielCD 01:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Thistheman - not quite sure what your concerns are, but don't hesitate to ask more questions if you want to. A lot of my contribs are minor edits, correcting typos and formatting, adding interwikis, and suchlike; I guess I could reasonably be accused of inefficiency in my editing in not using the 'preview' enough and having to return to correct formatting errors that only show up obviously on the saved page (e.g. this forgetting to fix the pic size! which I had to go back to and add '240px'). On q.1, it isn't too easy to know what's going to happen in the future! (one reason why I declined offers of adminship in the past is through not being too sure what I could/would do, so your query is reasonable). Any requests or concerns, do please say. I'll try to elaborate a bit on q.3 tomorrow. - MPF 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. neutral. I have seen more unpalatable actions by this wikipedian than I care to remember. In the botany parts of Wikipedia there is an uncomfortable degree of error which is prevented from being fixed by him. However, I suppose that making him an administrator is not likely to make things all that much worse; and I can hope that this new status will lead to his taking the Wikipedia policy guidelines more seriously. Brya 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 03:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See information about MPF's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.
  • Mathbot's original edit summary usage (0% based on 1 edit was cleary wrong), and I think it was a server problem and not a bot problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Don't get me wrong, he sounds great and I'm sure I'd support -- I'm just not gonna research him and vote, because he's sailing through. My comment is, it almost seems a shame to make someone with 25,000 edits and a subject area expertise have to be an admin and do cleanup work... I hope it doesn't interfere with his article work... I wish there was some rank such as "senior editor" for editors like this... Herostratus 11:44, 31 January 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Very little until I've got myself familiar with the 'how to' of it; once I've got the hang of it, then one thing I've noticed is the frequently very long backlogs of dealing with page copyvios, deletions and moves - that's something I'd feel happy with helping out with. Maybe I'll delve into more later. - MPF 22:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. No particular single article, but overall I'm quite pleased with keeping the articles in Category:Conifers and its subcategories in decent order, and various other plant articles, particularly trees and shrubs. - MPF 22:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. A few, inevitably; mostly they've been sorted fairly easily (and often the article benefits from the extra research resulting). Because of the stress, one or two conflicts I've walked away from even where I felt my case was good. - MPF 22:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 03:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. When would you use {{test3}}/{{test4}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. I'd take a look at their talk page and see what had already been posted recently; if there was a recent test2 posted and subsequent vandalism was continuing, I'd use a test3, and so on one up the scale (posting a test3 when someone else has already posted a test4 looks silly, like a paper tiger) - MPF 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about {{bv}}? (I've already voted support, so you don't have to answer this for me) --Deathphoenix 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably very sparingly - maybe if someone added very unpleasant vandalism, such as racist abuse - MPF 15:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. At least attempt to engage discussion on talk pages; if that doesn't work, wait a few days and try to sort things out later - MPF 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. Not being much of a humanities person, I'd tend to use the AFD as I've generally no idea whether a person or group is notable or not. If it was a page about an unremarkable plant (e.g. a minor cultivar of a better-known species), I'd generally merge it into the parent taxon's article and leave the page as a redirect. - MPF 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
A. Generally, dealing with plants, that means treating it from a global perspective with precedence given to the plant's native area (e.g. if a page has been written about a plant native to China that is grown as a garden plant in Britain or the USA, and the text concentrates on the latter to the exclusion of the former, I'll edit it to give precedence to the plant's place in China and treat its cultivation lower down and with lower significance - MPF 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
A. Not too many, I guess, or I'd not be staying here. Perhaps the need to check everything frequently for newly added vandalism or POV bias, but if that was always blocked, so too would good progress be blocked. A couple of minor niggles I'd like to see changed if possible, (1) that 'Related changes' can only go back 30 days (it would be nice to have say, 60 days or 100 days), and (2) the sexism implicit in the wiki term 'sisterlinks' (why not 'brotherlinks'?) - surely a gender-neutral term would be easy to find? - MPF 12:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another one would be for categories to display more than 200 entries at a go, nice if this could be raised to say 400 or 500 - MPF 12:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MPF&oldid=1146616433"