Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:10, 16 April 2009

Markhurd

Voice your opinion (talk page) (11/13/6); Scheduled to end 17:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Markhurd (talk · contribs) – I nominate myself for the admin bit, mostly because I've been around long enough, I ought to do my part in solving the bigger (and smaller) issues. Mark Hurd (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to continue my various activities and consider using the admin tools when possible. Specifically, I'm more likely to use admin rights fighting vandalism than deleting things due to successful XfDs, but I expect I will continue to browse and help where/when I can.

I have a real job that means my Wiki time is intermittant, though I am almost always at the computer so I can often follow issues and replies quickly, if I'm involved at all.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: Maintenance, copyedits and vandal fighting; it helps first impressions of Misplaced Pages and increases the likelihood of further good edits and the obviousness of future vandalism.

I fixed most of the (easily determinable) ambiguous uses of Aurora and delta -- these are examples that are used in Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

I am a computer programmer with a maths science degree and a member of Mensa (Australia). Nevertheless, I haven't found much to add to articles that hasn't already been added or needs references I don't have at hand.

I am also a CTO and Director of a publically-listed Australian company that is probably notable, but I'm not adding the article...

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: No. If I got into that situation I would wait a day (or at least overnight) before continuing to respond. If I needed advice or couldn't solve the other user's problem I would contact another admins.

(added to response after opposition due to the alleged "connotation that it must always be the other person with a problem")

If I was at fault I doubt I would get into a stressful situation -- I'd normally back down (possibly too easily) or as I said, sleep on it. If I can't admit I was at fault, that's where I'd need to get a third party opinion.

Additional questions from Carnildo

4. What's your view of Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules?

A: (Even before rereading WP:IAR?) I see IAR as a natural implication/requirement if you allow good faith bold edits. Everything on Misplaced Pages can be undone, most of it easily so. However, I wouldn't invoke IAR as my only reason for doing something.

Just emphasising my view on the policy IAR itself: It must exist if WP:BOLD and WP:AGF do.

General comments

• Links for Markhurd: Markhurd (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Markhurd can be found here.
• Promote Markhurd (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Markhurd before commenting.

Discussion

• For those who prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Nearly six years on the project, which is pretty amazing. Personally, I think 2200 edits is plenty, and I've seen RfAs pass with less than that. 35 AIV reports, showing a good effort in the anti-vandal category and a knowledge of the blocking policy, etc. Not the most active editor I've ever seen on an average edits per day basis, but I see nothing that concerns me or suggests possible misuse of the tools. Recently joined the Article Rescue Squadron which is nice to see, and he managed to save an article, showing policy knowledge. In short, there are no red flags here and I believe it will be a net positive for the project. Cool3 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Throwback Jersey Suppport I see where Markhurd is coming from on this one. He's been here forever, but works at a pretty low key level. Essentially, an old school editor who meets the old school standards of who can be an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support purely to counteract the trivial "oppose" over a perfectly inoffensive userbox.—S Marshall /_Cont 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   For the record, I like yours well enough. Keepscases (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't like the mixing of messages of the atomic icon. Yes I support the scientific method, but I don't believe in any god. You can't tell in the logo, but it's a lower case g :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

4. One of the old boys, will do well, if he was editing in 2003, he will most certainly be here to contribute to the project, not run around with Huggle or VandalProof and run up a huge edit count/ego* (*Delete as applicable). No editor that has been around for six years should be told to withdraw their RfA by some arrogant little twit either. Nick (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Just another arrogant little twit here (assuming that term now applies to all editors that haven't been here long enough to be excluded from your elitism), asking you to retract your personal attack. — neuro 21:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Arrogant twits represent! FlyingToaster 23:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Support Clean block log and enough edits to have sailed through easily in the days when RFA was working properly. Looking at your contributions I like the mix of gnomish improvements and vandalfighting, though I would have preferred to see a bit more use of the templates at wp:WARN to warn vandals. Yes there is a temptation for like myself who've been here far less time but racked up rather more edits to oppose out of editcountitis; but lets ask ourselves is this chap committed, civil, clueful, trustworthy and experienced? Obviously yes and therefore has my support. ϢereSpielChequers 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   How have you determined I haven't used user warning templates enough? I have not bothered warning some IP vandals, and there aren't that many logged in vanadals; mostly vandal-only accounts and they definitely get uw- templates on their user page and nominations at AIV. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Yes, definitely. Markhurd has been around for six years now, and clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. He/she has accumulated over 2,000 edits manually, and is here to build an encyclopedia. What's not to like? Even if they're not the most active editor, providing this user with the tools will be a net benefit to Misplaced Pages. Do I trust Markhurd to handle the tools responsibly? Yes. –Juliancolton |  22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Clearly has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, and very unlikely to go mental at this point. I'd have no problem giving this user access to admin tools, the distinct lack of drama is nice and the contributions speak of someone who's mature and competent. ~ mazca 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Per above. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Absolutely, per Cool3 and Nick. An editor with six years' experience is being told that he doesn't have enough experience and should withdraw? That boggles my mind. An editor that's been around for that long obviously knows what the project's about, clearly isn't going to break anything, and has more than enough tenure to be trusted with some extra buttons. GlassCobra 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support 6 years is plenty of experience, regardless of the edit count. I don't see any indication that this user will misuse or abuse the tools. Kevin (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support: Seems to know his way around the place, doesn't seem like the sort to delete the main page. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

    It's technically impossible to delete the main page now, but meh. –Juliancolton |  01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

13. Support. Hell yes. Tan | 39 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Impressive duration of service. WikiGnome that does tasks that keep the encyclopedia running smoothly.  Marlith (Talk)  02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Userbox showing "GOD" crossed out is not indicative of a friendly and tolerant user. Keepscases (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   You are opposing him for being an atheist? Hiberniantears (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   No, I am opposing him for advertising it in a disrespectful manner. Keepscases (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   What if he had "Satan" with an X through it? Or Abortion with an X? Or gay marriage? I am a staunch Catholic, however I don't think that one's views on creationism (or anything that is irrelevant to the project) is relevant to an RfA.--It's me...Sallicio! 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

   As a pastor, I can say that I take no offense in the userbox in question. I would respectfully ask that we focus on Markhurd's editorial contributions and his interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy in judging him. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

2. No doubt I will be accused of "editcountitis", but I really don't think that 2,272 total edits to 1,413 articles, with no article being edited more than 10 times, is sufficient experience of what this project is supposed to be about. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose I commend you for your consistent contributions to articles over a very long period of time. However, I oppose this request for several reasons. First, your article work has not been assessed by other users, as far as I can tell. Your contributions have been spread out over so many articles that I cannot determine if you are familiar with any of our content guidelines. I recommend focusing on one article and submitting it at WP:GAN and/or WP:FAC. Second, you have participated in very few discussions, which makes it difficult to tell if you will be able to keep a level head in the conflicts you will eventually get into through the use of admin tools. Third, you have said you want to close XfDs, but I don't see much experience with complex cases in this area. I think you should work on the areas I described above, and file another request in a few months. Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I misread the answer to question 1, sorry. Wronkiew (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Self nom statement comes off as arrogant.--Giants27 /C 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   As I'm not planning to vote in this RfA, and because this rationale has attracted at least one person agreeing with it, can I ask in what way it came across as "arrogant"? It seemed short, yes, but to me, not really arrogant. Can you please clarify? Thanks. Acalamari 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Because saying that, "I nominate myself for the admin bit, mostly because I've been around long enough", sounds like he believes he should have just because he's been here for a while which is arrogant.--Giants27 /C 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think arrogance was implied. I think he was trying to say that he's been around long enough that he should be doing more for the project (actually being humble, "...I've been around long enough, I ought to do my part...")--It's me...Sallicio! 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose Per Giant27. Suggest closure, as this RFA is not likely to pass. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I would like to comment on my oppostion v!ote. This may not make sense, but to me, saying " I nominate myself for the admin bit, mostly because I've been around long enough." This to me means that because he has been here a while, (over 5 years), he is entitled.America69 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   That's not what Mark said, you're leaving out the last part of the sentence!
   FWIW, it didn't come over as arrogant to me at all, I read it as "I've been here long enough to know my way around so that I can help and be trusted with the admin issues". --Amalthea 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Then let me add to my oppose. Markhurd has been here for almost 6 years. His editcount is roughly in the 2000's. In a 6 year period and 2000 edits, that to me is too low. America69 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Insufficient article writing experience, insufficient experience in admin areas and insufficient communication with other editors for me to support (i.e. you're a gnome). May support in a few months time when you have more experience (I mean experience through editing, not time).--Patton 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Tentative oppose - I concur that the self-nom comes across as being arrogant -- but my main worry is the answer to Q3. I dislike the connotation that it must always be the other person with a problem, and the vagueness of the response. The former issue is a problem that hits home to me personally, and the latter for me may be some sort of subconscious inference, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Either way, I am mostly opposing lack of provided evidence of relevant experience. — neuro 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Needs much more experience and knowledge of policies. -download | sign! 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Other than WP:AIV, the most edits he has to any project page or project talk page is 4 ... less than one per year. Maybe he's a big reader and doesn't write much, but I need more evidence of connection to Misplaced Pages. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose He doesn't seem to have much experience in article building or the Misplaced Pages namespace; it's not enough to convince me he'd use the tools correctly. Timmeh! 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

    But since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, I think it would be only reasonable to AGF. –Juliancolton |  22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hmm...I'd still like to see that he knows his stuff in the admin-related areas before supporting. I'd support another attempt in a few months after he's showed he can be trusted. Timmeh! 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

    @Julian - Assuming good faith is irrelevant here — faith does not come into it, trust of judgment does. — neuro 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Per neuro mostly. The answer to Q3 is worrying... waiting a day isn't really sufficient to solve all problems. In fact, waiting rather than taking leadership to resolve an issue quickly can do more harm than good. I'm also a bit concerned at how far the edits have been spread out. 2,272 edits I think is plenty to apply for adminship, but that's over six years and spread very thin. This plus not a lot of experience in admin areas gives me some pause for concern, I'm afraid. If your involvement goes up a bit, I don't see why you wouldn't pass in the future. FlyingToaster 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose, mainly per Dank55 (talk · contribs), Timmeh (talk · contribs), Patton123 (talk · contribs), and Wronkiew (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose due to lack of experience, as outlined above. Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

    I know, I participated in the huge threads, but damn I'm tired of this bullshit. Tan | 39 03:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm not so sure about this. Fatuorum's comments above are rather convincing: Markhurd doesn't have a lot of edits. Normally, this is not a good reason for saying no, but look at it this way: this user has been here since 2003. Divide 2272 edits by 6 years and we get about 380 edits per year. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like Markhurd has been that involved with the project. He has preformed almost no page moves (see), and after 6 years, still has a very small talk page. The fact that he's an atheist doesn't matter to me, honestly. I don't see any real indication that he needs the tools— his tasks don't seem to require them; they deal with different types of editing— but I can trust him. So, I'm undecided. The Earwig 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral I personally think that the current RfA standards are far too high, so I can't oppose your nomination; however, I am a bit hesitant to support, per the above neutral and opposes. Sorry, tempodivalse  18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral I believe Markhurd has good intentions and done some great work for the project. However, I find the dearth of experience a bit unsettling. Perhaps in a few months and more experience, I would be happy to support. Sorry, Fastily (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Leaning toward support: I agree, too, that the RfA standards have risen to astronomical levels per this RfA from March of 2004. His edit count is minimally concerning to me. However, the lackluster answers are keeping me from a full support. But I am quite certain that the server won't fail and he won't abuse the tools if he were to make it. On the fence but knees pointing toward support.--It's me...Sallicio! 01:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral Per earwig. The lack of activity on the talk page, among other things, keeps me from a support. We need administrators that have experience interacting in the community. PerfectProposal 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral An abnormally low edit count for an editor with six years of experience is the only thing that prevents me from offering support. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)