Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Rosoft

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

Mike Rosoft

[edit]

final (42/2/0) ending 10:17 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs) – Seriously, how is Mike Rosoft not an admin? I mean, the guy's been here since June of 2004, and has racked up over 4,800 edits (over 6,800 if you count his deleted edits, which are mostly from sending articles for deletion). He is a tireless vandalism reverter and vandal fighter, and it's time for him to step up to an adminship. BD2412 T 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
It shall be an honor for me to join the team. - Mike Rosoft 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support strong candidate--MONGO 10:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - For great Wikijustice. "insert how was he not an admin cliche here." FCYTravis 11:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - great person for improving Wikipedia and making it a better place. --Thorpe 11:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Clear as crystal support. Nightstallion ✉ 12:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom! (and no, I don't consider this late support; I've transcended the desire to cast the first vote. BD2412 T 13:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, but only after you give up the rights to your name to the great empire. Mike's done a lot of behind-the-scenes work and knows the Wikipedia policies. --Deathphoenix 14:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support If BD2412 says so...and Mike Rosoft is a fine editor in my experience. Banes 14:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. PJM 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. King of All the Franks 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongly oppose all lackeys of Bill Gates Support. Level-headed and constructive user. Radiant_>|< 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Give someone who's been doing lots of cleanup work the official mop and bucket! howcheng {chat} 18:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support Excellent work. --Jaranda wat's sup 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looks very good. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. support he is a really good person Yuckfoo 21:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Happy to support fine contributor. Xoloz 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Very strong support. Dedicated, active for long time, help with unthankful task of keeping all the garbage out. Never saw anything wrong with his edits. I'd say I trust him as much as I would trust myself ;-) Pavel Vozenilek 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. support, despite username :) Grutness...wha? 00:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, of course. I've seen Mike Rosoft around and he's a great guy. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. DarthVader 09:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Knows the rules; comments seem honest: will look good with the mop! jnothman talk 12:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support He not one al.. oh it's been said... --Alf melmac 17:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, per BD2412. Mike seems like he would get a lot of good use out of deletion and rollback tools, and with a year and a half of experience here, I think he's more than ready. (I had also thought he had already become an admin; I've seen him around a lot.) --Idont Havaname 20:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, Mike should have been made an admin months ago. Thryduulf 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. support a) need more people deleting copyvios b) this will help him do his stuff c) it shouldn't be such a big deal. Mozzerati 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Would make an excellent admin. Sango123 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - good candidate. Martin 15:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good contributor, with significant edits. Helps revert vandalism. --Terence Ong Talk 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Obviously an editor with enough experience. --Fire Star 07:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I Can't Believe You're Not Sysop! Sceptre (Talk) 13:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as per others. Yeltensic42.618 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support vandal fighters are our friends --rogerd 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --NaconKantari 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Productive user who will be a good ally for Wikipedia. Plenty of experience. Thank you for being receptive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Edit history indicates that he will likely use the tools well. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support --Terence Ong Talk 04:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 05:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Phaedriel 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Please set/enable your email id and let me know. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Administrators, especially those interested in fighting vandals, should have their e-mail address enabled. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Moved to support as e-mail has been enabled. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he can easily change that. Yeltensic42.618 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He can, but he refused. I would gladly change my vote if he reconsiders. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But he gives his e-mail address directly on his userpage. In that case, why does it matter? Yeltensic42.618 05:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comments at User talk:Mike Rosoft. This discussion may be better continued on our talk pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Support; seems to be a good guy, and supported me in a prior dispute. Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per the e-mail thing. I'd like to see all admins have their e-mail address enabled. Please let me know if you do this, and I'll change my vote back. Ral315 (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Now that the voting is about to end, I would like to thank all users who voted for me. To those who opposed me because I didn't have receiving e-mails from other users enabled, I would like to inform you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Yes, I have decided to enable it in the end, but it wasn't because of your demands, or because the admin guide recommends it. It was because I have decided so in order to allow users who don't have an e-mail account of their own or do not wish to use it for whatever reason to contact me. A simple request on my talk page with an explanation (which neither of the three users did) would have been much more effective than demands brought to the voting. It's a part of my nature; when faced with requests like "do it my way, or else", the only answer I will give is: "no". (By the way, you may have noticed that I have categorized myself as of a "chaotic good" alignment. I was being sincere on that part.) - Mike Rosoft 23:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit confused—I thought that I did leave a simple request on your talk page with an explanation. Nor do I see anyone making demands of you, although we did make requests. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe he is quite rightly referring to the "oppose" vote, conditioned on setting the email address. I agree - I find it rude for voters to make oppose votes based on such a condition (especially when they take days to retract those votes once the desired condition is met, which I've seen happen many times). The polite thing to do is to make a comment on the user's talk page or here in the comment section without first casting a vote that basically says "oppose until you do as I say". BD2412 T 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can understand that (perhaps people should initially vote neutral or just leave a comment), but at the time I voted, he had already refused Nichalp's request to enable his e-mail settings, basically saying "You can't tell me what to do". Nor does it explain the statement about no one leaving a request on his talk page with an explanation. Mike is a great user and I still support his candidacy, but I find this behavior rather bizarre. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you have to look at the whole sequence of events - Nichalp voted oppose: [1]; then Mike left a seemingly confused reply on Nichalp's talk indicating that Mike's email was posted on his user page [2]; to which Nichalp responded in what could be perceived as a rather bossy tone [3]; prompting Mike to respond obstinately [4]. This is as much Nichalp's fault as Mike's because Nichalp chooses to go the route of oppose first, discuss later. That's his right, but I think there are better ways this frequently recurring situation could be handled. BD2412 T 05:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand that (although I don't think anyone is at fault), but that has nothing to do with my objections to the statments that I made demands or didn't leave a request on his talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You didn't make demands (I am sorry if I made an impression of saying that you did), but I don't think you have given a valid reason either. You have stated that you feel that I should enable the e-mails - well, opinion noted. I have been reminded (and have verified) that a user who didn't provide an e-mail address cannot mail others. In that case, I am not sure why I leave it enbled. Perhaps for somebody who doesn't want to reveal his e-mail address. Or perhaps has registered a disposeable account and doesn't have another. Or something... - Mike Rosoft 09:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
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.
Well I guess I am going to do what I did in the past (proof-reading and vandalism-fighting; see below). I am not very good as a writer. - Mike Rosoft 10:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
During the past hour or so I have checked some of my contributions. This allowed me to do about ten more updates to the pages, and I still don't know the answer. The trouble is that I am more a proof-reader than an original contributor; most of my edits consist of correction of grammar and spelling (etc.), disambiguation, and fixing of vandalism. I could mention the antineutron article I have created, or my contribution to Capital punishment. - Mike Rosoft 00:06, 23 December 2005 (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.
Recently, there was an editing dispute over the article on José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. I noticed that User:Zapatancas has made a large revert, with an editing summary of "Corrected some grammar mistakes". I have reverted the edit, believing that it was made in bad faith; later, I noticed that the version I reverted the article to was broken (with consistent use of "president" for "prime minister", and inconsistent use of British and American English) and had to revert myself. - Mike Rosoft 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the other part of the question: I don't think other users caused me stress. But I may have unintentionally caused stress to a couple of users by being too harsh to them. How did I deal with it? You can find out yourself; check my edits on user talk pages and look for words like "apologized" or "sorry". And how am I going to deal with it in the future? Just like anybody else; everybody makes mistakes. But a mistake is an opportunity to learn from it and not to repeat it in the future. - Mike Rosoft 10:25, 23 December 2005 (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/Mike_Rosoft&oldid=1080982378"