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.
BD2412T20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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 Vozenilek00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 Havaname20:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 Rosoft23:10, 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 Seekerদ04:41, 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".
BD2412T04:45, 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 Seekerদ05:02, 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.
BD2412T05:12, 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 Seekerদ05:28, 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 Rosoft09:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
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 Rosoft10:25, 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 Rosoft00:06, 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 Rosoft21:01, 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 Rosoft10:25, 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.
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.
BD2412T20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
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 Vozenilek00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 Havaname20:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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 Rosoft23:10, 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 Seekerদ04:41, 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".
BD2412T04:45, 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 Seekerদ05:02, 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.
BD2412T05:12, 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 Seekerদ05:28, 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 Rosoft09:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
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 Rosoft10:25, 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 Rosoft00:06, 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 Rosoft21:01, 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 Rosoft10:25, 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.