GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/M.mendel

=== M.mendel (talk &bull; contribs &bull; edit count &bull; RFA page) ===

I think that he has shown many qualities that a good admin should have. He has shown a great interest in bettering this wiki and putting it back "on top". I think that having mendel as an admin could only turn out great! -- Shadowphoenix  18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am flattered to be nominated here, after a mere 2 3 months on the wiki, and my share of raising controversial issues.

However, this RfA catches me unprepared; maybe it comes too early. Today I am still in shock over seeing the wiki through the default skin, and was thinking of announcing that I would refuse to edit any pages that have ads in the page body (banners top and bottom I don't mind, as long as they don't come with a fake header - as the bottom ad currently does -, and a sidebar ad would be ok even if the sidebar has to expand slightly to 300px) because I don't want my work presented that way.

Besides that, I probably could support myself only with reservations: a mere 2 months on the wiki, holding minority opinions on certain issues (how much that'd affect my adminning is anyone's guess), likely to use "undelete" more often than "delete".

I hope you can understand that, on the whole, I wouldn't mind if the RfA was shelved for another month.

A month has come and gone, I'm still here. So I guess that's good. Yes, I would like to be an admin. It helps with "power editing": editing Mediawiki namespace, being able to move more than 2 pages at a time, being able to delete my typos and false starts myself is going to be directly helpful.

There remains the issue about banning. As you all know, I am the voice of moderation here, believing that in the long run, mediation and pushing for a compromise are going to be more effective than wielding the banstick. I've been discussing this for as long as I've been a registered user on this wiki, and I'm likely to keep raising these issues whenever they come up, whether I'm promoted or not. Is there compromise in sight? Maybe.

--◄mendel► 06:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC), amended 06:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss the candidate's qualifications on the talkpage, and consolidate the summaries below:

Supporting arguments

 * Diplomacy/personable
 * Knowledgeable in technical stuff
 * A mover-shaker
 * Takes much effort to explain himself
 * Objective in dealing with counter-arguments
 * Bold for the betterment of the wiki, voice for the under-represented

Opposing arguments

 * Use of abrasive examples to make his case
 * Potential of butting heads with some other admins on a too-frequent basis?
 * Does not seem to match the admin criteria Mendel self-proposed?
 * Blows things out of proportion, making issues out of non-issues
 * Taking AGF too far?