Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikael Häggström

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

Mikael Häggström[edit]

Final: (12/14/14). Withdrawn by candidate at 05:20, 24 May 2010 -FASTILY (TALK) 06:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Mikael Häggström (talk · contribs) – Here's my edit counts according to toolserver.org. I've previously been reluctant to the responsibility as an admin, but I've noticed that I often have to bother other admins for making edits I currently don't have permission to do. I will still have to discuss with others in controversial changes, but in obvious cases, being an admin will definitely facilitate my editing. It is largely a question of freedom, and an increase of it would definitely spur my will to participate in the project, perhaps even in rather admin-like activities. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to withdraw my RfA. I was unfamiliar with the request process so it became a bad application in the first place. Furthermore, this discussion does not need to get more extensive over a responsibility that, although I do take it seriously, is not that essential for my contributions to the project. As long as all of you that are currently administrators continue to be there for me to perform those occasional edits that I do not have the ability to perform myself, then it will work out acceptably for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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: For now, I think most edits will be mainly relatively uncontroversial article deletions and moves of articles (to redirect pages with multiple edits that thus require adminship).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: You may look at a list of some major contributions of mine and judge for yourself.
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: Well, there have been such incidents in the past, but now I just let such things go. After all, there are always more than 3 million other articles, and even more potential new ones, so there's no use in getting stuck anywhere.
Additional questions from delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~
4. Usually a self nomination is a "here is what great work i have done and why it would be good for all if i were to be an admin". You have a lot of edits to search through. Would you care to expand on your brief answers to more clearly show why you need to and would be a benefit to the project as an admin?
A: Today, for example, I requested admin help for link corrections on the main page: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Update_links_from_synthesized_genome_announcement, and a move of the gene synthesis article: Talk:Gene_synthesis. It is mainly those types of edits that I could do myself with adminship.
5. As someone who uploaded an image of himself and later nominated it for deletion and as someone who primarily contributes to medical topics how do you feel about the recent removal of nudity and WP:NOTCENSORED? Where do see the line that divides in & out of project scope?
A. As said in that discussion, the presence itself of the images in Commons doesn't bother me, and their continued presence in some articles show that they apparently are of use, and I haven't noticed any negative reception of them in a long time, so I do not object to their existence. However, if I had the choice to upload them today, I wouldn't have done so, but now that they are public it's not my personal choice, but rather whether they are scientifically useful or not, and in that regard I do not object to their existence either. I agree with WP:NOTCENSORED. Regarding in & out of project scope, do you want to know what I consider notable or not? And what removal do you refer to? Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked because you have personal experience with images involving nudity. Mr Wales deleted many such images from Commons a couple of weeks ago. [1] As admins can delete images and you sought to have your images deleted i thought to ask what your opinion is on deleting images that may or may not be within the scope of the project. Is there any circumstance in which you would invoke WP:IAR in deleting something? delirious & lost ☯ ~talk to her~ 13:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. Would I use an adminship to delete potentially embarrassing pictures of myself? The answer is no. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from  – Tommy2010
6. You stated in Q1 (what administrative work do you intend to take part in) that you would be involved with "uncontroversial article deletions." Can you elaborate more on that topic? What is considered an "uncontroversial" deletion? What would you say isn't and how would you handle it as a sysop?
A: I admit that I will mainly be dealing with erroneous article creations by myself, such as misspellings. Again, I'm aware of myself that adminship won't make a great change to my Wikipedia editing, and that's probably why it took 20,000 article edits before I considered the good effects to weight more than the negative ones. I'm not excluding, however, the possibility that the mere ability to engage more will give me more interest in doing so as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Skater
7. You said that your work will involve "Uncontroversial" article deletion. Does that include the article side of WP:CSD?
A:

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Edit stats on the talk page.  7  12:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support A long-standing drama-free productive contributor who needs the tools for routine tasks. Looks good. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, long time good editor who will make a fine admin. RayVac220 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet vote indented. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per Mkativerata. Plus his answers are good and admirably concise. The fluency in some other languages may turn out to be helpful too. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support willing to WP:AGF here. Long time editor with a self nom and concise answers. He has a proven track record of article creation and expansion. While this editor does not fit into the mold of our typical candidate I think he will not abuse the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No problem. Candidate seems to be an experienced and good editor. Furthermore, I like his answers here. Those who don't may ask for more specific explanation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I don't see any evidence the candidate would misuse the tools, and to me, that's the only thing that really matters. C628 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Mkativerata. Opposes are not convincing. Actions, or in this case edits, speak louder than words. We have promoted a user who is much less experienced on this wiki than Mikael, and looking over Mikael's edits, I'm sure he would not get into an area he is unfamiliar with without familiarizing himself with it first. There's no reason to think that granting adminship here would be anything but a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I have interacted with Mikael a few times, including awarding him a barnstar. He has lots of experience on wikipedia and brings a lot of medical knowledge. He is trustworthy, calm and reasoned. It is sad to see the opposes. I think the opposers should WP:AGF, take note from people who work in similar environments as Mikael such as myself on WP:MED. His answers are likely because he does not know what is expected from this request for admin process or else because english language is not Mikael's first language. Give a guy a break.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok, but still, great thanks =-) And everyone, feel free to point out any grammatical errors that I make. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone with a (taken from userpage) near-native ability to speak English, running for a sysop on the English Wikipedia can and should provide more elaborate answers; nothing to do with assuming good faith.  – Tommy2010 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I do like an editor with a lot of experience in article building, and that's you, Mikael. Don't see anything untoward in the contributions or on the user talk page. Nothing wrong with concise answers to questions. I think you'll make a good admin (at least I hope so; there are enough rubbish ones about). BigDom 17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Positives (solid contributions and experience) outweigh the negatives (short answers). Actually, the short answers suggest he A) is not an RfA regular, and B) doesn't really care about adminship that much, both of which are good things. AlexiusHoratius 17:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No concerns with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support; answers are short but the user appears reasonable and meets my criteria for adminship: 1) I trust him not to abuse the tools and 2) he knows policy well. I think it's absurd to expect a three-page essay response for every question asked and subsequently oppose only because the candidate fails to do so. If anything, the short answers indicate he doesn't care overly about adminship and doesn't regard it as a "big deal". We need more such people here. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Knows what he's doing, hugely unlikely to screw up, and he's patently here to help rather than power grab. Nick (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Question 3 has a very specific point and you missed it. The idea of an admin giving up a dispute by saying "to hell with it" rather than actually behaving proactively to solve a dispute is very unsettling. I'm seeing a lack of the ability to compromise, the ability to convince people to see things a different way, the ability to keep a cool head in a heated situation, and the ability to give a shit. Şłџğģő 09:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think being denied adminship will make me more dispute-solving. Rather the opposite. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that your dispute-solving quotient is, as you claim, around zero, so what? Şłџğģő 09:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue seems to be that, despite 20.000 article edits, I do not engage very much in situations requiring adminship. Yet, in those (yet relatively few) cases, adminship is of help, resulting in a (yet relatively small) positive effect of adminship. I will still ask for consensus in controversial changes, so I see no negative effect of it to the project. I made this request because I thought that small plus and no minus would still, summed together, be a plus. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per SluggoOne, though they're a little more brusque than I'd have been. Evasive answer to the question that doesn't give me confidence. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 10:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Poor answer to Q2. I can't support those who don't answer the questions properly. Minimac (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose- subject to change I don't doubt your good intentions but I think you should go through some recently over the top successful RFA's and answer your questions in much, much more detail because I do not have high standards but I'm also unconvinced on how being a sysop would really help with what you'd do. You also do not need to b a sysop to move a page... but you have clearly moved pages so I'm confused... Poor answer to Q2. Tommy2010 12:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But I could easily be swayed by enough support from people who have worked with him, including members of WP:MED, since there are lots of edits and little apparent drama. This appears at the moment to be kind of a lone-wolf candidate who's likely to make quite a few mistakes, not because they're not careful and diligent but just because they haven't learned when and how to use the admin tools. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I should first note that you've made some great content contributions to articles and images. It also seems like you have mostly positive interactions with other editors, as is evident on your talk page. However, I agree that your answers above seem almost evasive. Maybe you have a good grasp of policy, but from your answers I can't determine that. I would like to see more recent edits to the Wikipedia: namespace (a good way to demonstrate grasp of policy). Perhaps doing some cleanup work such as patrolling new pages or recent changes or making a strong presence at AfD would make me more comfortable with supporting this candidacy. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Per extreme hand-waving responses. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Unsatisfactory responses to the questions. -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose I don't see adminship as just tools "too make my editing easier" sorry Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 14:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In no way did I mean to dishonor your contributions, they are to be commended. It's just seems (to me)that your heart's not into it. With respect to your contributions and knowledge I am changing my vote to "Neutral" and let the community decide. Your responses are better then your introduction. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He said that this is what they would be. He didn't say that this is all that they would be. Incidentally, it's what they are for me too. And no, it's not all that they are for me. (I only wish that I'd written such no-nonsense and stylishly short answers in my own RFA.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I love how the answers are called "no-nonsense and stylishly short" above me, but they're so short they tell us nothing. I can't support on no real evidence.  f o x  15:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to ask if you feel any important information is missing. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I believe this was meant to be an oppose, not just a comment on an oppose, but I'm not absolutely sure, so I'm noting it here. Here is the original diff. At the time, it looked like an independent vote, but later, the vote above it was struck and it made it seem like a comment. —Soap— 19:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Rightly or wrongly, the Wikipedia community requires extreme civility in an Rfa, a proper 'bedside manner' if you will. Your answers and tone here are all wrong for a Wikipedia administrator, as I and others see it. Since the admin 'mop' is for life, unless it is removed, many are wary of handing it over to those who don't answer policy questions in a forthright and friendly way. I respectfully suggest you withdraw from this Rfa, take the constructive comments to heart, and try again. I honor your contributions to the encyclopedia and believe you could well be an effective admin, but this Rfa has gotten off on the wrong foot. Jusdafax 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Jusdafax, I'm an occasional participant here at RfA, and I know very little about the principles of communication at this forum, for me the principles are the same everywhere. I can't find the slightest incivility or inappropriate tone in candidate's answers. I admit, it is perhaps caused by my different cultural background (?) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit, I've learned by trial and error what are good edits and what are not in Wikipedia, and frankly, I'm not that familiar with guidelines and policies - I only know fragments of it as has been necessary for my contributions at hand. My great interest in Wikipedia is, and will perhaps always be, authoring mainly medicine related articles, not bureaucracy (no offense against it), nor in writing extensive RFAs either for that matter. All I want with an adminship is simply to facilitate further contributions to the articles out there, and whether that justifies adminship or not, that is a question I better leave to what the consensus shows. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand your viewpoint Mikael. Like life itself, Wikipedia is not always fair or even rational. What I am saying is that understanding the gigantic mass of Wikipedia policy and defacto protocol is of the utmost importance to a Wikipedia admin candidate since the appointment is forever. It's my view that an Rfa candidate is held to the highest possible standards. Also, in an Rfa I often observe a 'cascade effect' where the outcome can be decided by a group of early !voters who get a 'landslide' in one direction or another going. To answer the question above yours: by "extreme civility" I mean humility and a willingness to please in answering questions with detail and a possibly a pinch or two of self-effacing humor. I am absolutely willing to agree that a differing cultural background could be a handicap in this regard, as it is logical to assume that the majority of !voters here are from North America. To sum up - I suggest you spend the rest of this year in study (as possible, when you can) of the realm of Wikipedia policy. It is interesting, enlightening, and will enable your second Rfa to more likely wind up in your favor. Best wishes, Jusdafax 17:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neither from nor in North America, a fact that I do not normally think about, let alone consider to be of much importance. But when I read comments such as this, I sense an unbridgeable gap between north Americans and Europeans such as myself. No, wait, I know of north Americans who spent far less than half a year "in study of the realm of Wikipedia policy", who gave fairly short and simple answers to questions in their RfA, avoiding sanctimoniousness, who became admins, and who thereafter didn't screw up. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should only speak for myself, and must confess that after over a year of such study I am just finding out how little I know. Again, the article space contributions by Mikael are stellar. But a lifetime appointment to admin requires a bit more. I refer you to the unanimous vote for Bradjamesbrown, which closed a few hours ago, and see how Brad's qualifications matched with his Rfa demeanor. Brad was hardly sanctimonious, but in my view was genuinely, and humorously gently, humble. Again, not one Wikipedian !voted against. Jusdafax 05:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per answers (or lack thereoff) to the questions.--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (Switch to Neutral)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per meager answers to questions. You give the impression that you really don't need the tools. -FASTILY (TALK) 17:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Unsatisfactory answers in that they offer little information and are rather vague, and per his own statement above: "The main issue seems to be that, despite 20.000 article edits, I do not engage very much in situations requiring adminship. Yet, in those (yet relatively few) cases, adminship is of help, resulting in a (yet relatively small) positive effect of adminship. I will still ask for consensus in controversial changes, so I see no negative effect of it to the project. I made this request because I thought that small plus and no minus would still, summed together, be a plus." If you don't need them a lot, then why subject yourself to an RfA for only the occasional use? —fetch·comms 19:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Oppose: Candidate appears to have slacked off while answering questions. Not engaging very much in situations requiring adminship seems quite frightening; this user obviously has no need for the tools.--moɳo 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't suppose I have any more need for them than he has. Should I resign? That aside, what's frightening about a lack of need for the tools? -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - Great work in the article space, but... I don't feel that you have enough experience in situations that you will be forced into as an admin. You can fix misspelled titles and request speedy deletion on your own articles already, which, as you stated in Q6, would be what you would mostly work with. Vague answers and a severe case of editcountitis makes me really nervous about this one...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Good number of edits, clean block log, but I can't support someone with no vandalism fighting (or at least that's what the most recent three thousand edits tell me). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Here we can see some of what makes choosing admins tough. Quite a few candidates get shot down for having too little content experience, something this candidate certainly has. The neutral above mine shows that some editors are looking for admins with more vandalism experience than this candidate. Is this maddening contradiction? In a word . . . no. Opposes and neutrals for what seem like inconsistent or vague reasons are really the candidate's fault, because the candidate hasn't provided a compelling reason to support. In this case, the small amount of talk page activity doesn't give us much to understand his demeanor, and his responses to the mandatory standard optional questions doesn't give us a hint about his specific admins interests or his knowledge of policy. In general I support unless I see a reason not to, but I'm staying neutral to encourage the candidate to provide more detailed responses to those questions and others which might pop up. Solid answers may turn this RfA around.--~TPW 11:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Not sure about this one, but he does have a lot of featured pictures, in which I suggest he should take care of the File Deletion Department when he does get the tools. Minimac (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Cutting this one off, moving to oppose. Minimac (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - there seems to be no nominations for deletion of anything by others, just a couple of requests to delete own work. There should be more participation in more admin like activities first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm just not quite satisfied with his answers. Not enough to oppose, so I'll just put my !vote here. I will be willing to change, if I feel that the questions are answered sufficiently. Hi878 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per answers to questions. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐)
  6. Neutral Good Luck Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Im not a fan of the answers to the questions. Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I think that had you planned this out ahead of time, you may have been able to pass, and I was tempted to !vote support just on the supposition that you would be a good administrator in the future. But I don't think you're quite ready yet. There is always Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikael Häggström 2, if and when you should decide to try again. So I'm reserving my !vote for then so I can see you when you're at your best. —Soap— 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral In order to pile on that the answers to the questions provided so far give us insufficient insight into you as a potential administrator. Please consider reanswering. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Answers to questions are minimal, bordering on evasive. Someone with the mop needs to be able to explain a particular Admin-level decision clearly and concisely, and candidate hasn't demonstrated that. --Alan (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral- To me this is as neutral as it gets, I have no reason to believe he would abuse the tools, but the answers aren't really answers (If that makes sense)--SKATER Hmm? 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral (Switched from Oppose) your lack of answers alone is not a good reason to oppose. I doubt that you'll abuse the tools but I'd like a buit more effort in the answers and some more work in the admin related areas. You're on your way but I simply cannot support you right now. (feel free to sway me though)--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral: Looks like a very well experienced editor, so no problems with Mikael Häggström himself. But I don't really see any need for the tools - fixing up one's own occasional errors doesn't seem sufficient to me, and I don't see any real explanation of any other planned admin work. -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral He has a lot of solid editorial contributions. However, I'm concerned by the answer to question 3. As an aditor, that's a good attitude to take. but one of the responsibilities of a sysop is to help out when conflicts occur. Can he handle that? Maybe. Might even be good at it, but I have no idea. --SPhilbrickT 01:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mikael_Häggström&oldid=1147982063"