Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Mdd

EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating Mdd as a prospective admin. This user has made a large number of good contributions to the site and even better, has demonstrated a willingness to learn and progress. I expect that this would be a fine addition to our admittedly small team of admins. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Acceptance: Thanks UDScott, I hereby accept your nomination. -- Mdd (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support · I believe Mdd will make an exemplary admin. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 18:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I have often noted his edits.--Abramsky (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I think he will be a great admin. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: Checked their edits, likely to do a good job. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This user has a long history of problems on both nl.wikipedia and nl.wikiquote, where he showed an extreme unwillingness to even consider other opinions, and tried to steer both into his very specific and unique direction. On nl.wikipedia this even led to an ArbCom procedure. While I know that each project is independent and problems on one shouldn't be exported to other projects, I think the kind of history involved here is such that a strong warning is warranted. An early example of driving his own unique direction is the fact that he started to created completely unneeded redirect pages [Lastname, Firstname]. While I do agree that most of his other contributions here have been valuable, I think it is too early to give him the Admin bit. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 05:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links for your claims? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whaledad is clearly misinformed about these redirects on Wikiquote, see here, and misinforms us by presenting his opinion as facts. -- Mdd (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Mdd, actually you are misinformed:
 * Nobody will ever use "Byron, Lord" when looking for "Lord Byron"
 * Creating meaningless redirects does not improve an article's search engine results (as search engines have for a long time recognized contentless link pages as not of value for search-results ranking)
 * More importantly: since a couple of months Google (and I suspect the other search engines have followed or will follow shortly) actually "deducts points" for contentless link pages in order to thwart spammer activity. While a single Last,First redirect page will have only a slight effect on the search result listing of the associated First-Last page, hundreds of different Last,First page, all (in their left nav bar) linking to our Main Page, Community Portal, Village Pump, etc will have a detrimental effect on the search results of those pages, as the negative influence is not a linear factor (measured against positive links) but as the number of neg links grows the negative value grows exponentially. Before you talk about search results listings, I suggest you read up on "Search Engine Optimization" (or mostly referred to as SEO). A whole new world will open up for you. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 14:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whaledad, you are completely missing the point. But first you should put these arguments where they belong, at Votes for deletion/Rawls, John. You are misinformed that this is an example of driving his own unique direction: That link explains, that User:BD2412 alone created over 700 of these "last-name-first redirect" since Jan 2008... and I followed that example. -- Mdd (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you gentlemen would like to discuss the pros and cons of this type of redirect then I suggest Votes for deletion/Foucault, Michel is a better place to do so. Whatever their merits, Mdd is not "driving his own unique direction" by creating last-name-first redirects, as there is ample and longstanding precedent for them on this wiki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is Mdd's block log on nl.wikipedia:
 * Here's is a link to the nl.wikipedia ArbCom case concerning Mdd:, much additional informnation and associated diffs can also be found on the associated talk page:
 * Here are some discussion surrounding MDD issues on nl.wikiquote: (Discussion surrounding two main issues: Mdd creating WQ articles that are actually Wikipedia articles in the for of quotes; and Mdd's articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text to do so (he actually quoted other encyclopedias in his wikiquote articles. The end results was a list of hundreds of articles that needed to be checked and corrected or removed:  (de red links aare MDD's articles that have been removed; de total overview of actions taken (which was only recently been finished) can be found here:
 * On nl.wikipedia, nl.wikiquote and en.wikiquote there have been several attempts by Mdd to post an article about himself, all of which have ultimately failed. I will try and find links for this shortly.
 * I hope this helps in providing some insight. Again: I'm not trying to paint a bleak picture on Mdd here, and will be the first to admit, that his actions here by and large do not resemble the conflictuous way of working on both nl.wikipedia and nl.wikiquote, but then.... in those environments too he started as a good contributor. As the ArbCom decision states: "Mdd does not know how to handles criticism, when he receives criticism he responds by focusing on the person who voices the critical notes, without dealing with the content, which leads to unworkable situations." This escalation basically repeated itself 100% on nl.wikiquote.
 * W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 03:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record I like to add the footnote here: I believe that some accusation made by Whaledad here (03:03, 28 February 2013) are unfounded and not supported by evidence. Such as Mdd's articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text... and On nl.wikipedia, nl.wikiquote and en.wikiquote there have been several attempts by Mdd to post an article about himself.... For example did I ever post an article about myself here on en.wikiquote? Now I have no interest to start a further discussion here, but I am prepared to explain my point of view to anybody interested. -- Mdd (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been disputes in the past, yes, but does that make Mdd incapable of being an administrator here? I don't think so, myself.
 * I accept the fact that people make mistakes. The question is, do they learn from them? Mdd undoubtedly has, I think, particularly when it comes to copyright issues, of which he is now constantly aware. To me, his past experience with this whole process is a plus, not a minus. And you agree that his edits here have been valuable, and should be recognized. (Not to mention that Wikiquote has a shortage of admins.) So, on balance, I continue to support his nomination because, in my opinion, his contributions to this site show not only that he has learnt from the past, but also that he is indeed a good candidate to become an admin. Regards, Daniel Tomé (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I agree with what Daniel Tomé has written above that Mdd has shown to be a helpful user here and perhaps has learned from any past mistakes. Second, while I do believe there was discussion on the nl sites, as I cannot read anything that is linked, I as yet do not fully understand what the conflict was. Unless there is some translation, it is hard to judge any of what is linked in weighing the merits of having Mdd as an admin. In the absence of such, I can only judge based on what I have seen here in this site - all of which led me to nominate Mdd in the first place. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really looking for a whole back-and-forth here, but want to make sure that everybody is aware of a discussion on my Talk page, initiated by Mdd based on a comment I made here, which is a perfect example of the type of discussions that Mdd got involved in with a large number of users on nl.wikipedia and nl.wikiquote, leading to limitless escalations, blockages, and ultimately (on nl.wikipedia) an ArbCom ruling. I will avoid doing anything that might be construed as canvassing, but if others here want to contact one or more nl.wikipedia Admins for an opinion on this, that may provide some valuable insights. To me, the discussion on my Talk page and the Noticeboard threat that it ended in, illustrates that Mdd hasn't changed a bit and that giving him an Admin bit would be a serious faux pas. This is the last I will say on this, other than that, I guess we need to let history run its course. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 21:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just briefly checking in and was already about to leave, but will comment on some of my impressions of these exchanges before doing so. I believe your contributions to the discussions can be properly appreciated for what they are by most, and received with varying levels of gratitude and forgiveness, according to the individual inclinations of those interested in the matters. I personally find nothing that convinces me that Mdd is not an appropriate person to remain an esteemed contributor, and one worthy to be an admin, and I am not a person who presumes that any complacent or commanding majority who are overly constraining of the potential of others are always therefore in the right — no matter how often or vigorously and ably they punish or threaten those who dissent and they would seek to constrain. Personally, I believe that we ALL are witnesses and presenters of such aspects of Truth and Reality as we can perceive and appreciate — and the end of learning never is found within our mortal lives. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment : I hereby like to pay my gratitude for the support, and like to confess why I didn't signified my acceptance last week. I am passionate about knowledge all my adult life; and I am a passionate contributor at different Wikipedia project for almost nine years. Yet 16 months ago, I practically quite for almost a year, after all my work at the Dutch Wikiquote got torpedoed: 663 articles deleted or reduced to a single quote. Participating here on Wikiquote got me back on my feet, and I am honored by UDScott's nomination. Still, there is confusion about my wiki past. About 6 months earlier at the Dutch Wikipedia I had started to rebel against the common practice of making unfounded accusation to outsiders and not-insiders, which escalated to extreme violent communication, admins going solo against me, and the outrageous deletion requests on Wikiquote. I quit Wikipedia and became administrator at a small Dutch Wiki on Enterprise Architecture (see here). Today was a clear exposure of my weakness, that I cannot stand unfounded accusations. I cannot accept that experienced users keep making them, when pointed at their mistakes or misbehavior or else. At large I try to maintain a professional appearance, but when it comes to personal attacks, I have a lot to learn. I hope to maintain making good contributions here and make this a better place to cooperate. -- Mdd (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the fate of administrators to receive criticism. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, and sometimes a lot of it. It is the responsibility of administrators to try to handle criticism diplomatically. It is not always easy. Since you say that you are still learning how to deal with it, are you really sure you want this responsibility? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to Ningauble's remarks I would say that is the fate of most human beings to receive criticism, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, and sometimes a lot of it. I believe that despite some anger which I can understand and approve, and perhaps some impulses to vengefulness, which I generally reject, you have exhibited the strength, courage, fortitude and honesty of the sort not commonly seen by such people as who seek to discourage any forms of daring and integrity such as they cannot reliably control, and I believe you will be up to the tasks of an admin. I do not encourage people to be needlessly vengeful even against those who stupidly attack and seek to intimidate people from pursung worthy efforts, in overt or subtle ways — but I do not seek to discouraging them from fighting as effectively as they can against corruptive and destructive impulses, especially wherever and whenever human liberities and rights and dignity are being disregarded. I wish all, well, but I must be leaving now, perhaps for several hours. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Kalki: I feel deeply offended by your description of my concerns and warnings as "seek to discourage any forms of daring and integrity", "stupidly attack and seek to intimidate people", and "corruptive and destructive impulses, especially wherever and whenever human liberities and rights and dignity are being disregarded". But I won't be vengeful and won't ask you to take these things back or report you to the Noticeboard. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 20:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, Whaledad, I think you've already made your point. Now please stop provoking others yourself, unless you have something new to add. Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually had to laugh out loud when I was reading Whaledad's comments, made while I was gone a bit earlier, because he specifically was not in my mind at all when I made general assertions of truth — but if he or anyone else thinks any shoes fit or descriptions apply to them, may they come to wear them with an expansive grace and sense of humor at the many follies of humankind. Blessings to all. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Ningauble, I think learning and taking responsibility can go hand in hand, and I will try not to let my sensitivity interfere with my participation. I am well aware that any administrator should uphold the rules and ethics set by the community and Wikimedia Foundations, and I am willing to support this all along. -- Mdd (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Information - One final bit of information (I'm sorry, I needed some time to find the exact nl.wikiquote location where this was uttered): . "Het is inderdaad zo, dat ik wel moderator wil worden hier om ieder eruit te gooien, die zijn fatsoen niet kan houden. Als de bestaande moderatoren hier problemen mee hebben, dan hebben ze het recht Wikiquote te verlaten. Geef het stokje maar over aan mij. -- Mdd 2 feb 2012 14:11 (CET)" (Translation from Dutch by Whaledad: "It is indeed true that I want to become moderator here, to throw out anybody who can't behave himself. If the existing moderators have a problem with this, they have the right to leave Wikiquote. Just hand me the keys.-- Mdd 2 feb 2012 14:11 (CET)". W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me) 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Since my name has been invoked in this discussion, I will recuse myself from acting as the closing bureaucrat. However, since I won't be closing it, I will weigh in as a participant. Mdd is a fine contributor to this project, and I am certain that he will make a fine admin. As for the complained of last-name-first redirect, there is absolutely nothing wrong with those. Reference works have listed authors last-name-first for hundreds of years, and it is entirely reasonable for a reader to expect this reference work does the same, so searching for a subject in that way should yield the return of the article on that subject. As for the effect of this on search engines, that is not the concern of this project. We are building the ultimate collection of sourced, verified quotes, not the ultimate search engine draw. I doubt our pages will suffer that much from reasonable redirects, anyway. BD2412 T 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's been over a month now; I think the consensus is clear. Time to close this RfA? ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)