Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mackensen

Mackensen
Vote here
 * (17/2/0) ends 00:45 30 September 2004 (UTC)

He's been around for more than a year, made numerous useful contributions (especially with regard to European history), and I haven't seen any instances of misbehavior. I'd meant to nominate him several months ago, but he was away. He has about 1400 edits. john k 00:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered to be nominated, and I humbly accept. My thanks, John. Mackensen 00:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) john k 00:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems to be the right sort of person to be an admin. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:53, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
 * 3) ugen64 01:41, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC) - most certainly
 * 4) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 01:51, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) ffirehorse 02:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Looks good to me. CryptoDerk 03:01, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Good user, for European related articles. squash 03:04, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) 172 03:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) The self-control required not to lash out at 33451 is impressive enough ;-). David Remahl 12:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Great user! --Lst27 00:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) See my extensive comment below. -- Emsworth 02:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Jwrosenzweig 23:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Merovingian &#1124; Talk  15:30, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14)  – Andre ( talk )  21:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) -- orthogonal 03:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) I agree with Emsworth's comment. &mdash;Stormie 03:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Seems like quite the excellent user, and the stupid reasons for opposing inspire me to vote. Ambi 14:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Netoholic @ 03:15, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC) -- Too few edits overall, and only about 100 in the last 30 days as of this moment. Very little active participation in areas not related to British peerage. Maybe in a few weeks of participation in other areas, so we can see that they can be a competent admin.
 * 2) User needs more experience. Editing-wise, and also in the community.  Will possibly support after 2,000 edits, if user obtains said experience. blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  07:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I already keep an eye out for vandals, and I intend to continue doing so. I participate (admittedly off and on) at VfD and RfD, and given increased responsibility I would feel it necessary to be a more regular participant there.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. As noted below, I'm pleased with my varied contributions to the peerage pages and to Victorian-era history, too numerous to list here. Specifically, I was always fond of my editing job at Arthur Balfour (axing 1911 cruft), and the establishment of policy on Baronets.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. Yes, I was involved, at times, with User:Kenneth Alan, and had a stressful conflict with User:33451. My strategy was to write out a nasty response in notepad and then delete it - thus getting it out of my system.  Mud-slinging, while viscerally enjoyable, really doesn't accomplish anything.

Comments
 * In response to Netoholic, I've also done work in German history (particularly the Wilhelmine period), and I think that my recent battles on Redirects for deletion and Votes for undeletion demonstrate that I have interests outside the peerage. I agree that I've been absent of late, but I was researching my senior thesis which required my attention elsewhere.  With the bulk of my research complete, I'm ready and willing to take up full time burdens again.  Also, my focus is not so much on the peerage than on Victorian-era governments.  I've created numerous articles dealing with politicians of the period, and edited others (including cutting down that 1911-mess at Arthur Balfour).  Along with Emsworth, John Kenney, Ugen64, Proteus, Mintguy, Adam Bishop, and many others, I helped set policy for British Government pages, peerage pages, and the baronetage (although I do not claim to have put forth such a tremendous effort as the above). Mackensen 03:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Your "battles" on RFD ^ and VFU ^ consist basically of opinions related to George Woshingtin (and related misspellings). I don't think you are a bad editor, just one needing some more activity.  A few weeks cannot hurt. -- Netoholic @ 03:56, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
 * Oh, granted, and I don't make them out to be more than that. I called them battles because I found it very trying dealing with User:33451 (an experience not unique to me), and I considered it a small victory that I didn't lash out at him.  Please don't take that as bragging or anything, I was merely noting my presence outside the peerage pages. Mackensen 04:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It would appear that "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community" (Administrators). The nominee, User:Mackensen, has now been a contributor since 24 August 2003&mdash;over one year. Even after a vigorous search, I am confident that no misbehaviour will be found. Consequently, the user must be considered trustworthy. The user, furthermore, certainly qualifies as a known user. Mackensen lacks no qualification: hence, my support. -- Emsworth 02:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)