Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarkSweep

MarkSweep
final (54/1/1) ending 07:51, 6 August 2005 has been with us since 9 April 2004 and has amassed 6084 edits. He is often cool-headed and fair in various contentious issues. I didn't realize that he is not already an admin until I him "reverting linkspam" on a largescale without the rollback feature. This user has done a lot of work in reverting vandalism (especially lately with all the GrandCru socks) and will surely benefit from adminship. Jiang 07:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Thanks, Jiang. I accept. --MarkSweep 14:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) nominator Jiang 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Jiang. MarkSweep has been very helpful to conciliate, and is cool-headed in contentious issues. &mdash; Instantnood 08:06, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) You mean he isn't already? --Carnildo 08:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Instantnood and Carnildo said it already. -- Hoary 09:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) He's not an admin? Support! - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6)     ( ! | ? | * ) 12:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Supporting. Denelson83 15:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Yes, anyone that can keep cool in the Sollog affair gets the benefit of the doubt in my boook. :) - Taxman Talk 16:19, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) El_C 16:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Whenever we have disagreed MarkSweep is dedicated to using discussion and policy to find a solution. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support- would make great admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  17:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - He's a productive guy. --Chris 18:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. He added a nice bit of badly-needed sanity to the whole Sollog mess, and does good work both editing and resolving problems. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support; a truly excellent candidate. Contribs and talk pages all show what I like to see.  Antandrus  (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, MarkSweep should have a broom. Wyss 00:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Cool. JuntungWu 04:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Excellent editor, will certainly be an excellent administrator. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. There may be disagreements over content issues, but anyone can see when someone is using his head and not his heart when attemting to find a solution out of sticky issues. Marksweep is clearly one of them. ;)--Huaiwei 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Has demonstrated ability to remain cool under pressure. -Loren 07:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I agree with Hoary :) --Dmcdevit·t 07:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Anyone who frustrates a vandal that much deserves to be an admin. Ambi 09:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Ditto.....A2Kafir 14:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support, excellent line of thought and a fair contributor to the community. --Sn0wflake 14:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) BRIAN 0918   16:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, clearly qualified and would be a valued admin. Gblaz 20:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, this user meets my criterion of not being a vandal. kmccoy (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, well-qualified.  Glad to know he isn't a vandal, too.  ;)  Hall Monitor 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Solid user. I don't know if you were aware of this or not, but this nomination was vandalized the other day. A sockpuppet added around 13 fake votes in opposition. I reverted them and posted the sockpuppet on WP:VIP. He was banned the following day. He (or she, I don't know for sure) demonstrated great hatred towards both you and your nominator, User:Jiang. Ryan 16:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) *I believe you are refering to this guy: Long term alerts-Loren 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support previous comments covered it.  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  19:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Appears to have the qualities necessary to make a good administrator. Jayjg (talk)  20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. MarkSweep is an accomplished diplomat when other editors let the tension get to them. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Very active in reverting vandalism and would benefit with the admin rollback tool. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support with two thumbs up. Bobbybuilder 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. DS1953 02:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. Baaa... Fire Star 02:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. I support even though he has goons that wrote on my talk page. Wikipedia Username 02:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Merovingian (t) (c) 06:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 41) we haven't met, so this may be a sheep vote. dab (&#5839;) 18:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Sopport. I've been running into him on the mathematical articles and I saw that he was very helpful, so I'm confident he will be a good admin. Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. I've been favorably impressed by his handling of some intransigent editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 44) Although I resent his fraudulent use of my name, Support because he's a fine Wikipedian. - Mark 04:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Poli (talk &bull; contribs) 04:57, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
 * 46) Strong Support Also an apology to MarkSweep for making a conclusion on a couple of out-of-context diffs --RN 09:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Strong support. Anyone who can get User:Instantnood and User:SchmuckyTheCat to agree on anything should probably be a mediator, or nominated for sainthood. ;-) Blank Verse  &empty;  09:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Support - Sango  123  15:19, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. What nonsense. I should not have to vote for this. I'd vouch for him but I'm not sure he wouldn't actually have to vouch for me instead. Fellow Sollog editor. JRM · Talk 17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) SupportSweep. FreplySpang (talk) 21:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Support, I missed this vote earlier. Good editor. Func( t, c ) 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * :-O What do you mean he wasn't one already! - David Gerard 06:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I've seen this chap around a lot; particularly the whole Sollog thing, which I was part of as well. In fact, I ditto his comments about maturation etc; I started off quite combatative and mellowed myself, so I feel a supernatural... connection with this man, a... subperceptual cognitive harmonisation.-Ashley Pomeroy 18:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Very good and supportive editor, I honestly thought he already was an admin.  Jtkiefer  T - 05:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Eeek. Almost missed this one.  Support.  Kelly Martin 06:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - I am fully aware I am outnumbered here, however I would like to point out that MarkSweep opposed my application of removing personal attacks and did not file an RfC or anything on the matter, but simply went straight for a requestion for arbitration "against" me where he made biased generalizations about my communication instead of taking a full look into my handling of communications by others. --AI 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Can't decide. Redwolf24 06:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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'd like to get more actively involved in RC patrol, and would be happy to help with anything urgent on WP:ANI, which is already on my watchlist. Images and media for deletion and Category:Redundant images need to be cleaned out regularly, which I'd be happy to help with.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Most of the articles I've edited are group efforts that I cannot take credit for. I like the current state of our Sollog article.  One thing I can take full credit for is a featured picture, namely Image:Lens aperture side.jpg.
 * 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. I've learned more than I ever imagined from the Sollog affair. I was a relative newbie when I casually put a VfD tag on the Sollog article. The next two weeks were a period of rapid aging/maturation, depending on how you want to look at it (and the whole thing was far from over after two weeks). I've learned a lot from the senior folks involved in the Sollog affair about NPOV, keeping calm, firefighting, when to use carrots and when to use sticks, etc. My main regret is that we all indulged the genuine trolls for too long. Trolls and vandals don't cause stress for me; those problems are more or less trivial. The stress-inducing cases are editors who could play a useful role, but for one reason or another don't. If there is even a slight chance that they are interested in contributing in a constructive way, they deserve all the help and patience in the world. But if it's clear that they've decided to play by their own rules, I haven't hesitated to request admin assistance in the past. On Wikipedia, I believe in Fixing Broken Windows – not for any ideological reason, but because problems do very often get worse unless they are addressed in their early stages. Related to this, I'm currently involved in an ongoing arbitration case which I initiated (I don't want to turn this into a soapbox, so I'll leave it at that).