Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mb1000 2

Mb1000
Final (3/7/5) ended 00:14 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I hereby nominate myself to become a Wikipedia administrator. Despite being relatively new to Wikipedia, (I've been a registered user since Feb. 1st, 2005) I've really tried to contribute as much as I can. I have about 1400 edits under my belt. When starting new articles and stubs, I try to make them as high-quality as possible, although, as is often the case, the articles greatly improve over time. I have spoken time-and-again against vandalism and for neutral articles, and I have tried to edit out as much biased material as I could find. I must admit, though, that, during my first few months of using Wikipedia I was a little over-zealous with regards to adding images and such, and so I've run into two Possible Copyright Violation problems. I have since become much more careful about the images I add, so I hope that these past problems won't be held against me. I want to be an administrator so that I can contribute even more to Wikipedia, so please support my nomination. --Mb1000 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do accept my own nomination. --Mb1000 00:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support We now know what the candidate will look like. I feel that the candidate is well intentioned, if not too active. Also creates a lot of stubs which is annoying, but there does not appear to be anything that would cause one to vote against, although lack of wikipedia namespace edits may cause concern to some. Also, it seems that those who vote "not enough time" may very well do the same even six months from now due to low edit count. So, it almost appears as if this is another case where a vote now may be an indefinate vote due to somewhat unchanged patterns. Ryan Norton T 02:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I trust his judgement and if he uses his powersw rarely, it doesn't bother me. Why has no-one seemed to vote? --Celestianpower hab 20:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support definitely well intentioned. seems like a good editor.--Alhutch 22:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose not enough time. Copyright violations also detract. freestylefrappe 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) * Oppose till user specifies an email id. =Nichalp «Talk»=  06:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) **Thank you for providing an id. =Nichalp «Talk»=  17:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: E-mail ID is optional. Why the requirement on your part? --Durin 17:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If he uses the "block" tool, then the blocked person is asked to contact the blocking admin to sort things out. Also, sometimes a person might want to contact an admin via email on many issues, regarding another person's conduct, policies etc. Wikipedia talk is not the best place for private discussion as everthing is stored, including deleted information, and can be easily retrieved. Hence the email as a sign of trust. Additional clarifications in the noms below. =Nichalp «Talk»=  17:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Seems like a nice guy but needs more experience. --NormanEinstein 20:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling me a "nice guy", Mr. Einstein. :) --Mb1000 21:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. You really need to be over about 3,000 edits to have a shot here. You are still not even halfway there. --Woohookitty 05:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Copyright problems, Josh Quittner and Adam Horowitz for example. Edward 11:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Copyright violation=bad.  R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to low edit count, copyright problems, lack of experience, et cetera.  Bahn Mi 20:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Neutral&mdash; Good editor, but too few edits in Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk and User talk namespaces.  Journalist  ''' C./ Holla @ me!|undefined
 * Thanks for calling me a good editor, Journalist, I really appreciate it! By the way, I see your Canadian, so am I, I'm from Mississauga. --Mb1000 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A little more community action would be nice, as that is crucial to admin-ness. Will support in a month. Bratsche talk 21:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Better with more experience and I will reconsider later.--Jusjih 08:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral while I have worked with this user on the article Canadian Heraldic Authority, which is a WP:FA, the comments about not enough time being here and the copyright issues needs to be worked out. I will support when he decides to go through this route again a few months down the road. Zach (Sound Off) 21:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. per Journalist. Type O Spud 03:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Previous nom - Requests for adminship/Mb1000 Ryan Norton T 02:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Edit count. Has 1000 article-space edits but few to other namespaces. Ryan Norton T 02:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Mb1000-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 13:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In response to the concerns of User:Nichalp I have added my email address to my file. --Mb1000 16:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is great that Mb came clean about his own shortcomings in his self-nomination. I think he just needs more time to amass some more edits, and so his committment to avoid copyright infringement is obvious.  I hope to support his nomination at some point in the future.  Johntex\talk 22:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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 am very passionate about combating vandalism and biased material, so I plan to continue to help in that regard.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * A. I am particularly proud of the article Canadian Heraldic Authority, which I started, and which eventually became a featured article (and was featured on the main page). I am also proud of the work I've done on the articles American Gold Eagle, American Silver Eagle, & American Platinum Eagle, which I started. I'm also proud of the fact that I have twice rehauled the article George W. Bush, making it (temporarally) into, I think, a neutral article. Also, I am very proud of the many TIME Magazine covers I have added, such as Image:Bigthreetime.jpg and Image:Winstonchurchilltimemagazine.jpg. In addition, I weekly replace the "Latest cover of TIME" on the Time Magazine article.

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 have not been in any conflicts thus far. If it ever happens I will strive to remain as cordial as possible, and act like a gentleman.