Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mb1000 3


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Mb1000
Final (10/16/10) bureeaucrat removal 05:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) original ending 01:52 5 February 2006 (UTC)

– I, Mb1000, 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 over 2000 edits, but you're welcome to check my edit count here. 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.

As I believe in transparancy and honesty, I will here admit 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 ran into a few of 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 have gotten into one edit war (watch how it unfolded here), and now I regret it and wish it would have never happened. It was a childish display of the damned male ego. Again, I hope that this won't be held against me.

I truly want to be an administrator so that I can contribute even more to Wikipedia, so please support my nomination. Thank-you. (soMb1000 01:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh yes, I do accept my own nomination. Mb1000 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Weak support, I don't see much problems with this user. J I P  | Talk 08:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support, I see no major problem.--Jusjih 10:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Unlikely to beat people over the head with the mop. --King of All the Franks 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - not likely to harm Wikipedia (ie abuse admin privileges). Latinus 13:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Not a problem with this user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - User has made ammends and is showing good contributions to the project. Johntex\talk 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Edivorce 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support All in 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support He's been around for a long time Mjal 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)]]
 * 10) Support Good edits all the oposses seem unwarranted - Mike Beckham 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose, User could do with an increase in the talk namespace, and the past issues are somewhat troubling. Also, article edits could be a tad more productive. Seems like a good chap, however, and am currently debating over a switch to support. -ZeroTalk 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Switched to Strong oppose as you've really gotten out of hand with this. Spamming people for votes and this nonsense regarding Jimbo's talkpage is very poor judgement indeed.-ZeroTalk 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose less than 100 wikipedia edits over that long of a time is a knockout for me sorry --Jaranda wat's sup 01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose per --Jaranda wat's sup 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per above. May I suggest you remove this nomination and reapply in a few months? I will possibly support a future nomination. — M o e   ε  03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too little general experience. Staffelde 13:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - is spamming neutral voters with requests to reconsider our votes and change to support. Attempting to subvert consensus like this shows, in my opinion, very poor judgment. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose: suggest trying again in a few more months. Jonathunder 20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. asking people to change their votes without reason seems pretty uncivilized. -lethe talk 21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose: Needs more experience, editcount is low. Fthepostingquota 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per ESkog. I really don't like RfA vote campaigns.  Also, I'd have to agree with the Wikipedia namespace issue also. Mo0 [ talk ] 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose until more experienced per above comments &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 23:30Z 
 * 9) Oppose more experience. i'd probly vote yes in a few monthes. Ncrown23334
 * 10) Oppose on grounds of proactive vandal-fighting. Avriette 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you oppose someone who improves the Wikipedia experience through the removal of vandalism? Help me out here.  Silensor 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people improve the project throught the removal of vandalism. Being an admistrator doesn't just involve the tapping of the rollback button. There needs to be more insentive when bestowing the admin capabilities on a user. -ZeroTalk 20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I was told campaigning for adminship is poor form, after I initially enquired about it. --  Denelson83  21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. Instead of self-camapiging for the RFA nom (,,,, etc.), the user should participate in more RFAs, AFDs, vandalism patrol, and talk pages instead.  I'd like to see him contribute more to the Wikipedian community besides minor spelling and spacing edits. Also needs to show better understanding of WP policies (i.e., poor Request for Protection and image tagging)  --Madchester 00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, is begging for votes on Jimbo's talk page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Per above. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Mb1000 has few edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps you could become more active in RfAs and AfDs.  Will probably support in a few months. -- Nacon Kantari   e |t||c|m 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Porquoi? We got to get some more edits, people! ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - edit count looks fine, a bit weak in Project space. Doesn't seem to really do a lot of vandal fighting yet - there's a lot you can do in that regard without admin powers (see the counter-vandalism unit for some suggestions). I am concerned about the judgment displayed during the edit war, but one bad encounter shouldn't spoil your reputation forever. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose.
 * 1) Neutral as per User_talk:Zscout370. While I worked with Mb1000 on an article, the Canadian Hearladric Authority, which became an FA, this behavior that was pointed out to me, and also with the comments here. Sorry. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Definitely shows promise, but I'm not too big on self-noms, and I think this should get withdrawn till the user has some more experience in the namespace. Kusonaga 11:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Keep on doing the good work for a couple more of months, then try again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. Needs to diversify edits into talk, user talk, and Wikipedia namespaces. However, I love to see a user who sees the possibility of losing their job as a positive so that they can contribute more to Wikipedia. ;o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Granted, when I was RfA'd earlier this month, I had about the same number of total edits (2000), Wikipedia namespace edits (90), and editing time (since Feb 2005) as you have now. However, I feel that, what I lacked in these areas, I made up for in my ability to resolve disputes, communicate with other users, and learn quickly (e.g., within a day, I was participating in AfD very well).  I feel that, with just two months more, if you work at these attributes, you can succeed in another RfA.  (If you decide to self-nom, though, make that three - self-nomming should be more infrequent than regular noms.) Good luck on future RfA attempts! -- M  @  th  wiz  2020  21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral same as above commentPschemp | Talk 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral. You would probably make a good admin, but I can't tell yet. Try again in a few months. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral, as I usually vote with self-noms. Usually if an experienced user thinks that you're good enough, then you are. If you had waited a little longer then you may well have been nominated, and would probably have been more successful; two unsuccessful RfAs already should have hinted at this. I have a feeling you would make a good admin, though. Persevere; seek and ye shall find... haz (user talk) 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See information about Mb1000's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.


 * Mb1000's previous RfA's: Requests for adminship/Mb1000_2, Requests for adminship/Mb1000

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Well, I'm particularly passionate about combating vandalism. So I'd be engaged in combating that. I will admit, I'm a busy guy, so I can't do as much as I'd like. But who knows maybe I'll lose my job. :)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Well, I'm especially proud of my work on the articles Canadian Heraldic Authority and Women in heraldry, both of which I started. I've worked a lot on other articles such as Good Night, and Good Luck., Time (magazine), and Everybody Loves Raymond. I've added many images to Wikipedia, and I do the weekly cover update on the TIME magazine page.


 * 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. Yes, unfortunatly, as mentioned above, I did get into a nasty edit war with a particular user (User:Madchester). I acted like a kid, and it was stupid. I'm resolved not to fall into the 'ego trap' again. I will try to avoid another edit war at all costs.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test3}}/&#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A. For Test 1: W hen an edit has added irrelevant links to a page, for example, or vandalised a page in some way for the first or second time. 'Test 2 would be for a third offense. After that, if the vandalism continues, the user must be blocked. Test 3 I would use if the user seems inexperianced and his/her edits appear to be mistakes rather than downright vandalism, and yet it seems the user doesn't take Wikipedia seriously.
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A. Well, if he is reverting back vandalism, I ban him for a while. If it's a legitimate edit I'd give a stern warning. If the behavior continues, I'd block for 24 hours.
 * 6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A. When an article is clear nonsense it should be deleted as fast as possible!
 * 7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * A. If I see carefully worded statements that take a position on the matter, I would tag the article as NPOV.
 * 8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * A. I love Wikipedia! It the best thing since uniformly sliced bread! I'd like to see more people using it! And less vandalism. That I really hate. But that's not Wikipedia's fault!


 * ''The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.