Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mboverload


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

Mboverload
Final: (32/27/12) Ended 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

– Sometimes you just keep bumping into the same editors over and over again. Mboverload is just one of those people. Edit as I might, I just can't seem to get away from him. He is, by his own apt summary, "a WikiGnome with claws."

Here's your rundown (stolen from RfA/Gwernol/CrazyRussian):
 * Edit count – 15000 + (see counter below)
 * Time around – Since April 2004
 * Civility? - Yes.
 * Edit summaries – Almost 100% comprehensive edit summaries
 * Mistakes – A good part of his edits are removing typos, so no.
 * Email enabled? – Yes, and AIM
 * Userpage? – Very clean, almost identical to this
 * Any edit warring/blocks? - 1 block by Cyde several months ago for conflict during the userbox debates, no edit wars
 * FA participation? – Don't think so (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

It might be helpful to think of mboverload's contributions to Wikipedia in three groups: spellchecking, vandal fighting, and article improvement. Spellchecking is obvious; mboverload has over 10,000 edits in the English Wikipedia just correcting typos with all of his AWB settings published with even a spamlist for updates. He is active in WP:TYPO and as you can see in the completed work section. In terms of Vandal Whacking, mboverload is a Vandalproof Administrator and frequent VP user. Mboverload is to be commended for his quick response to AOL vandalism and reporting on it in his userspace. In terms of article improvement, mboverload does the best job highlighting his accomplishments on his userpage. He is also probably one of the most contactable editors, with an email link in his sig, an AIM chat SN publicly available, and always seems to be lurking on the wikipedia IRC channel. I also noticed on the Administrator's noticeboard that he created printable guides to what is and isn't criteria for speedy deletion. User:Mboverload/wikipediarules

I feel that mboverload would make great use of the administrative tools, particularly in fighting vandals, and hereby nominate him as a Wikipedia Administrator. Alphachimp  talk  01:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I do! Please read my answers before you vote. =D --mboverload @


 * Support
 * 1) Support, as nominator. Alphachimp   talk  01:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Pink Post-It Note Support - Mboverload isn't an admin already? — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 02:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom Werdna (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unconditional support. Have seen this guy in a lot of places, and thought he'd make a great admin, if he weren't one already. Kimchi.sg 02:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - seems to be an excellent editor with a passion to help Wikipedia become a better place  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 02:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support - VandalProof Moderator and a fine one at that - Gl e n 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support totally disagree with his userbox position, but he's competent nevertheless, and this guy wants to do the tedious stuff like fixing typos and whacking vandals and apparently talking to banned users at 3AM, which is far beyond expected levels of dedication. Having a sense of humor and not suffering fools gladly are both good things in an admin. Opabinia regalis 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Will be a great admin. Onco_p53 05:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - is always needing an administrator to do something or other for him on IRC; it would benefit the project to just let him take care of it on his own.—Scott5114↗ 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Will make a good admin. DarthVad e r 07:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support mostly per Opabinia regalis. Wikipedia would be a much jollier place if everyone was more like Mboverload. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) STRONGLY SUPPORT Great guy and a very good contributor.Abdelkweli 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. We all lose our cool at times, and I see absolutely nothing in the diffs below that warrants such a hyperbolic reaction from the opposing voters. Rebecca 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Very friendly editor. Will make a good admin. --Steve-o 06:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong support the links provided by Cyde show why you will make a great admin. Sadly, it won't happen this time.  Grue   09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per Grue – Gurch 10:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I'm not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic... I'm rearranging them on the Hindenburg! -- Avillia  (Avillia me!) 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "I'm not trolling, I'm just sitting under a bridge luring in passers-by!" -- Cyde↔Weys  17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support one of the nicest users I know. P.S. I realize that people are going to bite my head off because I voted support due to someone being nice. As a sidenote, mb, you could do with more edit summary usage. Fr e ddie Message? 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - active and useful editor, would do well with the admin tools. Can't bring myself to begrudge a few flippant remarks here and there.  --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. ugen64 00:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I agree the user needs to be more careful when dealing with humor and how it translates into written messages, but I do not believe it's serious enough to counter all the good work. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  23:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I like WikiGnomes. I like users with a sense of humor. I'm not persuaded by Cyde's arguments regarding AWB, and anytime Cyde opposes someone on civility grounds I have to take a second look. I also read his commentary on the talk page here, and I think this user would be an asset as an admin. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. blahibity blahibty blah. Karm  a  fist Save Wikipedia 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -- not that it matters at this point --T-rex 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Axiomm 03:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Strong support -- "Support" for all the reasons above including civility. It would be "strong" but for It is "strong" in spite of a mild tendency towards flippancy and genial sarcasm (see some of the opposing comments below). From my own experience, I know flip comments can sometimes be misunderstood, especially in such a global work environment such as this.  I must say, however, that the supposed "personal attack" edits of his that I've seen have been much more benign than the way they're made out; if they are his very worst (out of more than 10,000) then he is operating at a higher level of civility than many existing admins. Note: Some evidence presented in Oppose comment #2 needs more context -- see the remarks that I just left there. I'm sorry this RfA will likely fail because of these edits. I will support on another RfA attempt if it comes around again. --A. B. 04:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to "Strong support" after reading the full noticeboard discussion on Cyde's very controversial block. In his opposing comment (#2 below), Cyde writes "I invite all of the potential voters on this RFA to examine the evidence for yourself", but then only selectively presents it. I encourage other voters to read the entire evidence for themselves. I should note that Mboverload is very civil in this discussion when he had great provocation to be otherwise. --A. B. 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. After reading that AN discussion and reviewing the diffs again, I take my oppose back. While I think Mboverload needs to understand that comments/jokes that may seem amusing to him at the time may not be to others, and look bad later, I don't really think he's too uncivil to be an admin. And the incivility thing was the only complaint I had, so I no longer have any reason to oppose. BryanG(talk) 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support even though he has some civilty issues, he knows wikipedia policy alot and I don't think he will abuse the tools. Jaranda wat's sup 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Nacon kantari  02:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I would like to recognize Mboverload's responsible interaction with User:Ste4k. If recent behavior is weighted most heavily then I think he would be a good admin. -Will Beback 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, as per Will Beback and others. Civility concerns as expressed by the opposers seem overstated; what I've seen of this user has been positive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support. He seems to learn from his mistakes. I much prefer his silly jokes than the nastiness et arrogance shown by some admin (personal attack removed) Josie dethiers 11:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the swipe about some other admin (who is not up for debate here). -- nae'blis (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, civility concerns seem overstated; more on the lines of trying to be funny in inapproriate ways? I think the comments here will have an impact and forcing a one-two month wait for a revote reconsideration would be totally unnecessary. Thatcher131 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) I have generally had good relations with Mboverload, but during a dispute I was trying to resolve, between Nathanrdotcom and Exploding Boy, Mboverload made some less then helpful comments ,and . This is the type of situation an administrator may have to deal with, and Mboverload's saying "I'm not sure what people are bitching about this time" did not help. If this can adequately be explained I may change my vote, but until then, I do not feel comfortable supporting. Prodego  talk  02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, no bad feelings. Exploding Boy was complaining that his browser, which from the screenshot was obviously configured wrong, was screwing up on nathan's sig, which it shouldn't have.  I made a comment that he should use Windows Update because his browser was having problems no one else was.  The later comment was an off the cuff remake to nathan to try and cheer him up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboverload (talk • contribs)
 * While it is important to try to calm down editors during a dispute, you must make sure not to rile one editor while calming another. Saying that Exploding Boy was "bitching" was likely to do just that. The problem was probably an old version of I.E. not interpreting "colour" properly. Remember in the future that during disputes one must act carefully, it often requires kid gloves. Prodego  talk  02:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he was bitching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mboverload (talk • contribs)
 * Anyway, I'm not sure what people are bitching about this time Prodego  talk  00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - That block from "several months ago" that the nomination paragraph tries to gloss over is actually from less than two months ago, and was very significant. I invite all of the potential voters on this RFA to examine the evidence for yourself:
 * "Do you hate blind people or something? What's going on?" (taking a potshot at another user of a TFD of a metadata spoken Wikipedia template)
 * "the only vandalism I see is you sticking that deletion template in it" (note, the "vandalism" refers to an in-process tfd placed on a template)
 * "Conrad hates women!" (an attack against the user who nominated a template for deletion that contained nudity)
 * Mboverload simply lost his head over some in-process TFDs (not necessarily only userbox TFDs, as the nomination statement misleadingly leads us to believe) and made some very inappropriate comments. I would not trust him in the slightest to be an administrator.
 * In addition, Mboverload has inadvisedly been running AWB on his main account, thus inflating his edit count by thousands, or possibly over ten thousand, minor, automated fixes. Note that WP:AWB strongly encourages the use of a secondary account for en-masse AWB runs; to prevent gumming up the main account's contribution history with automated diffs.  Taking away all of the AWB-inflated edits, mboverload's real edit count probably doesn't meet the standards of a fair number of RFA voters.  -- Cyde↔Weys  02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued as to where precisely on WP:AWB this stringent advice is given: to my knowledge a second account is recommended for BOT activity. In any case, are you going to complain about this person and myself "inflating" our edit counts? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those comments were in jest and made in a mistaken atmosphere of a message board where things like that are allowed, but which Wikipedia does not and I agree with Cyde they were inappropriate. Obviously I should have been more serious about tfd. It was a misguided attempt at humor that I completely regret and have learned from. Also, I have consulted with 3 different adminstrators and they have all aproved of my AWB user.  --mboverload @  02:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, why shouldn't Mboverload be allowed a small comment in jest? TfD is not a life or death matter, a joke once in a while contributes to the lax and jolly atmosphere here at Wikipedia. A lax & jolly atmosphere is in part what made Google so succesful, for instance. I know wouldn't want to contribute to some evil, deadly-serious encyclopedia. PS: Cyde, I think someone has editcountitis. "Ten thousand" minor fixes more than makes up for a few "real" edits. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that there is anything wrong with the high edit count. True...they are minor edits, but they are still "real" edits. The sheer time and energy it would take to make over 10,000 edits using AWB far surpasses their size. mboverload is a great example of a contributor that really gets into what he's doing, whether it be correcting spelling or improving articles. I don't think that one dispute is enough to jeopardize his candidacy. Alphachimp   talk  17:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! +Hexagon1 (t) 07:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a second ... I checked out these 3 "felonious" edits that got Mboverload blocked and two were clearly flippant. The third edit, "Conrad hates women" troubled me, so I checked the edit history: "Conrad hates women" was immediately (within 60 sec.) changed by Mboverload to "Conrad hates boobies!" -- even odder, to say the least. Then I checked Mboverload's talk page ... the debate was whether to keep a user box with a pair of breasts! Not only that but I don't see any evidence that Conrad got offended. If I'm missing something, let me know. I'm not saying this was Mboverload's finest moment as a diplomat and I will resist the urge to add my own flip remarks about boobies in userboxes. I think if anyone has any qualms, that perhaps they should contact the targets of these so-called personal attacks and invite them to comment. Blocking with no warning or discussion seems very extreme in this case. Also, I personally feel as if I was presented with stuff taken out of context -- have Cyde and Mboverload had other disputes?--A. B. 03:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Extensive noticeboard discussion of these edits and Cyde's block. Why was this additional relevant information not included along with the accusations above? --A. B. 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they hate mb, even though he is a great editor and deserves to be an admin. Fr e ddie Message? 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per Cyde. SushiGeek 02:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have seen some manuel edits by Mboverload and wasn't too terribly impressived and was concerned somewhat with Wikimaturity. The responses to the TfD seem out of line and recent. I am troubled by this and, unfortunately I can not support this nomination. Yank  sox  02:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Though, I have gained some respect in how Mbover has handled this. Yank  sox  05:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify. Are you talking about the Administrators Noticeboard discussions just posted by A. B.? Alphachimp   talk  05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose per Cyde. The "Conrad hates women" diff did it for me - a textbook case of assuming bad faith. Please control yourself, learn to always assume good faith, and I may reconsider next time. Also consider that remarks made in jest may be easily misunderstood, especially on such a public place as Wikipedia. Kimchi.sg 02:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please view it in context, if that's all I ask of you. It was not a literal comment, it was a light-hearted comment in jest about him putting up a userbox about women up for deletion. Wait, you actually think that I think that Conrad hates women? --mboverload @  22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about [ the] [ other] [ diffs] that Cyde cites? Will you excuse all of them as light-hearted comments made in jest? Kimchi.sg 03:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, yes, I would. Fr e ddie Message? 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Uncivil. Another recent example is this diff in the midst of a thread where a whole string of good editors were saying "sure, block the troll, but there's no need to tell him to f* off, is there?", so Mboverload thought it funny to do just that. This was his sole contribution to the thread. It's not big to tell someone to fuck off and call them a troll, it's not clever, and it is not funny. It is particularly not these things when a whole list of people have explained precisely why; would-be admins need to listen to conversation and then not decide to pour petrol on its flames. -Splash - tk 03:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about the user, I said trolls in general. That's why I said "trolls" and not "that troll". --mboverload @ 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per Cyde, Splash above. --WinHunter (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Unfortunately, the instances pointed out against Mboverload have persuaded me to oppose adminship. I have been hurt by uncivil people and don't plan to give admin powers to someone who can sometimes be that way. -- Will Mak  050389  03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for the same reasons as Cyde and Splash. I expect a certain level of decorum to be displayed by admins, we are building an encyclopedia not a community. There is nothing wrong with Mboverload's mainspace edits, I may well support in the future if he can display a greater maturity and civility in his interactions with other users. Rje 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. mboverload has contributed very well as a wikignome, and we do need more wikignome-like admins.  My suggestion would be to make a conscious effort to tone down sarcasm or attempts at humour (as I think some of the diffs in question were benign initially, but may have spiralled downward in an attempt at humour), and to continue the positive things that you've done here (as listed above) -- Samir   धर्म 03:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for reasons of civility. Things might seem hilarious when thought of in the heat of the moment, but when considered in isolation on-screen they come across as rude and dismissive.  I wouldn't want to be treated in this manner by an admin.   (aeropagitica)   (talk)   06:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose the recent block and comments about civility concern me. Show that you can be civil doing RCP and the like for a few months, then I will be happy to support. Abcdefghijklm 08:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose as per Cyde. i think that a revote should happen in the future if you can show yourself to be professional in the wikipedia namespace. --  preschooler @  heart   09:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC).
 * 8) Oppose per Cyde + Splash's diffs. Civility?  No.   Proto ///  type  11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Cyde, I initially wanted to support, but civility issues raised by Cyde made me oppose. Not yet. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. — Jul. 5, '06  [14:25] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Just out of curiosity, why are you opposing because of a rule cheat-sheet? +Hexagon1 (t) 07:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was quite disappointed to read that page; it reeks of pedantry. If you find yourself referring to a so-called "cheat sheet" of rigid criteria to ascertain whether or not an page of crap can be spared the honor of a five day vote discussion, I'd suggest you're undertaking the wrong task. If you want to approach it that way, why not just set loose an AWB bot to delete/untag accordingly? Human analysis, in theory, should produce a human result. Precedents apply; look at any of several unaminmous delete closures, determine what defining characteristics they share, and adapt them to items you see in the future. Most of all though, use common sense and educated decision-making. Maybe you'll make a few mistakes, but those can be fixed, and at least we'll know you had the balls to risk making them. If the candidate can't trust his own judgment, why should we? If we've got time for another metaphor, consider that in theater and film, the best acting is often the most improvisational. — Jul. 6, '06  [19:32] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Well, I have to admit that was not the way I viewed that page. I am generally able to tell whether I think a given page deserves a speedy tag, it's which tag I can never remember: the number as well as the -type template which is associated with it. Have a little pity on those of us with less perfect memories than yourself? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I don't understand your objections to it, it has the same information as the speedy deletions page, would you like to delete the speedy deletion criteria page as well? I mean, some people feel intimidated by the whole speedy thing, and they want to make sure they get it right. I don't see how a page to refresh someone's memory could be so evil... =( The most important part of it is the exceptions in in, like where it says "an article that was deleted as an uncontested prod and then re-created is not subject to this criterion, as the re-creation effectively amounts to contesting the proposed deletion. Such cases should be taken to Articles for deletion for discussion by the community." --mboverload @  21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather an admin that follows the guidelines and uses the proper templates, then one fumbling all over the place making "mistakes" (directly out of your post). +Hexagon1 (t) 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You've taken the word "mistakes", stretched it into a compound predicate, then placed it in my mouth. The rest of my statement, including the dilemma of how to evaluate the judgment of one unwilling to use his own judgment, remains unaddressed. — Jul. 8, '06 <tt> [13:38] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] ></tt>
 * But you did say that mistakes is OK, (and that is "proves you [have] balls") how can I place a statement that you said into your mouth? The rest of the statement remains unaddressed because frankly I didn't find anything worth addressing. Him having a cheat-sheet has nothing to do with his judgement, he has it so he knows which template corresponds to which criteria for deletion, not to guide him whether or not the article is a "pile of crap". Sometimes an user will question why a page was deleted, which page and which rule exactly did it violate. Do you remember every single rule, it's application, precedent and location? It's very unlikely that you do, and it's times like these that a cheat-sheet comes in handy. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is great -- I'm glad you pointed it out, freak! This something I can really use because I have a hard time remembering all the templates, etc. I'm impressed that you can.--A. B. 04:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for obvious reasons. --Nearly Headless Nick 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per above.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Thoroughly uncivil as per above. Fails Diablo Test anyway. Anwar 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Lack of civility is a major concern. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  18:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per civility issues. --Shizane 22:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I really hate opposing RfA's, but the civility issues and the relatively recent block stand out to me. If you fail an RfA, you typically wait 3 months... shouldn't you wait at least that long after a block for violating something like WP:CIVIL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vengeful Cynic (talk • contribs)
 * See, someone else nominated him, and it isn't exactly particularly polite to refuse. Fr e ddie Message? 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Quite honestly, I still don't think that the incident is notable enough to stand in the way of the nomination of such a great user. mboverload's explanation sufficed for me. The nom seemed sort of past due for me, given the breadth of his contributions (even with AWB) and his interest in admin. Alphachimp   talk  05:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per civility issues. I don't mind attempts at humor, but the diffs above go over the line, and I expect better out of admins. BryanG(talk) 05:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to support. BryanG(talk) 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose incivility. --HResearcher 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as per Samir. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Extremely Strong Oppose Had I known that this person was NOT an administrator, I wouldn't have put up with the several times that this person edited my comments, made me a personal issue to attack, nor put up with this person's rude and condescending remarks. Because of this person's actions and the attack on my Talk Page, I have decided to leave Wikipedia until I receive e-mail that my page has been restored. This person has no respect for other people, doesn't bother to inquire before making a WP:POINT, acts as a rogue, and believes in the "my way" or "no way" theory of butting in without any other knowledge whatsoever. Oh yes, all this was done within an HOUR! Goodbye. Ste4k 02:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...This is a highly abusive user that I just encountered. I removed the formatting from his talk page which made it unreadble by anyone, I had multiple people try all the settings on their monitor.  A handicap person even complained to him about the formatting. (the best idea why he did this is that so people can't message him).  Several admins and multiple users agreed with my actions, this is just an attempt at revenge.  Please ignore this vote as it was done in a depesperate attempt to harm me (he already tried my talk page).  Read everything Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * Here are the guidelines that you are evidently unaware of and which you hadn't the time to research before making me a target to step upon for your RFA campaign. Ste4k 12:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also see this page. I even try to help this guy fix his computer.  And this is what I get for it?--mboverload @  02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)\
 * You either cannot read and/or you didn't bother to. I am female.
 * You changed the readibility of my page, then apologized about my disability. Insulting me in the extreme.
 * I have close to thirty years of experience in professional computer programming and system administration. You didn't even bother to check before making your condescending remarks about "fixing his computer".
 * You are not a medical doctor and making assumptions about handicapped people that don't fit your norm is ignorance, bigotry, or both.
 * You edited my portion of my talk page without even any discussion.
 * You told me to revert your errors as if I was your cleaning lady.
 * You personally made me your business and you haven't been authorized as an administrator.
 * You presumed that I knew who you are, what you were doing, and why.
 * "Me and many other users are discussing this on the IRC channel incase you wish to join in, which I wish you would. --mboverload@ 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC) " Found this late entry on another page. Rather than consult me at all, you decided that lynch mob tactics were in your own best interests.
 * You acted in all of these uncivil ways and your reasoning was "I have removed it. I believe it is akin to protecting your talk page, I'm not sure if there's a rule against this kind of thing, but I know it's against the spirit of the wiki." You KNOW? This statement you made AFTER you had done the damage shows clear assumption of bad faith. Not only was it bad faith but you supported your actions on a self admitted lack of knowledge of any policys in this regard.
 * Instead of investigating this matter, you jumped to a conclusion, and were dead wrong. Now, instead of apologizing, and showing any integrity, you show that you are interested only in yourself and in your virtual political election here.
 * I have to ask you, what was your hurry? There is a word for people like yourself. Inconsiderate. You haven't the real life experience to know that there are many types of people in this world and that most are NOT like you.
 * Per the comments below. I am only a single vote. This is not an argument and ganging up on a 3-week old editor only shows that you are deeply concerned that what I have said here is the truth. Ste4k 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This user does appear to have some civility issues. See User_talk:Mboverload. Alphachimp   talk  02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you really think so? How would you react if several administrators decided unilaterally that you should no longer be able to read your talk page? How would you feel when they first posted a screenshot to your talk page? Wouldn't you show them what their page looked like to you in return? Do you really believe that if Mboverload changed the colors on your talk page purposely to appease his own tastes regardless of your readibility that you would think that his act was civil? Are you aware that the other people who had mentioned problems with the page had all been responded to amicably on their own discussion pages? Did you do any research on this matter, or did you fail to look into it as Mboverload had failed? Why should Mboverload be acting in an adminstrative capacity while here in this very discussion it is clear that such a position has yet to be decided? Seeing that his own reasons for changing my talk page were based on bad faith by his own admission, what part of civility issues do you believe you are accrediting fairly? Ste4k 09:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You mention above in this nomination: "...think of mboverload's contributions to Wikipedia in three groups: spellchecking, vandal fighting, and article improvement..." I think you point out clearly there that Mboverload hasn't any administrative skills especially in regards to making investigations rather than presumptions, nor considering how all people are unique rather than stereotyping everyone into a norm of presumed "vandalism". I am particularly appalled at how instead of asking me anything at all that he would begin conversations in IRC that I still haven't any clue about what was said. Civil? Ste4k 09:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (edit-conflict) If you are referring to this edit I have to agree with Mboverload. As Help:Talk page states Feel free to decorate your personal pages as you see fit, but keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose. Looking at the previous version before Mboverload's edit, it is impossible to read and other users even stated they found it impossible to read the talk page. Mboverload advised you how to fix the problem with your browser, and you could also have used an alternative skin (other than monobook.js) and I believe internet explorer allows you to set a style sheet for all sites. Talk pages should allow editors to be able to communicate, and using unreadable font sizes and colours prevents that. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 02:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, please see User_talk:Mangojuice my specific comments] on that exact statement made before any of this allowed the troll to cause me so much grief. Ste4k 08:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for stepping into this mess, but if you can only read your talk page if it is tiny and purple, how can you read this page, or for that matter, anything else on wikipedia? Thatcher131 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * With difficulty as stated. I have to scroll and search on the normal pages, even here I have to use the "find" function to jump to a keyword. I specifically asked the admin not to make this a personal matter about me if the subject was to be discussed. The admin had also made changes to the page earlier, had apologized for not discussing it, and I felt that I could trust that. Nobody asked for anyone's assistance in this matter. Anyone whom had any difficulty earlier, such as the colorblind editor, had understood and agreed to discuss matters about articles on their own talk pages. I don't like people making a spectacle of my name, especially when they are asked to avoid such things previously. I was under the impression that the admin would be discussing the type of problem among other admins. Link and Link Later, after several "apparent" admins began to send me messages, it appeared to me that this discussion, wherever it was, had the sole intent on making me an issue as well as making an authoritative WP:POINT. I don't see any reason that Mboverload should have seized the opportunity to treat me like a vandal on my own talk page. After having enough time to sort things out and read all of the comments that were being made behind my back, and without any forthcoming apology, my current opinion is that he acted hastily and zealously to prove his own little WP:POINT in regards to this nomination. I have decided no longer to use the talk page at all as it has only ever caused me problems. Ste4k 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose(I usually don't oppose), but there was a certain comment in the summary of an edit to Child pornography on the 21.4.2006, 22:13 which read: (What's the purpose of an encyclopedia if you can't use it to find kiddie porn? Reverted edit.) If that is supposed to be a joke (which I surmise it is), it is a least not very mature. Lectonar 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * here is the mentioned edit. I'm actually a little curious about this one. Yank  sox  11:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The above exchange indicates an excess of zeal which is evident in many other cases noted above. I can't really point to any single incident which is grossly out of line, but taken as a whole I'd say that this candidate is rather too hasty for my liking. Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy you know? 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 1) Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Changed from Strong Support due to the information provided by Cyde Weys that I had not known before.  I still feel that he's a good editor, although he might not possess the extreme level-headedness one needs to be a great administrator at this time.   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 02:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Leaning toward support...  An excellent VP mod, and I have never seen him lose his cool agianst a vandal. I want to wait and see what his response is to critisism. Eagle talk 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see them above in the "oppose" section. Fr e ddie Message? 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) M e rovingian { T C @ } 03:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, i'd really like to support despite Cyde's findings, but the answer to question 2 just didn't satisfy me, so many edits yet no proud major improvement to any article. Also fails my criteria.:Þ -- Andeh 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral We disagree on AOL blocks but his heart is in the right place about improving WP. I would like to see long answers to my AOL questions below so I can understand him better. Hort Graz 11:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Great contributor. But per Cyde's comments (not the comment concerning editcount)I can't support yet. Garion96 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral as yet, but should be great in a few months. BTW, those objecting that AWB drives up the edit count, uh ... there's an Uncyclopedia article about that sort of thing. - David Gerard 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm tempted to support, but neutral due to civility concerns. Roy A.A. 17:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral as well per civily concerns. -- Pilotguy (<b style="color:#0000FF;">roger that</b>) 02:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral From userpage: "Although I write extremely well, I only write for my own enjoyment and not generally for Wikipedia." What's the matter, don't you like us?  ;-)   Phr (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral due to general concerns in regards to actions... Michael 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what actions? --mboverload @  04:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments


 * See Mboverload's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username Mboverload Total edits 15519 Distinct pages edited 12512 Average edits/page 1.240 First edit 03:31, 11 April 2004 (main) 12618 Talk 190 User 536 User talk 1234 Image 17 Image talk 3 Template 41 Template talk 2 Help 2 Category 4 Category talk 2 Wikipedia 783 Wikipedia talk 87
 * Mboverload's edit count using Interiot's tool
 * Mboverload's edit summary Mathbot's tool
 * Edit summary usage for Mboverload: 26% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 74 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.


 * Icey's Tabular Individual Statistics. Icey 20:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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: Oh boy! New page patrol, new user patrol, and AIV! I love that stuff, I'm not joking, that's the kind of thing I live for. AWB just came out with a new "IRCMonitor" which is going to be a godsend for that kind of thing. Due to my extremely high “contactability” (AIM, IRC, and email) I plan on being a go-to admin for blocking people who threaten users physically or post their personal information. That isn't something to joke about, and I don't plan on treating it like it is.  Also, a user can feel free to contact me for help with ANYTHING, and I mean that.  I know how powerless you can feel when something is going down and you can't find an admin to help you out.  Hopefully I'll help eliminate that problem, even at 3AM in the morning.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am hugely proud of my typo fixing. If a new user sees a spelling problem in an encyclopedia of all places that personal automatically thinks less of Wikipedia.  With new spelling problems being introduced every few seconds I don't know how I'll keep up with it, but I'll certainly try.  I am also proud of my work in cleaning up articles with slants or unneeded information, especially school articles.  Ug, I just can't stand POV articles and I'll usually drop everything and fix them if I come across one.


 * 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 get into conflicts with school kids because I like cleaning up school articles, which requires lots of patience. I try to explain to them why we can't take their section about ghosts at the water fountain in the encyclopedia but when they blow you off and continue to revert...that gets me ruffled.  Of course, I believe that using admin powers in a "content dispute" is very much wrong, so I'll be in the same situation as before in that regard.
 * Also, I got into a dispute with Cyde about userboxes. However I think we I am better for it in the end, haha =P.  Without that frustrating experience I wouldn't be the editor I am today.  I think it's water under the bridge, I think me and Cyde get along just fine now.
 * I love blowing off personal attacks against me, I think that's one of my strongest traits. A vandal can scream and whine at me all he wants, but in the end I'll tell him to have a nice day.


 * Optional Question from Yanksox
 * 4. Can you elaborate further about your dispute with Cyde? Yank  sox  02:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A: It was a misguided attempt at humor that did not transfer over the keyboard, which it often does not. It was on AFD discussions during the very tip of the userbox debates. I didn't do anything completely blatantly uncivil as I recall. He did block me for incivility (which it says up in the nom), which I objected to and it generated several pages of discussion on the administrator's noticeboard because I don't think I was given a warning. In the end I have absolutely no bad feeling towards Cyde and I'm neutral on my blocking. However, I think it made me a better editor. I hope this isn't a reason for your to oppose, but I understand.--mboverload @ 03:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional AOL questions from Hort Graz
 * 1) Detail your blocking plan when you are dealing with a persistent vandal who uses AOL. How long do you block? How often must he returen before you start to do longer blocks?
 * A: One single AOL IP? 15 minutes to start, another 15 minutes if it's the same IP, then 30 minutes, then 3 hours.  After that I think it really depends on the situation, but I am not for blocking AOL ips for more than 24 hours.
 * 1) If you block a range of AOL addresses, will you commit yourself to stay around during the block to help the innocent victims of the block?
 * A: Of course. It was my choice and I have to take responsibility for my actions, especially when they effect people that only want to help.  I may kill the block just for them.
 * 1) After you have blocked an inappropriate user name, will you check the Special:Ipblocklist to see if this block is creating massive collateral damage?
 * A: Yes. When using VandalProof I always check the contributions of a vandalizing user to see if they have done anything else.  Simple and fast way to head off an attack from the source.
 * 1) Have you ever experienced being autoblocked because another user was blocked? Are you empathetic to those who may suffer this way, or do you not care?
 * A: I have been blocked from editing at my college. I was mad, but I understood there was a good reason for it.  I am empathetic towards the people who are blocked, but if this is the AOL image vandal, they can wait 30 minutes.  If I find legit users on a range block I would probably unblock immediatly just in case the AOL image vandal has gone away.


 * The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.