Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mirv

User:Mirv
Around 3000 edits since 05:42, 9 Nov 2003. Mirv will make an excellent administrator. He helps raise the bar for other contributors and is always level-headed. Earlier today I was surprised to find out that Mirv hadn't become an admin a long time ago; he should've been. 172

Thank you 172, I accept the nomination.

Regarding the questions raised by Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany below: As I explained to RickK when he asked, I agreed strongly with the ideas behind the summary, never mind the harsh language in which they were expressed. In retrospect I ought to have asked that the summary be made less abusive (or done so myself) before giving and maintaining my endorsement, and I apologize for not doing so.

I hope this explains things to everyone's satisfaction. &#8212;No-One Jones 18:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) 172 10:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Mirv has done a lot of good work on Middle East topics. -- Viajero 10:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Danny 10:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Mirv aka No-One Jones is a great editor, and a good user I will fully support him for sysop! Comrade Nick User Talk Plato:@)---^--- 11:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) I always thought he already was one. theresa knott 11:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I like the idea of an admin named Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle... Not to mention ey are an extremely well qualified user. --"D ICK " C HENEY 13:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Meelar 13:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) older &ne; wiser 14:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) UninvitedCompany 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC).  See comments below.
 * 10) john k 15:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Snowspinner 18:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC) My concerns are now addressed.
 * 12) Michael Snow 20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Angela. 15:38, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Chancemill 16:48, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) GrazingshipIV 17:42, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) MykReeve 22:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 13:29, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) After reviewing the question raised, I still support Mirv. Mirv has a long history of fairness and dedication to the project. Kingturtle 23:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Tuf-Kat 14:26, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Guanaco 16:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Everyking 17:50, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Maximus Rex 18:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) Hephaestos|&#167; 01:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) ugen64 17:44, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) I support Mirv. Mark 07:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose


 * 1) VV 21:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Oppose. No problems with this user early on, and he seemed impartial in my conflict with 172 at FOX News (where 172 was clearly wrong), but the stated issue shows very poor judgement both in (a) calling a user an "ignorant fuck" (his explanation above notwithstanding), and (b) endorsing the sentiment (a case of a wise user handling an ignorant user), which shows either a failure to understand the conflict before commenting or a very shoddy reading of events, neither of which reflects good judgement.
 * 2) Sam [Spade] 20:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC) based on recent endorsement of personal attack. (would likely support at a later time)

Neutral


 * 1) Snowspinner 14:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Unable to support due to his endorsement of Danny's original statement in the RfC regarding 172 (See ).

Comments

I have indicated my support for Mirv's adminship above. Mirv is a fine, upstanding contributor who has made valuable contributions and who has familiarity with and involvement in admin-related matters. I did note his endorsement of the RfC text noted above, which I consider inappropriate, and all the more so because Mirv did not avail himself of the opportunity to distance himself from the comment when RickK brought it to his attention. However, because this is a relatively minor faux pas in the greater scheme of things, and since it appears to be an isolated event, I still support Mirv for adminship. UninvitedCompany 15:43, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

As a note, I invite Mirv to explain the endorsement above either here, in e-mail, or on my talk page - prior to it I would have supported, and so I would welcome some explanation, as I would like to support. For the time being, I'm downgrading my vote to neutral. Snowspinner 15:59, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Overdue for adminship, and the isolated instance of endorsing a statement with abusive language is the only thing I have ever seen Mirv do that I consider inappropriate. I would not deny Mirv adminship on these grounds, any more than I would support de-sysoping Danny for writing the language initially. The statement has since been rewritten, and with that I think we should all be able to put it behind us. --Michael Snow 20:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * All I can find are people talking about the endorsement. Could someone point me to the specific endorsement in question? Kingturtle 03:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Check the link in Snowspinner and UninvitedCompany's comments, and read the statement I was endorsing. &#8212;No-One Jones 04:16, 27 May 2004 (UTC)