Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkweise

Mkweise
Mkweise has been here since August 2003 and has about 900 edits. He has done a lot of good work and communicates well with others. I think he would make an excellent administrator. Cautious 22:48, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd be honored to accept...though I hope your decision to nominate me wasn't motivated by the fact that I happen to be largely on your side in a certain NPOV controversy. Also, I've been around since the autumn of 2002 (registered as mkweise since January 2003) and, while I haven't actually counted my edits, I'm sure they're a lot more than 900. Mkweise 01:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a note, not a vote: Mkweise has over 3,100 edits to his name. Chris Roy 04:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Cautious 22:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Seaman 22:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
 * 3) Danny 04:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Tuf-Kat 21:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Moncrief 00:32, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) jengod 21:32, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Has made useful edits on a wide range of subjects. Happy to support Cecropia 17:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Kingturtle 17:48, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Decumanus | Talk 16:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Ludraman | Talk 19:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) GrazingshipIV 17:58, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Ryan_Cable 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
 * 13) Hephaestos|&#167; 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Support.  I see that this is almost done, since I'm one of the few American bureucrats (who will still be awake) would anyone mind if I pulled the trigger after having voted?  Pakaran. 21:28, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comment:
 * Mkweise, I reserve any vote since I don't know you and don't think you are being involved by any dark purpose on your part. However, seeing Cautious and Seaman  side by side (after the problems and questions about Seaman) would make me (were it me) reject the nomination (and surely ensure renomination at a later date.) - Texture 03:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I must agree. &mdash; Jor (Talk) 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Guys, don't be ridiculous. Are you going to vote against him, only because Cautious is in favor?! Repeating of the voting is nonsense. Please resume a voting and slash your comments. The comments doesn&#8217;t belong to discussion of MkweiseEon 14:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)