Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Maxamegalon2000

Edit count as of 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Category: 1 Image: 6 Mainspace 2487 Portal talk: 1 Portal: 5 Talk: 350 Template talk: 2 Template: 4 User talk: 886 User: 114 Wikipedia talk: 6 Wikipedia: 314 avg edits per article 1.83 earliest 18:33, 30 August 2005 number of unique articles 2286 total 4176 2005/8 2   2005/9  9   2005/10  12   2005/11  15   2005/12  14   2006/1  77   2006/2  245   2006/3  452   2006/4  263   2006/5  459   2006/6  124   2006/7  346   2006/8  654   2006/9  467   2006/10  385   2006/11  430   2006/12  222

Wikipedia project edits added for discussion
List of Wikipedia project space edits added 16:20, 19 December, 2006 using the wannabe kate tool 53	Reference desk/Miscellaneous 15	Administrator intervention against vandalism 11	Reference desk/Language 9	Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks 6	Reference desk/Computing 6	Reference desk/Humanities 6	Articles for deletion/Eric Vescuso 5	Sandbox 4	Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey 3	Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14 3	Articles for deletion/ABC Sports and Bowl Championship Series 3	Village pump (assistance) 3	Requests for adminship/Maxamegalon2000 3	Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 24 3	List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia Addhoc 16:20, 19 December, 2006

BITE
Crz, can you clarify what makes this a severe BITE? Not waiting longer for the page to be edited? Not talking to the editor before tagging it? Or simply making a mistake when a newbie was involved? Honest question&mdash;I really don't quite understand. -- SCZenz 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said severe BITE? All true BITE is severe.
 * Anyway, incoming articles are either in good faith (such as here) or in bad faith (such as "Mr. Johnson who teaches history is a doofus" or "Shizzle Nizzle is a band in Jimmie Peterson's garage."). When a newbie posts an article in good faith, tagging it for A7 right away is evil, even if A7 is warranted. It's twice as evil to do so when A7 is obviously not warranted. Deletion of other people's work is serious business, and should be undertaken with care and sensitivity. Start by asking the person to state why they think the band is famous, or ask them to read MUSIC and state whether or not they think the band meets it. Once you know they read it and either admitted defeat or chose not to respond productively, by all means, put the tag on - but we're alienating so many potential contributors by the idiotic stridency of some NPP'ers (not nominee) that we're effectively shooting ourselves in the foot. Wikipedia's reputation as a bureaucratic morass is not without merit. - crz crztalk 02:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to sink an admin candidate, I would think it has to be severe. Ok, I respect your position... a lot.  At the same time, most new page patrollers do exactly what Maxamegalon2000 did; if we're not teaching any better, it is pretty rough to hold it against admin candidates who think they've been doing everything right.  Well, I'll think on it.  Thanks for your explanation. -- SCZenz 05:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting he be sunk - but somebody needs to bring the stuff up. Many people will support regardless, because they think it's not a big deal or whatever - and that's the way it should be. - crz crztalk 12:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)