Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lbmixpro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Lbmixpro

Final: (18/0/1) ended 10:08 December 12, 2005 (UTC)

Lbmixpro (talk • contribs) – has been active in the Wikipedia community since September 24, 2004, with over 15 hundred edits under my belt. As a Wikipedian, I've made edits to many articles which range a wide variety of topics, as well as created a few. I have a solid understanding of Wikipedia's rules and regulations, as well as experience in procedures such as Peer Review, votes for deletion, and the dispute resolution process, to the level of WP:RFAr. As an admin, I would like to help control the troll and vandalism issues which is a constant threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. With my experience with Wikipedia, I would also like to help new editors get aquainted with the site. While administrator, I will be be responsible with my privilages and be held accountable for my actions. On a related note, I have been suggested adminship from users such as User:Marine_69-71, although I've been reluctant to apply until this time. LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Extreme Support LordViD 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Merovingian 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Support. Seems good. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Support - I fully lend support of this user and I know how well he tried to help in the Emico situation below, which caused major stress to him and me. Hope your admin Lbmixpro! SWD316 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Support 100% I recognized Lbmixpro ability to become a great admin a long time ago and I am proud to give him my vote of confidence. Tony the Marine 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Support - worked well through a difficult problem, and is continuing to help. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Extreme Support -Proven performance in battle. Conscientiously maintains civility and due processe while persistently progressing a dialogue to achieve a good article/neutral point. See INC talk page. May not have that much edit counts yet but will definitely be advantageous for wikipedia in the fight against trolls. --Jondel 02:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Support contributions look solid.--MONGO 06:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Support per above. Izehar (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Orane (t) (c) (e-mail) 17:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Support per Jondel.--Alhutch 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. --Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. the wub "?!" 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Support Martin 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Support thought I had already --pgk^(talk) 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
17. Extreme Support He has dealt with issues in a transparent and honest manner, and I can state on my honour that his efforts have strengthened Wikipedia as well as improved my contributions. --Ironbrew 21:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. El_C 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support Proto t c 12:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. Neutral, at the moment. I think this user is well-intentioned, calm, and has made some valuable contributions, but can see relatively little participation in either deletion or vandal-fighting, and his edits seem mainly concentrated around a few areas. Wouldn't take much for me to support, though. The Land 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• For the benefit of those with editcountitis: as of 10:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Lbmixpro has made 2114 edits. Unfortunately, Kate's tool is down, so I had to count them using XL. Izehar (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need more admins. Newbies can be assisted without admin powers. Same with trolls - if you face real problems, the admin noticeboard exists for a reason. Most uncaught vandalism would not have been caught even if every Wikipedian had the rollback feature. 202.58.85.8 07:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a proven vandal IP who has been disqualified and temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruption of the Requests for Adminship page and its subpages and for continued WP:POINT violations. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

Moved to comments section as per other candidates. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>}

Questions for the candidate
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. As I mentioned in the description, I would like to help control the troll and vandal issues with wikipedia, as well as assist new users in becoming useful contributers.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. All the articles which I've made major improvements to, such as Christina Aguilera (which was peer reviewed), Sonic: Time Attacked (which was undeleted, and survived VfD thereafter), K-Meleon, and Tila Nguyen (which I have worked with the subject of the article in some of my contributions). I'm proud of my edits not only because of improving each article, but it also gives me a place to share my knowlege of a subject in a friendly, supportive enviroment.

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 am an active contributer to the controvercial Iglesia ni Cristo article. While editing that article, I have engaged in a Arbitration proceeding.

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico.

Although there's been heated feelings, I've went through thick and thin to keep as cool as I can, to avoid making the situation worse by attacking back.

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.