Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mlc409

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

[edit] mlc409

Final (2/10/0) ended 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

mlc409 (talk • contribs) – mlc409 has now contributed to Wikipedia for the relatively short time of 6 months. It would however be unfair to judge this potential administrator on their time registered, as their contribution made since joining makes this wholely irrelevent. mlc409 actively seeks out hooligans who vandalize the hard work of others and does not hesitate in taking positive action against them. Dedicated to Wikipedia - an impeccable knowledge of admin policies and protocol. There is no doubt that mlc409 would be an asset to the admin team, and I am sure you will agree with this.

I am more than happy to accept this nomination - mlc

I am going to be bold and close this RfA early. Obviously, there's something fishy going on in here (sockpuppetry?), and I don't think a person with 40 edits really would qualify in anyone's RfA guidelines. I don't want to drag this on for much longer, so I'm closing this RfA early. Nishkid64 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would be most interested in "front line" tasks, leading by example and flushing out ruthless vandals - they're not wanted on Wikipedia. I will work my utmost to keep the top quality information that attracted me to this fantastic project in the first place. Obviously, I'd be more than happy to assist in other areas if required.

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

A: I am particularly pleased with my Speedcuffs article as it was one of my first articles on Wikipedia, where I learnt a lot about the Wiki format. I am chuffed especially as it has remained basically unchanged since then.

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: Yes, I was in conflict with one user at one time in my early days. I learnt from the way I handled that situation - I am now less confrontational and more keen to adopt a calmer approach unlike originally where I was very much a bull by the horns person. I know realise that it is important to sit back and read a situation before rushing in and acting.

General comments

• For the record, Mlc409 didn't author the Speedcuffs article, Mawich was the original author. Mlc409 didn't touch the article until December 2nd and his only contribution was a single comma...so it is a bit odd to take pride in an article he had absolutely nothing to do with. IrishGuy ^talk 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nominator Gordon39's first edit was to replace the Padlock article with "fuck you bitch!!". A half an hour later he nominated Mlc409 for adminship. Eleven minutes later, Mlc409 arrived to accept the nomination, even though their edit histories show they have never communicated with each other. Since then, (at least as of this writing) Gordon39 has made no other edits to Wikipedia. Both the nominator and the other supporting voter, Ichbinbored, are suspected sockpuppets of Mlc409.IrishGuy ^talk 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

1. Support -- Looks like a good candidate with positive intentions for the wiki project! Gordon39 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Gordon39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2. Support. I think that Mlc409 would make a good admin due to his excellent editing skills and the fact that he would actively use his position to hunt down vandalism and repair it. Ichbinbored ^talk 16:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The nominator is a brand new account. His first edit was blatant vandalism [1]. Mlc409, however, is one of the authors of the hoax article Janicism and has only made edits to two other articles. IrishGuy ^talk 14:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
2. This RfA was put up by an spa/sockpuppet/meatpuppet. I think someone who can do checkuser could probably find other hoax articles, sockpuppetry and vandalism by this user and the nominee besides what IrishGuy mentioned. Tubezone 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Thier only intention is to create distruption. They don't appear to respect the Wikipedia project (ie: the suspected hoax article Janicism). Given the majority of their edits are related to this hoax article, and are in no way useful or constructive to Wikipedia (the opposite in fact), they should be banned from editing Wikipedia if anything. Bungle44 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Very very strong oppose I don't know if this is a joke or not but less than 50 edits including vandalism??? TSO1D 17:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Withdraw Please: The candidate, nominator and both supporters are suspected of being the same person, as far as I can tell. I suspect this may be an attempt to gain administrator rights to protect/recreate the Janicism article. If the candidate turns out not to be a suckpuppet or puppeteer then I'll happily withdraw my vote from this RfA. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
6. mlc49 has made untrue claims even in this page. He did not create speedcuffs, and in fact did not even edit it until December 2nd, as the history page for the article clearly shows. This alone should disqualify the request. mlc49 also has a history of putting odd, nonstandard warnings onto people's pages, such as here. For some reason, he has issued himself a warning on his talk page as well, and has more recently blanked it, though it has been reverted since. It is clear from this that mlc49 does not have an understanding of Wikipedia protocol. slippered sleep 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Very strong oppose Appear to be sockpuppets with a short history, with not much activity other than the hoax article. Suggest an indefinate block for all of them. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, no experience and few edits. Mainly vandalism contributions. Terence Ong 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong oppose, after edit conflict. 40 edits? I would expect an admin to have 1000 edits at the very least, usually more. The nominator is a very new user, and started by vandalizing a page. The candidate did not create the Speedcuffs article, has only been active for two months (one of which they made only one edit) despite creating his account six months ago, and has blanked their own talk page. I strongly suggest withdrawal. —The Great Llama^moo? 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Speedy close Sockpuppetry. One edit before yesterday. Period. -- Kicking222 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

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.