Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Miborovsky

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] Miborovsky

Final (19/0/0) ended 05:45 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Miborovsky (talk · contribs) – Miborovsky has over 2000 edits here and he's an avid historian.He's friendly and he helps out a lot in the Singapore portal although he's not in that country anymore.He's one good admin if we vote him!

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Nomination by Tan Ding XiangTan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 03:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I, Miborovsky, graciously accept the nomination by Tdxiang. Thank you.

Support

  1. Merovingian 05:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, good contributor. Kirill Lokshin 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support' would be an asset.Gator (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support!Yummy,yummy.Good history bits and bites from Mib...go for it,pal!Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 14:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support BlueShirts 21:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support, been an asset to wikipedia ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support looked over edits and they look good. Made comment below.--MONGO 19:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support I'd been wondering where Hmib had got to. Now I know. ;) Mark1 01:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, thou I wish we can see more of him! :D--Huaiwei 06:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support counterrevolutionary, capitalist pig-dog, Nazi lover, and imperialist Jesus worshipper. what better can we get? down with the motherland! long live comrade Miborovsky!--Jiang 08:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. Keep offending the motherland, Hmiborovsky! Grr. El_C 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support He's an ocean of knowledge and a seeker of the truth. Keep defending the motherland, Hmib. 赵奕琨Shenzhou 06:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support. Will find the tools usefull. Alf melmac 02:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Fahrenheit Royale 17:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. --Martin Osterman 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Good contributor. Kefalonia 18:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support -- even though I'm too darn late. Nandesuka 13:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support - I'm late too but it's not my fault. Mandel 14:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Low voting total here makes me wonder if requests for adminship isn't some kind of popularity contest. People in this forum should spend a few minutes, examine the editing record of a candidate and either raise questions and vote, regardless of their familiarity of the candidate. All I can say to Miborovsky is to participate a little more in the admin process and discussion. Good luck!--MONGO 19:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    I think it's largely that many people won't vote on the nomination of a user they haven't encountered before; so editors who work primarily in relatively obscure topic areas tend to attract fewer comments. Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I do work in relatively obscure fields, so what Kirill Lokshin is probably true. I will try to get some editors I've worked with in the past to comment. :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not in favor of these bandwagon nominations, and I'm particularly annoyed at the "extreme nonsense on wheels with jam on it" style votes. If I see a nomination that is likely to go in a direction with which I disagree, then I'll tend to vote. All we can do to stop the silliness is to refuse to participate in it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • One of the voters to support the candidate makes me curious. At one point I believe that I saw it stated that at least 100 edits was required to be able to vote on rfa's. This voter got an account on Nov.15 [1] and all the messages on this voters page are from the candidate [2]. Has this editor been editing with just an Ip for quite awhile and just signed up?--Dakota t e 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi DakotaKahn, BlueShirts has been doing substantial work on articles about the Second Sino-Japanese War as well. I'm not sure when he started editing or whether he had used a prior IP address (he used this IP - 149.142.103.63, but I'm not sure if he had other IPs or not.) I'm not the only one talking to him on his user talkpage, Jiang does too, you must have missed it because my signature is too visible. :D As for the 100-edit rule, I must say I've never heard of it, but the section "About RfA" says "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote". -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I try to make a well informed decision. I have some knowledge of that term so it just caught my eye which is why I looked. I have since learned that any registered user can vote, but it's the ip's that can't.--Dakota t e 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I've done simple watchlist and RC vandal-fighting, and sometimes contribute to AfD votes. Regardless of whether I'm given the mop and pail or not, I will be contributing to Cleanup efforts, especially on China-and/or-Singapore-related and biology articles, many of which need a lot of attention.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Certainly there are. I do not consider my edits in Wikipedia to be heavily concentrated on one single article, but rather, there is a list of articles I feel committed to, and consequently have contributed to. Committed because, though I cannot say I have no POV - I don't think any of us can say that - I channel it constructively, to encourage myself to research, write and know more about the topics I am interested in. I feel that the National Revolutionary Army's role in the Second Sino-Japanese War is too often downplayed, but instead of whining on its page, I try expand Wikipedia's coverage on the said subject, therefore bringing a more comprehensive viewpoint to the Wiki. I've done substantial work on many articles about, under, or dealing with the Second Sino-Japanese War. For example, Wikipedia used to have, if my memory doesn't fail me, 6 or 7 articles on the various battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Though I cannot in good conscience claim credit for all of them, I have done much work to improve the various articles on the battles - and even though a large number of them are still at the barest sub-stub stage - there exists now just 7 of 22 major battles in the War that still have red links, which I consider to be a substantial improvement over the unorganised mass of text strewn around various poorly-written pages that existed before I undertook the task, which started in earnest some time in September. As a case in point, I have almost single-handedly written the article on The Eight Hundred Heroes of the Battle of Shanghai. While it can certainly be improved substantially and is by no means worthy of being a featured article, I doubt one can find a more comprehensive article on a relatively small (in terms of number troops involved) battle in a relatively forgotten war. This I consider to be representative of my attempt to counter systematic bias on the Wiki.
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 have and I will not lie and say it's not my fault - I have been engaged in conflicts before and sometimes I was in the wrong. However, every time after a conflict has been resolved, I walked away from it, wiser. I have learnt to maintain my cool, even when the opposing party is uncivil in his/her manners or dealings or actions. For example, I was involved once in a dispute at Nanking Massacre, Iris Chang, and several related pages, the archives of which might be difficult to unearth at this moment. In this dispute, the other Flowerofchivalry, who insisted that the Nanking Massacre had never happened. But, that is not the point. He/she also accused me, in a not-so-civil tone, because I was opposed to his removal of paragraphs and his insertion of unsourced, unsupported and biased information, of having limited intelligence, and of being a communist, accusations which I was furious at, at first, but later decided to ignore. As if that is not enough, the same user had been spreading malicious claims that I was doing certain things that I shouldn't been. And not just one time, either. Someone (presumably him) had been using anonymous IP addresses to revert to his favoured version of the page when various other editors and I reverted his edits. We put forward a few 3RR violation reports, and on more than one instance he accused us (more specifically me) of trying to frame him, etc. etc., and not with polite language, either. SlimVirgin was kind enough to sort out this who-was-the-puppetmaster mess for us, but in the end we decided to drop the matter since Flowerofchivalry was no longer active.
I've learnt through my "discourse" with him and others, that certain people and things are just not worth it. At the expense of sounding corny, I must say that Wikipedia has helped me not only on the Wiki but in life as well. In the future, I will likely get into less wars and disputes, though my first and only priority is to maintain informational accuracy on the Wiki, and I will not shy from this.
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.