Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mrbowtie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Mrbowtie

Final (2/10/0) ended 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mrbowtie (talk · contribs) – Mrbowtie is a prodigiously intelligent person, proficient in the fields of computing, biology, chemistry and physics. He knows basic psychology and has great experience confronting internet trolls and vandals. He selflessly devotes his time to repairing and updating articles pertaining to anything that interests him and is the only one who can save us from the end of the world. The Fish 18:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I chivalrously accept the nomination.

Support

  1. Do it! He's a genius and his edits are 100% meaningful! The Fish 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support After reading all the negative opposition, I intially wasn't going to vote, but I felt guilty, as he requested my help in this vote and I once requested his help in a vote against deletion, so it is my obligation to vote in favour. Jareand 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, sorry, at 100 edits, you are far too new. This seems to be a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" RfA, though there's nothing explicitly against that. Also, your answers to the RfA questions are much too short. --Deathphoenix 17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, not enough experience yet. Also, please make a better use of edit summaries and consider participating more in the project space so that people who vote can be better assured that you are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Also, nominating each other at the same time like this looks very unprofessional to me. Keep contributing and happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Deathphoenix. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-06 20:16Z
  5. Oppose per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose: very premature. Jonathunder 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose. The swapping RfA nominations thing rules this out. Hedley 21:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, mostly per lack of experience, but also for misuse of process by trading nominations and support votes with The Fish. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above--Ugur Basak 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose too new, begging for "votes" [[1]]. Mike (T C) 23:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 4% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 50 major and 1 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Mrbowtie's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
I intend to counter vandalism whever it may rear its ugly head, and work to wikify articles which need said process.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Ignatio Mobius was one of my early articles and I am pleased with the response to it.
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?
No.


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.