Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mushrambo

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] Mushrambo

Final (0/4/0) ended 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (page blanked by candidate, assuming withdrawl)

Mushrambo (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for a few basic reasons, the primary reason being the fact that I want to do all that I can to make Wikipedia an accurate source of information on the net. I have always been the kind of person who gets a sort of satisfaction knowing I have done something that will help people in the future. I want to be a sysop so that I have the abilities to help wherever I am needed, wether it be simple editing, or to help solve a dispute. I have been a fan of Wikipedia for quite some time now and would love to have the abilities to do what is needed to make this site as good as it can possibly be. Mushrambo 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept the nomination Mushrambo 19:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Only 65 edits...is this a joke? If not, you need a lot more experience. I don't mean the joke statement to slam you but as the guidelines state, you need at least 1000 edits to be seriously considered for admin.--Alabamaboy 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, but I have to oppose due to a low number of edit counts (only 65, according to Interiot's tool) and a rather contentious debate at Talk:Robert "Knox" Benfer and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Robert_.22Knox.22_Benfer. I don't think I can trust Mushrambo with the mop in these circumstances. --Elkman - (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Elkman. I don't blame editor, since he's new, but he was contentious at DRV, and his edits are very low. Xoloz 20:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Alabamaboy. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I respectfully suggest that you consider withdrawing your candidacy until you have gained more experience dealing with deletion processes, policy discussions, and editing in general. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit summary usage: 13% for major edits and 67% for minor edits. Based on the last 15 major and 3 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Mushrambo'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.
A: I would plan on helping with the ever persistant problem of vandalism in order to make the site accurate so the vandals can't get a kick out of what they've done. I would also plan on helping with reverting pages which have been vandalised in the past.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I like to say that I am pleased with all my contributions, although one of my personal favorites is the Shinzo article, which was the article with which I got started on Wikipedia. I am both happy to say that I created it, and that I am please with the way it has expanded since it's initial creations. I do admit that it needs some clean-up but I plan on helping to make it as good as possible to meet Wikipedia standards.
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 been in 2 or 3 editing conflicts in the past. Mostly disputes about the anime Fullmetal Alchemist. On both occasions in their I was proven wrong about what I had read to be true and I gracefully stepped down and accepted what was correct. In my latest dispute, over the article about Robert "Knox" Benfer I have been arguing about his notability. I have proven his notability but there are still people who don't want the article up there. I will argue for it because I believe that it is notable but if the ruling is to keep it deleted then I will accept that and move on. This is the way I plan on handling all my disputes. If I'm right then great, but if I'm wrong then I can accept that and move on.


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.