Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mwx10

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] mwx10

Final (0/3/1); Closed 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

mwx10 (talk · contribs) – {{{The main reason that I nominate myself is because I wish to deal with vandalism}}}

I accept the nomination and I wish to state that I intend to use admin powers (if granted) to deal with vandalism.

Below and on my talk page it states that I do not know how to block users. I do. To block a user you go to special:blockip I am armed with the anti-vandal tool and I intend to help with the vandalism problem.

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 really anticipate stoping vandals and blocking them. I will state again that I have the anti-vandal tool. I have reverted pages in the past and I want to be able to block the constant vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am mostly pleased with my rollbacks and helping to stop vandals.
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 have seen numerous vandals and I find that I can do almost nothing to stop them. So I usually rollback their edit and warn them about the blocking policy. In the futer I intend to inspect their history and if I find that they are a repeated offender I ontend to block them.
General comments

During this time I had just joined wikipedia and I apoligsise for those actions and I did not know they were wrong. Mwx10 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose per the fact that the guy that nominated you has made no edits outside this nomination. Tis a bit suss. Sorry, didn't realise the guy that voted support is the guy that has no other edits. But still, the fact that they added the nomination and supported instead of you adding it is still suss. I'm opposing because of possible sockpuppetry and weak answers. JDtalk 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose as this user has no edits in the article space. All I see is a mistaken move, and everything else is user talk or in the Sandbox. He also has a stipend on his user page that no one edit it, and I have requested that he be blocked for his lack of contributions in a whole month of edits to every other namespace.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, urge withdrawal, you only have 68 edits, and no constructive edits to articles. Throw in [4] and particularily [5] and it's a no-brainer oppose. Sorry. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I am not willing to add myself to the oppose list, but you will be pleased to know you don't have to be an administrator to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. You should consider requesting for adminship in 6 months or so. I for example have more than 5000 edits and don't think I know Wikipedia enough to be an admin. -- lucasbfr talk 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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.