Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mark83

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mark83

[edit]

Final (52/2/0) ended 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Mark83 (talk · contribs) – I first encountered Mark83 while he was focused on disambiguating British, where he performed with dedication worthy of commendation. I've since kept my eye on him and observed a fastidious editor who makes frequent and excellent contributions, has worked mightily to expand our coverage of the U.K. defense industry, and understands Wikipedia policy. Here's an example of an exchange that I think shows this editor's sensibility and coolness in handling behavior that could've led to a conflict:[1], [2]. In short, this user has admin qualities and will not abuse the tools. (See, I didn't even mention the 7,700+ edits). bd2412 T 14:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Mark83 15:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Well, of course. Good egg. bd2412 T 16:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, looks good. --Terence Ong 16:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Excellent editor, excellent nominator. Xoloz 16:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. good work. pschemp | talk 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good editor - put him to work No Guru 17:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support meets and surpasses my criteria. Mop and bucket time! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Solid contribution history --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Excellent work Prodego talk 19:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support. Will be a fine administrator. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom and I've seen his impressive editing in the past. Gwernol 19:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support. Will be a great admin.--Alabamaboy 20:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Jay(Reply) 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, excellent editor. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support; has performed well under pressure and isn't prone to conflict; besides that, a good editor. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Moe ε 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, not admin already?! Weatherman90 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, looks all right to me. ProhibitOnions 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. support, naturally. I really, truly thought he already was one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Yeager (talk • contribs) 19:56, March 31, 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support good candidate --rogerd 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support JoshuaZ 04:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, despite the rumour started by the nominator that Mark is an egg, I assure you he is actually a person. NoSeptember talk 06:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, still significant variation in editing process, I support. Shyam (T/C) 07:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Yes.--Looper5920 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Interesting work that he's done with military pages, and images pertaining to the military. - Richardcavell 11:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Edwy 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: Excellent editor. Covington 04:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as per nom. Should make a good admin - Aksi_great 09:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Will make a good admin, from what I see. SushiGeek 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per above abakharev 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Checking your edits is interesting read.  ;-) --Mmounties (Talk) 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, yep! Proto||type 11:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Ugur Basak 14:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--Jusjih 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per BD2412. -- DS1953 talk 18:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:35, 3 April 2006]
  41. Support Jedi6-(need help?) 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, mop time Deizio 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I tire of the opposition in Rfa's not providing adequate diffs to explain their opposition...I see no evidence this editor will abuse adminship--MONGO 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support for his matured approach. Good luck! --ΜιĿːtalk 11:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support _-M o P-_ 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Good quality article space work, minor concerns about apparent diminishing edit rate adequately answered in questions below. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Cool, calm,collected, could be creditable as an admin. J.J.Sagnella 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, looks good and I trust the nominator's judgement. Hiding talk 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. SupportStabiloBoss 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  52. Support Sceptre (Talk) 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

#Only until editor provides a email address. Looks great otherwise. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Email authenticated; change vote to support. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Not active enough with the wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Massiveego, I really don't trust your judgement regarding RFA's. Moe ε 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WT:RFA. Alphax τεχ 09:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose JaredW! 10:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

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: While adding copyright violations to WP:CP I have noticed the backlog there, I would be happy to help out. I notice another backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: BD2412 alluded to my contributions on the defence industry – of those I am most proud of BAE Systems. I have worked very hard on the article (with others), both on content and verifiability, and it is hopefully approaching FA quality. Related articles I have contributed significantly include Marconi Electronic Systems, and many BAE subsidiary pages. My contributions also cover a wider field than just the defence industry, e.g. WP:Formula One & WP:Air. The disambiguation project is a daunting one at times, but one I have enjoyed participating in.
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: My push for verifiability on Dassault Rafale caused problems. However my persistence has improved the article in that sense. I have learned, as BD2412 points out, that it is better to take a step back from any conflicts/potential conflicts and look for the way to diffuse them. An example is the discussion here. I hope Rd232 would agree that from a situation where there were two, very strongly held and opposing views that we reached a very amicable agreement.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Your contribution total seems slightly erratic. In particular, for the months 2005/07 and 2006/01 you have over 2000 edits and in no other months do you have even half that number of edits. Please explain.
My contributions are actually at a consistent pace. However my edit count jumps in the periods highlighted due to my participation in the disambiguation project. e.g in this period of January 2006 or this period of July 2005 there are many disambig repairs.
2 Almost all your edits seem to be focused on a very narrow topic range. Can you explain how you have the breath of experience and knowledge that it takes to be an adminstrator?
I would respectfully disagree. Yes, I have made a lot of my contributions on defence and aerospace, however my contributions cover a wider subject base.
I started BBC coat of arms, BBC News, Daily Mail and General Trust plc, Delivering Security in a Changing World (as much politics as military/defence), Grand Prix Drivers' Association, John King, Baron King of Wartnaby, Justin King (businessman), Ken Morrison (from redirect), Laganside Corporation, Timeline of British Airways and TransManche Link. Also various Formula One Group articles that were previously not mentioned on Wikipedia; Formula One Administration, Formula One Holdings SLEC Holdings etc. and the related Image:Formula One organisation.PNG.
I have also made major contributions to; British Satellite Broadcasting, British Sky Broadcasting, J Sainsbury, Special relationship.
I would also add that my defence/aerospace related contributions added information on some important topics not then covered on Wikipedia and the apparent focus on them is therefore not necessarily a vice. For example I started BAE Sea Harrier, GE Aircraft Engines, Hughes Electronics, Tracor – arguably important topics for a complete encyclopedia.
3 Under what circumstances will you block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
Only under circumstances where there gross, indisputable violations of policy. For example use of illegal sockpuppets or pure vandalism.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mark83&oldid=1082477916"