832:, as I usually vote with self-noms. Usually if an experienced user thinks that you're good enough, then you are. If you had waited a little longer then you may well have been nominated, and would probably have been more successful; two unsuccessful RfAs already should have hinted at this. I have a feeling you would make a good admin, though. Persevere; seek and ye shall find...
773:
other users, and learn quickly (e.g., within a day, I was participating in AfD very well). I feel that, with just two months more, if you work at these attributes, you can succeed in another RfA. (If you decide to self-nom, though, make that three - self-nomming should be more infrequent than regular noms.) Good luck on future RfA attempts! --
84:. When starting new articles and stubs, I try to make them as high-quality as possible, although, as is often the case, the articles greatly improve over time. I have spoken time-and-again against vandalism and for neutral articles, and I have tried to edit out as much biased material as I could find.
772:
Granted, when I was RfA'd earlier this month, I had about the same number of total edits (2000), Knowledge namespace edits (90), and editing time (since Feb 2005) as you have now. However, I feel that, what I lacked in these areas, I made up for in my ability to resolve disputes, communicate with
532:, etc.), the user should participate in more RFAs, AFDs, vandalism patrol, and talk pages instead. I'd like to see him contribute more to the Wikipedian community besides minor spelling and spacing edits. Also needs to show better understanding of WP policies (i.e., poor
283:, User could do with an increase in the talk namespace, and the past issues are somewhat troubling. Also, article edits could be a tad more productive. Seems like a good chap, however, and am currently debating over a switch to support. -
484:
Plenty of people improve the project throught the removal of vandalism. Being an admistrator doesn't just involve the tapping of the rollback button. There needs to be more insentive when bestowing the admin capabilities on a user.
756:. Needs to diversify edits into talk, user talk, and Knowledge namespaces. However, I love to see a user who sees the possibility of losing their job as a positive so that they can contribute more to Knowledge. ;o)
921:
A. Well, I'm particularly passionate about combating vandalism. So I'd be engaged in combating that. I will admit, I'm a busy guy, so I can't do as much as I'd like. But who knows maybe I'll lose my job. :)
713:. While I worked with Mb1000 on an article, the Canadian Hearladric Authority, which became an FA, this behavior that was pointed out to me, and also with the comments here. Sorry.
688:- edit count looks fine, a bit weak in Project space. Doesn't seem to really do a lot of vandal fighting yet - there's a lot you can do in that regard without admin powers (see the
1106:
A. I love
Knowledge! It the best thing since uniformly sliced bread! I'd like to see more people using it! And less vandalism. That I really hate. But that's not Knowledge's fault!
970:
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?
1040:
I would use if the user seems inexperianced and his/her edits appear to be mistakes rather than downright vandalism, and yet it seems the user doesn't take
Knowledge seriously.
378:- is spamming neutral voters with requests to reconsider our votes and change to support. Attempting to subvert consensus like this shows, in my opinion, very poor judgment. (
292:
Switched to Strong oppose as you've really gotten out of hand with this. Spamming people for votes and this nonsense regarding Jimbo's talkpage is very poor judgement indeed.-
1055:
A. Well, if he is reverting back vandalism, I ban him for a while. If it's a legitimate edit I'd give a stern warning. If the behavior continues, I'd block for 24 hours.
899:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
103:), and now I regret it and wish it would have never happened. It was a childish display of the damned male ego. Again, I hope that this won't be held against me.
76:) – I, Mb1000, hereby nominate myself to become a Knowledge administrator. Despite being relatively new to Knowledge, (I've been a registered user since Feb. 1st,
860:
usage: 99% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the
Knowledge, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
1134:
727:. Definitely shows promise, but I'm not too big on self-noms, and I think this should get withdrawn till the user has some more experience in the namespace.
692:
for some suggestions). I am concerned about the judgment displayed during the edit war, but one bad encounter shouldn't spoil your reputation forever. (
885:
1120:
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.
617:
Mb1000 has few edits to the
Knowledge namespace. Perhaps you could become more active in RfAs and AfDs. Will probably support in a few months. --
915:
889:
977:). I acted like a kid, and it was stupid. I'm resolved not to fall into the 'ego trap' again. I will try to avoid another edit war at all costs.
987:
questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --
99:
about the images I add, so I hope that these past problems won't be held against me. I have gotten into one edit war (watch how it unfolded
636:
794:
106:
I truly want to be an administrator so that I can contribute even more to
Knowledge, so please support my nomination. Thank-you. (so
1032:: W hen an edit has added irrelevant links to a page, for example, or vandalised a page in some way for the first or second time. '
29:
17:
878:
341:
Per above. May I suggest you remove this nomination and reapply in a few months? I will possibly support a future nomination. —
100:
87:
As I believe in transparancy and honesty, I will here admit that during my first few months of using
Knowledge I was a little
640:
874:
779:
475:
Why would you oppose someone who improves the
Knowledge experience through the removal of vandalism? Help me out here.
73:
1048:
What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of
935:
425:
per ESkog. I really don't like RfA vote campaigns. Also, I'd have to agree with the
Knowledge namespace issue also.
80:) I've really tried to contribute as much as I can. I have over 2000 edits, but you're welcome to check my edit count
944:
907:
931:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
744:
911:
1095:
A. If I see carefully worded statements that take a position on the matter, I would tag the article as NPOV.
956:
665:
784:
999:
632:
598:
414:
353:
329:
312:
789:
774:
486:
293:
284:
740:
506:
1004:
864:
845:
824:
815:
799:
764:
748:
731:
719:
697:
679:
643:
602:
576:
544:
512:
489:
479:
470:
429:
417:
395:
383:
370:
358:
331:
314:
296:
287:
268:
250:
239:
227:
212:
191:
179:
170:
158:
127:
110:
991:
710:
649:
626:
326:
309:
265:
201:
973:
A. Yes, unfortunatly, as mentioned above, I did get into a nasty edit war with a particular user (
960:. I've added many images to Knowledge, and I do the weekly cover update on the TIME magazine page.
820:
Neutral. You would probably make a good admin, but I can't tell yet. Try again in a few months. –
188:
658:
553:
210:
1036:
would be for a third offense. After that, if the vandalism continues, the user must be blocked.
445:
996:
988:
939:
812:
618:
585:
840:
537:
392:
342:
176:
67:
501:
I was told campaigning for adminship is poor form, after I initially enquired about it. --
974:
950:
761:
541:
503:
1089:
1018:
1014:
714:
404:
367:
81:
1128:
1068:
1064:
1049:
728:
689:
476:
467:
236:
206:
155:
308:
less than 100 wikipedia edits over that long of a time is a knockout for me sorry --
861:
821:
808:
221:
1022:
870:
833:
403:. asking people to change their votes without reason seems pretty uncivilized. -
247:
167:
124:
107:
63:
47:
906:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
757:
693:
441:
379:
672:
91:-zealous with regards to adding images and such, and so I ran into a few of
739:. Keep on doing the good work for a couple more of months, then try again.
220:- User has made ammends and is showing good contributions to the project.
449:
426:
143:
1067:(unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an
942:, both of which I started. I've worked a lot on other articles such as
1114:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
460:
more experience. i'd probly vote yes in a few monthes. Ncrown23334
1063:
In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under
77:
117:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
187:- not likely to harm Knowledge (ie abuse admin privileges).
934:
A. Well, I'm especially proud of my work on the articles
28:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
533:
530:
527:
524:
521:
323:
175:
Unlikely to beat people over the head with the mop. --
1103:
What are your greatest frustrations with Knowledge?
1080:nonsense it should be deleted as fast as possible!
1092:to a controversial article that you are editing?
648:Porquoi? We got to get some more edits, people!
552:, is begging for votes on Jimbo's talk page.
391:: suggest trying again in a few more months.
8:
520:Instead of self-camapiging for the RFA nom (
264:Good edits all the oposses seem unwarranted
142:, I don't see much problems with this user.
437:until more experienced per above comments
413:: Needs more experience, editcount is low.
59:original ending 01:52 5 February 2006 (UTC)
886:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Mb1000_2
466:on grounds of proactive vandal-fighting.
890:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Mb1000
7:
54:Final (10/16/10) bureeaucrat removal
1135:Unsuccessful requests for adminship
258:He's been around for a long time ]
199:- Not a problem with this user. --
24:
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
711:User_talk:Zscout370#User:Mb1000
366:Too little general experience.
95:problems. I have since become
1:
1021:}}, and when would you use {{
1005:02:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
916:administrators' reading list
879:Interiot's edit history tool
865:02:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
846:19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
825:18:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
816:04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
800:21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
765:02:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
749:17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
732:11:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
720:07:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
698:06:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
680:03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
644:02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
603:21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
577:02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
545:00:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
513:21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
490:20:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
480:21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
471:01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
430:15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
418:03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
407:21:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
396:20:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
384:19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
371:13:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
359:03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
332:22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
315:01:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
297:17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
288:02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
269:07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
251:19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
240:15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
228:21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
213:10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
192:13:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
180:12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
171:10:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
159:08:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
128:01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
111:01:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
93:Possible Copyright Violation
56:05:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
936:Canadian Heraldic Authority
896:Questions for the candidate
166:, I see no major problem.--
1151:
945:Good Night, and Good Luck.
910:, and read the page about
908:Category:Knowledge backlog
875:Interiot's edit count tool
884:Mb1000's previous RfA's:
320:Strongest possible oppose
1117:Please do not modify it.
39:Please do not modify it.
983:The following are some
957:Everybody Loves Raymond
1074:A. When an article is
869:See information about
690:counter-vandalism unit
534:Request for Protection
177:King of All the Franks
1013:When would you use {{
807:same as above comment
762:(Leave me a message!)
30:request for adminship
1088:How would you apply
123:my own nomination.
701:Changed to oppose.
940:Women in heraldry
718:
595:
593:
452:
97:much more careful
1142:
1119:
844:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
717:
677:
670:
663:
656:
629:
624:
621:
594:
591:
587:
573:
571:
569:
567:
565:
511:
454:
444:
415:Fthepostingquota
356:
351:
348:
345:
209:
204:
152:
149:
146:
41:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1125:
1124:
1115:
975:User:Madchester
951:Time (magazine)
838:
795:
790:
785:
780:
775:
741:Oleg Alexandrov
673:
666:
659:
650:
627:
622:
619:
592:
589:
563:
561:
559:
557:
555:
502:
438:
354:
349:
346:
343:
202:
200:
150:
147:
144:
51:
37:
34:did not succeed
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1148:
1146:
1138:
1137:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1043:
1042:
1041:
981:
980:
979:
978:
964:
963:
962:
961:
925:
924:
923:
922:
912:administrators
898:
893:
892:
882:
873:'s edits with
867:
849:
848:
827:
818:
802:
767:
751:
734:
722:
715:User:Zscout370
704:
703:
702:
646:
606:
605:
599:Be eudaimonic!
590:vécut heureuse
588:
579:
547:
518:Strong Oppose.
515:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
461:
455:
432:
420:
408:
398:
386:
373:
361:
336:
335:
334:
301:
300:
299:
272:
271:
266:- Mike Beckham
259:
253:
242:
230:
215:
194:
182:
173:
161:
131:
130:
57:
50:
45:
44:
43:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1147:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1121:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1105:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1094:
1093:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1003:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
990:
986:
976:
972:
971:
969:
966:
965:
959:
958:
953:
952:
947:
946:
941:
937:
933:
932:
930:
927:
926:
920:
919:
917:
913:
909:
905:
902:
901:
900:
897:
891:
887:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
866:
863:
859:
856:
855:
854:
853:
847:
842:
837:
836:
831:
828:
826:
823:
819:
817:
814:
810:
806:
803:
801:
798:
793:
788:
783:
778:
771:
768:
766:
763:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
733:
730:
726:
723:
721:
716:
712:
708:
705:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
678:
676:
671:
669:
664:
662:
657:
655:
654:
647:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
625:
616:
613:
612:
611:
610:
604:
600:
596:
584:. Per above.
583:
580:
578:
575:
574:
551:
548:
546:
543:
539:
538:image tagging
535:
531:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
514:
510:
509:
505:
500:
497:
491:
488:
483:
482:
481:
478:
474:
473:
472:
469:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
451:
447:
443:
436:
433:
431:
428:
424:
421:
419:
416:
412:
409:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
390:
387:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
365:
362:
360:
357:
352:
340:
337:
333:
330:
328:
324:
321:
318:
317:
316:
313:
311:
307:
306:
302:
298:
295:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
281:Strong Oppose
279:
278:
277:
276:
270:
267:
263:
260:
257:
254:
252:
249:
246:
243:
241:
238:
234:
231:
229:
225:
224:
219:
216:
214:
211:
208:
205:
198:
195:
193:
190:
186:
183:
181:
178:
174:
172:
169:
165:
162:
160:
157:
153:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
129:
126:
122:
119:Oh yes, I do
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
104:
102:
98:
94:
90:
85:
83:
79:
75:
72:
69:
65:
61:
60:
55:
49:
46:
42:
40:
35:
31:
26:
25:
19:
1116:
1113:
1100:
1085:
1076:
1075:
1060:
1045:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1010:
1000:
992:
984:
982:
967:
955:
949:
943:
928:
903:
895:
894:
858:Edit summary
857:
851:
850:
834:
829:
804:
769:
753:
736:
724:
706:
685:
684:
674:
667:
660:
652:
651:
614:
608:
607:
581:
554:
549:
517:
507:
498:
463:
457:
439:
434:
422:
410:
400:
388:
375:
363:
338:
319:
304:
303:
280:
274:
273:
261:
255:
244:
232:
222:
217:
196:
184:
164:Weak support
163:
140:Weak support
139:
133:
132:
120:
116:
105:
96:
92:
88:
86:
70:
62:
58:
53:
52:
38:
33:
27:
393:Jonathunder
542:Madchester
446:2006-01-30
1071:instead?
841:user talk
368:Staffelde
1129:Category
985:optional
914:and the
852:Comments
729:Kusonaga
504:Denelson
477:Silensor
468:Avriette
237:Edivorce
74:contribs
1028:A. For
1001:phoenix
862:Mathbot
830:Neutral
822:Quadell
809:Pschemp
805:Neutral
770:Neutral
754:Neutral
737:Neutral
725:Neutral
709:as per
707:Neutral
686:Neutral
661:γκυκλοπ
623:Kantari
615:Neutral
609:Neutral
499:Oppose.
327:Jaranda
310:Jaranda
262:Support
256:Support
245:Support
233:Support
223:Johntex
218:Support
207:iva1979
197:Support
189:Latinus
185:Support
134:Support
1065:CSD A7
1050:WP:3RR
1038:Test 3
1034:Test 2
1030:Test 1
954:, and
871:Mb1000
668:αίδεια
582:Oppose
550:Oppose
464:Oppose
458:Oppose
435:Oppose
423:Oppose
411:Oppose
401:Oppose
389:Oppose
376:Oppose
364:Oppose
339:Oppose
305:Oppose
275:Oppose
248:All in
168:Jusjih
125:Mb1000
121:accept
108:Mb1000
64:Mb1000
48:Mb1000
1077:clear
1019:test4
1017:}}/{{
1015:test3
758:EWS23
694:ESkog
620:Nacon
586:Elle
556:: -->
540:) --
448:23:30
442:Quarl
405:lethe
380:ESkog
32:that
16:<
1090:NPOV
1025:}}?
938:and
813:Talk
796:2020
745:talk
572:<
536:and
487:Zero
322:per
294:Zero
285:Zero
156:Talk
101:here
89:over
82:here
78:2005
68:talk
1069:AFD
1052:.)
997:ath
877:or
835:haz
791:wiz
427:Mo0
1131::
1101:8.
1086:7.
1061:6.
1046:5.
1023:bv
1011:4.
968:3.
948:,
929:2.
918:.
904:1.
888:,
811:|
786:th
760:|
747:)
696:)
635:||
601:)
508:83
382:)
325:--
235:--
226:\
154:|
36:.
993:e
989:D
881:.
843:)
839:(
781:@
776:M
743:(
675:*
653:ε
641:m
639:|
637:c
633:t
631:|
628:e
597:(
570:t
568:n
566:a
564:i
562:d
560:a
558:R
529:,
526:,
523:,
485:-
450:Z
440:—
355:ε
350:e
347:o
344:M
203:S
151:P
148:I
145:J
71:·
66:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.