Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike1

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] Mike1

Final (5/8/7) Ended 11:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike1 (talk · contribs) – I figure that now is a good time to take a run at the mop. I've been a registered user on Wikipedia since November 2005 (although I didn't use the account until January), and made many anon edits before registering. As of right now I have over 2,000 edits to my name, and my edit summary usage is 99% for major edits and 92% for minor edits. Recently my activity level has increased substantially, with 697 edits last month and over 100 so far in October.

I have been an active member of the welcoming comittee for months, and I am always happy to help new users learn how things are done around here. As an admin, I hope to be able to help new an experienced users alike even more. Specifically, in pagemove requests that require the deletion of a redirect page, semi-protect/protect pages that are being heavily vandalized, etc. Mike (Trick or treat) 01:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: --Mike (Trick or treat) 01:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination, thanks to everybody who participated. - Mike (Trick or treat) 11:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


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: Mostly, I'm interested in the rollback admin feature to save myself the hassle of going through the normal reverting process. As I've said above in my nomination, I am also interested in helping users per their requests, whether that be the deletion of a redirect page to move a main article there, speedy deletion of a stupid article, etc.
I think adminship would be an exciting oppurtunity to take my position at the welcoming committee a step further. I am always happy to help new users, and being an admin would make it easier for me to help them.
I plan to monitor WP:AfD process and delete pages after the discussions have concluded. I'd also monitor Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Requested moves.
The admin tools would obviously make things easier for me as a contributor as well. For example, just in the past month I have had to contact an admin to delete redirect pages so that I could make some sensable page moves. Being an admin myself, I would be able to do this more quickly.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Calvin and Hobbes stands out. I've made hundreds of edits to this one, ranging from minor formatting to the addition of sections. I've also created the article on Hobbes and totally re-jigged Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes.
I'm really happy with the Netscape article as well, and the reformatting and references added. The article now focuses on the company and not just the browser, and Netscape (web browser) focuses on the browser. I working towards a good article nom for it in the near future.
Currently I'm working on cleaning up Peanuts. A comic strip with that kind of an influence deserves a better organized article - and more references!
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: In mid-March, after only actively editing for a few weeks, I got into a little argument with Hiding for spam linking. At the time I was adding links to my websites to articles, and, as stated at WP:EL this is against guidelines. But I gave him a hard time about it and I really regret the whole situation. I know I was inexperienced, but what on earth was I thinking? I wanted to drive traffic to my sites, yes, but that's not the main reason I'm here, and that's what those edits made it look like. I've never been involved of anything of the sort since, and I apoligized to Hiding here. A more detailed explanation of the situation is available here.
4. What happened here? [1]→ [2]→ [3]. Couldn't decide whether you wanted to make the request or not? Picaroon9288 02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
A: Haha, I knew somebody would notice that :-). I just got nervous for a second and deleted it from the page to think about it. Not worried about it now. - Mike (Trick or treat) 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from (aeropagitica)

5 Can you provide difs to ten XfD discussions in which you have participated, please? I want to see how you have used policies and guidelines to back up your opinions.
A: Well, you've really got me there. I've never gotton really involved in xfd discussions, although as an admin I would surely pay more attention to them. I've been involved in a few tfd before, but not recently.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

Merovingian ※ Talk 02:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support. 2000 edits is quite enough for me. (In fact, it was for everyone only a year ago...) Although you haven't given the traditional reasons for adminship, a sysop who'll devote part of their time to helping newbies is obviously well-intentioned. I'd recommend some more work in the xfd area, though. Picaroon9288 03:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. I see nothing but good things in Mike1's contribution history, with a good ratio of edits across numerous namespaces. The ever-increasing demands for off-the-charts edit counts are just making Wikipedia more elitist, which is the last thing it needs. You, sir, get my official Why the hell not? support vote.--Aaron 03:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support inasmuch as I see nothing to suggest that Mike1 would abuse or misuse, even avolitionally, the tools, such that I am confident that the net effect on the project of his becoming an admin will be positive (which test follows from my RfA guidelines); in sum, as Aaron, in view of adminship's being no big deal, I say, why the hell not?. Joe 04:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. No reason to think giving this user admin tools would irreparably damage Wikipedia. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 06:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. 'Support - per WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry, but from your contributions I can't see why would you need the admin tools. The edit count is too low for someone who has been an active contributor since January. Perhaps you should step up your pace and try again in a few months.--Húsönd 02:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Good point, but as a note, My real editing spree started in March, and I made my big spike last month with about 700 edits. - Mike (Trick or treat) 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, I noticed that. If you keep it like that for a couple more months then I will definitely support you. You should also start participating in tasks that usually require administrator intervention. Last but not least, I congratulate you for your work on Calvin and Hobbes. :-) --Húsönd 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, no user with less than 3000 edits will ever get a support vote from me. Apply again once you have contributed more to Wikipedia, and if you haven't done anything stupid, I'll more-than-likely support. But for now, oppose. Daniel.Bryant 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    That sounds a bit harsh. Also, I don't recall you using this standard before. Any specific reason that you've decided on it now? Picaroon9288 02:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    I do mean to be harsh. This standard is one of the most ridiculous things I have head of an RfA ever. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 06:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, how? To be considered for adminship, you need to contribute to the community. I feel that this user doesn't have enough. And I have used it before, just never put a number on the amount of edits I needed to support. I was asked to, so now I am. I'd appreciate a little bit of civility and respect, as last time I checked, I was allowed to oppose for any reason at all. Daniel.Bryant 07:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was made an administrator this past July, just three months ago, with only 2,236 edits at the time of my self-nom, and I have proven myself able. I am not accusing you of being ridiculous, only your reasoning - which was probably reached after much thought. However, I could also think about RfA standards for a while and say: Oppose. The polka-dotted platypus under my bed says so." I just don't think this is a reasonable standard for adminship at all. Just because you can oppose for any reason doesn't mean that all reasons are vaild. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 07:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Then I would have opposed you, and invited you to come back and re-apply when you have made a substantial number (which, in my opinion, is around 3000) of edits to Wikipedia. Provided you hadn't done anything stupid, I would have supported you then. Easy as that. Daniel.Bryant 07:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Lack of experience per low edit count. Espresso Addict 02:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Reluctant Oppose: You seem like a great editor and I like seeing diffs like this, but as said above, I would prefer more experience/edits. Would probably support in a few months. Dar-Ape 02:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, sorry Mike. Mostly on experience, but also I'm not sure why you need adminship. If it's really mainly for the rollback tool, there are other non-admin options available such as popups. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Changing to neutral. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    I can't even beging to tell you how much I hate those things! But on a more serious note, that really isn't the only reason I want to be an admin. I think I'll get more involved in the WP:AfD process and delete pages after the discussions have concluded. I'd also monitor candidates for speedy deletion and pagemove requests. I think I'll make this more clear in my answer. - Mike (Trick or treat) 04:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Get some more experience, and submit in a few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 7 (talk • contribs)
  6. Oppose You only participated in 1 AfD. You also have a fair use image on your user page and added the tongue to {{User rolling stones}}. You should read up on Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, especially #9. ~ trialsanderrors 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per low editing experience, obnoxious signature, and the observations made by trialsanderrors above. — CharlotteWebb 07:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose inexperience. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Merovingian ※ Talk 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Any reason for this? Not trying to be rude, I just want to know what I should improve upon/ what made you change your vote :-). - Mike (Trick or treat) 03:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Husond's oppose vote made me think twice about my support. --Merovingian ※ Talk 06:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, weak answer to question 1, try again in maybe December and I will happily support you. Also be more involved in tasks that administrators frequently deal with. Xfd, Copyright problems, etc. T REXspeak 03:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, needs more experience. Come back 3 months later and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Concerned about experience but not enough to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, you're a great user, and I'll be happy to support in a few months. See no valid reason to oppose, though. Get involved with XfDs and other maintenance aspects, too. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 06:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I have concerns about your experience as 2000 edits is not that much. Try again after three months and do not be discouraged by this failure. Get involved in XfDs more often too. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Need to take part in more adminly things. Would support in a couple of months if this is fulfilled (and the sig is changed) --Alex (Talk) 10:52, 7 October 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.