Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike1 2

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 (31/17/5) Ended 03:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike1 (talk · contribs) – This is my first time nominating someone, so here goes. In my opinion, Mike1 is an excellent candidate for adminship. He's been here on Wikipedia since November of 2005, but started contributing regularly in January of this year, and more or less continuously since the middle of March. In this time, he has amassed just more than 3,000 edits, including over 1,000 in the main space and more than 300 article talk edits. He has also made more than 500 Wikipedia space edits, many of which were made to important areas such as XfDs, RFAs, and FACs, as well as the WikiProject Comics. His talk archives show that although there were problems in the long-ago beginning, there exist no such problems now, and his recent talk pages are full of little but thank-yous and barnstars. Mike1 is an up-and-coming user who demonstrates good faith and a willingness to help the encyclopedia both by writing and performing the administrative duties which are so important.

Basically, if I could sum Mike1 as a user - he's certainly better than I was when I ran for admin. He's a willing and eager candidate who deserves the mop. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks very much for the nomination. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Update from the candidate: I withdraw this nomination as it seems to have crashed and burned. Thanks again to Ryan for nominating me, and I'm sorry for posting this nom so soon after the last one. I will not re-apply until January or Febrary at the earliest. - Mike | Talk 03:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate statement

Hey all! I've been doing a lot lately to prepare for this nomination. I have recently passed the 3,000 edit mark, as Ryan has noted, and have been getting more involved with the Wikipedia namespace, including some particpation is AfD discussions. I hope that the community finds me deserving of the tools, and if I should be granted them I will always be open to any criticism. Supplementary questions are welcome. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 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: I can see the rollback tool as being very useful to me, as I often find myself reverting pages. In addition to that, I plan to monitor Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as they seem to be under-staffed there at the moment. Last I checked there are only about 5 active admins there for the requests, which sometimes leads to a slow response time, and as we all know, in that slow response time vandalism usually will not stop.
Also, as a member of the welcoming committee I am always happy to help new users. Being an admin would make it even easier for me to be of help to them, particularly if they need to have a page deleted, semi-protected, etc.
Of course, the most important area that I can see the admin tools being useful to me is my simple every-day editing. There have been many occasions recently where I had to contact an admin for assistance. For instance, I wanted to move FoxTrot (comic strip) to FoxTrot, because the latter was simply a redirect page. It seemed kind of silly to have a redirect page when there was no purpose for it, and in addition the article had been located at FoxTrot for months and was only recently moved. If I was an admin, I could have just deleted the redirect page and done the page move myself, and it would have made life easier for everybody. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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 over 200 edits to this one, ranging from the addition and cleanup of sections to minor formatting. I also created Hobbes's article and completely restructured and helped to clean up Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes.
I'm really happy with the Netscape article as well. I reformatted it to change the focus of the article to the company rather than just the browser. In addition, I converted many of the inline citations to the new footnote format. Recently, it was nominated for GA but narrowly failed. However, I think it's pretty close and mainly needs work on the lead.
Recently I've done a lot of cleanup to Michael J. Fox, rewriting the lead, removing long unsourced claims, adding a better image, etc. Also, I recently did some cleanup to Apple Computer, removing a long unsourced "analysis" section and other unsourced information. After my cleanup edits, it was nominated for GA and passed. I do not take credit for the content, but I believe that the cleaning up is what put it over the top. We're working on an FA nom now.
Finally, Peanuts. I re-added it to consideration for the Comics project collaboration of the month, and it is now the current collab. I've done a lot of cleanup edits to it and added the new lead image, which depicts the entire cast rather than just the main character (at the request of User:Jc37). I am also a member of the article assesment team at the comics project. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
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: As Ryan noted, I had some minor problems early on in mid-March with Hiding. I was adding links to my own websites to articles, and as we know know that's considered spam-linking around these parts. I regret the whole situation and apologized to Hiding here. I know I was inexperienced at the time, but what on earth was I thinking? Sure, I wanted to bring traffic to my sites, but that's not why I'm here. A more detailed explanation of what happened is available here. Hiding and I are on good terms now, and I don't think we will have any issues in the future. Other than that, I haven't really been involved in any serious editing conflicts. - Mike | Talk 21:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional Question from Yanksox

4. Under what circumstances should a page be protected? Are there other methods to avoid protection?
A: Protections (both full and partial) should be kept to a bare minimum because they prevent editors from improving the encyclopedia, and they should only be applied when more harm than good is coming from it being open to editing.
Full protection should only be applied if there is a serious dispute involving edit warring among contributors who seem unwilling to discuss the changes. A protection forces them to do so.
Semi-protections should be the most common form of protection, but should usually only be applied if there is persistant vandalism by multiple vandals. This is more effective than warning and blocking every single one of these vandals for several reasons.
  • The vandals will usually get bored and go away when they see that they can't edit the page, and it is unlikely that they will return.
  • Most people who vandalize Wikipedia are looking for attention. Blocking them would be simply giving them the attention they want, and they are likely to vandalize more when the block expires.
  • Many IPs are shared, and blocking them can cause innocent people to be unable to edit. At least in this situation they will be able to edit other pages than the protected page.
I understand that semi-protections are no fun for constructive anon editors, and I agree that they should not be applied unless it is absolutely necessary, but in cases of vandalism by multiple anon editors, I think that it is more effective than watching over the page like a hawk and having to revert, warn, and block every disruptive editor. I should point out that in a case where an article is only being persistantly vandalized by one editor, then a semi-protection is not necessary. - Mike | Talk 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: IAR exists to promote the common sense of editors rather than following every rule to the letter. For example, even if you have already reverted a vandal three times and reverting him/her again would technically be a violation of WP:3RR, it is acceptable to ignore the rule and revert anyway.
I think that WP:SNOW is a decent idea, but should be used with caution. Process is important on Wikipedia, and it should be given the time to run its course in most cases. Take this RfA for example. I got nothing but support votes for a while, but now it seems to have taken a turn in the other direction. Abusing the snowball clause too soon or too often can be prolematic in this way. However, it can be useful in instances where, say, a user who just registered yesterday applies for RfA, a stub is nominated for FAC etc. - Mike | Talk 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: As I've stated, blocking is a last resort, as it gives vandals the attention they are looking for. Generally it is best to block vandals only if they are causing persistant problems no matter what is done to stop it. But in most cases giving these vandals an immediate temporary block would only provoke them to come back and vandalize more after the block expires. Usually simply reverting them and ignoring them will do the trick, as they will usually get bored and find something else to do. - Mike | Talk 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: First thing to look at is notability. If somebody creates an article about "Joe Bob's Pizza Place" in the Alabama countryside, it should probably be deleted. The next thing to look at is if it reads like an advertisment. Spamming should never be tolerated on Wikipedia. However, this might not merit deletion of the page is the business truly is notable. In the case that it is, it should be re-written, not deleted. - Mike | Talk 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
General comments
  • See Mike1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • See my edit count here. - Mike | Talk 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Mike1's editcount summary stats as of 22:02, November 8th 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Candidate's previous RfA. Gwernol 21:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The user has had an editor review, which has been archived here. -- ReyBrujo 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • General Address of time Since Last RfA: I know it's a short time frame, but the candidate's last RfA was self-withdrawn, it didn't run for the whole seven days. Something similar happened to me in one of my classes. I wrote a long paper, handing it in on Tuesday. The paper was very bad, and my professor told me so. She said that if I could turn in a completely new paper by Thursday, the grade on the bad paper would be forgotten. I wrote a new paper, and received a good grade. The candidate was not ready for his first RfA, it was quite premature. However, because it was self-withdrawn and the candidate has prepared himself admirably for this RfA, I say we ignore the first and give him his good grade - we pass him - on this RfA. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. Strong Support. As nominator. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Why not? Hiding Talk 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC
  2. Strong Support, per nom this user is a very, very good user and having him as admin would be great.--Seadog 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong support Seems like a fantastic user, and has clearly taken on comments from his previous RfA. Good luck, 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:23 8/11/2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak Support Overall good contributions to articles, but your wikipedia edits are a bit low. You have just participated in around 30 AFD's. I suggest you participate more in these 6 days.--Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 21:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. DarthVader 21:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Candidate is now ready. --Alex (Talk) 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support a good, experienced candidate --Steve 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support good nominee. Rama's arrow 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support very good strong nominee TheRanger 22:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I broke my complete Wikibreak to come here to vote for Mike. He'd be a brilliant mop. Sharkface217 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support I see him around quite a bit and he always carries himself with a very approachable and friendly deameanour. Seems to have the best interests of the project at the forefront of his editing style, so I can't see any reason not to think he'd have any trouble with a few extra buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Michael 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support Spot on. Yanksox 00:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support Mike has grown a lot since his last RfA and deserves adminship. I don't think he'll ever abuse of the tools. And he's very friendly and communicative. Good luck! --Húsönd 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry Mike, but I have to symbolically weaken my stance to regular Support, as I do share some concerns raised by Jcam and Nish.--Húsönd 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support - Seems like a very solid candidate. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Keep up the good work (hopefully as an administrator!). [Iridescence]  talk • contrib 00:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. weak Support - it's encourging to see user who opposed your last nom, supporting here --T-rex 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per nom. John254 05:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Support, so long as you sustain your current level of activity - I find Sarah's neutral opinion below to be fairly valid. riana_dzasta 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Switch to neutral per Sarah and Nish's concerns. riana_dzasta 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support helpful. GoodCop 06:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, I have a good impression that this user will wield the mop in a helpful manner. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 11:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Has made some good improvements since his last nomination. However, I wish to point out that your Wikipedia namespace edits are a bit low, but I feel that you will be able to rectify this in the near future. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Weak Support. I have to say that I wish you’d waited a bit longer following your first RFA. Also, I am not as confident as I would like to be about your grasp of blocking policy, per NishKid64's neutral vote below. However, neither of these affect the good work I have seen you doing-- I am confident in your always good intentions, aware of your enthusiasm and helpfulness, and I know that you will only continue to improve. Best wishes for the road ahead, Dar-Ape 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. support - While not very happy that the period between RfA is so short, I am happy to see you doing good work, and your good faith, and your cheerful helpfulness. I will say you will be a good admin. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 00:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. G.He 01:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Zaxem 11:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - seems like a great guy. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - I've seen Mike1 around Wikipedia and he seems to be devoted to the project. With the opposition in mind, I still don't anticipate any admin abuse from this editor. AuburnPilot 06:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Looked over it all and I still don't see a potential for abuse. His edit count seems fine to me. He's participated in editor reviews. And he has use for the tools. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support — no huge problems, another solid user who will learn from the criticism on this page, I'm sure. — Deckiller 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. Weak support As with many other people, I would've preferred that you wait a bit longer since your previous rfa - overeagerness isn't a good trait. However, you've shown a decent understanding of policy, and the more people helping out with page protection the better. Picaroon9288 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I'm afraid. While acknowledging the candidate's contributions to the project, I have some reservations, enough to push me from my usual neutral into the oppose column. As mentioned by the neutral voters below, Mike did have an unsuccessful Rfa little more than a month ago. People do change(I, a former vandal, am proof of that), and Mike has made much progress in the past month. However the user's votes in this Rfa makes me question whether the user understands fully the qualifications and importance of the mop. First, Mike gives the user a witty support vote. Which is fine, we all do from time to time, but then Mike strikes the support vote and opposes stating Trialasanderrors' conduct in a controversial Afd as being "slightly uncivil" when anyone (other than perhaps a hardcore World of Warcraft junkie) could see he was very civil, yet effectively arguing his point. Then several moments after accepting this Rfa, Mike changes his mind again, to neutral(which was probably not significant in terms of what it does for the Rfa since it is above 90%). So, going against my instincts which say 'assume good faith,' I find myself wondering if the user is entirely prepared for the mop & bucket and/or whether he sees this as just a trophy/prize/etc. for good editing. So a reluctant, yet firm oppose. Jcam 03:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I had a feeling that somebody would comment on that. That's not generally the way I behave at RfAs and as I said I hated to jump around so much :-). However, I am usually very sure about my RfA votes, and I am fully aware of the qualifications. To me, adminship is no big deal, but if I see issues with civility or severe lack of experience, I am often tipped to oppose or go neutral. Sorry if this makes you less confident in my abilities as an admin, and I can assure you that was a isolated incident and I promise to act in the best interests of the project if granted the tools. - Mike | Talk 03:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Adding to that, I certainly do not see adminship as a trophy/prize for good editing. If I did, then why on earth would I not support trialsanderros? I see adminship as a useful tool who have proved themselves to be trustworthy, civil, and helpful. - Mike | Talk 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    He did vote Oppose in your first Rfa. Jcam 04:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    So did Husond, and I co-nominated him for adminship. Whether or not somebody supports my RfA is beside the point. I'm not out for revenge on people who didn't support me. - Mike | Talk 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose with regrets. I think that you're on your way to adminship, which is why I'm not all too happy with this somewhat hasty renomination, only a month after the last one. I think you made strides since then and your answers are more sound, but my concerns from the last RFA, lack of knowledge of fundamental policies, and lack of meaningful participation in WP policy areas, haven't been alleviated. You kept the fair use image on your user page until just recently, clearly ignoring my comment on it in the last RFA. Your AfD participation has been commented on by Húsönd in your peer review, and it really just amounts to a single spurt of !votes, without any debate that reveals policy knowledge. (And just because it seems an ongoing topic, I don't really have any problems that you reconsidered your vote on my RFA, it shows that you're not stuck on a once-formed position, an important quality for an admin to have). You'll certainly get my support in time, but I think this one comes too early. ~ trialsanderrors 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'm sorry but I have to oppose. I genuinely like Mike and I really want to support him but I just don't feel comfortable with this nom. Two RfAs in four weeks is just too fast for me. Also in that time Mike decided to quit and exercise his right to vanish. I am concerned that his recent change in editing has been out of a desire for adminship, and I cannot help but feel this is a trophy RfA. Also, I'm concerned about Mike's policy knowledge which I think arises from the fact he had very limited WP experience prior to four weeks ago. When asked at his previous RfA to nominate some of the XfDs he's participated in, he couldn't nominate any. I feel Mike needs to gain experience over a sustained period of time; I don't think that four weeks is enough time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. Too soon; overly eager = not good. – Chacor 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. He failed an RFA about a month ago for lack of experience, and I don't see sufficient improvement since then. In particular, in spite of what the nomination states, his participation in process is practically non-existent, except for a lot of RFA votes (accounting for more than half of his total amount of Wikispace edits). He may be an "up-and-coming" user but he's simply not there yet. >Radiant< 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Radiant. There's no need to apply for adminship each month: it is sort of annoying. Please recall the main (and only) aim of this project and consider writing a few FAs articles instead. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Sarah and Radiant.--cj | talk 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Have amended vote. I supported because I didn't see a clear reason to oppose, but arguments above and the fact that I still harbour doubts about Mike's temperament and judgement facilitate this amending of my opinion. The temperament issue is best evinced in his exchanges on this page with people opposing. His discussion with JCam above worries me. Regarding judgement, I have already expressed disagreement with Mike's assessment of Calvin and Hobbes and related articles for the Comics WikiProject, they are articles he has worked on extensively and I am worried about objectivity and impartiality when it comes to handling the admin tools. Hiding Talk 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm. Personally I thought he handled Jcam's concern very well. He argued his position very well and sincerely promised that he would be more careful in the future. I don't see any attitude/tempearment problems there. Nor is he rebutting every oppose vote; the above is his only response in this section. Just my two cents; please feel free to elaborate further. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate there is no rebuttal of every point, but I just feel maybe the comment about wanting adminship as a trophy hit home. I have had and seen negative interaction from Mike before, so that feeds into my perception, and I feel the above awakens in my mind the worries that the issues I have seen before still exist. I'm also not convinced he understands properly Wikipedia's position on copyright, per concerns below in the neutral section and discussions I have had with him on this in the past. Hiding Talk 14:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per inexperience & policy knowledge concerns. -- Steel 01:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Recently used a controversial template in the article space ([1], [2]). Being bold can be an asset, but more experience would be helpful in this case. JonHarder 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    I was unaware that it would be a big problem, and specifically noted in my edit summary to revert me if my change was out of line. That's what happened, and that's fine with me. I acutally brought up a discussion at the village pump about creating a similar template for articles. Please feel free to jump in at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals), and thanks for expressing your concerns. - Mike | Talk 05:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose per Radiant. Still could use more time and experience, including WP: namespace.Voice-of-All 05:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Radiant, Chacor and Ghirla. Furthermore, the jumping around at Trial's RFA didn't look fantastic, particularly the oppose vote - what on earth did he do wrong bar fight the corner a bit? I'm also a little concerned by the response to question 4. The entire reason why a whole group of editors (me included) spent the whole day reverting+warning the vandals at Concerto delle donne when it was on the Main Page was because semi-protection of such a high-profile article looks very bad. In fact, semi/full protection negates Wikipedia's whole trick, which is that anyone can edit it. I am concerned that the candidate might be a bit too free with the protect button, in addition to other concerns. Moreschi 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Too soon - crz crztalk 12:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong oppose lacks the temperament required for adminship. I will never support this user's nomination as more experience is not going to change this. KazakhPol 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? First of all, please be civil and refrain from personal attacks. And second of all I have no idea what you are talking about. - Mike | Talk 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    You responded exactly as I suspected - by demonstrating you do not understand the difference between legitimate criticism and personal attacks. You dont know what I am talking about as you demonstrate why you are unfit for adminship. KazakhPol 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    The comments above yours are legitamate criticism. Simply stating that "I do not support this user and I never will" is not legitamite criticism, because it asserts that no matter what I do to improve you will oppose me anyway. Constructive criticism asserts that personality issues should be avioded as much as possible. So how can you consider your comment to be constructive? - Mike | Talk 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, now I see. So anything you deem unconstructive criticism is a personal attack? Voting in RFAs is not supposed to be constructive criticism of how users can do better in the future. It's an estimating of the user's performance thus far, and whether that performance demonstrates that the user in question can be trusted with adminship. You, quite obviously cannot be trusted. KazakhPol 02:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    You're acting ridiculously. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose I am sorry but two RfA's in 1 month is too many. Give it some time and take a break from RfA to focus on improvements that span lengthy periods of time. That will show dedication to the project and not just hasty improvement for the sake of passing an RfA. Wikipediarules2221 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong oppose. For several reasons:
    1. For the 460 Wikipedia edits this user have made, I believe there are at least 200 edits were not related to the function of Wikipedia, but merely a response to a RFA (with 66 edits to this RFA and user's Editor Review). Also, the candidate's AFD participations are still relatively low. I am assuming it's no more than 20 after reading through various days. It seems that your latest AFD participations is on October 22. Half of the candidate's votes were either without a comment at all (not good), or displayed inadequete understanding of Wikipedia policies, which applies also to the candidate's participation in a lot of the RFA discussions as noted by Jacam.
    2. Through the past RFAs, when the candidate responds to a large number of opposing votes, their application are mostly rejected. I am assuming it's because it kind of shows somewhat of their insecurity, inablity to maintain neutrality and coolness? It's just my assumption. Reading through this candidate's response to KazakhPol's oppose vote, I found it somewhat displeasing. It is indeed an harsh, unconstructive comment, but this user actually made his opposing point clear: The candidate does not have an admin temperament. Now, I wouldn't comment to that, but the candidate might have to think a little bit about how he might have commented sometimes that leads to a reaction like KazakhPol's. And note that he is not the only one that have made attribute to this, but several others also if you read through other oppose votes.
    In a conclusion, I agree with trialsanderrors' comment. The candidate is on his way to adminship, but not anywhere close to it, and this is a hasty renomination. (I'll just put a bold to that instead of specifying related informations, as most of them have been noted by other users I think). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 03:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for your contructive criticism. I am considering withdrawing this nomination, and I will not re-apply until January or February at the earliest. - Mike | Talk 03:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Strong Oppose This is his second nomination in less than a month, user seems to be too eager to become an admin. Looking at his response to Kazakpohl I don't think Mike1 has the right attitude for the job. Dionyseus 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

I'm going to have to be neutral for now. Sorry Mike. I'm just a bit unsettled by the idea of two RfA's in one month. Also, I'm concerned about whether your change in editing in response to your previous RfA is sustainable and whether it is simply a means to an end (your goal of adminship). Neutral for now, but I'll review before the close. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral User has made substantial improvements since last AfD, but I still have some worries. You can only improve so much in about a month, which worries me, since I don't believe Mike has totally gotten a feel for everything on Wikipedia. Mike has a colossal, yet scary amount of Calvin and Hobbes knowledge, and I appreciate all of his edits to the mainspace. I still don't think Mike has enough experience in AfD discussions, as it doesn't seem that he contributes that much to the discussion (besides the "vote"). All I see is "Delete-looks like spam", "Delete", etc. Anyone can go around Wikipedia and get a feel of how the whole system works in a few days, but it takes a while to fully understand everything there is to know (which is what admins should at least have a good decent knowledge of). Also, I do not see any recent reports to AIV and I have some doubts in regards to your knowledge of the warning and blocking policy (again, something that admins should have a deep understanding of). I'm sorry, Mike, but I don't believe I can wholeheartedly support your RfA at this time. Nishkid64 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    The block button is something I've always seen as a last resort. My general feeling towards vandals is if you give them attention, that's exactly what they want, and they will continue their vandalism. This is why I usually simply revert their changes, and I usually will not warn them until I see a second offense. I find that most of the time this is the best way to deal with vandals, and it has been very successful for me in the past. - Mike | Talk 02:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    What exactly would be a "last resort" situation? Nishkid64 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    A vandal who won't quit no matter what you do about his/her vandalism, whether it be constant warning or reverting, if they are causing constant disruption, they should be blocked. But when some kid just feels like making a lame joke on an article, if they don't get any attention, they'll usually stop. - Mike | Talk 03:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Say you're patrolling AIV and you see a vandal who has made at least 6-8 vandalism edits in a short period of time, but has only been warned once. What would you do in this case? I just want to get the hypotheticals out in the open. Nishkid64 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Probably, but it would only be a short preventative block (maybe a few hours) as it could be a shared IP. I know that a user should get all of the warnings before being blocked, but just because people had neglected to warn the vandal does not excuse his/her clearly intentional disruptive behavior. - Mike | Talk 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Erm, Mike, but what if that one warning the vandal had received was the introductory {{test1}}? Would you still block him even though he hadn't received a clear message that what he's doing is vandalism and that he can be blocked for that?--Húsönd 04:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I would probably leave a "last warning" or {{bv}} in this case, as it is clearly the vandal's attempt to cause disruption. If it continued, I would probably apply a very short block of a few hours. - Mike | Talk 04:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think a bit of AIV experience is needed before you head off for adminship. Short-term blocks (unless for shared IP's like AOL) are usually not effective, and I usually go for an introductory 24hr-31hr block for the user's first blockable offense. If there are people who come back to vandalize two days after they were previously blocked for a month, what makes you believe that vandals will not come back if they are blocked for only a few hours? Nishkid64 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I found a perfect example. See [3]. This user vandalized dozens of pages, but was only warned twice. What would you have honestly done in this situation? Because it appears to me, you would have given him a t4 or a bv and left him alone. Nishkid64 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I would most likely block that vandal for 48 hours. - Mike | Talk 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - struck support. I might follow this for a while, and rethink it. Sorry about flip-flopping :( riana_dzasta 03:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Haha, no problem. As you can see from that oppose vote I've been there. - Mike | Talk 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Doesn't know our fair use image policy (#3 specifically) well, uploading original copies of good-resolution DVD covers CharlieBrownThanksgiving.jpg and Image:CharlieBrownChristmas.jpg, and using 2 screenshots in GoComics when one would have sufficed [4]. Although this problem can be ameliorated with time and experience, considering also the recentness of the first RfA causes me to refrain from support. Kavadi carrier 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral While I am glad that you have improved, and hope you continue to do so, I think you Wikipedia: space edits are too focused on RfA, which is not good for anyone. You should spread out, perhaps get involved in XfDs, wikiprojects, or proposed policies.-- danntm T C 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Would oppose based on the other recent RFA, but I don't oppose because of that. Sometimes it's best to step away from RFA for a more lenghty time so you can get yourself ready for the future. Now is not your time. semper fi — Moe 17:01, 10 November 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.