Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike6271

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.

Contents

[edit] Mike6271

Final (1/8/2); Ended, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike6271 (talk · contribs) - I have been a Wikipedian since September 2006, though I have used Wikipedia many times prior to then. I primarily revert vandalism, leave a warning on the user's talk page, and then, if necessary, report them to AIV. Though I am not making edits all the time, I still try to contribute and revert vandalism whenever I am able to, especially if there is a lot of vandalism at the time. I feel that if I become an Admin, I will be able to better fight vandalism as there have been numerous times where AIV was backlogged and the warned user continued to make edits. Please ask any questions you may have. Thanks! Mike6271 00:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to primarily take part in reverting vandalism and blocking users if necessary. Because I primarily revert vandalism, I am proficient and knowledgeable with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding reverting vandalism and warning users. I feel that by being an admin, I would be able to more effectively aid in clearing backlogs on AIV and reverting multiple edits. I would also help with chores that need to be completed and assist other users as needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I contributed most of the information to the article Locust Lake State Park when I first began editing. After going to Locust Lake, I saw that it didn't have a Wikipedia article, so I added a lot of information to it. Lately I have mostly been helping with reverting vandalism, and plan to mainly continue with that, while still contributing to other articles as necessary.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In the past there were a couple of users who felt that I may have incorrectly given them a warning for their edits. However, all of the issues were resolved quickly. I actually don't get stressed very easily, and it takes a lot for someone to make me angered or upset. I will always try to reason with others and keep a level head in any arguments. I try to be fair to everyone.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mike6271 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Your edit count is (very) low for an administrator candidate, but I believe that you would use the tools responsibly. — Thomas H. Larsen 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. Sorry, you seem like a good contributor but you should get some more experience participating in things like XfD, etc. Also, your contributions have been somewhat erratic. Try to shoot for at least 200 edits/month to demonstrate consistency. Ronnotel 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Kindly suggest withdrawing the nomination. You don't have much experience with the deletion process or with non-template interaction with other users. This makes it almost impossible to assess how you would handle the admin responsibilities. Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per inexperience with mainspace and policy. Miranda 04:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Just not quite there yet in regards to experience. Jmlk17 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The lack of experience is major concern here. Try again after a few months and you may have my support. I also suggest that you withdraw from this nomination as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Inexperience. Daniel 07:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Agree with above, more experience needed. Phgao 07:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Pascal. Also, I'm concerned about your understanding of Vandalism[1], Mike! An IP editor DARES to change one word in an article, and you revert and put a vandalism template on his userpage[2]? And then you're suprised that he complains about the "Free Speech Police" and that he removes this ridiculous warning From HIS userpage [3]? Sry, but this isn't the good judgment I want to see in an admin, this smacks of an authoritarian stance. Personally, as a noob editor, I think such harrassment of casual contributors is unacceptable. Pls show more restraint in your Anti-Vandalism work and engage more in talkspace (only ~20 entries), by contributing to controversial articles. An admin has to make reasonable decisions and to be able to discuss them. That's missing here, and so I can't support this nom yet. Gray62 09:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral Well, can't support at this time. I'm reasonably sure this won't pass, based on your contribution history (number of edits, lack of Wikipedia space edits). You might want to do more in Articles for Deletion, looking at your recent contribution there, there's probably a lot about policy you could pick up. Good luck, CitiCat ♫ 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Mike, you are a helpful contributor. However I don't see that you would really use administrator tools effectively. You would also benefit from more experience in general mainspace editing. Axl 07:36, 16 October 2007 (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.