🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Darth_Mike
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darth Mike

Add links
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.

Darth Mike

[edit]

(7/16/7); Scheduled to end 08:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Candidate withdrew. –xeno (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Mike (talk · contribs) - A registered contributor of Wikipedia for nearly 2 years, I have amassed over 2,000 Mainspace edits. Recently I've been actively involved in speedy deletion of articles and reverting vandalism to articles. I would consider myself an approachable person, which is what I think all Administrators should be. I am always willing to accept and consider any criticism on my part and no matter what the outcome of this request, I will continue to strive and improve myself. --  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 08:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 would mostly like to take part in trying to control vandalizm and reviewing articles for deletion. I've always felt a sense of pride in reverting vandalism and tagging articles for speedy deletion, so of course these are things I'd like to help with. I always keep an eye out for those Newpages that don't belong on Wikipedia. I'd very much like to work on blocking vandals.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent making what some might consider "unimportant edits". Those pages that everyone seems to forget about once it's been created. I usually start reading random articles and make fixes where I see fit. I know a lot of users will think that these edits don't really matter, but to me, these pages are what makes Wikipedia great. Usually, these edits are typo fixes or formatting changes, but sometimes they're bigger such as getting rid of that very subtle, hidden vandalism. I don't start many articles myself, as of today there are only two articles which I originally authored, but I'm constantly trying to help out other editors by contributing to other articles.
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: I've only been involved with minor conflicts and they're usually solved right then and there on either the article's talk page or the user's talk page. I've never felt any stress because of this, beacause that's what wikipedia is. With the millions of editors, conflict will always be present.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: Although, probably nothing since it doesn't look like I'm gonna pass, but I would not unblock the IP, I would shorten the block to 24 hours. I'm not one to ignore an apology, but I would give a warning and keep my eye on the IP for a lengthy time to come. Vandals will always be present, but I won't allow that to tempt me to turn away a potentially valuable contributor. I would most likely encourage the IP to sign up for an account while emphasizing that it is optional. The reason being multiple users using the same IP and that User being blamed.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Supporting for now to counter a truely lame oppose. —Giggy 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. If you find an oppose "lame" take it up with the opposer, don't use it as your sole reason for voting support. Ironholds 09:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    just as (under the current system) the oppose is allowed to do so for any reason, supporters are allowed to do so for any reason. I would prefer that the supporter in this case didn't refer to the oppose as "lame", but this isn't distinct from just saying "support" and keeping quiet about the reason. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Moral support. Frankly speaking: WP:NOTNOW. You simply have too little talk and project space participation. Keep it up though, make yourself familiar with the community's general expectations and ideally wait for someone to nominate you in several months. user:Everyme 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, I trust this user to use the tools to the best of his ability. Patman21 (talk)
  5. Moral Support - Your heart is in the right place... now just show your commitment to the project and in a few months get reevaluated. I beleive I could trust you with the tools, you just need to show you can use them.  :) Qb | your 2 cents 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support, nothing looks problematic in the edits I see and there is nothing to make me believe this user would abuse the tools. I would normally like to see a bit more experience in relevant areas to gauge the user's familiarity with policy and general administrative tasks. Also pointing out that relatively low edit counts don't bother me. Essentially this is a candidate that just needs a bit of polishing. Shereth 15:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral support as well as I do not wish to discourage the editor for continuing to contribute. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose. 2000 mainspace edits in 2 years is not particularly good statistically. From looking at the edit count your two years is from Oct. 2006 to present; you effectively vanished from the beginning of 07 to may 08, and I can't give admin tools to someone who just leaves for over a year, since it's effectively wasted. In addition you've only got 63 talkpage messages and 54 talk messages; this doesn't inspire me to believe that you'll be a great communicator as an admin. You say you want to work with reverting vandalism and so on, but you've so far had 6 reports to AIV, which doesn't convince me you have enough admin-related experience to know how to use the tools. Large chunks of your edits are without summaries, which seems a fairly basic thing to get right. If you stop vanishing and stay here contributing for 6+ more months I might consider it, but right now it's a no. Ironholds 08:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment although I have also opposed this nom, I have to take issue with some of your argument - "I can't give admin tools to someone who just leaves for over a year" is basically the exact argument at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Doesn.27t_need_the_tools. :) - Toon05 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered commenting on this oppose before, now feel compelled to chime in, echoing Toon95 above. Also, I don't understand what you might mean with (i) "not particularly good statistically". What do you mean with statistically ? How does that give any indication whatsoever that the candidate is likely to misuse or abuse the tools in any way? And (ii): "[...] who just leaves for over a year, since it's effectively wasted." Could you clarify these two points? user:Everyme 15:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid points, I'll do my best to rectify those areas in order to succeed in my next RfA.--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. ES usage is 89%, not good enough for major edits, and the 44% for minor is still bad. I'd prefer to see a 100% for major and 85%+ for minor at the very least. Lack of recent edits is also a worry, and most admin related tasks seem to be done by Twinkle. Need to be shown this editor is able to do some admin tasks on his own, or ill have to stay opposed. Talk page seems to show little experience in dealing with users, let alone the ones he would encounter as an admin. I'll have to say not now on this one, maybe after a little more experience. Also the misuse of AWB is a little worrying, and shows an inability towards reading and understanding the rules. Metagraph comment 09:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ES usage is one of my weaker points, I agree. Following advice from Dlohcierekim I have changed my preferences to require an edit summary.--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Whilst I do not think that this user will necessarily be a bad admin, I would expect far higher talk page use from a potential candidate. Other than that, I would just say use the edit summaries and get a bit more involved with admin-type tasks - for me this is an experience issue rather than anything else. I don't believe that disappearing for a year is a problem, I did it myself and I neither went rogue nor felt any compunction to hand in the tools. Wikipedia is a voluntary project, it is up to each of us to decide how much time we wish to devote to editing. Rje (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. You haven't been active in admin-related areas for very long, and so there's very little basis for determining whether you can be trusted with the tools. I'd suggest gaining some more experience, and trying again in a few months time. Scog (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'm sure that one day you will make a good admin; first you need to make more edits - try to improves mome more articles, GA and FA articles always look good on a CV. You should also take part in some WP:AfD discussions, or focus on vandal-fighting, general admin areas. As mentioned above, you should try to take part in lots of RfA discussions before you apply again, just to get a feel for what the community expects in a potential admin. So although I am opposing now, if you apply again in say 6 months, and you've taken more part in the project, I may well support you then. Good luck! - Toon05 12:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't have a problem with you taking a year off cos that's life, but the problem is that you only have about 800 edits in the last 18 months. This is a problem for me and I think this RfA is way premature so unfortunately I am unable to support this time. At the moment I don't think you have the overall general experience necessary for adminship. The other thing is, as others have raised above, you don't have many talk page edits. Communication is a major factor in adminship and there just isn't enough here to get an idea of your textual communication skills or how you will react under different circumstances. Looking at your user talk edits, [1] the largest majority of them are mechanical templating, and since December 2006, you only have about ten or fifteen user talk edits that aren't templating. Also, a large bulk of your mainspace edits seem to be mechanical (AWB) [2] and since December 2006, you only have about six Wikipedia-space edits excluding this RfA [3] I also looked at your deleted edits and since March last year you have only tagged successfully about 30 pages for deletion. Since 20 December 2006 you've only reported two users to AIV and you haven't commented on any XfD discussions since 20 December 2006. I really hate being an edit counter but these figures just aren't high enough for someone going through RfA on the basis that they want to help in these particular areas. I feel that you are editing in good faith and I don't think you would deliberately misuse the tools, but I think there is a very strong chance that you will misuse them inadvertently because you just don't have sufficient experience. Please continue editing and get a few more months general experience, and in particular in the administrative areas that you would like to work in. Sarah 13:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose is the most helpful to me, I will follow your advice and try to better myself in those areas.--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall, you're okay and on the right track but the numbers of edits to Wikipedia project space is severly low for an admin candidate. Try to improve your participation there (and elsewhere) perhaps becoming involved in a WikiProject, which can vastly improve your knowledge of the Wikipedia system. Rudget 13:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose for now Your heart does seem to be in the right place but I don't think you're ready for admiship right now because I don't think you're fully aware of the type of crap and drama that administrators here have to deal with on a daily basis. Give it a few more months of steady editing and see if you still feel the same. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, consider it done.--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose—I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, good call, Kurt. He's been here two years, and finally gets around to asking for the tools. That's definitely prima facie evidence of power hunger. rolls eyes S. Dean Jameson 14:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments which did not directly relate to this oppose and this RfA moved to the talk page. Please keep it on-track, everyone. Comments unrelated to this particular oppose and this particular RfA will be moved to the talk page to prevent disruption. user:Everyme 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose There is not enough to show that this user can be trusted to act responsibly with the tools at this time. Not now. SashaNein (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose — I'm not a fan of editcountitis, but I believe that 2419 edits in 2 years are not enough; while I believe that ESU is not necessary for adminship, I think 89% is unsatisfactory. doña macy [talk] 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider this example to the contrary. user:Everyme 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Other admins exist. What occured there doesn't have to fly here. SashaNein (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I aimed to illustrate that low edit count can be enough. user:Everyme 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I'd prefer if you were active for more than two months. After a little more experience, I hope I'm in the support column next time around. Useight (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Darth Mike looks like a good guy, but 2000 edits in two years isn't particularly great, it sort of worries me. I count six edits in AIV, which isn't very much for two years. Usage of edit summary, not as good as I'd hope. Overall, it's the lack of experience (and the year of disappearence) that worries me. IceUnshattered (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose 17 Wikipedia namespace edits, 4 Wikipedia talk edits definitely concern me and shows almost no evidence of admin-level policy comprehension. From April 2007 to May 2008, the user had 5 or less edits per month. No edits to AIV and only 2 CSD tags in last 500 edits, both are areas he wants to work in. Only 63 user talk edits does not demonstrate communication skills vital to a sysop. This self-nom is probably premature, you might want to consider withdrawing and go for it again once you have more policy experience and more edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose It's not so much the edit count that concerns me, but rather the 17 project space contributions. I'd say get some more experience in XfDs, AIV and ANI and you should be good to go next time. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take your advice, thanks.--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose User has implied that number of Google hits is a good enough metric for determining notability in AfD: [4], [5]. swaq 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I don't think Google Hits is the only way to prove notability, but a substantial number of hits usually is a good indicator of notability--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral While I think the user may well be a good admin, some points led me to choose to remain neutral in this case: You have only 600 edits within the last year, you use rarely edit summaries on minor edits (which I think vital especially when doing those), you seem to have misused AWB for insignificant edits and lack involvement in article talks and Wikipedia internal procedures. So while I love every editor who sees pride in doing all those little tasks needed to make articles better (which I do myself often), I'm afraid I can't support you right now. But due to that, I will not oppose it either. So#Why 09:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Although the overall edit count is encouraging, and I view self nom's as having the self confidence an admin needs, I'm afraid that consensus and policy change over time and the gap in editing is too long to feel comfortable with candidate's understanding. I would suggest fixing the edit summary thing in preferences and returning in another 3,000 edits. I would recommend article building/creation mixed with admin related maintenance tasks. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is basically an abstain, per Qb's "moral support." I could definitely support a future candidacy. S. Dean Jameson 14:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Get active with editing again, and try doing some non-mainspace work. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Mike potentially has the skills to be a good admin, but would benefit from more interaction with other editors via Talk page discussions first. I could be persuaded to support him in a few months time. Axl (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I'm not a fan of editcountitis, but more than half of the pretty-low-count are with AWB, which makes the count lower, in my mind. Nothing wrong with automated tools, but let's see more varied involvement, per above. Basically, I'm saying WP:NOTNOW, and see you in <insert-single-digit-integer-here> months. You are definitely making positive, valued contributions, and if you make sure to use edit summaries and not worry about the quantity but the quality of your edits and the breadth of your admin-type experience, you'll make a fine admin.  Frank  |  talk  17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NotNow Neutral encourage candidate to gain more experience per concerns in opposes.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Darth_Mike&oldid=1142576545"