The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

WCityMike[edit]

Final (12/26/6) ended 03:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WCityMike (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself for adminship (or, as I've heard it put in the wikiglossary, to be a janitor!). I think I've got three strengths that will prove useful to the Wikipedia community: first, I'm not unwilling to put my nose to the grindstone to get scut work done; second, I've been told I can write fairly well (in terms of debate and resolution of same); and third, I think that aside from a few flukes (which I'll address below), I can approach others' problems well (in other words, in disciplinary situations, I can help "keep the peace"). I do acknowledge that I have made some mistakes in the past, which I speak to below, but I do not think those mistakes overwhelm my reputation for doing good during the time I have been here (since August 2004), and I think that the manner in which I conducted myself during those mistakes says something well about me, as well. If we look for absolute perfection in the past of admins, I think the supply will rapidly dry up; what I think is truly needed, I believe I have: the willingness to learn, the willingness to put ego aside, and a general overall belief in the neatness of the idea underlying Wikipedia. (Whether this request succeeds or fails, I think I will appreciate the resulting "peer review" this process will produce, although that is not the reason I request adminship.) — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. (Just as a clerical note, the 'nominate' page says self-nominees have to indicate acceptance of our own self-nomination -- so I will -- but you might want to remove that item, as I'm sure it goes without saying for self-nominations. I'd "be bold," but I'm not sure it'd be kosher for me to edit the nomination instructions while applying. ;-)) — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Editor review: In conjunction with this RfA, I have opened up an editor review for myself — I would appreciate any community feedback in terms of how I might improve my contributions to Wikipedia, or new ways in which I might do so, in terms of feedback that might not relate solely to how I would handle administrative powers and thus might not be included with your vote here. Thanks. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. I beat the nominator Support! (shh, play along now). Anyway, edits may not be the highest ever, but is a civil user and answered the questions well. Master of Puppets That's hot. 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Edit count not all that high, but seems like a good user and good admin material. -- Shizane talkcontribs 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, good user and answers, but I would like to see more edits in future. --Terence Ong 03:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Meets my standards, and I would trust the user with admin tools. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Meets my standards and appears to be a good user. DarthVader 05:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Yanksox 06:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Has a good number of talk, user talk, and project edits. Even though he doesn't have that many total edits, he is unlikely to abuse admin tools. SCHZMO ✍ 23:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support ShortJason 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Siva1979. Raichu 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I just came across an exceedingly positive interaction between the candidate and another user, which led to my reviewing the candidates other contributions and voting this way. I don't bother with edit counts much; I simply see a good addition to the admin staff who clearly can go above and beyond. Aguerriero (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --t ALL IN c 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Ignoring the low edit count, the nominee still needs to participate in some more Wikipedian projects (especially something like AfD), and perhaps also help to get an article (or portal/list) to featured status. Doing so would demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines, which is essential for admins. Other than that, the nominee seems to be a great editor.--☆TBC☆ 03:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose way too soon after revert warning in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration which happened about a week ago. I'm glad he apologized though and Im willing to support in a couple of months Jaranda wat's sup 03:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Sorry, must oppose. Recently filed arbcom case shows lack of understanding of policy and the potential to be disruptive. Need to put months of good editing between RFA and this incident. FloNight talk 03:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment I don't want to overload oppose votes by responding to each, but I do feel the need to say this: I realize the recently filed ArbCom case is perhaps my strongest weakness in this request. However, I would ... respectfully ... note that all of us have probably made a mistake that we wish we could take back. This was mine. I overstepped, in a massive way, and then shortly thereafter realized I had done so, and took what steps I could to correct it. I actually think that being willing to admit you made a large mistake and to take what steps you can to rectify it shows strength more than it does weakness (although please note that not for one second am I arguing that the initial move to ArbCom was anything but a dumb move). If my contribution history was full of such moves, I'd understand this more, but I don't think it is. As for the potential to be disruptive, I think a more widespan review of my contribution history will show that I am, the vastest majority of the time, a nondisruptive Wikipedian. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    reply WCityMike, I agree with your basic argument. I'm sure that I will support you with a few months of good editing. It has been too soon for me to know if this is an isolated event, though. I followed the situation as it developed and your quick temper and inability to listen to reason was disturbing. IMO, you feed some trolls. Also, elevating the case so quickly showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Sorry, must oppose for now. FloNight talk 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    reply Fair enough. I suppose it was bad fortune to have called attention to myself at the precise moment I was acting like a loon. (I also do understand the dispute resolution process, but my excuse to myself at that particular hot-tempered moment was that I was convinced they'd be unwilling to mediate.) In any case, if my first impression on someone was that unfortunate particular incident, I can certainly understand why someone might vote oppose. I'd ask those who are willing to, to look at the larger scale of my contribs for a better sense of my temper and conduct, but if time is the necessary cure for that dumb move in some people's views ... it's not the worst thing. And since I don't want to clog up this area with my comments, I'll let that stand as my last comment on the matter, barring answers to any specific questions (which I can do in the "question" area below). — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Needs more experience. As well as what was already brought up, I saw that your recent use of edit summaries is only 85%. Admins should be pretty darn close to 100%. --rogerd 03:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. FloNight refers above to Mike's attempt on May 14 to bring an RfAr against Bishonen, FeloniousMonk, and myself over a very trivial issue. In his defense, he withdrew it and left a gracious apology on our talk pages. Nevertheless, it was a recent incident, and I feel he needs more experience before I could support him. For anyone interested, the situation in brief was that I reverted the post of a banned editor, Mike objected, and then escalated it to WP:AN/I here and then WP:RfAr here. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I'll admit I haven't investigated any of your contributions outside of the ArbCom thing, which I followed as it happened. Assuming they are all stellar except for that, it's still too soon since that debacle. Kudos, though, for being able to turn around and withdraw the case as a mistake -- many couldn't do such a thing and would rather drive their account flaming into the ground screaming all the way down -- so hopefully we'll see you here again in the future. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Too few main space edits for me. Also, concerned about the recent incident. Would support in the future if (1) no further incidents (2) edit count higher and (3) more edit summary use. Nephron  T|C 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Needs more experience and to demonstrate a better understanding of foundational issues and conflict management before he's ready. FeloniousMonk 05:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The answer to question four shows that the candidate either doesn't understand policy, or plans to work against it. Also per FloNight and the associated discussion. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. For the most part WCityMike is a very good user, and I am sure he will be a good admin in the future. However, the recently filed ArbCom case and the answer to Question 4 suggest to me that he lacks experience working with our policies. I am sure this will come with time, and I will support any future request if he continues to develop as an editor. Rje 12:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose More edit summary use. Slightly more edits... ForestH2
  12. Oppose, fails 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Should have waited at least two months after ArbCom incident to prove the lessons really had been learnt. Question 4 answer shows serious misunderstanding of NOR. But basically well motivated and should get more experience and come back later. Tyrenius 01:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - the user's bedbug edit, which has become a big deal and the candidate still supports, demonstrates lack of precision in his judgment. - Richardcavell 03:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per SlimVirgin above. Bringing up an RFAr and arguing with administrators doesn't bode well for him becoming an admin. The potential for wheel warring and further arguing is just too great. --Elkman 04:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per above. You could still learn a little more from the ArbCom stuff. Take it easy, and stay out of unessecary problems/disuptes and I'll support next time maybe.Voice-of-AllTalk 05:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: We have to be careful with dispute, be as Zen as possible, and seek out the center of indifference, and I'm not sure the user is there. Geogre 12:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Per SlimVirgin. DGX 14:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose for insufficient edit experience.--Jusjih 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per all of above. Fails Diablo Test Anwar 06:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose My only interaction with WCityMike has been through the events outlined at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-21 MDD4696. Although I think he acted appropriately, I also think that he let the situation get to him. He spent a lot of time defending himself against a relatively minor incident; I think he should've let the facts speak for themselves. I think it's important that administrators be able to deny recognition in certain instances. People always complain about administrators... it's only when they have a valid point that I think it's worth spending some of my limited time to justify myself. ~MDD4696 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per all above. Royboycrashfan 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose study up on wiki policy — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose minor arbitration disputes and answer to #4 below show he's still learning the ropes. Seems sincerly intrested in being helpful though so in good time ... -MrFizyx 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose as per above, especially due to low edit count. -- Chris Lester talk 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. User meets all my criteria re. editing, but oppose voters' reasons concern me. NSLE (T+C) at 03:39 UTC (2006-05-28)
  2. Neutral—can't quite oppose because the candidate definitely is closing in, but the lousy timing of the RfAr and the answer to Q4 below (suggesting a reread of WP:V and WP:NOR) means I can't support yet. Won't be long, though. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Wish I could support, but its a rather low edit count, coupled with the oppose voters comments and the answer to Q4 below. Look forward to supporting in the future. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral – given relatively little experience plus the concerns raised above – Gurch 10:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral When first I reviewed the user's contributions, I was prepared to support, but the misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:NOR, fundamental precepts of the project, concerned me; Mike, though, has shown on his talk page and elsewhere a great willingness to learn how better to interpret WP:EE and has been altogether amicable in dealing with those who have questioned his understanding of original research (and it should be said, of course, that his misapplication of policy was not toward a tendentious end, but, instead, in the spirit of disseminating information). Nevertheless, I can't be wholly confident in this user's grasp of policy, and so, even as I'm certain he would not use the tools malevolently, I'm not certain he wouldn't inadvertently use them inappropriately. I will be happy to support in the future, though... Joe 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per RadioKirk --digital_me(t/c) 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Total edits	1383
Distinct pages edited	452
Average edits/page	3.060
First edit	21:58, 30 August 2004
	
(main)	512
Talk	166
User	108
User talk	295
Image	1
Template	34
Template talk	5
Wikipedia	254
Wikipedia talk	8

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Well, perhaps the worst backlog on the backlog page is the "cleanup by month" tags, and I've found that I enjoy doing minor tidying — taking something that's almost there and putting the final polish on it. (In fact, I like that enough I've considered proofreading or editing as a career choice.) I think I could also assist in articles that needed to be split or merged, and to try to remove bias from those articles for which there's a concern about same. Of course, those aren't particularly admin-related, but they're for the general overall Wikipedia good. In terms of things that only admins can do, I could help out as needed with WP:AN/I, WP:AIV, and WP:PAIN, for example, as well as other processes that need attention. (I'm also planning, just as a matter of being a Wikipedian, of putting spit-polishes wherever I find something that needs a spit polish or has been neglected.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm exceptionally proud of my work on the bedbug article, because I was able to do a good deal of good on there, including a major rewrite which started with this diff. It's not a traditional source of information on Wikipedia, but it's still valid: an interview, namely with the exterminator who treated my apartment last year, who had ten years' worth of experience exterminating the little buggers. As a result, I've seen that article cited to in quite a few places across the Web. There have been other instances where I've taken something that was a mess of information and yielded a fairly good, categorized, clearer end result — and felt an accompanying sense of pride — but I must admit, I didn't bother to write down their names at the time. ;-) I lately have found that hitting 'Random article,' looking to see if it needs cleanup, and then going onwards can be an interesting way to learn things and do cleanup — tagged or no — at the same time.
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: There have been two major incidents I can recall in the past, and I think I've learned from both. Both are archived at my talk page (and the fact that I've not blanked them will, I hope, be considered in a positive light), but I'll briefly review here.
The most notable was a very bullheaded decision to bring an ArbCom case over perceived incivility from a group of admins. But this taught me a good lesson about Wikipedia: I had a good decision with a kind-hearted Esparanza admin on IRC, and realized exactly how mistaken my decision had been. I apologized to same the admins I had brought into the ArbCom case [1] and withdrew the case. I learned from this a better sense of perspective and a healthy respect for the cooldown process, but I also hope this demonstrates a strength I feel I've always had: a willingness to learn and to re-evaluate myself as necessary, and to put aside my ego when I really do goof up. Although I don't wish to fully speak about it in the Wikipedia community, there was something going on in my personal life that influenced my temper at the same time, and I neglected to take that into account that night.
The other situation was a disagreement with a user in which I felt he was being rather abusive with the process, and it blew up rather quickly. I'm not sure I really have an explanatory statement about same, as I do feel that there were mistakes on his part as well as mistakes on my part — but I am certainly willing to answer any questions that the voting community may have as per how that reflects against possible behavior on my part as an administrator.
4. In question 2, you say "It's not a traditional source of information on Wikipedia, but it's still valid: an interview, namely with the exterminator who treated my apartment last year, who had ten years' worth of experience exterminating the little buggers." Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? Why do you think this is a valid source for Wikipedia? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding verification. However, I have also gained an empirical sense that, institutionally, Wikipedia strongly admires and respects the viewpoints of experts (such as those facts and Mr. Wales' quote referenced in WP:EE, although this is admittedly not policy, as well as Mr. Sanger's efforts), and thus thought that factual information directly conveyed from an expert in the field would be appropriate, even if the knowledge conveyed from said expert was unpublished. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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.
Category