Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikedk9109


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

Mikedk9109
Final: (0/7/1); Ended 01:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

– I, Mikedk9109, have been proudly able to work with my fellow wikipedians for 9 months, and have accumulated over 6,500 edits. I have learned through my experience here, and would love the oppurtunity to be an administrator. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  00:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I, Mikedk9109, accept this nomination. I withdraw my nomination. I guess I'm not ready yet. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 would help fellow administrators with Category:All images with no fair use rationale, Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and helping on the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I would also help with requests for protection/unprotection.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am fairly pleased with my contributions to baseball and professional wrestling articles. May it be cleaning them up, removing too many fair-use images, expanding them, or just checking them out and making sure they are good in quality.


 * 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: Yes, I've been in a few. One with Tonetare about information to be included on an article. Another with CyberGhostface on information to be included in an article, and one with a few other editors where editors took sides on what to include in a template. I dealt with the Tonetare conflict by leaving because it caused me so much stress, but when I came back, we apologized to each other. I dealt with the CyberGhostface conflict by realizing it was a stupid conflict and we both apologized. The template war was ended when all the users (including myself) were blocked for 3RR violations, and we took a vote and had a discussion on what to be included. I haven't been in a real conflict since then and hope not to be in one again. I will deal with future conflicts by listening to others opinions (not just myself and the opposing editor's) on what they think is right.


 * General comments


 * See Mikedk9109's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Discussion
 * I was blocked because I was removing tags from images and I didn't know it was wrong, Until I was blocked. I figured out what I did was wrong, and learned from it. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  01:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Except you were blocked two seperate times for it. -Amarkov blahedits 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It took a couple times to get through to me. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Strong oppose. You were blocked a month ago. Unless you have a really good explanation, I suggest you withdraw. Also, dismal projectspace participation. -Amarkov blahedits 01:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Amarkov. Sorry but I'm uncomfortable with the recent block. Canadian - Bacon  01:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, As with the above editors; I have to agree. Somitho 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, being blocked for personal attacks recently is bad, and apparent edit warring removing tags is just as. I have a worry whether you could use judgement when dealing with conflicts, as your prior experience has demonstrated. Also, little-to-no Wikipedia:-space participation leaves me worried that you may not understand Wikipedia procedures, policy and the intricacies that come with it. Weak answers, especially Q1 - no demonstration of prior experience in areas that are listed. Sorry, not now. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, suggest withdrawal. The path to showing you've got what it takes is ahead of you.  Dei zio  talk 01:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Even if the block is forgiven after your justification, you still have little need for the tools, very low WP space edit count and an extremely low edit summary usage. Sorry.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose vandalised my userpage in revenge for deleting many copyvios he uploaded with his old Mike kelly09 username, that was back in late May, sorry but no Jaranda wat's sup 01:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, advise withdrawal Your admittance and regret of your past transgressions is to be commended, and I am sure that many have forgiven you for them. However, at this time, I urge withdrawal per concerns raised by the opposers, namely that the incident is too recent and your inexperience with general projectspace. I ask that you begin and/or increase beneficial participation in these areas, and to not fall back into your past. Fear not, a few of our greatest admins have had a spotty past, and as long as the editor changes him/herself, the community will always be there to accept them. --210 physicq  ( c ) 01:59, 16 December 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.