Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikyt90


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

mikyt90
Final (talk page) (0/7/1); Ended 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

- I am mikyt90 and i have nominated myself for adminship of wikipedia because i feel that i would make a good admin. My main reason for wishing to be made an admin is that i would like to be able to enforce quality standards of articles to a greater degree and help reduce vandalism. I have not created many articles myself since i became a member of wikipedia. This is because to begin with i could not work out how to best word a page or make use of outside sources or back them up. i have since gained knowledge on how to edit articles and i believe that i would now be able to contribute constructively to wikipedia with admin rights. Mikyt90 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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 wish to help combat vandalism and also copywright violations.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia in my opinion have been my contributions to the Barnsley intercange article as this was a subject on which i was very familiar with.


 * 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 once created two articles when i was new to wikipedia. these were "Remaking Barnsley" and "cudworth railway station". The first of these articles was in dispute for crystalballism. I did not feel the article to be so however i can see from my wording of the article how other users may see the article as crystalballism. I will ensure that this will not happen again as i am confident that i have improved my ability to create or modify an article apropriately

General comments

 * See mikyt90's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for mikyt90:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Wikipedia policies regarding civility still apply during RFA. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/mikyt90 before commenting.''

Discussion
Comment: This editor has been here for about 8 months, yet only has 32 edits. Taking into account actually READING things, he may actually be ready. Just an idea...GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Trouble is - while not endorsing editcountitis - without some experience in main & wikipedia space, there's no way of judging that —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reading with an account from about Dec 05 to Jan 07, but that didn't make me really experienced. And I only started to contribute a lot in Mar 07.  Maxim (talk)  21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose
 * 1) I'm sorry, editors do not start out with the extra administrator buttons. Please spend some time at Wikipedia and learn your way around. It would probably be best if you removed your nomination, since it is very unlikely to garner any support at this stage. I look forward to seeing you around. Shell babelfish 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) You don't have the experience yet for me to make a determination about whether to trust you with the admin tools or whether you'll use them correctly. This isn't to say you're not trustworthy, but is the internet. Everyone's anonymous here. Trust is built by a long record of commitment to the project. 32 edits just doesn't show that. I suggest you withdraw.--Chaser - T 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - 32 edits would not show how much you know the policies. Also, you do not have any experience in project space other than on afd which was on one of the articles you created. I also see trouble with copyvios as well. -- Hirohisat  Kiwi 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I am sorry but I am going to oppose based on lack of experience of admin-critical areas.  Please make more edits so that other users can determine if you can be trusted or not. —O (说 • 喝) 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't think you are quite ready. Blanking warnings on your page about speedy deletions is not a good sign.   Mi r a n da   21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you've been here all that long. I'm going to agree with the others and suggest that you withdraw your nomination. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, but moral support. You have good intentions, but until there is more information from which we can judge your experience, few editors would support.  I recommend dabbling in a variety of areas in Wikipedia, such as WP:XFD and WP:AIV.  Another thing I'd recommend is reading over policies to get a better handle on procedures.  If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm available on my talk page.  Useight 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral to avoid pile on; I suggest you withdraw & come back in a few months, as we've no way to determine whether we trust you —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  21:04, 8 September 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.