Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mitchazenia


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

Mitchazenia
Final (0/6/0); Ended Sat, 2 June 11:54 UTC - This user has been mainly working on tropical cyclone articles, road articles and, The Price is Right articles. Spontaneous vandal reverting, but he hopes to do more. He has made many mistakes but we're not all perfect and he's a hard worker. He always assumes good faith and I have never seen him in any conflicts, pesonally with over 10,000 edits, I think he's ready.  JA 10  T · C 01:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * I accept and thank JohnnyAlbert for it.Mitchazenia 02:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Reverting vandals more often, protecting pages, deleting useless articles, and trying my hardest to control conflicts.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Probably a few tropical cyclone articles, road articles. Some of my best works come around every once in a long while. I'm a steady contributor and on the GA List of Reviewers for the road and tropical cyclone articles. I don't do much reviewing, because not many are really listed anymore. I have made bad contributions in the past, including two sets with AutoWikiBrowser. I had problems when I began, a bad attitude, vadalism and being an idiot in general. To most users, I probably don't deserve it, but you never know. I wanna turn myself around from that and try my hardest to be a good Wikipedia user.


 * 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: Like I mentioned, I have had two AutoWikiBrowser incidents. The first was adding a references section to hurricane articles that didn't have them. Almost all except for 2 or 3 of my edits (I think 26) were reverted. The second was adding Template:unreferencd to The Price Is Right articles, but all of them reverted. All the articles I added needed them. Another conflict, when I first started Wikipedia, I couldn't tell what a tropical cyclone looked like too well and ended up adding a storm several times that didn't exist. I'll take full blame for that because I was too enthusiastic. I have learned from my actions of that day. I added a third box to Template:hurricane infobox small and it got reverted about an hour later. I should've discussed it before doing it and take full responsibility for it as well. I also crusdaed against User:SPUI and spammed too much asking. I regret that as well and give full apology to the user for it. I will be more respectful in the future, and if I make a bad edit, i'll take it respectfully and understandably. I am my hardest to work away from being a bad user and in some ways, I don't deserve the 12000 edits that I have, maybe 5000 at most.

General comments

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


 * Links for Mitchazenia:
 * Was renamed from (note in particular the block log)

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mitchazenia before commenting.''

Discussion


Support

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose - no way. No experience in policy whatsoever, can't even link your links properly to templates, your answer to question three should have nothing to do with edit counts, you've failed to add this to the main WP:RFA page after acceptance and answering questions, that's the weakest possible answer to question 1, and you've shown very emo tendencies in the past which is not good in an admin (at least thrice I've seen you threaten to kill yourself over things on wiki) and hence would strongly disagree with the nominator when he says Mitchazenia always assumes good faith. I am aware that this has not yet been listed, but I feel it is fair to add this oppose because that's one of the very reasons I'm opposing for. – Chacor 03:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I've known the user since he first started on Wikipedia, and I concur that the above statement is right. You have very little knowledge on Wiki policy, and furthermore on writing in general. I see no reason you could benefit from having admin tools, as you had some problems with AWB as well. Even more, you has little skill in decision-making skills; you have often done so, and even admitted, in large quantities of wasted edits. In addition, you have no backbone; so many times, you've been told to do something, and you did blindly without asking, and sometimes even without responding. While that might be a good trait to some, it is not a good trait for an administrator, who should be someone who can make actual decisions. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, very little experience with process and policy areas such as WP:AFD, WP:ANI, and other places. No vandalfighting experience whatsoever. Answers to questions are weak, contain incorrect links, and - in the case of #3 - are self-defeating. You have a self-defeating attitude in general, especially given the threats to kill yourself, as Chacor stated. Your edit count is high and you've created a lot of articles, but the quality of those edits and articles is not very good. As Hurricanehink states, you also have a major problem with patience (especially when it comes to creating articles), as some people (including myself) have stated on many occasions. Article creation is not the only thing that makes a good Wikipedia editor, and given that and all the other concerns I don't see any need for you to have the tools at this time. --Core desat 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Your lack of knowledge in Wikipedia policy and lack of confidence in your answers to the questions shows that you aren't ready to be an admin yet. Sr13 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Mr Chacor, sorry. Also, you write in your answer to question two, "To most users, I probably don't deserve it, but you never know. I wanna turn myself around from that and try my hardest to be a good Wikipedia user." Wanting to redeem yourself and reconcile with the community and/or individual editors are very laudable and commendable goals. However, please ensure you have done these things before seeking adminship. Sarah 10:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I think Chacor's concerns are much of a worry, admins are expected to keep cool throughout disputes and difficulat situations, this seems to be something which you cannot do, I suggest withdrawing this RfA per WP:SNOW and increasing your edit summary usage up to 100%. The answer to Q1 also appears to be far from impressive (with respect to you). Kindest Regards. -- The Sunshine Man 10:51, 2 June 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.
 * 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.