Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kicking222

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bearian (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 23 September 2007 (→Kicking222: 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kicking222

Voice your opinion (talk page) (11/0/0); Scheduled to end 01:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Kicking222 (talk · contribs) - Kicking222 (Mike) has been a Wikipedian since September of 2005. In that time, Mike has impressed me with his common sense approach and his dedication to the project. I see him often on XFD and he's a civil, honest user who demonstrates knowledge of policy, and who spends a lot of time WikiGnoming and cleaning up pop culture subjects. Mike knows what is and what is not encyclopedic, and I'd trust him with the tools. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly, and with a very long statement, accept. -- Mike (Kicking222) 01:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks a million to Firsfron/Ron for the nomination- if I do become an admin, I can only hope to do as well as he has. I've thought many times, and been asked by multiple users, about running for adminship. After a quasi-break from editing for a while, which ended a couple of months ago, I think I could certainly help the project if I had the admin tools. I've realized that there are things I simply can't do right now (as documented below) that would improve the encyclopedia. I've also realized that there's no reason for me not to run for adminship. The worst that can happen is that I can't do things in the future that I already can't do, so what is there to lose? It's my goal as an editor- and would be my goal as an admin- to aid this spectacular project. If the community grants me some additional tools, that would be awesome, but it's not the end of the world if I don't get them, and I would accept the community's decision if I'm not made an admin. Whether I become an admin or not, I'll be the same guy working towards the same goal.
I am willing to answer further questions (I'd rather not call them optional questions, as they're really not optional), but I would prefer that you simply look at my editing history and talk pages before asking something; optimally, I would get no other questions, though I will respond to all questions that are presented. If I'm going to use WP, I want it to be productive; the (peculiarly large amount of) time that I've spent writing this statement and the answers to the questions meant taking precious time away from actually editing Wikipedia.
For the record, yes, I know what SNOW and IAR are and when/how to apply them; I don't intend on using the ability to block users at all- if someone comes to me and thinks another user should be blocked, I will attempt to mediate the situation and/or point the editor in the direction of another admin- so please don't ask about when I would or would not block someone; feel free to look it up, but yes, I just received my B.A. in Mathematics and Economics from Brandeis; and I would gladly be recalled (if anyone still cares about that)- in fact, if I ever turn into the type of editor who abuses the tools, I will give up not just the title of sysop, but editing WP as a whole. That's not who I am, and it never will be. I have a strong affinity for this collaborative project, and admin or not, I will be the best editor I can be, and I'll never do anything to harm the 'pedia.
No matter what side of the fence you fall on, thank you for considering me for adminship. In fact, taking into account the length of this statement and the answers below, thanks for even reading this.
Since people want to know these sorts of things, I have approximately 7,000 edits, somewhat evenly split between the mainspace and the Wikipedia: space.
Finally, please, both in this discussion and in future discussions, feel free to call me Mike. "Kicking" is impersonal- I'm not an action verb, I'm a person. Have a nice day! -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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: Some things I intend to do- a non-definitive list:
  • Edit the Main Page (among other fully protected pages)- I read the candidates for In The News constantly, and I'd like to be able to post them myself; additionally, I'll correct grammatical or punctuation errors on the Main Page when they arise (which they do somewhat frequently).
  • Close XfD debates- I've commented on thousands of AfDs, MfDs, DRVs, etc. It would certainly help, especially in regard to backlogs, to be able to close XfDs when they're contentious.
  • Speedily deleting articles- This one is quite obvious- deleting pages that blatantly fail the speedy criteria. Duh.
  • Page moves- More than once, I have come upon two pages whose content should be reversed (i.e. a redirect actually has correct capitalization, while the article's current location does not), but I currently don't have the ability to do this without getting an admin involved.
  • Viewing previously-deleted articles- Helpful in DRV discussions. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My largest contribution is Splashdown, but I would not call it my single-best contribution. In fact, that article is not in great shape- it is rather well-written and neutral, but does not contain sources. I don't really have any excuse for why I have not repaired this page, but I certainly hope to get around to it. Some of my better contributions are stubs I've created, such as Julie Sokolow (she is a friend of mine, and I fully admit this slight COI, but again, it's an article that I tried to write from a completely neutral perspective, and only with sourced comments) and Adam Schoenfeld- these are not big articles, but they give about as much information about their subjects as could be given, and always with reliable sources. Yet I truly feel that almost all of my edits could be considered my "best" contributions, and this is not a cop-out answer. The point of editing WP is to make it the best encyclopedia possible, and gnomish activities such as correcting spelling and grammar, contributing to XFDs, creating redirects, and adding categories are vital to achieving this goal. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 haven't been involved in any arguments as far as specific articles are concerned. When various WP:SCHOOLS proposals were created, I was heavily involved in the debate, which got heated on all sides at times, but I think I handled myself well. I have, a couple of times in my two years as an editor, been accused of violating WP:NPA. Aside from these incidents being many, many months ago, I very rapidly realized my errors in these cases; I don't mean that in the "As I am running for adminship, I am now noting that I was at fault" sense, but in the "I quickly saw that I had made mistakes, apologizing for my actions and rescinding my previous comments within a couple of days" sense. I am in no way infallible, but I generally try to keep the atmosphere at WP as friendly as possible. If I am to get into an argument, my method will be as follows: 1) Take some time to cool off. 2) Find a neutral party (or parties) and ask them to comment on the problem. 3) Try to look at the situation again from a more objective, less emotional perspective. 4) Do my best to come to an agreement / find consensus among myself, thsoe with whom I disagree, and the neutral third party/ies. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kicking222 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Yes, yes, YES! Serious case of clique #1 here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is clique#1?Rlevse 11:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was kind of wondering that, too, but I didn't really want to question it- Alex supported me, and that's what matters here. -- Mike (Kicking222) 14:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, per nom. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A graet editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Mike has long impressed me with his thoughtful and policy-based comments in deletion discussions.--Chaser - T 04:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, yes, yes. Yes. Yes! Yes. Wow, H20 took exactly what I was going to type. Keegantalk 05:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As I head off to bed for the night (followed by a painful </sarcasm> day of getting paid to watch football tomorrow), I want to sincerely thank the above users for their amazingly kind words. Whether I get a hundred supporters or a hundred opposers or fall halfway in-between, these comments mean a great deal to me. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support great contribution history. Tim! 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support looks good. XFD experience a plus. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Has a good sense of policy and is an active contributor to deletion processes. — TKD::Talk 11:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Without hesitation. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Recent contributions reveal positive contributions in a number of areas, including article cleanup, helping other users, and regular comments at AfD and FAC. My only criticism is that edits like this should probably be marked as minor edits, but this is nowhere near a reason to withhold support IMO. Clearly a civil user, well-informed about policy, and active in mainspace for a long time. WaltonOne 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ? But that edit is marked as minor.[1] — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my mistake. WaltonOne 15:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as a good editor, always civil, around a long time, and thus can be trusted. Only qualms: needs to find cites for his better efforts, and needs to "get the red out" (use edit summaries). These are not in any sense serious issues. Bearian 17:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

Neutral

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kicking222&oldid=159833208"