Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike33

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

Mike33

The self nominator realises that candidity has no place in Rfa and humbly withdraws from this request. My greatful thanks to everybody who has commented, but honesty doesn't stand a cat in hells chance on Rfa. Again big thanks to everybody who has commented and your time has certainly not been wasted. WITHDRAWN PER NOM Mike33 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FINAL (1/6/0); withdrawn by candidate 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mike33 (talk · contribs) - This is purely a vanity self-nomination. With the Bureaucrat Requests all but over, I thought I'd give editors a new chance of somebody to ridicule and critise. My count is extremely low 400 mainspace considering 12months (although 6 months of those were dorment). I don't know any other editors and I don't get involved in any of the projects (although some of the articles I actively edit come into the Greater Manchester Project). I can't really see it passing and I don't mind some harsh words. I don't edit with TOR and I don't swear very much at other editors. Mike33 06:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept Mike33 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (post hoc)[reply]

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: I have Vandal Patrol already and that seems to be all I need. Its a great tool for sorting out obvious vandalism. I'd carry on with vandal patrol and welcoming new editors. As I've said before Adminship is more of a vanity thing for me, I'd be unlikely to use many of the tools, maybe a few speedy deletes perhaps, but I could still just tag them and forget about them.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think that I'm a good all rounder, I enjoy assisting new editors and just steering their first mainspace article for a day or two. I've written a few small church architecture articles and they have slowly grown with other editors imput. I'd say that what I've done has been OK with 400 mainspace edits, I can't say that I've written 40 GA.

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 chat to editors before I do anything. If editors like what I suggest they use my suggestion. I've got an easy going manner mostly. If I get adminship I just won't come on Wikipedia when I'm drunk. I'm not a dipsomaniac per say, but I sometimes lose it when I've been drinking heavily.

4. (additional question) First of all, I want to say that when I first joined Wikipedia (Jan 2005), 1000 edits was plenty for an admin. Anyway, what is this for? Borisblue 06:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Admins are Right is an archive of a dispute with SecretLondon over a number of self made pictures I contributed to the article Chav. I couldn't really understand his reasoning in speedy deleting them - his critera and my response are there. It was a small episode but it left me with a very bad taste for a while. Mike33 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Mike33's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Mike33: Mike33 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mike33 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Support. I have interacted with Mike33 before and he is civil, helpful and a good editor. I also find his honesty refreshing. Let's face it, 99% of people who apply for adminship have at least some level of vanity involved - the very difficulty of passing RfA makes the position of admin more prestigious than it really ought to be. And although his editcount is on the low side, I see him around in relevant discussions all the time and am 100% sure that he understands policy. This request will probably fail, but I think it's sad that he's drawn so many Opposes simply for being honest. Walton^One 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per (apparently) the candidate - this candidate seems to want to fail - he says in Q1 that what he has is already enough, he says nothing in the least inspiring, and he seems to put himself down in his own nomination. He says that he may not even use the tools given them. I can do nothing but oppose someone who sees adminship as a 'vanity thing'. Perhaps what you should do is have an editor review, because that is what this nomination looks like - a request for review, not the tools. Good luck in future, and keep up your work. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Where normally I would be sat at Moral Support for the self nom and valuable contributions so far, your "vanity thing" statement shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of adminship and as per Anonymous almost invites the RFA to fail. I strongly suggest withdrawal per WP:SNOW, keep whacking the vandals, and spend some time understanding the roles admins play in our community before coming back here. Sorry. Pedro | Chat 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And I suggest a withdrawal. Not sure why a candidate would seemingly subject themselves to a failing Rfa. Jmlk 1 7 07:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You're in the right direction, but vanity is hardly what the role of adminship is. Sr 13 07:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some misunderstanding as to "don't think my request will pass" and inviting the request to fail. I think I have a very good idea of the role of administrators, I spend enough time on AN/I and the other places they lurk, why would you suppose that I just don't understand? My Vanity Thing is fair enough, it is much more honest than a new appointee running around user talk pages cracking the champange out after their raising. Mike33 07:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Mike, your honesty is great and I respect your comment. The problem is that editors are granted the extra buttons to help out and perform specific tasks that for technical reasons not everyone else can do. To seek adminship for vanity reasons (as per your own statement) is not going to gain the trust required from the community to grant you those tools. Sorry, may I sugest withdrawal and if you'd like to discuss how you can further help the community and Wikipedia I, and I am sure many others here, would be delighted to help. My talk page is allways open! Pedro | Chat 08:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe the same (without saying it the same way some others did) and your vandal fighting is very good, though you don't really seem to really need the tools. I like what you do, though the purpose isn't what people would look for when they look at an administrator. You seem to be doing fine right now with what you have, and I recommend simply sticking to it. Keep up the work you are doing though! C. Foultz 08:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see no need for the tools; not even a claim to needing them. As an aside, adminship is not there as a vanity thing or an egoboost - it's just a couple of extra buttons for - well - administration! I would like to thank you for the good work you've done so far, but suggest withdrawal to avoid snowballing in this nomination. ck lostsword•T•C 10:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Incidentally, I agree with Pedro: it is very refreshing to see such candidness in a RfA; I suppose it's better than writing what people want to hear for the sake of it. Note that my oppose is not on the grounds of those comments; far from it: I feel that you don't show that you need the tools or would be able to help the project better with them. ck lostsword•T•C 10:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand I am on a losing battle if opision does reaches 8, I will pull out (using Genesis 18:30 as precedent "May the lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if I can only find thirty there?" He answered "I will not do it if I find thirty there."). If somebody can tell me how to withdrawl. Mike33 11:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have advised Mike33 on his talk page regarding this. Pedro | Chat 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.