Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kicking222

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Kicking222

[edit]

Final (39/0/1); Ended Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:21:16 (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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
    I think clique #1 is "Thought he/she was already an admin." Captain panda 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Captain panda got it right. Come to think of it, it has been a while since I've seen that in use, but I didn't think it'd been forgotten... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's cliché. Keegantalk 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
    Perhaps H20 meant to suggest that Kicking is part of our ruling clique (the cabal)... Joe 04:19, 24 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]
    Only Keegan's comments were in bold ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:11, 24 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]
    First, thanks for your support. Second, I always use edit summaries- as in, 100% major and 100% minor. But in any case, thank you. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Everything looks good to me. Dureo 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support No problems. Captain panda 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good editor. Looks unlikely to abuse power. Crassic(talk) 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seen him around for awhile, see no issues.Rlevse 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Solid candidate. — Wenli (contribs) 02:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I've seen him before; he knows his right from his left. Shalom Hello 13:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I have to come out of my semi-retirement to support such a qualified candidate. My experience in the past was nothing short of glowing. Yanksox 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... thanks, my friend. That means so much to me. I have greatly missed you around these here parts, and while I understand (and, of course, respect) your reasons for not wanting to be particularly active in the project, I still wish you were around more. But again, the fact that you came out to support me makes me feel confident that I can at least come close to doing as much good work as you did when you were a sysop. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
    Of course, I'm greatly thankful to each and every person above (and even below), but let it be known that Yanksox [real name withheld for privacy] is one of the reasons I became so engrossed with Wikipedia in the first place. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Checked Track user is very civil and has over 7000 edits in 2 years have no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Jmlk17 00:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support From my brief experience with working with Kicking222 late last year I can see he is a dedicated, honest user. Would do well as an admin. mdmanser 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Good and responsible contributor with sensible, useful and constructive contributions in all areas. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Good candidate with experience in all the right areas. :-) Lradrama 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I can remember reading Mike's comments here and there and thinking "he's a sensible guy, he should be an admin". Looking at some edits and what's been said here, I don't see anything to make me think differently now. Should have been mopped a long while back. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, good editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Detail oriented Wikipedian who sweats for our encyclopedia. Give him a mob so he can increase his efficiencies. There is certainly no lack of work to be done! gidonb 00:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good experience with AfDs. He did get excited in some of the debates in Wikipedia talk:Schools/Old proposal but I didn't notice any incivility. I would have liked to see some references in Splashdown (band). He appears to be more active in cleanup than in article writing but that shouldn't cause any concern about making him an admin. I even noticed him writing a Featured Article review, so he knows how good articles are structured. EdJohnston 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Always seemed like he'd make a good candidate in the future, and the time has definitely come. Grandmasterka 09:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Seen him around a lot- definately trustworthy and responsible - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Seems like a good choice. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per EdJohnston's thoughtful comments. --A. B. (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good candidate and I don't see any issues here.--Isotope23 talk 16:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support good candidate and will put the tools to good use. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Everything in place, nothing to oppose. --Kudret abiTalk 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support good contributions and experience, trustworthy, I think you will be a good admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 06:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral Borderline because of nomination from Firsfron, whom I know would only endorse the best (but I am surprised that this applicant has nothing to do with Dinosaurs...LOL). However, I am very concerned that this individual has an inconsistent editing pattern, has not broadly focused on a number of topics, and is more focused on article clean-up rather than building of the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But... don't we need article clean-up people? That's a great deal of what adminship is: clean-up on aisle 5 (Sorry, I won't pester ya further :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that clean-up is building the project. I do wish that I was a better article writer, but WP would be quite the mess without us gnomes. As far as my editing pattern... yep, can't fight you there, though I'd like to think that my overall record- not just February through June- speaks well enough for me. With all of that said, your reasons for being neutral are as valid as anyone's reasons for supporting- I certainly wouldn't mind unanimous support, but I'm happy to learn upon what others think I can improve. Even if I can't win you over now, hopefully I'll be able to do so as an admin. -- Mike (Kicking222) 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, not really to both of you. In general I oppose these types of candidates on principle. I'm neutral only because Firs knows what he's doing. I'm really troubled by the number of edits made over the past 6 months (I mean if you're going to be a vandal janitor, you really need to be around cleaning more). My concern with candidates who want to be cops is that we need more admins who can clean with skill. Spend one hour editing some Creationist articles (don't care which one, but a busy one). Can you deal with the edit warring? Bickering? Borderline civility that is normal for these articles but unacceptable elsewhere? We have really bad admins around here (just read my contributions if you want to know whom I think ought to resign today, but who insists on calling people names)--are you that type of admin? So building the project does require cleaning up. But it requires managing the building too, meaning keeping out the vermin, and updating the electrical systems, and building new offices, and whatever else (I just can't bring myself to abuse the metaphor further). Anyways, I'm sure you'll be a good cop and janitor. But can you write an article? Build consensus? Drive consensus (a trait that many people have)? Understand where civility in one context may not be so in another? Maybe we need specialists on this project, but I think we have that at the editor level. Admins should be just a bit more of a generalist. Personally, I wish all admins had the experience that Firs has, with Firs' sense of humor and Firs' broad knowledge. All IMHO (or not so humble). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, thanks for your long contribution to this discussion. I know that it so happens to have been during my RfA, but I'm glad it was, because it was interesting to read about your position. You have no reason to be humble- so many people (not necessarily on WP, but in general) screaming to get their message out, and others screaming louder just try to drown the first people out; I'd much rather hear an intelligent, informed opinion. I completely see your points about the kinds of people you and do not want to be sysops, and I pretty much 100% agree with you. A couple of points about me in particular: vandal fighting isn't really what I do, and it's not going to really be anywhere on my radar as an admin. Sure, if I see somebody randomly adding "is gay" after people's names, I'll revert it (and tell them to stop vandalizing, not to mention stop being homophobic), but I don't plan on actively hunting down vandals, getting CheckUsers done, blocking, etc.. Do I personally think I can deal with the stresses of being an admin? Absolutely. I've dealt with bickering and civility and whatnot, and I'm confident in my abilities. Lastly, I'm not going to compare myself to Ron, but I'd like to think I have a good sense of humor (hell, I was an above-average improv comedian in high school and a second-rate performer in a sketch troupe in college!), and while "broad knowledge" is quite the general term, I know all you need to know about sports, Wes Anderson films, and new wave music. So that's a start. But really, I really appreciate your comments, OM. Feel free to keep tabs on my contributions as an admin (assuming the current results hold); I'd be happy to hear your feedback. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kicking222&oldid=1088281348"