Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2

Mikaey

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (16/1/1); Scheduled to end 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Mikaey (talk · contribs) – It's been almost 4 months now since my last RfA, and I think I've learned quite a bit in that time. Probably the biggest area where I've been active is in programming -- I've written a number of programs that are designed to help out the Wiki in one way or another. For instance, you may know me from my bots, ListasBot and DefaultsortBot. ListasBot has helped to bring Category:Biography articles without listas parameter down from the biggest backlog on WP:BACKLOG (at ~334,000 pages) to a "mere" 48,000 pages. I've also just recently written AarghBot, which is compiling a list of cut-and-paste moves (WP:New histmerge list) -- a project which uncovered far more cut-and-paste moves than I would have thought when I started. I also wrote WikiBiff, a program aimed towards people like myself, who want to know as soon as I have new messages or someone changes a page I've been watching.

Why am I running for adminship again? There's a couple of reasons:

• First, I created quite a backlog with WP:New histmerge list. 14,500 pages and counting. I'd like to jump in and help get that list cleaned up. I'm sure Anthony Appleyard would appreciate it.
• Second, I'd like to get back into vandal whacking. I actually had fun patrolling the wiki and keeping it clean. However, I can remember several incidents where, especially in the wee hours of the morning, when I would report a user to AIV, then sit and revert that user's changes for another 10-20 minutes before an admin came along.
• I'd also do some new pages patrolling and work in CSD. I say "some" because I'll admit that I'm not the most experienced person in that area. I have the idea down, and most of the time, the pages I tag are deleted for the reasons that I specify, but on occasion, they are deleted for reasons other than what I tagged for, and sometimes the CSD is refused altogether. My plan in that area would be to keep "new pages patrolling" and "work in CSD" separate for a while until I get more experience with it -- e.g., I would look at pages that other people had tagged for speedy deletion, and only delete those pages if I agreed with the criteria for which they tagged it. Also, I would not delete pages which I myself had tagged for speedy deletion.

So, with that, I present myself here for my second request for adminship. Matt (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ...is it possible to refuse a self-nomination? Matt (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: See my statement above.

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

A: I'd probably say that ListasBot is my best contribution. I've gotten a couple of barnstars for the work that bot has done, and I'm sure that WikiProject Biography (especially people like JimCubb) are grateful for bringing WP's biggest backlog down to less than 1/6 of what it was before. My bots in general are a testament to my cooperation with other users, as several of the tasks that I have received approval for are the result of suggestions from other users.

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 have. I deal better with situations where I can take a moment to compose my thoughts, look at the situation from both points of view, and figure out what the best course of action is; and the fact that this is a wiki affords me exactly that. If anything, I tend to play it conservatively in situations where I could end up pissing someone off (and I'm constantly afraid of that happening). As an example, back in May, I got into an argument with another user, shortly after DefaultsortBot went into operation, because the user felt that the bot was creating more work for users (such as himself) when the bot was fed incorrect data to begin with. Although the accusation aggravated me, I stayed calm, put the bot's operation on hold, and developed a rationale that showed that the bot wasn't actually creating any more work than what already needed to be done. Other users also stepped into the situation and put their two cents in, which I was extremely grateful for, but at the same time, I didn't go out and solicit their input -- it just so happened that because I gave the situation some time to cool down, other people noticed what was going on and stepped in to help.

Very optional question from decltype

4. You seem rather humble about your knowledge in various areas. I see that you self-identify as an "intermediate" C++ programmer. If you have the time, feel free to examine this program. Is it well-formed? What, if anything, does it print?

A:

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim. Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A-

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A-

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A-

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A-

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A-

10.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?

A-

11. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?

A-

Optional questions from KillerChihuahua

12. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A:

13. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?

A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Mikaey
• Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2

• Links for Mikaey: Mikaey (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mikaey can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mikaey before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support; seen his work, should do fine as an admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Candidate seems to have worked to address concerns raised at the previous RFA. While I think it's still a bit soon for the second RFA, I will not oppose it for those reasons. The candidate has shown that he is able to both reflect on criticism and work on issues that were raised, both skills invaluable to an admin. While I still have my concerns about this user's knowledge (especially when it comes to speedy deletion), I think overall it will be to our benefit to make him an admin. One can learn on "the job" after all. Regards SoWhy 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. It's hard to figure out a scenario where Mikaey would be able to build great bots, yet can't be trusted with the mop. tedder (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Support, seen them around, they do plenty of good work; They're polite, helpful, run a nice bot, do better work in CSD then they make out. I trust them to use the bit properly, and put it to it's best uses - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. You do have a lot of automated edits (over 50%), but that's no reason not to support. Your bots are a valuable contribution to the project, and someone has to take care of the history merge backlog! I have no doubt that you'll learn the areas you're less familiar with "on the job". Jafeluv (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong support, per the mature and sensible behaviour exhibited at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3 where the user dealt very responsibly with concerns about his bot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Never encountered this user, but nothing to suggest he won't use the tools properly. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Deo Volente.— Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support --Giants27 (c|s) 14:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Bonne chance! Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Has shown he's quite good at things outside vandalism reverting, I'm especially impressed with the bots. Good work! LittleMountain5 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Looks fine to me. hmwithτ 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Majorly talk 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support-He looks great to me, barring that I'm missing something. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think you missing anything. =)America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

16. Support No issues. Good luck as an admin! America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sorry, but you seem mainly to be involved in the sort of highly automated editing where you will never need the extra tools. I am also not entirely happy with the tenor of your responses to people complaining about defaultsortbot [1], (since I think that it is important to understand that absolute error rates should be low for bots, not just relative error rates) but its nothing that I would oppose for, of itself. I wasn't able to see any article contributions in your last 2000 edits, but maybe I've missed something. Have you edited enough articles to have bashed heads with a stubborn (non-vandal) user and know how to handle it? Overall, I'm not seeing that the experience problems from the last AFD RFA have been resolved. You seem like a good and valuable editor, but not one who needs to be an admin at this point. Best wishes, AKAF (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral IMO administrators' signatures should match their usernames. Aditya ^α _ß 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)