Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey

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


Mikaey[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final: (14/20/12); closed by Kingturtle at 12:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) as unsuccessful[reply]

Mikaey (talk · contribs) – After looking at the amount of vandalism this user reverts and the dedication that goes with deleting it, I would like to nominate Mikaey for adminship. The user himself has stated that he would like to become an admin one day. I believe they would make good use of admin tools to rid of vandalism off wikipedia.

Mikaey first came to my attention in late January 2009 when I was regularly visiting the Recent Changes page to see if there was any vandalism I could revert manually (This was before my request for rollbacking, and before I discovered the use for tools such as Huggle). Mikaey's name was regularly appearing on the list for reverting vandalism. It was this that inspired me to discover easier and quicker ways of reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Neutralle 23:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I gladly accept, with a big "thank you" to Neutralle for the nomination. Matt (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm not entirely sure that I would be able to contribute a whole lot as far as improving the content of articles. I don't tend to think of myself as having a vast amount of knowledge in any area that hasn't already been extensively covered. In fact, I usually refer to Wikipedia first when I need information about something. That has given me a lot of respect for what Wikipedia is and what it is trying to do, and I have a strong desire to keep it neat and clean. Therefore, I think my main activities would probably be an extension of what I've already been doing -- anti-vandalism work. So, I would continue to use Huggle/Twinkle to revert vandalism, as well as paying close attention to WP:AIV (I have to admit that adminship would be handy in instances where WP:AIV isn't being paid close attention to, especially in the wee hours of the morning when not many people are still awake). I would also be paying close attention to C:SD, and even CAT:AFC. However, I'm not above giving help to Wikipedians that need help (such as I did here, with a user that asked for help in the mainspace of the article), and I plan to continue to give help where needed and asked for.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think the one I'm most proud of is one that I'm not even finished with -- MG Wallace F. Randolph. This was one I came across while looking at the list of orphaned articles. There was no particular reason that I attached myself to it, it just sounded like I challenge that I could tackle. This article started out as Thunderbolt Wreck, and it mainly described the dive site that was formed by the sinking of the ship. I did some research and expanded on the article to include the ship's history before it was sank, including contacting the Army and requesting records on the ship (however, they have yet to respond). I even went so far as to get in touch with the Joyner Library at East Carolina University -- the records from the company that built the ship were donated to them -- and got a photo of the ship from them (I'm just waiting on the library's director to release it before it gets uploaded). Despite that it's still a fairly short article, I'm still rather proud of the work I did to that one.
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 don't know that there's any instances where someone else was challenging the content that I added to an article. I tend to be a pretty easy-going person, and I don't lose my cool very often. There have been a few where I was challenging the content that someone else was adding to an article, however. The one that comes to mind is P = NP problem. This was one I came across while patrolling the recent changes on Huggle. The user was adding a link to a "solution" to the as-yet-unsolved problem. I checked out his source, and it appeared to me to be original research, so I reverted his change. The user continued to introduce the solution into the page, and so I continued to revert it. Eventually, I began to wonder to myself whether or not I had violated 3RR (the thought process going through my mind was "if this is indeed original research, I'm fine, but if it's not, I'm in trouble"). My solution was to bring in another editor for their take on it. The other editor agreed with my assertion, and we went on to get the user blocked for ignoring our warnings.
As a general rule, if you're in an edit war with someone (e.g., one where both parties are hot-headed and reverting each other's edits), I think the quickest solution is to ask another, experienced editor for their perspective. If both parties are keeping their cool, then talk pages are an excellent resource for discussing your differences. In either situation, it never hurts to step back for some time (maybe even a day), let yourself cool off, and then take a second look at the differences between the two people's perspectives.

Q's from flaminglawyer

4. (not just a crap question; this is to judge your morals) What's your answer to the Heinz dilemma, and more importantly, why did you pick it?
A. Ah yes, it's been a while since I've thought about this one. Of course, in today's America, you can get the drug without having to pay for it by simply going to a hospital and saying "I can't pay for it". I think my solution would have been to break in and steal the drug, but I would leave the $1,000 that I had managed to collect. But since this isn't what the question was asking, I think I'd have to say yes, Heinz should have broken in and stolen the drug. I think my reasoning would have to be that in the end, the right to life outweighs the right to make a 90% markup on the drug. However, one has to be careful when using that as your defense, because it morally obligates you to do the same for anyone else in the same situation -- after all, his wife's life isn't necessarily worth any more than anyone else's life.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. Beat the nom support Whilst his project edit is not very impressive, his anti-vandalism work excels; I'm sure that his lack of knowledge in, say, WP:UAA, won't affect his ability to block vandals who are freely strolling around the place, recking havoc. WP:WHYNOT. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support And thank you for the work you are doing. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Though I know this is not likely to pass, I am willing to support you in the future, given the amount of edits you have. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Looks fine. Majorly talk 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We ask for too many edits these days, he's fine. Support Wizardman 16:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I really do not see any problems whatsoever. People pile on with WP:NOTNOW, but I could easily see you as an admin. I did not click on this RFA expecting to find an excellent editor, but hey, suprise suprise. If this RFA does not pass, then please request again in a few months. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Keep up the good work with huggle as well. We really do need more antivandal admins. I also think that more people would be willing to support if you did more CSD work, just to demonstrate your judgement to them. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this and add that if you do get heavily into CSD, be careful to the point of paranoia about marking anything for speedy deletion. Just a few mistakes in thousands can kill an RfA (mine may help show what people are looking for). Don't mean to scare you though - if you start in CSD, asking an experienced editor what they think of your work can be a great way to get feedback to build on. FlyingToaster 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has neither been blocked nor had any memorable negative interactions with me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Your anti-vandalism work looks great and I see no reason you couldn't be trusted with the mop. But then, it's a mop. So don't poke your eye out, kid. FlyingToaster 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not?--Res2216firestar 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Huge dedication to recent changes patrol, seems to always stay cool when reverting, which is more then I can say for myself, havn't really talked to Mikaey at all, but looking around, seems to be a very nice person with good humor SpitfireTally-ho! 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, no evidence or indication that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Support. I see absolutely no evidence that you would abuse the tools. Good anti-vandal work, and we need more of that. Cool3 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support While I do not raise any question to the fact that one admin in his time wears many hats, I see no reason why specialization seems so undervalued. As an interested member of WikiProject Law Enforcement, I easily see an analogy between Sysops and cops. They have special privileges, among which the most powerful may be the taking away another's rights (arrest/imprisonment analogous to blocking) and destruction of that which is deemed contraband (seizure of contraband analogous to deleting pages). In both cases, the individual responsible for upholding the policies and procedures, and, in effect, the opinions, of the population must be one in whom absolute trust can be confided. Perusing this editor's history, I have seen very little that would raise questions about his integrity. His current activity, or lack thereof, in, for example, usernames for administrator attention, seems of little relative concern. Based on my judgment, he will be willing and able to follow the correct procedures throughout the project, and do what becomes necessary for maintaining the smooth operation of the English Wikipedia. I liken him to an officer who is concerned primarily with traffic. Traffic officers constantly come into contact with those who do not act in the population's best interests. They issue citations to violators, and may arrest habitual offenders. This editor's citations, however, are warning templates, and his arrest power, Wikipedia's blocking policy. Too frequently, traffic officers come across crashes and are charged with discovering the cause of the mess, how to fix the problem, and how to prevent problems in the future. Mikaey, I trust, will be able to work collaboratively to discover, fix, and prevent problems. Just because an officer prefers to work traffic, does this mean that they are unable to act as a mediator in heated disputes, assist well-meaning citizens, or contribute in any other way to the operation of the city? Even if all I expected this editor to do was revert vandalism, I would have a hard time opposing this nomination. I can see him quickly becoming an invaluable resource to this project and the community it involves. Should I be in the minority, I forsee him working his way up to whatever high standards will be demanded from an administrator in the future of the English Wikipedia. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the law enforcement analogy is good ... but I really appreciate the fact you're willing to write longer rationales than mine :) If it helps, I think the candidate can be optimistic about a future RFA, based on what I'm seeing in the opposition, as long as the candidate takes the advice to heart. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Despite a lack of edits, Mikaey seems trustworthy to me. I don't think this user will abuse the tools. hmwithτ 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Per WP:NOTNOW. Outstanding work so far but general standard is 5,000 edits for vandalism experts. Come back ASAP, I'd really like to support. Ceranthor 02:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the use of WP:NOTNOW for any close. A bureaucrat or even an administrator closing under WP:SNOW later might be more acceptable, but Mikaey has been here a while, and deserves the chance to learn at least a little from this experience. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Ceranthor. I'd really like to support after a bit more experience in other areas of Wikipedia. -download | sign! 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. You're on your way, but I don't yet see enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace for me to be assured that you know everything I want an admin candidate to know. For example, you say in Q1 that you want to work at CSD, but you've only tagged about 20 or 30 articles for speedy deletion. Also, there are a lot more qualities and characteristics that I want to see in an admin candidate (I'm not saying you don't have them) than I can tell from simply Huggling. You may have the clue, the knowledge of policy, the civility, and so forth, but it will take more than clicking Huggle for me to be sure. I see that 83% (2140 of 2567) of your work has been automated, including 94% of your last 1500 edits. I look forward to supporting in the future, when you get some more experience in the project space. Useight (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, nice work so far but more experience needed. The answer to question 3 in particular shows a lack of experience in handling disputes. Looie496 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Sorry, but your lack of experience in the areas you say you want to work in will be the downfall of this RFA. Learn from it and come back when you have the required amount of experience. ArcAngel (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As the admin who granted Mikaey rollback, I think it's clear that WP:NOTNOW can't be blindly applied in this case. Even so, I must agree with the other opposes regarding the candidate's experience. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC) changed to neutral[reply]
  6. Oppose per Useight and Ceranthor. Try again maybe in a few months and with more experience. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Useight. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Not a not WP:NOTNOW oppose but a real one. Wants to work in C:SD but makes mistakes like this. There is virtually no experience with CSD to judge from. Also, while I like Huggle myself, one fifth of this users edits were done within the last three days(!) using Huggle and a total of 1800 edits (out of 2600) are Huggled and another 400 are Twinkled[1]. While anti-vandalism work is good (and there are good Huggling admins like J.delanoy (talk · contribs)), there is no contributions in areas where admins need to work. I can't even say (and this pains me) that the candidate is on the right path. It looks like the candidate desperately tried to increase their edit-count for this RFA to quickly gain the tools. There is no reason to support that. If you, Mikaey, want to become an admin, work some months within the community, helping users, clearing away problems etc. It's not easy and it requires patience but it's what an admin really needs to be able to do. Regards SoWhy 08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Just a little too soon. Whilst total edits count is a decent number, they have come in a big lump in the last few days, according to wikichecker results. I would like to see more experience in the core areas he wants to assist in, and more WP namespace contributions wouldn't hurt. --GedUK  08:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per SoWhy. Apparently, it's Huggle season all around. JPG-GR (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. A little too early. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I would like to support, but I agree with several of the comments above, and also concur this RFA may be a bit early. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Regretful oppose- he's close to meeting my standards, but needs a bit more experience. In another month or two, I'd be sure to support. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Too dependent on automated tools and little experience in admin-related areas. The candidate has done good work, but lacks sufficient experience. DiverseMentality 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose You don't know what to do with the tool but want to be an admin? I think you're not ready yet.--Caspian blue 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose -- The nom is a bit premature, needs to gain more experience and do edits without an automated script.--₮RUCӨ 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose -- per Useight. Needs to contribute in XfD discussions, CSD, UAA, and help out other users. Sorry. Versus22 talk 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Useight. Needs to contribute in XfD discussions, CSD, UAA, and help out other users. Sorry. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 17:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Only became a regular editor very recently. More time and wider experience needed before adminship can be seriously considered. Potentially a good future candidate. Singopo (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per Useight. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...can I ask for WP:NOPILEONS here? Matt (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, I'm not sure that essay applies; if it did, though, one could argue that it applied to all !voters, aside from the first in each category. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I appreciate everyone's feedback here, and will take it to heart, but I see a lot of "Oppose per Useight"'s here, which doesn't really tell me a whole lot or make me feel any better. Kinda makes me feel like those people read his argument and said "yeah, that sounds good, I'll just agree with him." Matt (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully understand that RfA can be stressful. Heck, I've failed two of my own! Even so, RfA is a community discussion, which needs a fairly high level of participation in order to come to a consensus. I do agree, though, that "per User:X" comments should be avoided, or at least clarified with a rationale. Best, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I'd like to see more thought put into it than just "per <insert username here>". Matt (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I would like to support, but I do not see enough recent participation in the project for to me to give my support. You have been contributing consistently since December, and racked up 500 edits that month. However, since you are doing antivandalism work, I request that you get at least 3-4 more months of work and some broader experience with other areas of the wiki first, such as perhaps with writing a few DYKs or assisting at Third Opinion. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - You do fantastic vandalism-reverting. MG Wallace F. Randolph looks really good, but I don't see much Wikipedia-related spaces, except for WP:AIV or when you are reverting vandalism there. That's the only drawback, sorry. You should participate more in WP:AN and WP:AN/I. SimonKSK 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Per NuclearWarfare and SimonKSK.--Giants27 T/C 02:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - Won't break the Wiki, but I'd like to see more than just automated tools being used - whilst we do need anti-vandal administrators, I also would like a demonstration that they can work in other areas, as adminship doesn't come in parts. — neuro(talk) 03:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - From what I can see, you will be a good vandalism based admin (if you stay in that area, a good admin) in a few more months. I will happily support you. I am currently leaning support, but I would honestly like you to have a little more time to develop first. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral per Neuro and Ottava Rima. You're a great editor, but you need some more experience in areas outside vandalism reverting. LittleMountain5 review! 00:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neurolysis hit the nail on the head. I stand by my oppose rationale (now struck), however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, leaning support - I doubt that Mikaey would cause irreparable harm to the project, but I think that the user could use a bit more exposure to other areas. Should this RfA fail, however, please don't get frustrated and stop contributing with your anti-vandal work. Give it some time, learn the other areas of Wiki, and I'll support you on your next attempt. —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 18:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per Little Mountain 5, Ottava Rima and the WP:SNOW factor here, it seems that this rfa is set. Please try again soon, though, I believe this was a good faith nom and don't want to discourage the candidate. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - I am tempted to support, but it is difficult to judge you against quite a few of my criteria as you are quite low on experience at present, even though you technically meet key criteria 1. I would like to see a bit more general experience yet, I wish you luck. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I considered supporting despite your experience, but when I looked at your edits at AFD I decided I could not. Most of your comments were "agree with x" or "Per nom." While this is not really bad, I like to see a bit more thought put into your work there. I also looked at your last 50 edits to talk pages and I didn't see any meaningful discussion with other users. Based on these I cannot support you, but I urge you to try again in six months. Maybe try reading WP:ARL. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral I like a lot of what I'm seeing, but some of the CSD issues brought up by SoWhy are troubling. I do a lot of speedy tagging myself, and I've found that increasing my participation at AfD has helped me increase my understanding of deletion policies and therefore have a better eye for when it is and is not appropriate to place a CSD tag. I'd personally like to see more thoughtful contributions at AfD/ MfD. Great anti-vandalism work so far, in a few more months I'll be likely to support. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:40, 9 March 2009 (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/Mikaey&oldid=1142505360"