Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2

Username: Mikaey
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Nov 18, 2007 04:24:04
Unique articles edited: 6,870
Average edits per page: 1.38
Total edits (including deleted): 9,462
Deleted edits: 561
Live edits: 8,901

Namespace totals
Article
2712
30.47%

Talk
2166
24.33%

User
451
5.07%

User talk
1921
21.58%

Wikipedia
596
6.70%

Wikipedia talk
256
2.88%

File
15
0.17%

Template
8
0.09%

Template talk
6
0.07%

Help talk
1
0.01%

Category
24
0.27%

Category talk
742
8.34%

Portal
3
0.03%

Month counts
2007/11
35	
2007/12
2	
2008/01
5	
2008/02
1	
2008/03
1
2008/04
0	
2008/05
3	
2008/06
25	
2008/07
6	
2008/08
6	
2008/09
1	
2008/10
13	
2008/11
13	
2008/12
19	
2009/01
532	
2009/02
1363	
2009/03
3422	
2009/04
522	
2009/05
928	
2009/06
1957	
2009/07
47

Logs
Accounts created: 3
Pages moved: 187
Pages patrolled: 526
Files uploaded: 3

Top edited articles

Article

10 - Suvorov's_Italian_and_Swiss_expedition
8 - Aylesbury_Grammar_School
7 - Major_General_Wallace_F._Randolph
6 - Ted_Schmidt
6 - Kris_Allen
6 - P_=_NP_problem
5 - Frail_Words_Collapse
5 - Tosca_Lee
5 - Amun
5 - Winslow_Township_High_School


Talk

6 - Public_image_of_George_W._Bush/Archive_1
6 - Usenet_celebrity/Archive_2
5 - Tokio_Hotel/Archive_2
4 - PlayStation_Portable_homebrew/Archive_2
4 - Ata_al-Ayyubi
3 - Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2006/Archive_1
3 - Mark_Canning_(diplomat)
3 - True_Family/Archive_1
3 - Abdul-Rahman_Al-Muhajir
3 - Abdul-Hakim_Murad


User

147 - ListasBot/old_talk_pages
58 - Mikaey
54 - Mikaey/Broken_talk_pages
36 - ListasBot
34 - Mikaey/QOTD
20 - Mikaey/Request_for_Input/ListasBot_3
16 - Mikaey/Sandbox
16 - ListasBot/Source
8 - ListasBot/Reported_biography_pages
6 - ListasBot/Sandbox2


User talk

72 - ListasBot
71 - Mikaey
36 - DefaultsortBot
22 - Mikaey/Archive_1
22 - ListasBot/Sandbox2
17 - Anthony_Appleyard/2009/April-June
13 - 45ODY
10 - 76.79.179.55
9 - 66.25.175.163
8 - Spitfire/Archive_1


Wikipedia

100 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
35 - New_histmerge_list
26 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/ListasBot_5
20 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/ListasBot_3
16 - Administrators'_noticeboard
16 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/ListasBot_2
16 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/ListasBot
15 - Bots/Requests_for_approval/DefaultsortBot
14 - Huggle/Whitelist
13 - Bots/Requests_for_approval


Wikipedia talk

11 - Deceased_Wikipedians/Proposal_to_establish_practic...
9 - New_histmerge_list
5 - Categorization
4 - AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests
3 - WikiProject_Biography
3 - AutoWikiBrowser
3 - AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs
3 - Categorization_of_people
3 - WikiProject_Spam
3 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage


File

3 - Jim_Morrison_-_Fillmore_East.jpg
2 - Human_skeleton_front.svg
1 - Sheep_club2.jpg
1 - Ambox_screwup_Mikaey.jpg
1 - The_Persistence_of_Memory.jpg
1 - Philippines_flag_construction_sheet.png
1 - HistoryOfTheMillennium.jpg
1 - Whale_Horse_-_Count_The_Electric_Sheep.jpg
1 - Female_Pandion.jpg
1 - Centaur.jpg


Template

2 - Nahmc
1 - MediaCorp
1 - Planet_of_the_Apes
1 - WPBiography/doc
1 - Mars
1 - Protected_Areas_of_California
1 - Cent


Template talk

2 - Ambox
2 - Did_you_know
1 - Infobox_SCOTUS_case
1 - PofC


Help talk

1 - Contents


Category

2 - AfD_debates_(Fiction_and_the_arts)
2 - AfD_debates_(Web_or_internet)
2 - Indian_sex_workers
2 - AfD_debates_(Society_topics)
2 - AfD_debates_(Biographical)
2 - AfD_debates_(Media_and_music)
2 - AfD_debates_(Organisation,_corporation,_or_product...
2 - AfD_debates_(Science_and_technology)
1 - AfD_debates_(Places_and_transportation)
1 - Possible_cut-and-paste_moves


Category talk

4 - Anglo-Saxon_earls
3 - B-Class_biography_(arts_and_entertainment)_article...
3 - Biography_articles_without_listas_parameter
2 - Ancient_Romans_involved_in_Caesar's_invasions_of_B...
2 - Austrian_women's_rights_activists
2 - Australian_women's_rights_activists
2 - American_dancers
2 - American_women's_rights_activists
2 - Automatically_assessed_biography_(arts_and_enterta...
2 - Automatically_assessed_biography_(military)_articl...


Portal

2 - Mathematics/Intro
1 - Mathematics/Did_you_know

Deleted contributions

I have audited Mikaey's CSDs and other deleted contribs for the last two months.

• 10 June: Trevor Hands A7 of a fictional character N
• 8 June: Harold Otto Danckwerts Prodded a redirect. N
• 25 May: <name redacted> Correctly changed his G3 into G10 after contemplating. Y
• 25 May: Mark Anderko A very cautious PROD. Y
• 22 May: <name redacted> This reads to me like a negative unsourced BLP (G10). N
• 14 May: Amedibaba1 Not nonsense, it's a tournament bracket template. N
• 2 May: McDangerous G3 (tagged A7) N
• 2 May: Mr Lau G10 IMO (tagged G3) N

Overall, Mikaey's deleted contribs show a lot of good work with many correct speedy deletion taggings. He seems to have a knack for identifying and tagging copyright violations. Y decltype (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac's striking of Peter Damien's oppose vote

I have reverted bibliomaniac's striking of Peter Damien's oppose vote, which is about as pointless and theatrical a folly as I've ever seen here.

I have no opinion on the candidate, and I do not particularly agree with the way Peter expressed himself in that oppose, but I am deeply unhappy that a bureaucrat would be so foolish and heavy-handed as to unilaterally strike it through. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea. Dlohcierekim 16:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No doubt many others will share your view, but most people are mostly wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't disregard other's views like that. I knew this conversation was going to happen as soon as Bibliomaniac struck the vote. And while I agree that the vote shouldn't be there/should be ignored, I didn't agree with the way that Bibliomaniac went about achieving that. Nor do I agree with the way that Malleus Fatuorum has gone about removing Bibliomaniac's comment (which is pretty much the same way as Bibliomaniac went about removing Peter's vote *sigh*). You should always discuss with a user before striking their comment - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done no more than bibliomaniac did in ignoring Peter Damien's views. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kingpin's sigh. Dlohcierekim 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support reversal of striking - Crats do not have the authority to strike votes of users. Only banned users or sock puppets have their votes struck. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have the ability to ignore completely votes of users. The only effect of striking it out is making clear to other users that the vote won't count for anything. That reduces the likelihood that a distracting and counterproductive discussion will occur, because no one will feel the need to challenge it in that thread. It also serves the purpose of informing and educating regular RfA contributors as to what sort of rationales will be ignored. This is precisely the sort of feedback about how 'crats evaluate RfAs that many (myself included) have asked for. As such, the action is quite commendable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand. My rationale was that the candidate was simply using computer programs to write an encyclopedia. Peter Damian (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is illogical and inconsistent. Can you produce an instance of a support vote that a bureaucrat has struck through to make it clear to other users that the vote won't count for anything? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats do not have the right to prejudice the outcome of an RfA by striking votes before the RfA is over unless those users are banned. It is that simple. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be offended if a 'crat were to reply to a vote and say "this one will be ignored"? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it stretches credulity to breaking point to be apparently suggesting that all bureaucrats weigh each vote identically. No one bureaucrat has the right to decide what is and isn't acceptable, and I very much hope that bibliomaniac realises that, and does not close this RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I also see a massive difference between a bureaucrat making a statement on which votes were ignored and why after the RfA election is over, and making one while the election is live. Don't you? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen both EVula and Deskana tell opposers that their !votes are likely to be discounted. 'crats have additional authority/responsibility when closing an RfA to evaluate the consensus of the community. They are not endowed with additional authority/responsibility during the run/execution of an RfA. While the RfA is open, they hold no special priviledges. Biblio's striking of Peter's !vote is no different than Majorly's striking DougsTech... they are free to do so, but they should realize that somebody else will undo it. Until the community speaks, and it has spoken ad nasieum, it is not the pervue of one person (crat or not) to make that decision. Now, I fully expect Biblio and other crats to discard Peter's !vote, but striking it during the RfA? no.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question from Sheffield - "Would you be offended if a 'crat were to reply to a vote and say "this one will be ignored"? "

Answer - Simply put, if a Crat were to make such a reply, they would no longer have the right to determine the outcome of the RfA. Bureaucrats are supposed to be neutral and not influence the outcome. Not only would they be directly influencing the outcome by saying that votes had no basis, they would be undermining their stance of being objective by introducing themselves into the RfA. This is unethical in two regards and not what they are supposed to do. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly commenting on a vote is likely to affect the outcome of an RfA. If it weren't, no one would do so. The question is, what is the likely result in this case? You think the 'crats would have weighed Peter Damian's oppose equally to all the other votes, if only biobliomaniac hadn't spoiled everything? My position here is based on the assumption that 'crats routinely ignore votes that aren't based on the candidate's suitability for adminship. Given that the vote will count for nothing, it makes more sense to be open and honest about that, to let RfA contributors know what is and is not a useful contribution, than it does to leave other contributors guessing and debating whether or not to challenge the dubious rationale they see on the page. I'm sure we've all seen enough derailed RfAs involving such discussions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your position is so fundamentally dishonest that it takes my breath away. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly we're not communicating well. I see my position as being fundamentally honest. If a vote will be ignored, it seems more honest to say so, than to say nothing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Crats should not involve themselves in a case unless they are closing or unless they are acting like a normal editor. There should not be a mix between standard position as an editor and a position of authority. Multiple statements about CoI in the admin pages makes this clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You say COI... what are the conflicting interests, in this situation? And your own opinion on the role of bureaucrats in live requests is somewhat at odds with what many others have asked of them. They have been asked, specifically and multiple times by various editors (although not by me) to be clear up front on which types of votes, and which votes specifically, will be discounted. A "managed" RfA is something lots in the regular crowd at RfA have been seeking; while this doesn't mean its a great idea, it does mean that bibliomaniac's action isn't straight out of left field. Nathan ^T 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? There is a blatant and obvious CoI. The statements make it clear that you cannot act and participate in something and be a closing admin/crat. By making a statement about the legitimacy of a vote before the closing of a RfA is 100% acting in the RfA. These are actions that the nominee or someone else normally does. Crats are supposed to be removed and objective. And if people are requesting Crats to do such thing, then those people should obviously be ignored as encouraging a Crat to abuse their authority. No Crat that participates within an RfA can close, so their opinion as a Crat is invalidated. If they were to close, they will be sought to be removed from their position as a clear violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but disagree to a limited extent. The question becomes what is the comment/question. A crat asking for clarification is not an issue, Judges in courts do that all the time. That being said, there is a very fine line to be walked. Generally, it is better to let the community address weak arguments, I think that is one of the few areas where RFA's do well... a bad argument won't get by without somebody commenting on it. But in some cases, crats can (and have) asked for clarification.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, there is precedent for a bureaucrat striking votes; in particular, see this BN thread, especially comments by several bureaucrats. Note that the vote stricken in the November incident was actually given in good faith and by an experienced editor with no recent controversy surrounding him.

"I also agree that if a vote is going to be discounted, there is some benefit to the community to knowing that early as Frank mentioned. - Taxman Talk 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Whilst it is true that bureaucrats enjoy no greater authority than any other editor in general, that isn't the case where RfA is concerned. It is specifically the job of bureaucrats to assess comments made in the course of an RfA and do have the authority to discount comments...WJBscribe (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"This practice is not new - Nichalp in particular has been striking comments he feels add nothing to the discussion with some time and it is a practice that has generally been approved of. WJBscribe (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)" (Note that WJBScribe disapproved of his Nichalap's actions, but acknowledged that Nichalap had the right to do it.)

"So, maybe I'd advise Nichalp not to strike votes like that, but as it's just a piece of friendly advice from one bureaucrat to another, he's well within his rights to ignore me and tell me where to go, what cliff to jump off, or somesuch. The absolute difference between striking a vote (what Nichalp did) and telling a user that you have no intention to pay any attention to the vote (what I'd do) to the RFA is minimal- either way the vote does not get counted...Deskana (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)"

"Now to people who have not seen my work, I have indented several RFAs opposes in the past (please go back to 2005, I think you might find some examples there). So, it's nothing new to me, new perhaps to people who have not been around since then. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)"

NW (Talk) 19:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The system is even more corrupt than I'd realised. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The rationale there was flawed and inappropriate. It would not stand up from an analysis under Arbcom, and precedent cannot override community wide agreed consensus that makes up our policies on admin actions. Furthermore, the fact that there are many support votes that are blatantly discounted by Arbs but not struck out only verifies the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NW, you are giving too much credence to the OPINION of a few 'crats without looking at the entire context of the discussion. What did non crats have to say?

• I find Nichalp's actions in striking out the vote completely unacceptable---Nsk92
• I haven't seen a 'crat strike a !vote before (let alone two in the same RfA). Some editors might be intimidated by it for fear of public criticism. --ROGER DAVIES
• But to strike an !vote during the RfA in such a public manner is insulting and bad precident. Thus, I undid the striking of the two votes.---Balloonman
• I strongly disagree with striking a good faith oppose.---Useight
• I disagree with Nichalp's striking of the comments--How do you turn this on
• I'd be deeply worried if 'crats started striking comments---Pedro
• Balloonman was absolutely right to restore the vote because Nichalp has no business removing it. -- RsX
• Striking !votes, in an “authoritative” action by a bureaucrat is to have the authorities interfere in community consensus building---SmokeyJoe
• Striking good faith !votes is a horribly bad idea and only discourages honesty ---B

Does NW's citing accurately describe what the various crats positions were on Crats striking !votes?

• It is now my opinion that Bureaucrats should keep out of active RfAs as much as possible--Kingturtle
• It does seem it would have been better to have indented or commented on Richard's views rather than striking it. Striking comments anywhere, even on a talk page can be offensive. Taxman (wait didn't NW cite him above?)
• striking votes (except when obscene, placed by sockpupptes, etc.) is altogether too heavy-handed. Dan (a 'crat)
• that in any event publicly striking the vote was rather a Draconian action when Nichalp could simply have asked you to clarify WJBScribe (again cited by NW above, link provided because the reference is from a different thread than the one provided by NW.)
• would I have struck the vote? No, I don't think I would. I probably would just have left a comment to the voter in question, telling them that I had no intention of paying any attention to what they said in their vote, until it's even remotely relevant to adminship... So, maybe I'd advise Nichalp not to strike votes like that--Deskana (cited by NW)

And the conclusion at the end of the day,

• I think what people are saying is that it might be a better idea to simply tell someone that you're going to ignore their vote, rather than striking it out. --Deskana

In other words, no the consensus was not that it is ok to strike !votes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in the case from November, there was not a consensus that striking that particular vote was acceptable. But remember too how different that oppose was: "# Oppose - your formatting here and here is wrong, and other editors have to come along and fix it. Your picture here shows bad composition and lighting, and you didn't point the camera at the actual flower. You nominated it as a featured picture without knowing what species it was, and it looks like the FPC discussion is going to fail. No offense, but you need supervision; you're not ready to be a supervisor. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)" While quite invalid (I expect that all or nearly all bureaucrats would discount that in the end), compare that to Peter Damian's oppose: " Oppose 'AarghBot' is a very appropriate name. These monstrous robots are a nightmare and anyone who uses them should have something unpleasant done to them (like fail an RfA, say). Peter Damian (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)" Do you not see a major difference between the two? The latter is clearly a disruptive vote; the former was at least given in good faith.

After reading the entire discussion, I see nothing that says that bureaucrats cannot strike or ignore bad faith disruptive votes; in fact, I see the direct opposite. Bureaucrats reserve the right to strike, indent, or discount votes; that is what they have always done (from Nichlap's comments, at least since 2005). I agree with SheffieldSteel here; "My position here is based on the assumption that 'crats routinely ignore votes that aren't based on the candidate's suitability for adminship. Given that the vote will count for nothing, it makes more sense to be open and honest about that, to let RfA contributors know what is and is not a useful contribution, than it does to leave other contributors guessing and debating whether or not to challenge the dubious rationale they see on the page. I'm sure we've all seen enough derailed RfAs involving such discussions." NW (Talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading the same thread that I read??? While some crats were critical of my striking the !vote and supported Nichalp, they all agreed that they wouldn't have done it. The only non-crat who said that Nichalp was correct was hiberneaters, everybody else was critical of that action. Nichalp even admitted he handled it poorly.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They all agreed that they would not have done it, but not one of them said that they could not have done it. And I see that as an enormous difference, especially when you consider that Richard Cavell's oppose was a good faith one, and Peter's, no matter how you look at it, was not. Isn't it better for the bureaucrats to be open and honest about which ones they are going to consider as valid? I really don't care how the bureaucrats do such a thing - with a strikethrough, indent, or a simple message saying "this vote will not be counted" - but anything is better than the current situation of "no one really knows". Would you have been happy if instead of striking the vote, biblio had just written, "#: This vote will not be taken into consideration during the evaluation of the RfA. ~~~~"?unsigned comment by NW

That you are clearly unable to distinguish between intervening in an ongoing election, taking part in one, and deciding its outcome, ought to be a matter of serious concern for anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, no, 'crats have no more authority than anybody else to strike !votes during the RfA. They can, if they choose, note their personal opinion, but that comes down to them as individuals. Second, in the case of Peter's vote, I have yet to see a community consensus to block/ban/prevent him from !voting---despite numerous discussions on numerous forums. The community has not endorsed that action (yet.) By striking the !vote against community consensus, he is in no better standing than striking Richards good faith edit in November. Third, you are taking the 'crats statements as an indication that crats can strike !votes, whereas read the comments of both the 'crats who didn't want to offend Nichalp and all of the non-crats who were pointed in condemning the action. Just because the 'crats don't say they don't have a power, doesn't mean that they have it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Balloonman, I ask you again: If bibliomaniac15 had made a statement that he would not count Peter's vote instead of striking it, and in 5 days, he went and closed the RfA, would that be acceptable to you? NW (Talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends on how the comment was made. I know that Deskana and Evula have both made comments to the effect of asking for more information so that they could better evaluate the oppose or asking for a more details, then I have no problem. If the 'crat weighs in saying, "I don't like this rationale" then the crat has acted on the RfA as a user and forfeits that priviledge.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why this is so hard for our bureaucrats to understand, editors considered by "the community" to have good judgement. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to see a few heads on spikes, pour encourager les autres. The blatant abuse of position evident here I find to be quite disgusting. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting

My proposal for an 'established editors' group was shot down in flames because of the 'election from within' rather than 'from the community' concept. Now I learn that the same concept applies to RfAs. Peter Damian (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)