Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikaey 2


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Mikaey
Final (66/6/1); ended 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC).

Nomination
– 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: Holy hell, that code is a mess. I think I'd have to say that no, it's not well-formed.  Let's see here...
 * The program doesn't do anything, because main is an empty function.
 * main should be either be declared void, or explicitly return a value.
 * C::buf -- Arrays can't have variables/function returns as their sizes, because the compiler needs to know at compile-time how big the array should be, and that won't be known at compile time. Alternatively, C::buf could be redeclared as char *, and have memory allocated to it by the constructor.
 * Constructors don't return values, so there's going to be no version of f that will match for "f( T )". "f( T )" would be better, but f needs to be declared inside of struct C in order for it to work.
 * It's not always a good idea to use the compiler built-in macros (e.g., __cplusplus) for array sizes. Since a program is only supposed to check whether or not the macro has been declared, its value could be unpredictable.
 * I've never been a big fan of using cin/cout. Beginner's stuff.
 * I could go on, but looking at that code makes my head hurt.


 * Which compiler do you use? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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- I'm not sure that I agree with the decision to send it over to RFAR, because I don't think you could show that all other alternatives to settling the dispute have been exhausted. I think ArbCom will probably reject it on that basis.  Had the case not been sent over to RFAR, I would probably be poking and prodding the user ignoring me to try and get him to agree to mediation.  However, since it HAS been sent over to RFAR, I would respect that admin's decision (admins wheel warring over users edit warring = not good), and let that play out as far as it goes.  I probably would submit a statement to RFAR to the effect of "I was asked to mediate in this dispute, but user X has been ignoring me".  It's probably not a good idea to try to continue mediation while ArbCom is deciding on a case, since anything ArbCom decides will overrule the results of your mediation, so I would keep communication between myself and the involved users to a minimum during that process.  Once ArbCom had rejected the case, I would probably give a stern warning to both users, telling them how closely they dodged the bullet (try to put the fear of God into them, if you will), and try to get them back to the mediation table.  Had that still failed, some form of mediation may still be possible with just the one user; however, I would probably start up a discussion at WP:AN over what to do with both of them, especially the user ignoring me.


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


 * A- I like Wikipedia mostly the way it is. There's not a whole lot I would change.  I would probably change something trivial -- e.g., make the Vector skin the default (although I don't remember it being that screwed up the last time I looked at it... :-\)


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


 * A- There's very few circumstances where direction from ArbCom is required to indef block a user. "Persistent vandalism" is probably the reason that I would use most, but community ban, positive SPI, and violations of the username policy would also be some other valid reasons to indef block a user.


 * 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- Well, as with ANY AfD, you have to look at the merit of the arguments, not just the number of them. Are the arguments along the lines of "I went and looked at every book I could find at the library that covered pirates between 1500 and 1700, and I couldn't find any mention of this pirate", or is it along the lines of "I LOVE this guy!  Don't delete the article!"?  Obviously, arguments of the latter type are going to hold less weight, and are more likely to be sockpuppets/meatpuppets.  The process remains the same with a no consensus/delete decision, since "no consensus" defaults to "keep".


 * 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- It depends on the outcome. There's not really a minimum needed for speedy keep/speedy close decisions, as long as it's valid under those criteria.  For keep/no consensus/delete, I still don't have a firm number, but I like to be sure that the AfD has received enough attention to get an unbiased set of opinions.  Generally, the cutoff (again, this is not a firm number) is somewhere around 5-6 valid arguments.


 * 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- I'm assuming here that we're talking about an article nominated under A7 or A9, since it probably wouldn't be worth one's time to look for sources on articles nominated under any other criteria (so in that respect, yes, it does make a difference which criteria the article meets). If it were me personally, my tendency would probably be to delete the article on sight.  A7/A9 doesn't require backup with verifiable information from reliable sources, it only requires that some assertion of notability be made.  I don't have the time (and I don't think many admins do, either) to go and research every little garage band that creates an article about themselves on Wikipedia to try and prove their notability.  If we did, CAT:SD would be overflowing with backlogs.  However, if the user asks why their article was deleted, I'm not entirely opposed to restoring and possibly userifying the page so that they can rectify that problem.


 * 11. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?
 * A- There's not very many, but there are some. For instance, known long-term vandals (e.g., Grawp) should be blocked without warning.  Users whose usernames are a violation of the username policy would be another.  Users who are creating attack pages, posting legal threats, or violating 3RR might be blocked without warning or with only one warning.


 * Optional questions from KillerChihuahua


 * 12. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?
 * A: When there's consensus to do so, or to revert vandalism that occurred immediately before the protection was put in place. Full protection is generally put in place a) for pages where vandalism or malformed edits could affect large numbers of users (such as anything in the MediaWiki namespace, or high visibility templates such as ambox), or b) on high-visibility pages, where large numbers of anonymous and registered users are edit warring on the page, and it would be counter-productive to try and block the individual users involved.  Overall, full protection is used to protect the integrity and reputation of the wiki.


 * 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: I think that, regardless of the fact that the Keeps are trying to assert notability for two events, the person is really still only notable for the one event -- the fact that they appeared on Letterman was probably only because of the one event. Therefore, my close would probably be to merge it into an article that talks about the event.


 * Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
 * 14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion or exclusion of content on Wikipedia? Are there any current notability guidelines you disagree with?  (To be clear what I am looking for here is not a regurgitation of policy, nor am I looking any specific answer.  What I am looking for is an insight to the way you think in general, and specifically what you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of the content it covers.)
 * A: When I'm trying to decide whether or not something is notable, there's a couple of questions that I ask myself that help me determine notability of a particular subject. These questions don't override the actual notability criteria, of course, but they generally help me get on the right track: a) Has the subject of the article done something to ensure that it will be remembered by the masses, long after it is gone, and b) Would I expect to see an article about the subject in a paper encyclopedia?  In an ideal Wikipedia, I think most of the content should be able to answer "yes" to both of these questions.  As for whether or not there's any guidelines that I disagree with, no, not particularly, but I think that it tends to be applied rather loosely sometimes -- for example, I don't think that many of the Country X-Country Y relations series of articles (where Country X and Country Y have had no notable interactions) should stick around.  (The question confused me a little bit, I hope the answer was along the lines of what you were looking for.)
 * 14a. Sorry about not being clear... your answer was mostly along the lines of what I was looking for, but I would like a little more insight.   When I said "Are there any current notability guidelines you disagree with?" what I was referring to was the specific notability guidelines (SNG) such as WP:FILM, WP:BIO, WP:CORP etc., or more precisely individual elements of those guidelines. (Bilateral relations is a propose SNG, not an actual SNG at this time.)
 * Thus, I will ask the following followup question. Historical, WP:ATHLETE is the most disputed SNG.  Some feel it unfairly allows all professional athletes in regardless of actual importance to their sport, while others feel it makes it too difficult for amateur athletes to gain admittance.  Do you think ATHLETE is fair (either in an absolute sense or in relation to other biographical SNGs)?  Why or why not?
 * A: It's a good general guideline, but at the same time, it's a Catch-22. The way it's written now, it gives the go-ahead have an article about every Tom, Dick, and Harry who ever sat on the sidelines of an Oakland Raiders game.  I don't like it personally, for that reason.  However, if you rewrite the criteria to be more specific, then you start running into instruction creep.  I would like to see the criteria improved upon (for example, "athletes are notable if they have actively participated at a professional level for at least one season (or one year, for sports that do not have seasons), or are otherwise notable under any other notability criteria"), but as I'm far from being a sports buff, I won't claim to be the expert on the subject.

Optional questions from Goodmorningworld, but refrain from answering at your peril.


 * 15. You are the author of ListasBot, a program that… lists articles lacking … Listas parameters… … … sorry, I dozed off … … whatever that is? When can we expect ChicasBot, a Bot that lists articles lacking nicely turned out chicas?


 * A: Well, it's quite simple, really -- all we'd have to do is cross-reference Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people with Category:Women under 25, and...wait, we don't have Category:Women under 25??? Well, until someone creates that category and populates it, I suggest a nice Maxim as a substitute.


 * 16. It totally burns me up that in the recent RfA, closed as unsuccessful, by user:Timmeh, no one thought to intone the magic line, at some appropriate point, We're going to need another Timmeh!!! And thus one of the rare opportunities in Wikipedia for mindless, berzerk hilarity was squandered. How do you propose to improve our efficiency in this regard?


 * A: MORE TIMMEH'S!!!


 * Questions from Tony1
 * 17. I'm concerned about Ottava's Oppose comments concerning (1) your concentration on bots rather than manual editing; and (2) your knowledge of WP's policies. WP:CIVILITY is now the subject of a poll/discussion (see talk page); briefly, do you think the policy needs to be changed? What is your opinion of the WP:BAG approval process?
 * A: There's not a whole lot that I can say about WP:CIVILITY, I'm happy with it pretty much the way it is. I'd agree that it's probably underenforced, but my personal thought is that a little conflict now and then is a good thing, and I would rather that the policy were underenforced than overenforced.  As for the bot approval process, I'm happy with the way it's written, but from personal experience, I can say that I wish more people participated in it -- I think that's the major thing it's lacking.
 * 18. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical comments, please: any suggestions for improvement, warnings of pitfalls?)
 * A: It's a good idea in theory, but the problem that I see with it is that people who are in an aggravated conflict with each other are generally not going to be receptive to the process, while people who are in a non-aggravated conflict will generally resolve their differences by other means. Therefore, I think the process would see minimal usage.
 * 19. Are you willing to disclose your age, or at least your age-group?
 * A: I don't have a problem disclosing my age, but I do want to make it known that I am against the devaluing of admin candidates because of their age. I agree with the notion that people can be more (or less) mature than their age would indicate, and that age should not be a basis for determining a candidate's suitability for adminship.  Having said that, I'm 27, and I have a wife and kid.


 * Additional optional questions from Groomtech
 * 20. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
 * A: I think I'll decline to answer this question.


 * Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
 * 21a. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?
 * A. The short answer here is, "when properly applied". Each essay is going to have different weight when used in an XFD discussion.  For example, I wouldn't expect WP:SNOW to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion that has been up for 4 hours and has 5 "delete" !votes to it (or, any discussion where a "keep" or "merge" vote is presented).  On the other hand, it would be more valid in a discussion that has been up for 3 days and has 30 "delete" !votes and no "keep" or "merge" votes.  WP:ATA, while not a catch-all, is a good list of arguments that one can expect will be given less weight when used in deletion discussions.  WP:OUTCOMES, on the other hand, probably shouldn't be used in a deletion discussion, because it's merely a record of precedent, and since consensus can change, it's not going to be a guarantee that all future discussions are going to end the same way.
 * 21b. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?
 * A. This sounds like classic WP:POKEMON to me, and the answer would be, as a general rule, "no". In the end, without Wikipedia, there would be no WikiProjects; but on the other hand, if the WikiProjects went away one day, Wikipedia would still be around.  I cite WP:POKEMON because there was a point in time where WikiProject Pokemon tried to do just that -- they tried to assert that all pokemons were notable (despite that the notability guidelines ultimately decided they weren't), and because of that, it affected the fate of other articles on the project that were outside the scope of just WikiProject Pokemon ("if we can have an article on every insignificant pokemon out there, then why not this?").  In my opinion, if a WikiProject wants to adopt a policy that conflicts with community policies, they can try to initiate a discussion to have the community policy changed, but they should not enforce that policy until it has gained wide community consensus, especially from members of the community outside of the WikiProject in question.
 * 21c. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?
 * A. In short, if they had been warned, provided no explanation, and refused to stop and/or provide an explanation for his actions, and there's no consensus beforehand to stop these bots, then yes, I would block the user. The experience of the user would play a part in how long I warned them before blocking, and how long of a block I would issue.  For example, a user with no (or very few) other edits to their name would probably be blocked with only one warning, and I would issue an indefinite block for being a disruption-only account.  As for more well known and experienced editors, given the circumstances (user is not responding to messages on their talk page asking for explanation, and instead continues their behavior), you have to consider the possibility that their account has been compromised, and I would have to block for that reason (I may not warn in that sort of instance, but rather I would post a question to their talk page asking them to explain their actions, and then block after not receiving an answer).  As for the gray area in between, it depends on the person, but in most instances I would handle it in much the same way as vandalism, and issue the full set of warnings before temporarily blocking for disruption.

General comments

 * Links for Mikaey:
 * 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.''

Support

 * 1) Support; seen his work, should do fine as an admin. – Juliancolton  &#124; 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  So Why  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. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Never encountered this user, but nothing to suggest 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!  Little Mountain  5   14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Looks fine to me.  hmwith τ   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)
 * 1) Support No issues. Good luck as an admin! America69 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Best of luck.  JJ (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I really like what I see here. You have improved from your last request, and your work with coding looks spectacular. You will be a great addition to the admin team. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support despite not liking the answer to question 10. Little expectation would abuse the tools. Saw no evidence of potential abuse.  Dloh  cierekim  19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Switch to strong per Damian and Malleous. Dloh  cierekim  15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Here to help, clueful, trustworthy. No major concerns. Peter Damian's laughable "have something unpleasant" comment is truly that of an editor whose obsession is damaging him more than Wikipedia, and who has blown this whole process out of all proportion to reality. Pedro : Chat  19:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Tiptoety  talk 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Peter Damian. ;-) Never run across him before, but I see nothing in the first RfA to cause concerns; good, clueful policy statements; and a general feeling that this editor would be a good guy to sit down over a beer with and chat about programming. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, a great user and valuable contributor. Please do ignore Peter Damian. --Aqwis (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good Contributor and the user has improved since last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Why not? -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. The candidate is quite helpful and productive and he seems to have a clue. His article-building experience is light, but he's cautious and unlikely to be a risk. Majoreditor (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Extremely good answers, without necessarily saying I would have answered the same way.  I hope he won't be so cautious as to delay too much his helping out where an admin is needed, using his very good understand of the basic rules.  DGG (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Has shown sufficient dedication to the project and has given satisfactory answers to the questions posed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Good constructive editor. Has created some useful additions to Wikipedia. --     03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No reason not to. Tim  meh  03:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) KillerChihuahua?!? 05:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Has done good work with the bots, though doesn't always take good advice given by multiple people which would allow for easier access and tracking by admins seeking to do the work. However, I don't think the tools would be abused, and the advice not taken is not something which violates any guideline or policy, just a difference of opinion in the best method. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - won't abuse the tools. I particularly like the list of history merge candidates. Graham 87 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak Support. The error rate is a bit high on your CSD work, but good work with the many G12's, so I believe the concerns from the previous RfA have been remedied. A10 is a little bit off in my opinion, otherwise good replies to many questions. Thus weak support. decltype (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) P.S I'm afraid I can't give you any bonus points for Q4, per my talk :)
 * 16) Support - I was neutral last time as although I got a good impression of you I was not convinced you were experienced enough for adminship at that time. I think three to six months is a good time between RfAs and I am happy to see you back here again. I am impressed by your bot work and WikiBliff, the latter I may try out some time. I have looked at how you operate your bots and I have not noticed anything particularly wrong. Your page move fixing work and New histmerge list is also good. I have also scanned your speedy deletions and they seem okay. Overall, I think you pass my criteria fine. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support No issues here. A great candidate. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Editor answered questions well, and seems to do useful work. -- Kateshort forbob  13:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Glad to see you back at the RFA Mikaey, I supported last time, and I see no reason not to this time. Mikaey has a calm temperament and supreme understanding of policy, no reason not to support, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Per nom, and previous interactions with user. Nothing obviously wrong with answers to questions. J.delanoy gabs adds  15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support More than happy with his work (and I think you should thank your parents for giving you such a great name!) ;)  iMatthew  talk  at  18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support User's bots are valuable contribution to this project, and help clean up backlogs. Also appreciate answers to questions, and reasonable caution shown. -- Stani  Stani  19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per reasons expressed at Requests_for_adminship/Mikaey, i.e. my opinion has not changed for the worse. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support As usual, the above people have already said what I would like to say. Good luck! Airplaneman (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per his snazzy user page. Seriously, though, after reviewing his contribs and reading through all the !votes on this RfA, I have no doubt whatsoever that he would make a fine admin. - t'shael chat 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Able to handle the role.  MBisanz  talk 21:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Seems to be a quality candidate, unlikely to break the wiki. Glass  Cobra  01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Looks good. Law type! snype? 06:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support User has a clue, and won't break the wiki. Complete gain by having him as an admin. Killiondude (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) — Aitias  // discussion  16:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Just don't delete the main page please =)-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 22:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But... but... that's the best part! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I agree. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Nother support from S Marshall. We've got a good crop of candidates at the moment, I think.—S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Middling support. The oppose points are not too compelling and we frankly will need a lot more editors doing uncontentious maintenance editing for those like myself who make easily fixable mistakes in speling and otherwise. I'm not wowwed but neither am I highly concerned therefore support for trusting you with the tools. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Oppose points too nitpicky, I would have been denied adminship with those kinda scruples Shii (tock) 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  06:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) If the only opposes are because of your "monstrous robots" and your personal views on our civility policy then I have no hesitation to support.  <font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedoursecretsinthe <font style="color:#000099;">garden  10:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, no concerns. Wizardman  15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) AGF. Yeah, we need more skillful bot operators with the admin bit since many people seem to miss an uncivil banned user who has a talent on programming bots. Although I find your answers to Tony1 are a bit unsatisfactory, I will assume good faith on your dedication to the community.--Caspian blue 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support. I'd like to see more content writing, but I can't see a reason to oppose. —  Σ  xplicit  15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, per answer to Q11. Nakon  18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I've seen him around, he does good work. Also, seems like a reasonable and polite person. And, very good answers to all the questions. Will make a great admin. LK (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Benjeboi and for having a bot with a cool sounding name. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support should do well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support will be a net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 04:27, 8 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, (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)
 * 2) 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)
 * ::Struck by bibliomaniac15, see here for rationale.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Malleus struck out Biblio's strikethrough. For discussion, please see the talk page to this RfA. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I wanted to support last time, but I thought that you needed more time to show that you could handle adminship. Instead of working on articles, dealing with topics, etc, you continued your same pattern. Adminship requires a strong understanding of all policies and guidelines, and the knowledge of how to apply them. I feel that you have devoted your time to pushing buttons and lack the experience required to deal with situations that will arise as an admin. Sorry, but your prospects have seriously diminished in my eyes because of a lack of trying to improve in areas that were obvious weaknesses before. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, because of the lack of insight demonstrated in the answer to Q17. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Ottava and Malleus. Tony   (talk)  08:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. As per my unwritten conditions. Less than 4 months since his last failed RFA, issues brought up there still unresolved. Also,candidate is self nominated, unwritten condition, candidate should have a long term User who is prepared to put his name on the line and nominate.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
 * If it helps, I would have been happy to nominate him. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that helps. I had the thought that someone would commit. To my way of thinking if a candidate has a few small issues, if they are supported by an experienced nominator then it becomes easier for me to ignore those issues in the knowledge that they have a friend who will help them grow into the job. As this looks to be passing,best of luck to Mikaey, and take your time. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral IMO administrators' signatures should match their usernames. <font color="#000033">Aditya  <font color="#000033">α <font color="#000033">ß 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And how does this affect his ability to do a good job as an admin?-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a personal preference. Note this is not an oppose, though.  iMatthew  talk  at  18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of automated edits, especially with the bots and I am not sure you have proven you need the tools. I can easily be persuaded otherwise.-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think automated edits are a good thing. The vast majority of our articles require some sort of maintenance work, and what better way to efficiently and accurately preform said maintenance than with automated scripts? And FWIW, Mikaey's bots have made a major dent on WP:BACKLOG. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be much less effective without Twinkle. More time to think through what I need to do and less time clicking and typing (and in my case, retyping).  Dloh  cierekim  00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.