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


Mikeblas[edit]

Final (34/1/1); Ended 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mikeblas (talk · contribs) - I am nominating User:Mikeblas for adminship. He has over 10,000 edits on Wikipedia, having been an active editor for about a year and a half. He has a lot of experience in maintaining article quality, in areas of disambiguation, merging, unsourced material and original research, NPOV, copyright, and external links. You can read his userpage for thoughts about accuracy and credibility issues.

I believe he is very responsible and has good judgment, is extremely unlikely to abuse admin tools. His services would be a benefit to the project. He communicates well, is civil and reacts well to trolling [1]. In real life he is a software architect. (His home page has more information about his personal and professional life. You can also find books he has written, on Amazon.)

Before anyone considers opposing due to lack of extensive experience in AFDs and such, I would like to emphasize that character and responsibility are much more important things to look for, and if he lacks experience in any particular area I'm sure he will be careful and learn quickly.

—Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 10:53Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


Thanks for your help with the RfA process, Quarl. I accept, and I've filled out everything below. I'm sure there will be follow-up questions, so I'll wait here. -- Mikeblas 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've participated in tens of dozens of AfDs; both those that I've initiated and those that I've contributed to. I've done a few CfDs and lots of speedies, too. I don't think there's a way to search for these, since deleted content is deleted. Hmm, I guess I could look through all my contributions to find the project pages ... -- Mikeblas 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I don't consider myself part of the "Wikipedia counter-terrorism unit", or whatever they like to call themselves, but I do revert vandalism and nonsense where I find it. I'd probably contribute in this area as an admin, with managing semi- and full-protection on various pages.
As Quarl noted, I'm a published author and I write software. I've personally been very directly affected by problems with people stealing my hard work, and as such I'm very sensitive to copyright issues. I like copyvio tagging, and would want to help with examining and resolving copyvio issues.
Pretend you're new to Wikipedia. Then, try to go find help with something about Wikipedia within less than a few minutes, without getting flamed about RTFP by some jerkwad. I don't know what I can do directly; I'm not a welcome wagon kind of guy, but I think Wikipedia could be more approachable in many ways. If I had all day, I think this is what I'd work on first.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've done a lot of work on the multimeter article, and I'm happy with it. The references could be better, but it's funny how academic references for a ubiquitous tool are kind of hard to come by. I completely re-wrote and cleaned up the Mitsubishi 3000GT article before it was merged into Mitsubish GTO, and that was lots of fun; in doing the research, I learned a lot about the car. There are a few articles that I've strictly edited -- contributed to only by incrementally improving and not writing for. The Notorious B.I.G., Kottonmouth Kings, Kid Rock, and America's Next Top Model, and several database-related and programming-related articles (SQL, Delete (SQL), Stored procedure, and so on) are examples of articles that I've contributed to by cleaning up, policing for vandalism, copyvio, and unsourced edits -- even though I'm mostly not interested in the subject at hand.
I like to treat Wikipedia with an approach common among hikers: after I visit, I try to leave it better than I found it. Nailing down references is really important. As Wikipedia becomes more popular, more and more people take this ocntent as definitive reference every day.
Offline, I've done some interesting work with the Wikipedia database dumps. It's lots of fun to play with the corpus, study (well, research, mostly!) the Wiki markup language, and so on. As these mature, I'd like to find a way to publish the results. It's probably odd that happy playtime for me involves fooling around with a terabyte of data, but I am what I am.
Capacitor plague was another sizeable cleanup and fact-check effort, as was The Diplomats.
I like working on fixing links to disambiguation pages, and converting crappy ASCII art to real wikitables when I find them. Disambiguation pages are fun to work because they offer an easy "tour" of the site; drawing me to articles I'd otherwise not look at. This has led to fun cleanup efforts (like AfDing scores of non-notable "rappers" and "indie" bands).
I like doing WP:MOSDAB cleanup, too.
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: Stress? Come on -- editing should be fun. People who can remember this aren't subject to stress. I'm not emotionally involved in edits I make, or *FDs I initiate, or anything. If the concensus says differently, then that's fine; that shows me the status quo and I know how to proceed.
Editing the work of others shouldn't be stressful, though it should be done with care and consideration.
I've had editing conflict problems, sure. Some satanists thought I was trying to quash their whole religion by AfD'ing an article; I got flamed to pieces for editing one word in the bio of a mathemetician/economistref; I still don't understand the flame wars over at Steve Hoffman, and people are always happy to jump to the conclusion that I'm personally invalidating them just because I delete or change a part of their article. I think this kind of stuff happens to almost everybody who edits boldly here, and it's just a matter of handling it gracefully when it does happen.

Optional Question by Wizardman

4. What is your interpretation of WP:N? Let's say you had an article that was a borderline case in terms of notability, how would you prove/disprove notability in it, assuming it is in an area that the policy does not cover 100% directly?
Wow! This is pretty bottomless. I'm not sure I can nail something specific down, so please feel free to ask any follow-ups you have. Meanwhile, I'll try to surround it.
WP:N, like all Wikipedia guidelines, is really fluid. It changes as the tone of the site changes, and is being shaped as we go on and achieve consensus. Right now, there's even a dispute about it being a policy or a guideline! Having 49 edits in the nine days just passed is quite remarkable for something that's regarded by most to be the rule that defines the site's scope.
I like how there's notability criteria for specific subjects, like Music. I think this is far more scaleable than trying to get a policy that snaps around everything in the universe adequately defined. It's easiest to apply these, since they're more focused than WP:N.
Anyway, I don't think proving or disproving notability is up to an individual editor, or even an individual administrator. It's up to the consensus process, through AfD or policy change. That has obvious benefits: more than one point of view, more than one person doing the research, more likely to find an expert in the subject, and so on. I've recently opened a couple of such conversations: about "Inherent notability" and the notability of computer commands.
Hypothetically, if it's personally up to me for some reason, outside the status quo? With a math-science background, I take "prove" as a pretty high standard, and I don't think I could prove something as non-notable. Showing the subject of an article notable would mean finding verifiable references that both demonstrate the substance of the topic and substantiate the facts of the article, and further meet the criteria for source material set forth in the current revision of WP:N. -- Mikeblas 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:13Z
  2. Support From what I have seen, this editor will do great. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Great user. bibliomaniac15 02:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Great contributions. Great Answers. Excellent user. Gutworth 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Michael 03:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support. Seems to be a good editor, and there is no indication he would abuse the tools. I think more time needs to be spent discussing issues on talk pages, though.···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Annoyed me in some AfD and I hope he doesn't become a regular DRV attendee by acting too much on his deletion opinions, but nothing really to suggest he'd be irresponsible. Opposing would be petty here based on facts in evidence so far. --W.marsh 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support seems like a good canidate. - Denny 06:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I can't see any problems. Good luck. The Rambling Man 06:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. He is prolific and productive. However, I would encourage him to engage other users more often. Vassyana 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. He is a good editor and his answers to the questions were very good. -Mschel 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good edior, got nomintated, must be good. Twenty Years 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Excellent work. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Ample experience. Thoughtful responses to questions. IMHO, seems to fully understand what Wikipedia is all about and where it is going. KatalavenoTC 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per all the words above, I don't need to add more. Wooyi 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support well experienced editor.-- danntm T C 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - prolific editor and reasonable answers. Not much counter vandalism or consensus building, however no reason to believe he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Yes to Mikeblas. -- Nick t 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I'll give a support on the basis that once you get more involved with admin tasks and using the tools then your user Talk editcount will skyrocket past the >500 edits as of this timestamp. (aeropagitica) 22:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support seems good enough. —Anas talk? 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support sounds like a good candidate from what I've read. Acalamari 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Why are they not an admin already? --Infrangible 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Trustworthy and knows policy. W.marsh's support speaks well for Mikeblas and for W.marsh. -- Jreferee 17:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Limited interaction with this user aside from Mitsubishi 3000GT before it was merged. Seems civilized, and haven't seen evidence of gaps in his knowledge about policy (something I can't say for every incumbent admin I've ever come across...) And since his sentiments regarding stress and emotional uninvolvement tie in closely with my own approach, I give 'im the thumbs up. --DeLarge 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) PS Darn it. I had some good arguments for his Logitech MX Revolution AfD, but it was closed before I could get there.[reply]
  27. Support--MONGO 04:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Terence 07:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - +sj + 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I trust him. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support More than 10,000 edits!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support HW Junkie. I didn't even know you were on WP but you're calm and cool with a level head. SchmuckyTheCat 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Well, that wmarsh diff still scares me, but i'll grit my teeth and support you after your answer to my Q. weak support--Wizardman 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Based on what I have seen from your userpage, and per the answers to the questions, here is my trust. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose. I'm sorry, but I'm very iffy about you as an admin. W.marsh's reason for a weaker support is important to look into, but combined with the criticism of lack of discussion on talk pages, this means I don't have much to do on in terms of how you would handle criticism other then w.marsh's reference. I'm willing to change my vote, it's more a bad feeling than concrete evidence.--Wizardman 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a good ratio (or, even, a bad ratio!) for talk edits is. The numbers posted in the talk page here show I've got 10577 edits total, 1034 of those on talk pages -- a rato near 9.7%. If that seems low, one reason might be my involvement in projects like disambiguation links, which causes a large number of edits without much interaction. Because Wikipedia is a very cumbersome mechanism for communication (Is there any guideline for indenting ettiquette?), I also prefer to use "email this user". Anyway, if there's a specific question you have, I hope you'll add an additional question to the three above. -- Mikeblas 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. The talk page edit count seems fine to me (looking them over I really don't have a problem with it as much as I remember), and I went and asked a kinda vague question which will probably change my vote. I'll withdraw it pending an answer.--Wizardman 03:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Edit count and most everything is great but at this stage I am concerned by what appears to be a general WP:NPA in answer to question 1. I understand the point about his concern over the RTFP approach by some editors (including admins) but does that make them, as he puts it jerkwads or do they just have a different approach?--VS talk 08:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he meant to illustrate the newbie's perspective with the expression. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Reading his Talk page, Mike appears civil enough, and I like his efforts to clean up articles. However, in the AfD cited above by User:W.marsh, Mike seemed argumentative. He was the nominator of the AfD, and later in the debate he added 15 more comments. At some point, one should just let the debate evolve. This might be a bad example; in another one I looked at, where he was the nominator, he made 6 additional comments. Since I haven't worked with him directly, and can only skim his contributions, I don't feel I have enough basis to support him at this time. EdJohnston 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the AfD process is a discussion, and that the nominator is free to participate in that same discussion. (Is that not the case?) I've also responded to one of them by suggesting ways the product at the subject of the AfD'ed article could be shown notable. In the mouse AfDs, I've been responding to people who have been telling me that I have some specific agenda by plainly explaining that I don't. Given assertions like that, I must assume that my reasons for making the nomination aren't clear; and so I'm adding the responses to add clarity. Do you think there's a more appropriate way to do that? -- Mikeblas 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category