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

Mike1901

Final (48/12/3); ended 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Nomination

Mike1901 ( talk · contribs) – Keeping the ball rolling with RfA candidates, I today would like to present Mike1901 for your consideration. Mike is a well rounded contributor to Wikipedia, with a decent amount of content creation and improvement under his belt, mixed nicely with experience in anti-vandalism and a hearty helping of civility.

Mike has demonstrated his understanding of policy through the 171 reports made to AIV and the mainspace contributions he has made over his fourteen months or so of actively editing.

Through those months, Mike has closed a number of discussions - the most notable of which is mentioned in the answer to question 2. Some may be concerned at this, but I would like to perhaps turn your attention to the fact the close was ultimately accepted. I believe this shows an ability to read consensus and a boldness to handle controversial topics - something germane to adminship.

Mike also works heavily at OTRS and on IRC, where he assists new and inexperienced users. I hope you can join me today in supporting a fine candidate -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 13:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Co-nomination

I’m happy to present Mike to the community as yet another fantastic candidate for the mop. Samtar has done an excellent job of laying out Mike’s qualifications, so I’d like to focus on my personal interactions with the candidate.

I met Mike while attempting to recruit additional OTRS volunteers at the Administrator’s Noticeboard. Mike was already an OTRS volunteer at the time, but he indicated his interest in getting involved with the permissions queue. The permissions queue is where agents process statements releasing images and other content under a suitable free license for use on Wikipedia. It’s quite complicated, and the agents who process those emails must understand a variety of difficult copyright concepts (e.g. c:COM:L, WP:NUSC, c:COM:FOP, c:COM:DW, c:COM:TOO, c:COM:DM).

Mike had none of that knowledge a priori, but he had a willingness to learn, a healthy amount of clue, and the ability to ask questions when necessary. After we worked closely together in a sort of shadowing/training process, he quickly took off running. The qualities he demonstrated throughout being trained to answer permissions tickets show that he would be an asset as an administrator. I have no doubt that he’ll apply the same enthusiastic, intelligent, and cautious approach to the mop if given the opportunity.

Mike now has a skillset that is rare and valuable, even among administrators. I could easily see him working on the backlog at WP:FFD in the future, and he could be much more efficient as an OTRS agent with the ability to review deleted revisions. I look forward to welcoming another excellent addition to our admin corps in the near future. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Many thanks, I accept the nomination. In the interests of transparency, my account was recently compromised whilst logged in on a computer at work. I now have set up a separate account for any future contributions I use on public (inc. work) computers and have also set up 2FA on my primary account. Mike1901 ( talk) 15:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

After reading all your feedback below, I've decided to withdraw this as a tad premature... Many thanks to all who contributed - whether supporting, neutral or opposing. Will spend the next while focusing on content contributions and areas like AfD, and continue with my OTRS-related edits too, and review at a later date whether I run again. Mike1901 ( talk) 14:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially I will focus on dealing with OTRS queries whereby administrator involvement is required - such as Wikipedia-hosted fair-use image queries and with those which come in regarding deleted pages. I’d also like to assist at UTRS (the Unblock Ticket Request System), as a natural progression of my current role as an OTRS agent, and helping out at RFPP/AIV when the queues get particularly long.
More long-term, I’d also like to help out at Files for Deletion (using the skills I’ve acquired from working with OTRS permissions queries), as I know the backlog there can build up somewhat.

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

A: I think my most important collaboration actually dates back a fair while (and is what got me introduced to Wikipedia, really!) - I worked with Mjroots on creating on Workington North railway station - a lifeline for some users during the 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods. More recently, I think my best contributions lie in those as I’m dealing with vandalism (sometimes manually but mostly using Huggle) and also - indirectly - those edits of others I assist with - particularly BLPs - through my work on OTRS. I’ve also started helping Ritchie333 with his Monopoly board GA challenge in the last couple of months, currently helping to get Marylebone station to GA status.

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: One incident that comes to mind immediately is when I tried to do a particularly controversial AN/I close [1]. I was criticised for this (see my Talk page just after the incident [2] for the full picture) for two reasons - firstly, as a non-administrator, I shouldn’t be closing particularly controversial cases (with the benefit of hindsight, whilst I still think I acted within policy here, I should have guessed that a non-admin closure may not have been best received by the community in such a complex case) and also for letting another viewpoint be added after my close (which was an edit conflict with the close itself).
Whilst I justified my actions - and explained why I thought it was in line with consensus & policy - I wouldn’t allow the additional comment with the benefit of hindsight, and should have probably left it to an administrator to close such a long-running case, even with the eventual closure [3] having the same conclusion as my initial one.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Glrx

4. What is the story behind the block?

A: Essentially there was an issue with the internet connection at work, and someone else had access to the same computer shortly after I'd left it, and I hadn't realised that the logout procedure hadn't completed successfully. I was logged on elsewhere by this point so requested a block off-wiki until I'd got to the bottom of what had caused the account to remain logged in.

Additional question from Shearonink

5. How do you think your most recent article creation - Rollercoaster Restaurant - could be improved?

A: It could most certainly be expanded (I intend to go back to this when I get time) - whilst I'm of the view that it meets WP:GNG as notable, the amount of third party online sources about the general concept/franchise model, rather than individual locations, is limited. As such, I'd like to look into more resources (primarily in German) from the time of the initial launch to get a broader understanding of how the concept came about in the first place, and build up a more solid background as to how the concept was envisaged and subsequently launched. It'd also be nice to be able to talk more about how the concept is adapted slightly to fit in with each location, and I intend to look at sourcing/completing this in the near future.

Additional question from Majora

6. Since you plan on working at FFD and on image related copyright issues. Could you explain what the URAA is and how it relates to images hosted here?

A: The URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) dictates that , in most cases, images which were copyrighted in their 'home' country (which is part of the Berne Convention or the WTO) as of the relevant date at WP:URAA, and published after 1923 and 'copyrightable' in the USA are currently copyrighted (legally) in the USA, even if it has since fallen into the public domain in the home country 'after' the relevant restoration date. As such, they are not eligible for upload to Commons, and can only be used on the English Wikipedia under fair use conditions.

Additional question from Lourdes

7. Seeing the discussions between the nominator(s) and the candidate sometimes shows to me the depth of the thought process that has gone behind in nominating a candidate. I had a quick, small set of queries. How were you contacted for being nommed? Where exactly were the discussions held where you discussed how your nom statement looks like et al? Who others, apart from you and the noms, were involved in the same? I would be thankful if you could point me out to the diffs for the same. Thanks.

A: The communication between me and the nominators was all done via e-mail - though the nomination statements themselves were penned entirely by them and I didn't suggest any edits. No-one else (to my knowledge) was involved in drafting those statements.

Thank you for taking the time. I have these last follow up queries. Firstly, could you please make the community privy to the schedule of email correspondence (not the actual emails; but the description of the brief sequence of email events and possible dates on which these occurred that led to your Rfa being nommed and activated)? Secondly, in your talk page archives, you have mentioned to an editor that you would not prefer using email for Wikipedia related correspondence. There is also general acceptance that administrators need to keep their actions transparent. Why did you choose to keep the pre-RfA correspondence on email? Thanks. Lourdes 10:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

A: Samtar publicly gave his views at ORCP [4] at the beginning of December, and any serious conversation regarding a nomination stemmed from that, after spotting he was also active on OTRS. Similarly with BU_Rob13, he has (as alluded to in his nomination statement) been coaching me with regards to dealing with image permissions on OTRS since early November, and the RfA conversation flowed from that around a month back after his reviewing my OTRS responses also. Both are OTRS agents, and due to the confidential nature of OTRS tickets (especially as the queues I actively respond to deal with queries regarding BLPs) - the area I most would find the tools useful - it was not appropriate to carry out this review & discussion on-wiki - indeed, once the nomination statements had been completed, my answering of the questions was done (by me alone, for the avoidance of doubt) yesterday on-wiki prior to transclusion. I agree transparency is key to the work of an administrator, and where there are no confidentiality implications of any kind, I virtually always carry out communication regarding any challenge/query to an editing (or any future administrative) decision I make on-wiki and will continue to do so.

Thank you again. "..indeed, once the nomination statements had been completed, my answering of the questions was done (by me alone, for the avoidance of doubt) yesterday on-wiki prior to transclusion..." Special:Diff/757917192 shows Samtar referring to your answers to the questions before you had even posted them... Lourdes 11:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Samtar had noticed my mention of this at ORCP and presumed I would mention it in the answer to Q3 - the answers were still mine alone.

"Presumed" alludes to a presumption. For the sake of clarity, this is the actual statement of samtar before you posted your answer: "Through those months, Mike has closed a number of discussions - the most notable of which is mentioned in the answer to question 2." That seems definite rather than presumed. I'll carry on further discussions in the oppose section in some time. Thanks for the responses to my queries. Lourdes 11:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Discussion

• Links for Mike1901: Mike1901 ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mike1901 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Support

1. Support as co-nom. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
2. Support, mostly since I trust Mike with the tools. Dat Guy ^Talk _Contribs 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
3. Support Seems to have a handy skill set, good spread of contributions, calm and clueful. Maybe keep off the controversial closes for now :) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
4. Support, do not see any issues at the moment-- Ymblanter ( talk) 16:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
5. Support - I think Mike1901 will be a positive addition to the admin team. No concerns. -- Dane ^talk 16:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
6. Support more admins willing to work in OTRS is always a good thing. -- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 16:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
7. Support. Definitely has a clue and OTRS work shows good communication skills. The rest is not rocket science. Pichpich ( talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Support per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Took a look at a few OTRS actions, and he shows superior communication skills and patience in dealing with angry and upset individuals. Not worried about the small amount of XfD work; he's not looking to be doing a lot of deletions. Clueful contributor who demonstrates an ability to reflect on his practices, a skill that is woefully lacking in many experienced users. Risker ( talk) 16:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
10. Support Trustworthy, and he will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
11. Support the OTRS work outweighs the lack of talk page edits and the low XfD participation is not a concern since Mike will be working elsewhere. On the whole, this is a very strong candidate. I am, however, mildly concerned by the fact that the candidate has only made 32 edits this year. Lepricavark ( talk) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
12. Support Supporting a candidate such as this one, one with low AfD votes and experience of just over a year, is exactly where we need to go in order to fix RFA. Full Rune ^{Speak, child of Guthix} 16:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Seems trustworthy, and work with OTRS as explained by the co-noms demonstrates a need for tools. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
14. Support. This is another editor I've seen around a lot and rate highly as an admin candidate, with all the right skills on offer (I'm not bothered about lack of XfD experience if Mike doesn't plan to work there). Mike does OTRS work too, and there are a lot of very tricky problems going that way - and for me that easily outweighs any perceived lack of user interaction on talk pages. This could turn out to be the best RFA January in years. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
15. Support: you're definitely within the top 2 pillars of my RfA criteria. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
16. Support: Clearly qualified enough to gain the mop. Block log doesn't concern me either. Good luck! Class455 ( talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
17. Support as per Risker. That's a truly valuable skill to have, especially on this kind of project. It would be great to have more admins focusing on these specialized areas. The block incident worries me a bit, but I'm glad that Mike has taken some precautions. Good luck, GAB ^gab 17:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
18. Support No concerns. Should be a net positive. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
19. Support Good answer to my question. Understanding of a complex legal issue in regards to copyright and understanding that an image must be in the public domain in the US, regardless of the host country, to be hosted here under a free license (fair use aside of course). -- Majora ( talk) 18:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
20. Support tenure is more than adequate, 50% more than one recent new admin. The lack of XFD participation is irrelevant as the candidate has come the AIV route. If you do get into deletion I suggest not starting out on OTRS related ones as transparency would be good for your first deletions, and indeed deletion tags. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
21. Support There's an obvious and desperate need for FFD admins and I don't see anything that would persuade me the candidate can't be trusted with the tools. The OTRS participation and concern over their possible account compromise demonstrate caution and respect for the project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
22. Support as this editor appears trustworthy and should be able to apply his skills well at FFD. Rubbish computer ( HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
23. Support per Rob's co-nom and the obvious need for more admin help at FFD. At 115 years of age, I'm confident that the candidate has the required level of maturity needed. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 19:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
24. Support per samtar's response to Cyphoidbomb's oppose. I was leaning oppose on this one, because I do consider the lack of XfD participation to be a bigger concern concern than other support !voters, especially since Mike noted he wanted to deal with OTRS involving deleted pages. Being able to see deleted revisions for permissions tickets makes sense, and if what Mike plans on doing is going to be more OTRS and other things outside the realm of the deletion process, I am fine saying WP:NETPOSITIVE here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
25. Support permissions-en has a 100-day backlog. Any further assistance that can be given to the hard-working agents should be. Ramaksoud2000 ^{( Talk to me)} 20:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
26. Support Why not? - FASTILY 21:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
27. Support - net positive. Giant Snowman 21:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
28. Support per Risker's thoughtful comment. I've never had OTRS access myself, but I know what it entails I'm happy to accept the recommendation of those who do have access. Mackensen (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
29. Support given the areas Mike intends to work in, and trusting others' observations about his handling of OTRS work. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Welcome aboard Mike. -- œ ^™ 22:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
31. Support: the ability to see OTRS requests through to a conclusion sometimes requires admin abilities, and that alone is sufficient justification for an RfA. The only decision we need make is whether we would trust Mike1901 with the tools, and I certainly believe there's enough evidence to do just that. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
32. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. The more admins around, the less of a 'special status' it'll seem.--v/r - T P 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
33. Clear need for the tools with what he does for OTRS, and while I don't have access to it myself, Risker's comment above should allay anyone's suspicions. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 23:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
34. Support Good candidate Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
35. Support. Impressed by the candidate's knowledge of copyright law. The more admins who know that arcane sorcery, the better. Icebob99 ( talk) 00:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
36. Support No issues for me. I know how useful admins tools are when you are an OTRS agent. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 00:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
37. Net Positive SQL ^{Query me!} 01:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
38. Support - WP:NETPOSITIVE in giving him the tools. While I understand the opposes that say he doesn't have experience in one specific administrative area or another (and want to have the tools un-bundled to approve access to specific features), one of the elements of RFA is that the community is putting their trust in the candidate to have a WP:CLUE and stay out of areas where they are less familiar (until they are able to). The candidate's demonstrated self-awareness of their mistakes (although mistakes is even a bit of a strong term in this case) tells me that we can trust him to only use the tools he knows how to use. PGWG ( talk) 01:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
39. Support based on a modest review of contributions, Q&A, and previous observations of the editor both on-wiki and during the time I was working at OTRS. I have no concerns. -- joe decker ^talk 01:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
40. Opposes not remotely convincing. Wizardman 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
41. Support His knowledge of copyright law alone would be a great credit for the admin corps here. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 02:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
42. Support Would be a net positive with his knowledge of copyright law. — Music1201 ^talk 02:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
43. Support Net-Positive, good interaction from what I can see on OTRS -- Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
44. Support because I think giving Mike the admin bit will be a net benefit to the project. Mike's experience in administrative areas is quite low for an RFA candidate, but he has a clear reason to use the tools, and is trustworthy. Not only do I trust him to do a good job with what he says he'd like to work on, but I also trust him not to barge into areas he doesn't have experience with. Someguy1221 ( talk) 03:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
45. SUpport' OTRS agents are some of our most clueful users. Some of the opposes are just plain odd so a +1 here to balance. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
46. Support Wikipedia needs admins with experience and skills in niche areas which Mike has and I trust him not to abuse the tools in any area. Clear benefit to the project. Gizza ^{( t)( c)} 12:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
47. Support, more than a year experience, more than 5000 edits, does good work, seems reasonable. Great endorsements too. — Kusma ( t· c) 12:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
48. Support as nom -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose: Very low XFD participation upon looking his XFD stats. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   I haven't made up my mind about this candidate yet, but this !vote is yet another example, IMO, of bashing a candidate for inexperience in an area they have stated no intention of working in. There is not a single admin I know of that has the skills to use every single tool: I certainly do not. The community gave me the tools, presumably, because the community believes I can tell the difference between what I know and what I don't know. The question should not be "is the candidate competent everywhere" but rather "is the candidate competent in the areas they want to work in, and are they aware of the areas they are not competent in?" Vanamonde ( talk) 16:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   But they will still have the tools to take part, and no bar on them developing an interest the day after the AfD. Until there is a way to unbundle tools from certain areas, I think this type of oppose is an entirely valid one (no comments on this particular candidate on this or any other point). All the best, The Bounder ( talk) 16:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   I doubt there's an admin alive who has experience and/or skill in all the areas in which they could work - I certainly don't, not even after nearly six years as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   It is just as ridiculous to expect an admin candidate to show experience with XFD as it is to expect them to have experience editing protected templates and Lua modules, because those abilities are part of the admin toolset as well. It's about time the 'crats started clerking these pages more aggressively and removing ludicrous opposes before more editor time is wasted. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   Your "ludicrous oppose" is someone else's thought-through opinon: I see no need for you to besmirch thir concerns just because yours do not align with theirs. One may just as well add "It's about time the 'crats started clerking these pages more aggressively and removing ludicrous badgering of opposes I don't agree with before more editor time is wasted": their thoughts are as valid as yours, and AGF should be shown to them, just as it should be to all who comment for or against. - The Bounder ( talk) 07:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC) (Alternatively, some form of rule on not making judgemental comments on a support or oppose could be mooted to keep the chat down: I have no problem with people discussing some elements of a !vote (asking for diffs, or commenting on the facts of the number of particular types of edits), but trying to dismiss a rationale on no other basis than one doesn't like it should face more rigorous 'crat action. The 'crats should be good enough to judge the weight of arguments themselves without such 'helpful' besmirching comments.) - The Bounder ( talk) 10:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

2. Oppose: Shockingly low participation on talk pages. All edits are to article pages (mostly using Huggle) or to user talk pages (warnings from Huggle, presumably). We need administrators who are experienced in dealing with difficult editors, resolving disputes, closing discussions, etc. Reverting vandalism can be done without the tools. Brad v 15:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Bradv: While it doesn't generate edits on the wiki, OTRS agents regularly deal with some of the most difficult editors and outside stakeholders via email. Given that a good many of Mike's contributions occur in the OTRS interface, XTools is a bit misleading on background for this one. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 15:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   Where can one review those contributions? Is there a better tool than XTools that would help with an informed decision? Brad v 17:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Bradv: Sadly, there's no way for the average editor to review them, as one can only access OTRS queues that one volunteers for. There's a very strict confidentiality agreement that we all sign before receiving access, so I can only talk in vague generalities. I can say that, based on the OTRS tickets of Mike's that I've read, he's extremely adept at handling even the upset or angry editors or article subjects that often write into OTRS. You probably don't want to entirely take my word for it, since I'm a co-nominator, but Risker provided a similar analysis above after providing an independent review of Mike's OTRS tickets. It is a little tricky to ask the community to rely on the feedback from existing OTRS agents, and I get that. If you have specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them, but I won't be able to mention specific people or situations due to confidentiality. Thanks for being willing to take another look; whatever the result, I appreciate it. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   But you're specifically asking the community to make an informed decision! I don't disbelieve you, and I trust both your judgement and Samtar's, but it would be irresponsible to support this based merely on the strength of the nominations without any information to back it up. Brad v 17:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   I'm saying that it isn't an informed decision to just look at XTools and assume there's no interaction with others. The OTRS experience, which you can't see but can verify exists, is directly relevant to that point. Risker's assessment is independent of the nominators, and I would certainly encourage other OTRS agents to spot-check and provide their assessments. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 17:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

3. Oppose: With no disrespect intended toward the candidate or their unpaid volunteer contributions, I'm not quite sure what need they have for the tools just yet. In my estimation, the tools should take a burden off of a trusted editor's workload--dealing with socks, vandals, spammers, and the like--but I'm not seeing much of a workload in need of burden reduction, nor do I see how having the tools will significantly lift the burden off other admins. According to their stats, the candidate made an average of 16 edits per day in the month of December, 5 per day in November, 7 per day in October, 5 per day in September, etc. Their biggest editing month was January 2016, where they made about 73 edits per day. That's a good workload. Most of their editing kind of petered out by April 2016. Also, the bulk of their entire editing experience took place in the last calendar year. I think by most standards it typically takes a couple of years just to get up to speed on all the various community rules and to hit one's stride as an editor, let alone to build a reputation as an earnest, trustworthy editor. For a comparison, I think I'd been editing for 4 years and probably had somewhere in the 40k edit range before I felt comfortable enough to request the tools. (And my first RfA failed, BTW.) I'm not inflexible, so if there are strong counter-arguments, I'll certainly be open to them, but I'm just not sure what problem the candidate is facing on a regular basis that would be solved by giving them access to the power tools. Oh, and since I know how the hivemind works, if you plan to oppose and cite my response as your own rationale, please be open-minded as well to any compelling arguments that might come along. RfAs already suck without having a bunch of people hop on the oppose bandwagon with rigid perspectives. Let's give the guy a fair shake. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Cyphoidbomb: Hope you're doing well Cyphoid :-) if I may, I'd like to address a small part of your well thought out vote - currently Mike needs to privately contact admins (normally over IRC) when dealing with an OTRS permissions ticket, as they often require viewing deleted revisions. Having the ability to view this material himself would be one of many ways the tools would reduce not only his own workload, but that of the project in general -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

4. Oppose Although the nom has had an account since 2006, their full-fledged participation didn't really start until October of 2015, so I perceive a lack of editing experience. Further, the editor who nominated just became an admin themselves, so I do not think it is seemly for them to be nominating others to the role, since we have no way of judging their credibility as an admin. The current nom's editing percentages are not terrible, but then again they're not all that good either: 46% on articles, 47% on User talk is not what I'm looking for in an admin. Subject to further thinking on this, or evidence that would convince me to the contrary, I have to oppose. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose - This editor has made more edits to talkpages than anything else on this entire project, (47.1% / 4,785 edits being made to talkpages and 45.9% / 4,670 edits being made to articlespace) (I apologise if this may seem overly-pedantic but I prefer candidates to have most edit at articlespace or something that's valued) , There's barely been any participation at AFD, RFD, CFD, UFAA etc etc either, Their CSD log looks okay but for an RFA candidate I would expect more, and last but by no means least - Although they'd signed up in 2006 from 2006 to 2014 they hadn't even hit 100 edits and 2015 was more or less the start for them - All in all I see no reason why they need the tools - Sure they work at OTRS which is a great however us non-admins can't access it so we have no idea if their OTRS work is great or not - As harsh as this may sound there's more to this project than just OTRS and if this is the only thing they want the tools for then I kinda find it pointless seeing as we have 164 OTRS volunteers here and probably more at Commons). – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
6. Weak Oppose. With all due respect, Mike sounds like a terrific candidate, reverting vandalism across Wikipedia. But his talk-space participation is too high, which isn't doing much for the project as a whole. I would like to see some content contributions, preferably for another six months to a year. I'd also want to see more consistent contribution logs in order to prove his activity on Wikipedia. He's only been actively editing a little more than 1 year, and as Cyphoidbomb says, Mike's low activity doesn't justify the tools just yet. OTRS is not the whole of Wikipedia. I can see why as an OTRS member, Mike might need admin tools, but the reasons given here seem weak and insufficient. He is doing very well in OTRS requests, but not as well in overall enwiki-activity. epicgenius ( talk) 23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose – Sorry, I usually don't have cause to cast opposes here, but I, like many others, like experience and content creation. If Mike had been actively editing since his account creation in 2006, he would have without a doubt become an administrator by now, but I think just 14 months of active editing and less than 11K edits is a little quick. Additionally, content creation is sub par for a user with that number of edits. Article namespace edits are only about 45% (or ~4,700) of total edits, and Mike has only created seven articles: one of which was deleted and another that is a simple disambiguation page. That leaves only five articles created, three that were created way back in 2006 and one in 2009. I know some here may wonder why I base my oppose so heavily on this, but I just honestly feel that an administrator should have at least three years of active editing with over 15K to 16K edits. United States Man ( talk) 00:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose – Oppose per, KGirlTrucker81. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. I think this might be a little premature, with only 12 or so months of active editing. I am underwhelmed by the quality and quantity of the articles created, worried by the fact that there are few unautomated edits and only five articles with >10 edits. The very low participation on article talk pages is also worrying (57 edits over 11 years!). Espresso Addict ( talk) 02:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose Will provide a proper clarification in some time; the noms and the candidate deserve that... Just about to hit the bed after a taxing schedule. Thanks for the patience. Lourdes 11:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose Zero BLP content work essentially. And no apparent knowledge of AfD criteria, alas. Collect ( talk) 13:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose, based on review. Kierzek ( talk) 14:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Neutral

The reply on the issue of the compromised account and subsequent block is worrying. I would like to hear from the cadidate that he realises how serious a compromised admin account can be, that he has learned from that incident, and now takes steps to ensure that it won't happen again. He might also like to declare whether or not he complies with, or intends to comply with the additional security recommended for administrator accounts. Spinning Spark 18:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Spinningspark: I believe the candidate may have answered your concerns in his acceptance statement. Sam Walton ( talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks, consider my comment struck. Spinning Spark 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral. I'm troubled. Q1 states a reasonable request for the tools; if an OTRS ticket doesn't arrive, then the image needs to be deleted. The mention of AIV is supported by a laudable 172 edits to AIV. The candidate is looking good. I'm confused by the long term comment before doing FfD because I thought there would be skill there already, but I'll let that slide. Q2 hits collaboration at Workington North railway station, and that gives me some trouble. The candidate started the article, but when I crawled through the edits to December 2009, I didn't get the sense of a large contribution; Mjroots is acknowledged, but there was at least one other significant contributor. A couple of the candidate's contributions were removing some interesting details (such as which bridges were knocked out). I'm leery of the level of contribution; overclaiming is possible. That's a little odd for one working on WP's copyright procedures. I haven't crawled through the Marylebone station edits yet. Q3 is troublesome in a few ways. I want admins to have conflict experience, but the ANI episode isn't really in that category for me. The candidate has only 65 ANI edits and does a close; that's a question mark, but I'll let that slide. His description of the incident is a bit off; he directs us to "the full picture" on his talk page [5], but a beer for you is neither criticism nor the full picture. Finally, he tells us he was right in the end because his close matched the ultimate close. That does not give me a good feeling about conflict or responsibility. Shearonink's Q5 stops me in my tracks. Rollercoaster Restaurant is a corporation, and it is using its food delivery system as an advertising hook. The article has 5 refs, but 3 are to the corporation's website. The Telegraph link looks like a reworked press release with a professional video shot by the company. The Birmingham Mail article is a report of a "sneak preview" of the restaurant; the reporter's daughter rather than the reporter did the lead investigation. In the WP article, some restaurants are still in the planning stages. WP:BEFORE tells me the Abu Dhabi restaurant opened in November. One solid comment is that the waiting line is 30 minutes. (The waiting time for my favorite restaurant, the Border Café, was over an hour.) ABC News did a report, [6] but it is short and has a quotation from an insider rather than an independent review. ABC News' attempts to contact Group JWA Sal failed. It's all about the rollercoaster hook and nothing about the food. It's certainly a cute idea, but I'm not sure it's notable yet. If an Italian restaurant with a bocce ball court opened in Abu Dhabi, would that be WP:N? (Another, admittedly little, thing, is File:Rollercoaster Restaurant Logo.jpeg; yes, it is less than a megapixel, but it has plenty of resolution.) The candidate didn't say AfD, but there are some recent AfD !votes, the statements are conclusions rather than reasoning, the performance is poor, and there seems to be a similar issue. The deleted FoundersCard is still in Google's cache, but I'm not seeing a purported exclusive entrepreneurs' club being WP:N. The candidate is weak on content. No article has more than 20 edits, and only 5 articles have more than 10 edits. There are 10.6K edits, but 8.5K edits are automated. If I take the 4.7K article edits and subtract half of the 8.5K autos, I get 500 edits to article space. I don't doubt the candidate can recognize vandalism, but I don't see experience in content. I'm seeing good stuff, but I'm also seeing stuff that makes me pause. I won't minimize the anti-vandal work or OTRS, but I need to see more than what's here. In particular, I'm not seeing a strong understanding or experience with policy. Glrx ( talk) 21:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

   @ Glrx: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I wanted to respond to your confusion about the lack of prior FfD experience. FfD is kind of a unique deletion process. The results there are usually based on the legalities of copyright, not consensus, and so there isn't as much of a need for non-admin participation. It's not really helpful for non-admins to !vote on FfDs because, at the end of the day, the admin is tasked with closing according to our policies based on legal considerations. The only discussions that really involve consensus are those about images being out-of-scope of the project, but those are relatively few in the grand scheme of things. Non-admins can get involved at FfD by nominating files, but that's really it. The permissions work Mike does with OTRS is more relatable to the job of a closer at FfD than nominations would be, since he's dealing with copyright issues in some tickets that are more complex than the "straight-forward" issues a non-admin could track down to nominate at FfD. ~ Rob₁₃ ^Talk 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply

2. Neutral - leaning weak oppose, sadly. I don't think I have a high bar for a numbers (edit count, articles created, edits to a particular namespace, percentage of edits to a namespace, etc.), and I've never opposed on such a basis. However, I have trouble thinking that someone with 57 total edits to the talk namespace has participated in the collaborative aspects of Wikipedia sufficiently to be considered a "trusted user" for the purpose of admin tools. To be clear, that's not to say there's a reason not to trust the candidate, and I don't want to give the impression that I've formed a negative opinion. To be sure, Mike1901 is an asset to the project. The thing is, I don't think this is the sort of concern that can be addressed by saying ~"no RfA candidate has experience in every area" -- the talk namespace is fundamental. At least, I'd expect to see more participation in the deliberative side of the WP/WT namespaces. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC) reply
3. Sitting here for now until I can better assess this candidate. The current support/oppose ratio brings up concern for me, but that ratio will probably change in the next few days. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC) reply

General comments

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.