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

MC10[edit]

Final: (8/32/7) - withdrawn by candidate at 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC).

Nomination[edit]

MC10 (talk · contribs) – After almost a year after my previous RFA (please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MathCool10), I have fixed the issues mentioned in my previous RFA, as well as improve on other areas. I am fairly active in WP:AFD discussions, where I provide valid deletion/keeps. I am also a vandalism-reverter, though I have focused on article building/discussions this month. As such, I would like to get the admin bits in order to help out the community more. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. As this RFA is going absolutely nowhere and all I'll get is a pile-on of oppose votes, I withdraw this request. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: First, I plan on working in WP:AFD (and related) where I participate in discussions, giving a keep/delete/redirect vote only based on careful analysis of the article and policies such as WP:NN and WP:RS. I also intend to work in WP:AIV because I frequently use it to report vandals after four warnings. I would block vandals after I see 4 warnings already, make sure that all warnings were actually for a proper vandalism edit, and see the vandal vandalize again. I also plan on working in WP:RPE because I have seen when rollback should be given or not; my expectations would be about 50 undos of blatant vandalism without any mistakes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are to the article First Crusade. I have signifcantly changed the article's lead, as well as add another section to the article. I also added more sources to the article. Unfortunately, my GA for the article failed, but I have continuously revised and fixed the article.
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 had a minor incident with MinisterForBadTimes. I had said that I would fix First Crusade after his GA review, but I had then answered with "I'll be on vacation for most of the summer: expect me to be much more active once September comes around" because I had to go on a previously unknown vacation. When I came back from the vacation (which was actually pretty short) I had immediately appoligized to MinisterForBadTimes, and afterwards we both helped develop First Crusade. If such a situation arrives again, I would decline to fix the article to avoid such a situation again.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: Never. Cool down blocks typically have the opposite effect as they should. If the user continues to disrupt Wikipedia, then a block can be used for disruption.
5. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
A: Yes, I feel that blocking a user who has vandalized my userpage is a COI on my part. Because it is my userpage, if I blocked the user, I would violate COI. If another admin blocked the user, the user would better understand why he was blocked. If the user already had 4 warnings, I would report to WP:AIV rather than block the user myself as I am involved. If the user didn't have 4 warnings already, I would just give a warning.
6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is a formal declaration that a user cannot edit a page or a group of pages. It is a social decision usually decided by the community. It is sometimes enforced with a block, but not always. A block is the technical way to prevent someone from editing Wikipedia. Although a block can be used to enforce a ban, it is usually used to prevent users from disrupting Wikipedia.

Questions from Nsk92

7. When, if ever, is it appropriate to indef block a vandalizing IP editor?
A: It is usually inappropriate to indef-block a vandalizing IP editor as IPs typically aren't static; typically blocks with a time limit are placed on IPs, starting from a few hours and may last up to a few years. However, if it is established that a banned editor is using the IP to edit and the IP is static, the IP can be indefinitely blocked.
8. When, if ever, is it allowable to use non-free images of living individuals in WP articles?
A: Non-free images of living individuals are usually disallowed to be used in articles, and definitely disallowed a free image can be used as a replacement. However, if the living person is retired and their notability lies on their past achievements, a non-free image is allowed to be used when a new free image of the person would not work as well as an old picture.
I could not quite unparse the last sentence in your answer, I think you are missing a "not" after "would" there. The use of a non-free image of a living person is generally not allowed in a WP article about that person. There are some narrow exceptions, e.g. for particularly notable and iconic images, but these exceptions are more narrow than you describe. However, usage of a non-free image of a living person is allowed, under fair use rules, in articles other than those about the person in question. E.g. a non-free movie poster showing a particular living actor may be used in an article about the movie or about the character (but not about the actor); see, for example, Harry Potter (character). Same goes for an article about an event, book, show, etc where a particular person plays/played an important role, e.g. see The O'Reilly Factor. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, sorry. I've fixed my response. Thanks for telling me! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Keepscases

9. Do you believe that 0.99999... is equal to 1? Why or why not?
A: Yes, it is equal to one. As 0.33333... is equal to 1/3, 0.999999... = 1/3 * 3 = 1.
Then why is 0.33333... equal to 1/3? Nsk92 (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By infinite geometric series.
Yes, very good. My point was that the geometric series argument was the real answer to the initial question about 0.99999... (your initial response with 1/3 suggested a possible logical loop). Anyway, sorry, this is really quite unrelated to an RFA. It is just that one does often not see math questions in an RfA, and, being a mathematician, I just could not help myself here... Nsk92 (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Shirik
10. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user reported at WP:AIV whom has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?
A: It is never usually unacceptable to block a user at WP:AIV without 4 warnings. The user who is reported needs to have enough warnings in order to be blocked. AIV is for "obvious and persistant vandals". However, if the user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, gives away personal information, or tries to game the system, the user can be blocked without 4 warnings.
Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve
11. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:
a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A. A1 basically means that the article's content has no description whatsoever about the subject. A3, however, means that there is no content—it's just a bunch of templates/links/images, and has noth. So saying "I rule!" would be considered A1, while a blank page would be A3.
b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?
A. First, if the article is not about a person, an organization of people, individual animals, and web content, I would immediately decline A7, asking the user who requested A7 to take it to WP:AFD. Then, if the article asserts any credible claim of importance, even if there is no source whatsoever, then I would decline A7, and possibly ask the user to take it to WP:AFD as well. By credible, I mean anything that is possible about the person (for example, Barack Obama being the president of China would not be credible).
12. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A. I would not use any admin tools at all, and use only the tools I have right now—discussion and compromise. If we can find a source for the information (WP:RS), then we can add it back in. However, if no such source can be found, I would ask the user if adding a ((fact)) tag for now is enough. If not, I would leave the information out of the article.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/MC10 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Moral support. You're a great editor. You have my respect. But I agree with Julian that you're just not there quite yet. This is certainly no WP:NOTNOW RfA, but still. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 03:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support While I acknowledge the objections raised by the current oppose voters, they are not enough to convince me that Wikipedia would be better off without you as an administrator, and so I support your RfA. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 03:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support per Q's 3 through 6. The "advertising" though shows a lack of understanding of project space protocols and traditions. I might move to neutral over that, but I think he hit the nail on the head with those questions, so i'll weak support for now. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support Keepscases (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Great user who will use the tools well. -download ׀ sign! 05:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. support--NotedGrant Talk 12:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Didnt see much AfD participation in your recent contribs, but very good work improving the crusade article and others plus decent anti vandalism efforts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. This user satisfies me in all the right places. This user has all the right answers. MC10 is probably one of those "funky college kid" types, and I wholly approve! WordupBrah (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Striking vote by sockpuppet of blocked user. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Probably over qualified. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Lack of security in this user's household. He and his brothers, who are prolific and unrepentant vandals, use the same computer. Not worth the risk. Hipocrite (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we share the same IP; that doesn't mean we share the same computer. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps when you move out. Hipocrite (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that should be taken into account. My password is safe and secure. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a little unfair to blame MC10 for things he didn't do. Doc Quintana (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, but I've noticed several substantial issues. While I do have concerns about your level of activity (your past 500 edits only go back to October), this is not the sole basis for my objection. Instead, I still feel you don't really have the maturity and integrity necessary to use the bit responsibly. I see that yesterday you posted messages to several users asking whether they'd support your RfA (example here). While requesting advice is fine, your tone in those posts came across as a bit loaded. Your responses to the questions are shallow, and don't seem to give the voter much to go by. You mention First Crusade as one of your proudest article contributions, but to be perfectly honest, it seems that your work there was still mainly minor and cosmetic in nature. This isn't bad by any means, but I'd like to see some more evidence of appreciable article work to outweigh the other problems I see. Finally, I'm really not comfortable with your answer to #3. Editing Wikipedia alongside family members isn't forbidden, but given the circumstances, it seems like a bad idea to me. I don't necessarily disbelieve your denial of the sockpuppetry allegations, but it just leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. Again, nothing especially terrible here, but the multitude of recent issues leads me to oppose. Best of luck, regardless, and let me know if you'd like further clarification. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    About #3: It wasn't my idea for them to start editing; they did so on their own behalf. I appreciate all of the comments. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, Hipocrite is right for the most part; if you get up out of the chair and one of your brothers gets mad and decides to edit on your account, we have a problem. Technically this is possible with any admin, but it seems a bit more probable here. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, I admit that his argument is true in that case; however, I do log out every time I don't use the computer. I understand your concerns, but I can guarantee that nothing of the sort will happen. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, I have two brothers, one of which does constructively edit. I wouldn't let the unconstructive one ever touch my computer. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (edit conflict)Strong Oppose as the candidate has somewhat of a lack of experience in a couple of the areas they indicate they would wish to work. I count TWO AFD disucssions, 34 edits to the AIV area, and 3 edits to the RPE area, and 6 edits to the UAA area. Though I see over 1,000 deleted edits, I cannot see what they are so I cannot judge the candidate on their CSD work, plus their activity has been slacking off over the past couple of months. If that trend continues, we could have another not-so-active admin. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2 AFDs? I see at least 5. I have not edited in the RPE area as I am not an admin; I watch. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pretty much per JC. The comments on some user's talk pages isn't enough to put me here, but it certainly isn't comforting. It seems to indicate a desire to just get the title, and not a true belief that the process is worth it. It just leaves me with an unpleasant taste. Moreover, your answer to question 3 is offtopic at best, but mainly #1 is my issue. Maybe it's just the language you use, but it seems to bespeak an overall lack of experience in the area. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose - Not like me to strongly oppose someone who has the guts to self-nominate themselves, however this states that we don't want to see you "advertising" your RfA. You already asked someone who is a regular !voter (notice this is an !vote not a vote) to see if they would support (as pointed out by User:Juliancolton and you are currently persuading people that are in opposition in your RfA to switch to a support. Not Admin-ish in my opinion. Sorry. smithers - talk 03:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't advertising my RFA, I was just asking for input on whether or not they would support me. The RFA also wasn't created when I asked people if they might support a potential RFA. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for mentioning. My mind is still set in opposition, unfortunately. smithers - talk 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Thanks anyways. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 06:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I saw some of your "would you support me in an RfA" queries on multiple user's talk pages before this went live. It was enough to give me pause, but considering the above and your unreliability regarding a compromised account, ao, sorry, not at this time. I have concerns regarding your maturity and judgement. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose due to the answer to question 10, which is completely and utterly wrong. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can guarantee that there won't be a compromised account; the youngest brother doesn't even bother with Wikipedia anymore. The other brother constructively edits Wikipedia. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose First, you seem to be a good editor. But I don't think you're ready. The answers (especially #3) are rather weak, and this comment shows you seem to lack an understand of username policy (ActivExpression is a company, so using as a name is promotional). And the polling before this isn't great either. ~DC Talk To Me 04:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I didn't realize that it was a company name. It seemed pretty innocent. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't either, but I googled it to check [1] because I trust that our 'crats can make the right call on these matters. ~DC Talk To Me 04:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Concerns with maturity, the "sockpuppetry" incident, user's policy knowledge, user's answers to questions, and the fact that the user has replied to/challenged just about every single oppose. Suggest early closure per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this fails, I'd like to let this go the whole 7 days. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose I hate this; but between the whole sockpuppetry investigation, canvassing in advance of this RfA, the incomplete or unimpressive answers to questions, and only 500 edits since October all combine to put me down here. Truly, this is not now- none of these alone would have been enough for me to oppose, but combined I'm just not comfortable- and I could see this turning around three months down the road. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I am sure the user is intentioned well, but I share JC's concerns about question #3, and the answer to question #10 seems to imply a purely mechanical approach to decision making. To clarify, my concerns are that there are occasionally reports to WP:AIV which will not consist of 4 warnings. As simplistic examples, extreme cases often result in "4im" warnings and warnings starting at level 2 or 3. These are not entirely uncommon and may still warrant a block if disruption is persisting after a level 4 warning was issued. An effective administrator needs to be able to interpret policy in a way that is best fit for an encyclopedia; I feel some additional experience may help the user in being able to hone in on this ability. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, concerns about temperament, maturity, experience, readiness. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose let me count the reasons.... An "I found a secret page" userbox, "brothers" using the same IP address to vandalize, better part of a dozen different accounts, an "I want to be an admin someday" userbox, the whole pimped out user page complete with guestbook. Absolutely nothing about the way you keep your userpage demonstrates a professional demeanor. Your answers to the questions demonstrate that you haven't a clue about real administration (never block before 4 warnings? Please.) but have a ton of textbook answers memorized. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. The answer to #10 seriously concerns me. I want to be sure that MC10 or any other administrator would be able to make judgment calls even if a vandal hasn't reached the milestones. It's the attitude of sticking to the letter of the law that allow vandals to abuse and game the system. Valley2city‽ 08:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Likewise.. question #10's answer does not inspire confidence in me as to your ability to make the necessary judgment calls. To use an analogy, a policeman needs to know when to pull out his gun and shoot, lest the criminal runs him down while he's still yelling "Stop! Or I'll shoot!" for the fourth time. -- Ϫ 09:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose The answers given so far to the questions do not cause me to feel comfortable with this candidate; the vandalising brothers causes me to feel that there would be potential for significant problems should this candidate get the bit; the sheer number of alternative accounts makes me pause; the "bot" account which is not a bot - what's that all about? All of these leave me unable to support this candidate, as I do not feel they would make a "safe", "secure" admin at this moment in time. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to support you at the moment. The above opposers have set out well what I would like to say, namely the point about advertising your RfA and I'm a little concerned about the lack of edits to administrator-frequented areas, especially AfD. In addition, the fact that you have a heavy percentage of your contributions dedicated to your own userspace is a little concerning. I think it's acceptable to have maybe a couple of 'fun' pages (like a guestbook) in your userspace, but a chess game and a doppelganger account created for the sole purpose of playing that chess game? You sound like a nice person, but I really can't support right now. JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the candidate has participated in over 50 (that's where I stopped counting) AFD discussions, that's why I struck that part of my comment. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Candidate has been here a while, but I'm fairly sure is not ready yet. The level of editing doesn't worry me, nor of course does the presence of a guestbook. The canvassing merely raises one eyebrow, as from what I can see you were consulting more experienced editors as opposed to approaching wikifriends and adoptees who might be predisposed to support you. There are however some questionable uses of rollback such as this and that. I don't know these subjects, and it may be that to people who watchlist those pages these were obvious vandalism. But if so an appropriate message on the user talkpage would have been in order. Better still if it isn't obvious that something is vandalism, please use undo and explain your reasoning in the edit summary. ϢereSpielChequers 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Sorry, but a little bit longer won't hurt you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Julian and Jclemens. Seriously worrying immaturity pattern, not to mention potential security risk. This is a request for level-up. GlassCobra 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per answer to Q10 which does not reflect current policy or current implementation... RP459 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Answers to several questions are rather poor. For Q5, even if someone is vandalizing an article about you, its never going to be COI to block a blatant vandal. For Q7, IPs should never be indef-blocked ever. For one, very few people actually have static IPs and even static IPs may change eventually. Q8 is somewhat questionable. If they were notable as a movie star or a model, a non-free image of them when they were working could possibly be justified after retirement, but for someone who didn't make a living on their appearance, I don't think so, as such an image would almost always just be decorative. Q10 is just wrong, 4 warnings is both a courtesy and a maximum. If its obvious from their first edit that there's no evidence at all of good faith, they don't need 4 warnings. Mr.Z-man 17:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose based on answers to RFA questions and contributions history. MC10, in my opinion, needs more experience in administrative areas before becoming trustworthy with the tools. I also have doubts about the user's ability to interpret and understand policy versus simply being able regurgitate it. With some more time and dedication, I could see a future RFA succeeding, as MC10 does appear to be driven, although perhaps not for the right reasons at the moment. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - I'm offering a sincere moral support, I think you're actually a good editor and I don't have a problem with your recent number of contributions. The security situation in your house might give me pause, and would lead me to a weak support or perhaps a neutral vote, but on that alone I doubt I'd oppose. What concerns me is what I see as a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The answer to question 10 is particularly troubling, what would you do if a person was reported with a clear legal threat, or a threat of bodily harm to a person, or had revealed personal information about someone, or had admitted to being a previously-banned user, or any other number of problems that normally lead to an immediate block? There was also the questionable RfA canvassing, the comment about promotional usernames... My personal opinion, which might be contrary to some other opposers, is that one day if you gain more familiarity with the workings of Wikipedia then you might make for a fine administrator. -- Atama頭 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he could too. He seems to be on the right track, and just has some work/learning to do. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call for him. ~DC Talk To Me 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Inaoppropriate answers to questions 8 and 10, on elementary issues, and the poor judgment shown in calling for a quickly-SNOWed RFA to run its full length. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Q 8 and 10.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per all the above, particularly the brother-sockpuppetry-type affair. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 20:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Hipocrite. Şłџğģő 20:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per JC, not much else I have to say.  fetchcomms☛ 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Sorry, lack of certainty about account security, wrong answer to question 10, and advertising give me great pause. I'm sure you're a great editor, but I don't have faith that you're ready for the admin bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose mostly per Jclemens and per the answers to Q8 and Q10. There shouldn't be a fixed number of warnings an account gets before blocking. It could be less, it could be more, depending on the frequency and severity of the vandalism. Q8 gives me the suggestion that notability overrides our non-free content policy. I am also not very confident about your "brothers" situation. –MuZemike 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. The principal admin work that MC10 plans to do is anti-vandalism (‘voting’ in AfDs is not admin work). Yet the answer to question 10 – anti-vandalism – is plain wrong. I am not, at this stage (maybe later), confident in the editor’s ability to use the admin tools with the sound exercise of discretion.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - per answer to Q10 and the little bit of experience in Admin-related areas. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 00:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I take it you want this RfA to run so that you can get some feedback. Your answers to Q1, Q8, and Q10 are at least partially incorrect. Nsk92 (talk · contribs) explained Q8 well. For Q10, I would recommend revisiting the relevant policy. decltype (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral You are a good editor, but I don't like your answer to Q10... There are cases where it's acceptable to block at AIV who have less than 4 warnings... one of these might be a vandal-bot. Although this is unlikely to be a problem today, vandal-bots should be blocked on sight. Also, there are some cases of vandalism severe enough to warrant an immediate block, such as severe BLP vandalism (the kind that might warrant oversighting), and/or Grawp style vandalism (He's been known to replace pages with severe personal attacks against other editors or people, and has also gotten 4chan's /b/ to do the same in the past). The Thing Editor Review 13:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, leaning support I was one of the individuals contacted prior to this RFA. I did reply that I'd support. But two items that I didn't know at that time give me a bit of pause. I did not expect MC10 to mention AFD in Q1, with only 34 edits to XFD in the last nine months (8 of which were actually in the last two days). Not a whole lot of experience there, but what I've seen is pretty good. His answer to Q10 is incorrect. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but nothing is coming to mind since I just woke up (it'd be nice if someone would tack on one or two), but pretty much nothing on Wikipedia is never or always. Useight (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too many issues to support—Q10, security, etc. Would not pile on, though. Timotheus Canens (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. As others have pointed out, (per question 10) there are circumstance in which it is appropriate to block with less than 4 warnings and it does happen. Also, on question 4, while your answer is correct according to the policy, it would be nice to see someone take a slightly different angle on that or at least give their own opinion rather than regurgitate the policy. I'd like to see more time spent in the project space- I count a comparatively small number of edits to areas like AIV, RPP and ANI- all of which, I'm sure, are good edits, but, considering you say you'd work in AIV, I'd like to see more experience there. Finally, though it does not substantially affect my position, I'd like to see more substantial content work- FA, FL, GA and DYK credits are always nice to see, but if content building isn't your area, try showing off you scrutinising abilities by reviewing GA candidates (GAN is semi-permanently backlogged) and/or FAC/FLC. Perhaps you could work more on First Crusade, try nominating it for GA again- I'd be happy to review it for you if you did. I'm not averse to you gaining the tools, because you seem to have enough sense not to completely f**k things up, but maybe waiting another few months would make you even better? HJMitchell You rang? 17:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Moral support for the future but it is pretty clear that not ready for adminship yet. Too many areas of concern that, taken individually, might be overlooked, but taken together they really add up. As, others have said, it would help if you invest more time and effort in content work (especially since in Q2 you list that as your best contributions to Wikipedia), write some articles from scratch, maybe some DYK and GA contributions, etc. Some of the answers to the policy questions are a bit wobbly and at least partially incorrect. As noted in oppose no.17, you also need to be more careful with rollback. Personally, I would like to see more AfD contributions, both in number and in substance, especially since in ansering Q1 you mention AfD as a planned area of admin work. I have looked through your contribution record for the last three months and I see only a handful of AfD's there, with fairly brief !votes. I'd like to see some less than straightforward AfDs, where you make a reasonably complicated and involved argument. Also, even your short AfD !votes could use some improvement. In these two recent AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris C. Kemp (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM Hypermarket you say things like "Being NASA's web council chairman and CIO of NASA's research center appears to assert notabilty" and "As such, it asserts notability" as arguments for "keep". There is a big difference between asserting notability and demonstrating notability. The former is usually sufficient for avoiding a CSD tag, but not for a "keep" decision in an AfD, where demonstrating notability is required. An admin closing an AfD often has to provide a well argued policy-based closing statement and stuff like "appears to assert notability" is just not going to fly there. I'd suggest withdrawing this RfA, there is really no need to prolong it. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. MC10 is a good editor who will, in time, be an excellent admin. But we're not there yet, unfortunately. The policy questions are discussed above, and I have little to add, except that (Question 10) there are times when an editor will need to be blocked without four warnings - sometimes without an explicit level 4 or 4im warning. Some vandals need to be blocked right-the-hell-now, and then the notices and explanations and paperwork can be completed. Sometimes, not. But that level of discretion is precisely why adminship is a position of trust - we trust our admins to know when to block and when to warn. You're on the right track, though - and I look forward to supporting your next RFA. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:48, 12 January 2010 (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