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 (19/26/6) Ended 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC) -(X! · talk)  · @927  · 

Nomination[edit]

MC10 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentleman, it is my pleasure to nominate MC10 for adminship. As can be quickly seen, there have been issues in MC10's past which would raise an eyebrow, including disruption caused by his brother's socking and issues with his maturity, the latter of which prompted two premature requests for adminship. Having looked closely into these issues and kept an eye on MC10 for a few months, however, I'm satisfied that these are no longer issues. In my own interactions with him, I've been struck by how much he has matured as a Wikipedian over the last few months. He has consistently proven himself to be trustworthy and knowledgeable– for example, in my first significant interaction with him, he came up with some complex code that still makes no sense to me and requested that it be added to an editnotice meta-template (which one, I forget!); in the resulting conversation, which moved to his talk page, I was left with a very good impression, to the extent that I granted him accountcreator right in order to allow him to make his changes directly. MC10 is trusted with almost every non-admin right going (accountcreator, rollback, reviewer, autopatrolled) and has proven himself knowledgeable and clueful in the areas in which he wants to work, particularly AIV and RfPP which are always in need of more admin help. Further, MC10 has taken on board much of the criticism offered to him previously, including improving his work in the mainspace. To that end, he has significantly contributed to a very high quality GA, First Crusade. All in all, I find MC10 to be worthy of a few extra buttons and, at the very least, worthy of the community's consideration. I apologise for the long nomination, but there's a lot to cover. Thank you all for your consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I gladly accept your nomination. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I am withdrawing this nomination, as the community and the voters here have indicated that I have more work to do in order to have the maturity, trust, and experience of an admin. Thank you all for your advice; I will take it to heart and continue to edit and improve Wikipedia. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I'd like to, first of all, work in WP:AIV and continue with anti-vandalism efforts, as vandalism is always a continuous problem on Wikipedia. I'd also like to work with WP:CSD and new page patrol by reviewing CSD requests by other NPP patrollers, and deleting pages when they fall into the appropriate CSD criteria. Another place where I'd like to work in is WP:RFPE, where I would mainly review reviewer and rollback permission requests. As I frequently watch and comment on WP:ANI, I would engage in discussions there, and would be willing to sort out cases and make the necessary actions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions, throughout Wikipedia, are undoubtedly to anti-vandalism. Many (if not most) of my edits are to anti-vandalism, and I will continue to focus in that area. I would be reviewing AIV requests, and with the admin bits, I would be able to block disruptive users. As to my best article edits, I would definitely say my edits to First Crusade, where I reworked and rewrote the lead, added a few sections, and did some major copyediting overall, helping the article attain GA status. My edits to Radio23 were also one of my best, as I reworked a promotional article that was deleted and userfied into an article that looked pretty well-written and was featured in a DYK hook.
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: Of course, with interaction comes conflict. Almost five months ago, I was involved in this incident, where I apparently "broke" quite a number of the anti-vandalism templates. (The ANI discussion can be found here.) It turned out that I had only broken one template – ((welcome-anon)) – with a code change; however, a few editors had thought I had broken all of the anti-vandalism templates as well, and reverted almost all of my changes to them. Since the change was discussed, I informed the other editors at ANI about the discussion, and stated that only one of the templates was broken. As a result, the whole "mess" was sorted out. In a future situation like this, I would discuss my changes before making them, as I have done so here, and reference that discussion in my edit summaries in order to prevent further conflict.
As mentioned by HJ in his nomination statement, I have two brothers that also edit Wikipedia (ActivExpression (talk · contribs) and Madden NFL 21 (talk · contribs)) – one of them is a constructive editor, and the other one is a disruptive user who has many sockpuppets. I know I'll garner some opposition because of this, but since I'm giving this in the open, I hope you don't, at the very least, just use this to oppose me. Apparently, since I share an IP with my brothers, I was blocked as being the master of the sockpuppets. After an unblock request, along with a discussion with some admins, I was unblocked with IP block exemption enabled on my account.

Additional question from Hipocrite

4. Are you still living in the same house with prolific and unrepentant vandals? If yes, please detail the physical security of your terminal. What exact url are you using to view this page, right now?
A: Unfortunately, I am still living in that same house with whom you describe as "prolific and unrepentant vandals". My user account on my computer is protected with a strong password, and so is my Wikipedia password. I have a SHA-512 hash to prove I have access to my account in the (practically impossible) case that my account becomes hacked by my brothers. I am not using the secure terminal right now, so my URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MC10_2, although for the secure terminal, it would be https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MC10_2.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. Have your brothers ever used your account, or attempted to do so?
A: My brothers have never attempted to or used my account. They enjoy vandalizing with new accounts created, and they have never tried to hack my account. Even if they tried to, they would not have the technical ability to do so. They would have to hack my computer's password, then hack my Wikipedia account's password.

Additional optional questions from Keepscases

6. How old are you? How old are your brothers?
A: I'd rather not give away my exact age, but I will just say that we are all under the legal age in the U.S. (which is 18).

Additional optional question from user:zzuuzz

7. I've been wondering. Both you and your 'good brother' had significant template interaction with Cessna 406 (talk · contribs · block log) and Jack Ebs (talk · contribs · block log) before they were blocked. At what point, and how, did you both discover that they were your 'bad brother'? Also, why do you template your brother?
A: I discovered once I saw him logging in to those accounts, after he started vandalizing. I templated him in order to get him blocked as soon as possible to prevent further disruption, as WP:SPI is much too backlogged, and WP:AIV isn't the right place to report sockpuppets if they haven't been warned sufficiently. Quite a number of times I had to report him/his edits to WP:ANI, as he would not stop vandalizing.
Additional optional question from StephenBuxton
8. How would you deal with a newly created article on a minor that is a BLP violation?
A: Since the article is about a minor, and is also a BLP violation, I would immediately delete the article, in order to protect the privacy of the relatively-unknown minor. Since how the article is a BLP violation is unclear, unless the article was an attack page, I would warn the user about writing unsourced BLPs. If the page was an attack page, I would block the user indefinitely.
Supplemental Question. Assume this is an attack page outing this person. Would you do anything else? Stephen! Coming... 17:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to indefinitely blocking the user, I would salt the page to prevent the user from recreating the page with sockpuppets/meatpuppets. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and...? Stephen! Coming... 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would ask an oversight to oversight the deleted material on that page, as it has personally identifying information. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional question from Salvio

9. What would you do if you stumbled upon these articles [1], [2] & [3]?
A: I would decline the speedy deletion of the first article, as it asserts importance, but I would prod it as an unreferenced BLP. I would delete the second article as A7, as importance is not asserted. As for the last article, I would immediately delete it as a G10, as it attacks the subject.
Whoops, messed up with the first article. I would delete it under G11, as it is promoting the subject of the article.
Try again for the last one. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would delete it as G3, as tagged, for vandalism.
Really? Aiken ♫ 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, still G3, but as a hoax. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, actually it's not a hoax; the original admin turned the article into a redirect to foot fetishism. I think I would have done the same thing. What's certain is that the article was definitely neither a G10 nor a G3. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies; I was unaware of the subject (foot fetishism), and thought that the article was vandalism. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional optional question from White Shadows

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: There are many circumstances that a user can be blocked without four warnings, including being a sockpuppet of a indefinitely blocked user (although WP:AIV wouldn't be the best venue to deal with that), vandalism-only accounts, accounts that make legal threats, and accounts that create attack pages or out a person. If a user has made good faith edits, I would likely give the user four warnings before blocking, but if the first edit of a user is to replace an entire page with profanity, I would likely block immediately, to prevent further disruption by the user.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support Looks alright to me, see no reason to oppose/go neutral. Pilif12p :  Yo  15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support The nominee does great work. Brambleclawx 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support This user has done a great work on articles. ActivExpressionTalkGuestbook 16:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support - a good set of edits. Hard work has been done. You seem to know what you're doing. You've taken onboard concerns in the past, some of which weren't directly your fault, and matured. This ought to commended, rather than to still have you coming under fire for what has past. You can have confidence in being nominated by HJ Mitchell too - he sees the good in Wikipedians who deserve to know it, even if they cannot see it in themselves. Furthermore, and importantly, your age is of no concern to me. All the very best, Orphan Wiki 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support. His past had a bunch of concerns, not all his fault, but he pushed through it all. The adversity matured him, I think and he's taken criticism constructively to become a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Should this account be granted admin status, you may want to keep that fact concealed from your brother, or at least conceal the additional functions granted admins, just to keep him from being tempted to try to gain access to it. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have moved and indented the IP vote. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Right here is fine, too. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Nice mix of maintenance work and quality content building edits. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. As nom. I see no reason why you wouldn't make a good admin and, as I said in my nom, I was stuck by how much you've matured since your last RfA. I'll address the age thing very briefly: as an admin, much of the stuff I've dealt with that would be "unsuitable" for "minors" was brought to my attention by non-admins, some of them below the age of majority and it would be impossible and undesirable to prevent them dealing with such material that some maniacs insist on adding to WP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support I am going to support purely on the basis of the ageism present in oppose rationales. All this demonstrates is it is better to lie in RfAs!  Francium12  17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only one oppose has mentioned specific age (which I disagree with). It would be pointless to lie about age, as most underage people can be distinguished by the way they write, their article interests etc. If he did lie, then people could still oppose for the immaturity aspect. Aiken ♫ 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support. A fine nom from a very well respected admin, and pretty impressive maturity in one so young - I'm not opposed to admins being under 18. Problem with brother is not the candidate's fault, and it looks like he's taken sensible precautions. As for the Q9 CSD examples, I thought the first one was borderline - I would have looked for sources and tried to improve it myself, and only done the G11 if that was not possible. As for the foot fetish one, I suspect if you asked a number of experienced admins, you'd get several different answers. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Looks like he'd do a good job. I personally thought one of the pages in Q9 (page 3) was inappropriate to bring up to someone that said that they were a minor (it's possible he wouldn't even know what that meant), so I completely disregarded any mistakes made by him in identifying what to do to the third article. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Eh? I'm sorry but the latter part of your comment is very odd. You seem to be effectively saying is that it's okay for admins to make speedy deletion errors if they do not know what the subject matter is about, or should not because of their age. That's a pretty bizarre view point Coasterlover. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Obviously I did not make myself clear. I did not like that he made speedy deletion errors, I just think that it was not appropriate for someone to ask a minor to categorize a page that specifically deals with "mature" topics. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    you need to use a hash before indenting in numbered lists or it breaks the markup BTW No, you made yourself clear. My point is that MC10 can clearly see similar things on WP right now, and as an admin would be able to review deleted matter of considerably more problematic nature. More importantly they would also be in a position to judge its fitness for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing your support, but I can't reconcile how you think that it's inappropriate to ask that particular part of the question to a minor when the very nature of MC10's request for adminship means s/he would gain visibility to some of the worst vandalism and abuse that happens here. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Point taken. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support although less active on AFD these days, I remember MC10 doing quite a lot of good work. I'll assume the Ola's Kool Kitchen incident was a one-time mistake, and give MC10 the benefit of the doubt. Has plenty of wikigrome experience and is unlikely to misuse admin tools. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Q9 is wrong but not, in my view, profoundly "shouldn't be an admin" wrong. On balance, I think the positives outweigh the errors. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Don't worry, he's okay. Sleapaside (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note, this user just joined today so I doubt that he would even know what RFA is without haveing prior experience on Wikipedia....--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Worked with MC10 before, good guy, knows what he is doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support MC10 has done great work over the project and the admin tools would only support his work on Wikipedia. -download ׀ sign! 03:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 03:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Moral support While I don't agree with certain of MC10's answers to the questions, I think some of the oppose reasons are a bit unfair, especially those regarding MC10's age. A person can be 40-year old and yet be immature and behave like a 14-year old, while a 14-year old can be mature way beyond his years.BejinhanTalk 13:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Moral support If you plan to work in a field as an admin such as CSD, your going to have to nail the criteria correctly. Spend just a bit more time reviewing those and you should be good. I see a good balance of editing articles as well as vandalism fighting which is very promising. Your close very close. Nice turn around and good luck with the future edits. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Support I'm going to support, but if this passes, make a GREAT password and don't have it remembered, and be careful around CSD. A little unsure at Q9, but the oppose rationales made me decide to support. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support I take note of the brother problems; I am among the oldest of the admins her (no data, but I just must be) and I think thay I would much rather trust a bright, committed teenager with the tools than many others who have in the past applied for them. a little mistake in Q9, yes; don't we all make them occasionally? Will be a good admin, and if this RfA does not pass please re-apply in the Autumn. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Nay. I have interacted with this user in the past in MW.org (where I gave him editor status), but I think he's not ready for the admin mop in a big wiki such as Wikipedia. Sorry, I respect you lots and I liked the responses to the questions, but I reiterate, I don't think you're ready. Diego Grez what's up? 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just wondering, but why would you think I am not ready here? MediaWiki, as well as WikiNews Wikinews, are different projects from Wikipedia, and the requirements to become a sysop are different. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I know, and I have seen only good work from your part here in Wikipedia, but I can't support. (It's Wikinews!). Diego Grez what's up? 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, I'll respect you to your opinion. (By the way, I fixed "Wikinews". Sorry about that.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your understanding. Diego Grez what's up? 16:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose The user page is somewhat better than when I opposed last time, but still not particularly professional. While I admire the honesty and have been impressed with your more recent contributions, I cannot support an administrator candidate while you're not yet legal age. I realize that this may actually get you more supports, since my rationale is not popular, but I vote my conscience, not the prevailing opinion. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - I apologize in advance if this oppose seems somewhat judgmental, but I can't help but get the overall impression that this candidate doesn't have the maturity I like to see in admin hopefuls. Also, his userpage makes me feel that he's applying for all the wrong reasons. Cares more about status than anything. Sorry. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose I’m really sorry MC10, you seem like a great guy and a fairly good editor who has good intentions but I've noticed several substantial red flags that keeps me from supporting you much as I would love to. Your initial comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ola's Kool Kitchen show a lack of policy knowledge. I also feel you don't quite have your maturity issues that were brought forth in your last RFA to use the tools. While I suffer the same issues to a carbon-copy match at times (and I feel bad for being a hypocrite), I must point out that in the past few days you were e-mailing HJ Mitchell incessantly asking him to nominate you in the first place and when he did not reply fast enough, you kept nagging him to get to it as shown here. This made you come off as a bit too eager to get this RFA up and running. HJ pointed out in his nom that First Crusade was a good example of your “work in the mainspace”. The article is good (It's also a GA and I applaud you for getting it to that quality of work) but having looked at your edits to it, I merely see very superficial edits like fixing re-directs and minor copyediting. You’ve done a good job at Wikignomeing but your overall lack of true article writing leaves something to be desired. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary. I want to see you truly get into article writing, even if an article written by you does not get up to GA or FA status. Lastly, I’m a bit uncomfortable with having an admin’s brother-and one who is presumably within reach of your computer and possibly your account-be a disruptive sockpuppet who tries to destroy this project. I have no doubt that you are telling the truth on the matter of your brother but the whole situation leaves me second guessing handing you the tools. You’ve come along way and I am truly sorry to oppose you but I simply cannot support you this time around.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 17:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry about Ola's Kool Kitchen; I had only voted in that AFD because I was involved with copyediting that AFD. I am going to steer clear of AFDs. About my comments to HJ: That was completely my fault; I assumed that he hadn't read my talk page message, as I am used to seeing users make some sort of reply, so I nagged, unfortunately. Of course, I'll leave you with your opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FWIW, he wasn't nagging or badgering me. We've been exchanging emails for a while, but I don;t check my inbox as often as I should (and don;t always reply to pings on my talk page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I totally understand and I'm sorry for writing such a long oppose rational but I feel that you simply are not quite there yet. There are too many red flags and I hope that you work in your weaker areas and possibly go up for an RFA in say December/January.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your comments; I'll take that into account. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. And once again, I feel really sorry about opposing you but I don't want to give you the tools and then "fail" (so to speak). You'll get there in good time and you've come along way :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose - per whiteshadows. As a sidenote to this, it seems that maturity has increased according to a few trusted users, but the nagging and the brother issue is just a little too problematic for the tools in my opinion. Otherwise, due to the seemingly good work in most areas, this may have gone differently. Good luck with the future and hopefully you'll have success in the near future. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. There are definitely pluses and minuses here. A strong nomination, coupled with your enthusiasm and your tendency to want to be helpful, are convincing for support. However, the negatives here - which include maturity and "game-playing" (as Wisdom mentions above) concerns, along with WS' concerns raised just above - convince me that you're not ready to take on the tools yet. There is definitely an improvement in maturity - quite like White Shadows' improvement - but there needs to be a period between for it to sink in so that editors can be sure that you have grown. Wait a few months, and do some more work in areas which you already enjoy. Write a few more articles. When you feel ready, consult someone you trust to be fully honest with you, and work from there. Regretfully, ceranthor 17:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Whiffed Q9. Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, messed up with the first article. How does it look now? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per your response to question 9, I'm sorry (yes, the first one should have been speedied per G11). Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose I really do hate opposing, but the candidate wishes to work with CSD, and the answers to Q9 were completely wrong. As much as I hate to say it, I'm also seeing immaturity coming through loud and clear. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with ageism, and we have many great admins who are under 18. But I do expect candidates who come across as mature adults, even if they are not. Sorry, but adminship isn't everything and not everyone is ready/suited to the role. Aiken ♫ 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose Nothing personal: nothing against your age, maturity, or temperment; but the answer to question 9 is way off the mark. Sorry. ThemFromSpace 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose If you want to work with deleting articles, particularly speedy, you need to have a good understanding of the policies and criteria. I was hoping you would have had Oversight in your mind without the extra prompting (Q8 above). I thought I would wait for you to answer Q9 though before deciding how I would !vote. Unfortunately, you're not quite there with your understanding. I would suggest you concentrate your efforts in the coming months on XFDs (discussions) and CSDs (nominations), and I think you should be ready. Have a read of this essay on speedy deletions, and maybe try the exercises too. Hang on in there... you are nearly ready for the mop! Stephen! Coming... 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Numerous red flags. The dialogue surrounding #9 is particularly ominous. Townlake (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Q9 was the killer. Sorry, just not ready yet. Dodgy deletions are a sure fire way of losing new editors and I have a feeling you'd not be cautious enough around them at this time. Certinaly not a "never" comment though, but I suspect the community would like to see some more time and more of your undoubted good work. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose - because teenagers have much better things to do than spend all day on Wikipedia. Like finding girlfriends. SnottyWong communicate 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was unnecessary and is completely irrelevant to his suitability as an administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, if he knows how to manage the tools well, then there shouldn't be a big deal in my opinion. --Diego Grez what's up? 22:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict)I take personal offense to that Snotty and I feel that MC10 would as well. how would you know about this person's relationships or lack thereof outside of Wikipedia? Comment on the candidate, not his age, nor his social life outside of Wikipedia which, judging by the fact that you have over 3000 edits and have been here since 2007, is likely something to be desired in your case.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wow, that was kind of amazing. Is bringing up someone's apparent life outside of Wikipedia offensive, or is it not, White Shadows? Keepscases (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, if you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If Snotty is going to challenge one's social life outside of Wikipedia, he'd better be ready to get grilled on his. The phrase that I'm looking for in this case would be "If you play with fire, you are going to get burned".--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed. Upon first read that sounded like a personal attack, especially the "finding girlfriends" part. Totally unnecessary. Airplaneman ✈ 00:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not that I am trying to pile on here but that is completely uncalled for. I hope you realize that quite a few of the administrators are teenagers and some of them are even in stable relationships. I would also have to agree with WhiteShadows here in taking offense to that statement though so you should consider your words more wisely next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another view is that Snotty is making an important counter point to the pressure from some quarters that admin candidates should first prove their dedication with very high edit counts, hence giving up large portions of their time. His mention of girlfriends might just have been a good faith example of the sort of fun things young people can do with their time and not at all meant to imply hes judgeing the candidate. I agree the oppose seems irrelevant to adminship suitability, and also it doesnt seem a good reason to oppose or even stay neutral even on ethical grounds as on average Id expect folk might start spending less rather than more time once they’ve achieved adminship. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't want to keep piling on, but I find Snotty's comment very offensive. I also take it personally, as I am only 15, but spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia when my studies allow. There are teenage admins on here, and there is even a teenage bureaucrat. Snotty's comment was irrelevant to MC10's ability to be an admin, as HJ said, and additionally MC10's personal life outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant, as White Shadows said. Coasterlover1994Leave your mark! 15:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the candidate will one day be a fine administrator as MC10 has made many fine contributions to the project; however, it's obvious to me that it is too early (e.g. Answer to question #9)--Hokeman (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Per Wisdom89, White Shadows, Q9, and a general uneasiness about the candidate's judgment and knowledge of policy. —fetch·comms 00:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose. First, WP:Ageism means that this RfA is not going to succeed. I say so even though I'm 100% sure I'm younger than he is. Secondly, Q9 makes me, as Hi878 said, a bit 'e-hesitant' (want to procrastinate on the internet! Yay!) before supporting. Also, I think a few more DYKs would be ideal, because it shows that you don't just add to and improve articles. Other than these points, MC10 is a good editor, and I hope that when he is 18, I can support him in another RfA. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Out of curiosity, if he ran again before turning 18, would you feel unable to support? sonia♫♪ 06:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That depends on his NPP work (or his knowledge of it). Kayau Voting IS evil 10:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose. Concerns about temperament, experience, and maturity. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose per Cirt. Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose - Sorry - I think you mean well, and I have seen many good contributions, but maturity, judgement and temperament concerns are too much here for me to Support.  Begoontalk 03:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Reluctant Oppose The age issue is a silly and trite one at that. But the overall grasp of policy and understanding of the general issue(s) concern me a bit too much. You're still on helluva editor around here. Jmlk17 06:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose per Q9 and maturity issues. Kansan (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose per answer to Q9, specifically the first example. That's not a G11 candidate, and probably shouldn't be deleted at all. (Your answer to the third example was also wrong, but I can forgive you for being unfamiliar with the somewhat perverse subject matter.) Robofish (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose The answer to Q9 is a dealbreaker given that you want to work with CSDs. Other than that, I think that you are an excellent editor and your maturity has certainly improved. I will likely support next time if you learn those speedy criteria and otherwise keep doing what you're doing. Rje (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose I'm sorry this whole thing just seems too weird: the fact that one of his brothers is apparently an unrepentant blocked sock who may at some point try to find out this brother's password: it all just seems too childish and silly. These are truly children. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose but I am more likely to support next time. This was a hard !vote for several reasons, including my respect for the nominator. I would suggest working as often as possible on some of the concerns raised, and come back for another Rfa sometime early next year. Thanks for your service to Wikipedia to date, and best wishes always! Jusdafax 18:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I'm not entirely sure what to think; I've seen plenty of good edits from you, but the answers to some of the questions, particularly number nine, make e hesitateme e-hesitate, so I'm just going to be noncommittal... :) ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is e-hesitation a sort of virtual form of procrastination I've not yet come across ? :) Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think he meant "make me hesitant" :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 22:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But e-hesitation sounds just as good... :) Perhaps I've coined a new term? Come now people, inflate my ego. :P ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd rather not, otherwise you'll run for an RFA yourself :P--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, I fixed the "typo" (because I obviously meant to coin a new word...). ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral—I commend your enthusiasm and great work, MC10, but I am not so sure about Q9. (Personally, I would've Googled the subjects first to get some background info, and salvage them if possible.) Don't be discouraged! Airplaneman ✈ 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral. While I can see that you probably have the best of intentions, I can also see a clear lack of maturity. I had never heard of you before this RfA; by reading your answers to the questions, I could tell that you most likely a teenager. It's in the tone, the wording. And this "bad brother" thing, it's really not doing much good for your reputation. Even if it's not your fault, it still happened. [flaminglawyer] 22:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral. I regret not being able to support because I believe this editor has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I believe (and their contributions support the belief) the user is making the best of a bad situation. In all honesty, MC10, I appreciate your help and your contribution and I hope to be able to support a future nomination. Tiderolls 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral Personally I think you're an amazing person and should get the tools but some of the issues brought up are concerning. The fact that you are a minor though is a plus and is one of the reasons I support you. Come back in a year with no major issues and I will support you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral I challenge those who have opined that age might (or does) equate to immaturity provide evidence to suggest that's true of this particular candidate, or at least have the curtesy to admit that your fears are based on a hunch. I'll be interested to see how many !voters hide behind the numbers, and how many of the ones who have not already done so give stronger justifications. Having said all that, regretfully I cannot support. If my brother was a wikipedia admin, and I was a proven, prolific and determined vandal, I question whether I would need to hack his computer and wikipedia account in order to do damage. This candidate would ordinarily get a support from me. But the risk is substantial, so the candidate would have to go above and beyond what I would usually expect to demonstrate that they're a net benefit. In short, keep going, and I'll probably support next time. --WFC-- 03:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "My apologies; I was unaware of the subject (foot fetishism), and thought that the article was vandalism." It's apparent to me that the candidate needs to see a bit more of the world before being given extra privileges at CSD. Townlake (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But surely if he tried again in 6 months or any time between now and no longer living in the same house as his brother, the risk is still there? I see your point, but MC10 has taken far greater steps to safeguard his account than I have and I'm an admin. For those worried, my account is perfectly secure- I just don't like the secure server and lack knowledge of these "committed identities. It's unfortunate that he lives with someone who doesn't share the project's goals, but I don't think we should hold it against him because you can't choose your family. Besides, there is nothing an administrator can do that can't be easily undone by another. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Townlake, that's a legitimate oppose. But it's down to bad judgement in that instance, indicative of bad judgement in general. It has nothing to do with age. --WFC-- 06:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    HJ, I missed a crucial word. The candidate would normally get a weak support from me. I do accept your point (hence I wouldn't hold that against a strong candidate). But given that my support would already be weak, the possibility of others having to undo his edits eliminates the potential net gain in my eyes. --WFC-- 06:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[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