Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mdann52

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

Final (22/20/9); ended 17:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC) - Nomination withdrawn --Mdann52talk to me! 17:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Mdann52 (talk · contribs) – my first contact with Mdann52 was on IRC, where he was under "cookies52", and I found him informative and helpful, someone who knew his stuff. Mdann52 mainly edits Articles for Creation (e.g. fixing issues with 1), and article cleaning/expansion (e.g. 2, 3). Mdann52 has been editing Wikipedia since February 2012 (with no blocks), racking up over 16,000 edits. I had in my mind whenever I spoke to him that he was an admin from his knowledge and friendliness; and he is constantly around to help; indeed, his minimum edit count for one month in the last year was 197, or over 6 per day (in a 31 day month). To sum up, Mdann52 is a helpful, knowledgeable editor, which lead me to feel that he would make an admirable admin. Matty.007 13:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Mdann52 for adminship. He has been on Wikipedia since February 2012 and has made more than 15000 edits. He is also a rollbacker and reviewer on the English Wikipedia. He is also a CVUA instructor. He knows all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and will be a great help to CSD and AIV as an administrator. Not just those, he also edits WP:AFC and will also be a good help to there as an admin. Good luck! Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept the nominations --Mdann52talk to me! 15:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 manly intend to help around WP:WPAFC, and the growing G13 backlog. I would also be interested with Edit requests, and keeping Category:Administrative backlog fairly clear. The areas I mainly intend to steer clear of, at least in the short run, is CSD; I would probably tag rather than delete in all but the most blatant cases. I would also tread carefully at AFD, and any of the noticeboards.

Follow-up: Why do you plan on steering clear of CSD and AFD? C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a few issues in the past with NAC's and CSD nominations being declined. Therefore, I feel I should wait a bit longer and review the policies behind the admin instructions, especially for CSD, which can be hard to judge delete/keep, as you have very few opinions from others.

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

A: I feel most of best work has been at WP:AFC; I feel that I have helped with the (constant) backlog, and also helped with the development of the Backlog Elimination drives. I also feel I have done some good work over my spell as a Vandal fighter; Although often "under the radar", I feel this is one of the most important parts of keeping Wikipedia running. I also feel that I have helped many people over my time on IRC.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been pulled in to a few conflicts through my work as a RCP. In these cases, I try and push for a resolution, either helping to resolve it myself, or directing the users to the relevant venues. I tend not to get into edit wars (the only one I have been involved in to my menory was over whether a link was repeated in an article....!) I am willing to abide by the decisions of such venues in the future if I ever end up before them in the future for whatever reason.

Additional questions from Steel1943

4. The role of an administrator can sometimes require you to be a "jack-of-all-trades" when it comes to all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. With this being said, is there any specific policy or procedure that you would consider yourself "not experienced" or "not knowledgeable"? And, if so, do you either: 1) have a plan to make yourself more knowledgeable and experienced in that policy and/or procedure, or 2) have a specific reason why you have chosen to not participate or become knowledgeable in the aforementioned policy and/or procedure?

A: The main areas I feel I have the least knowledge of are policies around FA/DYK, areas I rarely enter as I do not write much content myself. The other areas are probably closing XfD's, due to non-admins being little use for most of the outcomes. This being said, I will probably try and relearn most policies in the areas I intend to branch into if this is successful. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. How well do you understand Wikipedia:Blocking policy? Do you feel that there are any exceptions to when this policy, as written, should be ignored when considering blocking editors, including IPs? How would you determine the time and type of block that the use would get (in your own words)?

A: I feel I understand if fairly well, but as with all new areas I go into, I will consult it or others before applying borderline blocks. I can't see many things in the policy I would object to; however, I would probably try and educate people who reveal personal information before blocking. I would look at previous blocks, and apply an increasing length of time for blocks for edit warring eg. 36 hours, then 7 days, then 1 month, then 6 months. However, for accounts that are purely disruptive, or username issues, I would block indef.

Additional questions from Wifione ^Message

6. Thanks for offering for adminship. Thanking you in advance for the effort to answer the questions in this RfA. Apart from articles that qualify for speedy deletion, what kind of articles -- if there are any -- can be deleted by administrators on their own judgment and without the existence of any deletion discussion?

A: Generally, admins are unable to delete anything outside the criteria you mentioned above, unless it is only to reveal personal details about the subject. Personally, I feel that CSD and AFD are good processes, leaving little that should be deleted straight away

7. In the article on John-David Schofield, an editor adds the statement, "The Bishop was a controversial person." On being reverted, the editor engages in edit-warring and a 3RR violation, claiming that many reliable sources for this statement can be found. You are the administrator who is asked to take action on the editor. Please describe clearly what actions will you take? It would be nice if you could also quote the policy/guidelines whose support you might wish to take in support your actions. Thanks.

A: At first, I would ask him to expand on the statement, or at least add a WP:RS. If he then continued reinstating the material, then per WP:EW, I would apply a 24 hour block. If other users were edit warring, I would not block the users, but apply full protection on the article until the dispute was solved through discussion.

8. An unreferenced article (created in 2009) about an American national war memorial has been nominated thrice for AFD; and all three times, the discussions have been closed as Keep, as the discussing editors have argued that despite no reliable sources being available, there is possibility of sources being found as it is a national war memorial discussed in blogs, which -- although unreliable -- provide proof of its existence. The article has been nominated for the fourth time by an editor with the nom-statement "Non-notable!"; and has been relisted thrice as there were no comments from editors. You have to close this discussion. What will your closing rationale be?

A: If it was recently taken to AfD with a similar rational, I would close it. However, if it had been, say 6 months, I would probably close it as delete, as no one has contested it.

Additional question from Espresso Addict

9. For the convenience of those who like to review content contributions, please highlight the five articles that you feel represent your best contributions to building the encyclopedia.

A: Personally, I have not created much content, instead working at AFC. However, I currently trying to get 2 articles to GA:

1. Oblivion (roller coaster)
2. Moby

Additional question from Pratyya ^(Hello!)

10. Why do you want to be an admin?

A: I feel that the ever increasing admin backlog, and the strain on admins, mean more admins are needed. As I am willing to help out with these tasks, I decided I might as well stand for adminship.

11. What areas of adminship would you be most comfortable handling? What areas would you be least comfortable handling?

A: the areas I would be most comfortable handling at the moment would be G13 deletions, and also blocking people brought up at WP:AIV.

12. What admin actions have you seen that you would have handled differently, and how would you have handled them?

A: I have seen a few, however many had "other circumstances" (Eg. ARBCOM), so I could not fully judge how I would of handled them with the full information. I have also seen a few admins be hasty on pressing the block button; I would have discussed it with the user in those cases, and blocked if they continued the behaviour.

13. Last question, Now, when you are answering this question, what'll you chose-improve ,delete or preserve. Again you are an admin. This time what'll you chose? improve, delete or preserve

A: Sorry, can you classify please. What are you referring to? Of deletist vs keepist, I am somewhere in the middle; if it has no hope, I fell comfortable deleting, however if it has a hope of sticking, I would keep it and allow it to be improved.

@Mdann52: Yeah. Exactly. But I also said one thing. Preserve.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not 100% sure what you mean; I feel preserving long-term content is important, however should be considered the same at an XfD debate as a brand-new similar article; it should not get special treatment as it is older.

14. Can you have another attempt at Q9 please? The answer is incomplete and it is important for Admins. to answer questions fully when requested. IRO the Moby article you are trying to get to GA, you have made only 4 minor edits. The other article is a partial red link. You must have more substantial article work than those examples.

A: As I said, most of my work around content creation is at AFC, so I have created little myself. I am monitoring the Moby article at GA, and have been researching it to see if I can add anything to it. I have also assisted with a few drafts; however I will try and list then when I have enough time to find them.

Additional question from Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)}

15. How much of a wikipediholic are you? What's your score?

A I scored 1235189363731 last time I took the test. I would say I am not a Wikipediholic, however, the main reason I continue editing is because I enjoy what I do, and can do, here.

• Links for Mdann52: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mdann52 can be found here.

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

1. Support - Very helpful around IRC, no concerns. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 19:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - I've known him from IRC, and my time on Wikipedia, helpful user, active on #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, seen him dealing with other users in a unbiased manner. Danger^Mouse (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Nominator support. Matty.007 19:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, his work at WP:AFC is tireless and of high quality. It shows Mdann52 understands the policies and guidelines regarding content creation well. Huon (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Good work at AFC, a very helpful user in general. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I like the answers to the questions :) -- Tawker (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - trustworthy editor, I have no fears they will abuse the tools. GiantSnowman 10:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support as nominator. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 11:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Candidate is a net positive, and I trust they will broaden their horizons somewhat with the mop. Miniapolis 13:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - how could I not support my CVUA instructor? On a more serious note, his AfC contributions are wonderful, and he shows a remarkable civility and thoughtfulness when helping or advising people. theonesean 16:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - I think the user answered the questions well, and will continue to improve the encyclopedia. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support because I am unmoved by the opposes below. I have never felt that significant content contributions should be a requisite for adminship. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Small fixes behind the scenes are a critical to the existence of wikipedia as is the addition of new content. What good is new content when there aren't people to prevent it from being trashed? Also 'only 35% of edits being mainspace' is a poor objection in my view as 35% of 16,767 is still roughly 5,000 which is still quite substantial. ~Frosty (Talk page) 23:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support — An active contributor to administrative areas, and his answers to the above questions suggest that he'll take the time to learn the ropes before recklessly jumping into something that he doesn't understand. The grammatical errors are not a huge concern, especially considering the fact that he's using a tabloid at the moment (I can barely even navigate those convoluted things, much less type accurately on them). A lack of content creation is not a huge concern for me, so long as there is no demonstrated pattern of insensitivity towards those who write articles. Barring the occasional slip-up, I cannot see anything like that in Mdann's history. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, although I suppose there are too many opposers for this to succeed. Since the beginning, the idea has been to "grant this access [to admin rights] fairly liberally to anyone who has been a Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community", to quote an earlier version of WP:ADMIN. Neither the opposers nor the candidate's answers give good reason to doubt that he'll misuse the tools. Moreover, the candidate's statements about waiting on certain things until he learns the ropes demonstrate that he's actively going to work to ensure that he doesn't break something! Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per Nyttend's convincing rationale. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support based on the above. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 22:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Hey, a surprise:) TBloemink _talk 23:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support I believe this user knows what he needs to do. Will be a good one with the mop.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 12:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, a good editor. Wincent77 (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. This user seems to devote himself to automated edits and small fixes. Going through the last 2500 edits, I haven't seen one single substantial contribution to article space. The mission of the site is to be an encyclopedia; an admin must know what writing an article is like. Diesel-50 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Although Mdann52 identifies himself as a WikiOgre, I feel that Mdann52 is more of a WikiGnome, editing quietly behind the scenes, such as at AFC, vandal reverting, and categorizing articles; all of which are vital, albeit less recognised, for Wikipedia's existance. Matty.007 08:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Nothing wrong with this editor, but I can't support an candidate for adminship with 35% edits to article-space and 35% user talk page edits. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   His most edited talk page has only 11 edits (Talk:List of best-selling albums, and that was a featured list candidate, the next page (Talk:Queen Elizabeth II High School) has nine edits, four of which are related to the protection of the page, and one collapsing other editor's chatty comments; and again on Talk:Sir Thomas Rich's School, a quarter of the edits relate to the page protection. These are just a few examples, but I feel that contacting editors on talk pages is a major part of Wikipedia. Given that Mdann52 uses semi-automated tools, many of which (vandalism reverting) leave a note on the reverted user's talk page, this is quite possibly where the high count came from. If you take another admin whom I have come into contact with recently, Wifione, he has less percent of mainspace edits, but does that make him a poor admin? No, it is simply where he has chosen to make his edits. Thanks, Matty.007 08:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   My personal criterion is roughly 60% or higher edits to article-space. That's just me, of course. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   @Matty.007, when looking at the rest of Wifione's bulk of their edits, the point you just brought up is almost like comparing apples to oranges. Wifione also has a good portion of edits in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, which is there the majority of administrative actions take place; to me, this means that Wifione could have had ample practice in work that administrators usually perform that is on borderline-controversy, such as closing move or deletion discussions. Mdann52's edit ratios, to me, do not show any work done yet that proves experience in the areas that specifically pertain to "using the mop". You do not have to be an administrator to work WP:AFC, to warn/report vandals/, or to report pages for page protection. Steel1943 (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak oppose (moved to Neutral). First off, I want to commend Mdann52 for being one of the ones here who fights vandals; it's can be a bit tedious sometimes, especially if you are actively looking for the vandalism. Anyways, since I just responded to Matty.007's comment above, I figured that I might as well go ahead and cast my vote. To me, having a high edit count in the "User talk:" space is a sign of someone who is willing to report an action, but not confident enough to perform the block, discussion close, etc. Also, the fact that the bulk of the edits in the "User talk:" space are not outweighed by any other non-article namespaces makes it seem like Mdann52 is not willing to practice any administrative work that can be done as a non-administrator. You do not have to be an administrator to do any of the work in WP:AFC (unless the title is salted), or to warn/report vandals, or to report pages for page protection; you just have to be a good, responsible editor. The major difference between reporting an issue and performing the close on the issue is that with reporting an issue, you get a second opinion; in theory, after an action is taken, there is no way to get a second opinion on your action at that point, because you already took action! Everyone who wants to improve Wikipedia has a knack for something, and for Mdann52, it seems to be for working Wikipedia tasks that do not require administrative privileges. However, there are some aspects of Mdann52's work that I find could possibly sway me to "neutral", but I'd have to see some more answers to the questions above first. Steel1943 (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong oppose for his sake as well as ours. A great vandal fighter and AFC worker, I'm sure, but apart from the almost complete lack of content work, there are worries about both care and competence. Typos like "akin backlog" (Q10) and "mousy comfortable" (Q11) make me wonder whether he's using a text-entry device that auto-completes words, and then not checking what it does. "would of" twice in Q12 (which also somewhat avoids the question). Here we see a section added with references that are just bare URLs, and ref group="nb" used without creating the necessary reflist (done by another editor nearly 2 hours later). Here we see the title of a reference removed under the edit summary "Fixing bad ref format". There are very clever agenda-driven editors on Wikipedia who would run rings around this candidate. Sorry, but he is nowhere near ready. --Stfg (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Spelling sorted; unusually, I am using a tablet, and was russes due to RL commitments. Also, shortly after I added the bare refs, I fixed them. I admit the other situations were mistakes however. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. I've struck the bit about the bare URLs. Sadly, my main argument must stand. Admin work often requires very clear explanations, not slip-ups that may lead to frayed tempers before they are corrected. There's no need to rush out responses while under the pressure of real life. This page isn't going to disappear in a puff of smoke. Better to wait till you have time to say clearly what you mean. --Stfg (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose I was drafting an oppose statement when I read the preceding by Stfg. I agree with every word and the candidate's response containing further errors ("russes" = rushed?) further reinforces the point that effective communication, above all, is vital and in this candidate, lacking. Together without even a token body of article work, how can we know anything about their ability to intervene in matters involving WP:N and associated policies, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP? Clearly this is a premature request. Leaky Caldron 14:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate has already stated they are editing from a tablet, which is the reason for the spelling mistakes. While I would advise them to take more care, and ideally edit from a proper computer, these spelling errors are no reason to oppose. GiantSnowman 14:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see why not. Ineffective communication in ineffective communication, however it comes about. --Stfg (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I am having issues with my PC; namely, I broke it while trying to update to windows 8.1, meaning I am having to edit from a tablet. I understand what people are saying, and will get back to normal as soon as possible; However, this is the best I can do in the meantime, until I get my PC back from the installer....--Mdann52talk to me! 14:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   As Stfg says, there is no rush - that is perhaps the best advice I received when I had my 2nd (and successful!) RFA. GiantSnowman 14:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict)@GS. I have not the slightest interest in what device they use. Nor is it connected in anyway to the reason for my oppose which as you will see, is based on poor communication skills (regardless of device) and lack of article work leading to concerns about policy competence. Leaky Caldron 14:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were opposing becuase they edit from a tablet, I meant that opposing based on a few spelling errors (because of the tablet), did not seem enough. The second part of your initial comment, of course, is valid. GiantSnowman 14:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5. Strongest possible oppose - Did anybody have a look at the candidate's talk page? Well, I read through the entries of this week... The candidate gives very weak answers to the questions above (showing that he doesn't grasp what they are about) has no knowledge of policy and guidelines, makes numerous spelling mistakes (blamed on the tablet, yawn...) and just stumbles about Wikipedia without a clue (see talk page). Kraxler (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Unfortunate oppose - while I would not state them as inflammatorily as Kraxler, who I believe overstates, I do agree with what he says, particularly in relation to cluefulness - unfortunate, because he does some excellent work, but does not have a broad enough knowledge to satisfactorily wield admin tools, in my opinion. Phightins is Gone (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. I am uncomfortable extending trust to candidates in the absence of evidence of content building, which neither I nor the candidate have been able to find. The answers to questions do not seem to me to show a nuanced understanding of how the encyclopedia functions, and I'd agree with Stfg that communication skills appear to be a problem. Much wider experience appears to me to be required. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose -Per the astute comments of Expresso Addict above. The candidate is a fine WP user and I commend him/her on their work. I hope sometime the Admin tools will become unbundled so users such as this RfA candidate will be able to gain the extra tools they need for specific areas in which they are already working. However, at the present time the tools are bundled all together and many of them require a developed sense of judgement and a comprehensive level of experience and success in content creation, corresponding talk page/noticeboard participation and dispute resolution which, unfortunately, this user is lacking. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose I generally don't support RfAs that seek very limited use of the admin tools. I feel all candidates should be able to hold their own in a broad spectrum of admin related areas. After all, editors habits often change with time. When considering the candidate against other common admin related areas, I don't feel there is enough evidence that they have the breadth of experience required to make appropriate judgement calls. I find their answer to question 8 troubling. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose, regretfully. I find myself in broad agreement with Espresso Addict and Bellerophon. I am sure that I'd be able to support in another 6 months or so if the candidate would address these issues. Please continue your good work! --Randykitty (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. I am tempted to simply say 'Not yet', or 'As per user:X', but that is not my way, and would not be fair. WP:G13 is a very new criterion and once the monumental 60,000 backlog (now down to around 40K or so) has been cleared, new G13 will only be a steady trickle. Although each one needs a check to see that the bot has not made an error, the deletion is procedural and does not take more than a few seconds unless one really wants to single out a potential rare page for retention. Serious help at AfC is required on the backlog of submissions, and controlling the quality of the other reviewers. There is a kind of esprit de corps between admins that when on new page patrol, in all but the most serious cases (such as an attack page, a heavy copyvio, or a multiple recreation) that they generally tag an article for another admin to delete rather than summarily deleting it themselves - at least that ensures that the tagging tool informs the creator correctly, and provides them with at least a few minutes to react. AfD certainly needs more experience before being an admin, 85 AfDs would normally be sufficient but where only 65.2% of the votes matched the outcome, a knowledge of policies and/or guidelines is not fully demonstrated. I feel that the candidate should wait a bit longer and review the policies behind the admin instructions, especially for CSD which can be hard to judge delete/keep, should be reviewed and understood before applying for adminship. The answers to the questions are a bit shaky and demonstrate on his own admission that he is not really sufficiently prepared for what adminship involves. Although none of us knew it all - and still don't - before becoming admins, we had generally accrued a broader experience through our routine editing, participation in discussions, and content building. Keep up the good work at AfC, broaden your experience with all forms of deletions and come back in a few months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Again, it's another editor that doesn't really have proof of understanding all important Wikipedia guidelines, for example, the reliability of sources. I mean, most of the article edits I've seen from this candidate are in the rollbacking department, rather than in the article developing department. A DYK or a GA would be just fine, and maybe I will support the candidate next time round if he decides to develop articles in the future. Minima© (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Regretful oppose for similar reasons as expressed above - While I can't fault Mdann's enthusiasm for AfC and regular contributions to it, I can't hide the fact he wants to work on G13 CSDs while simultaneously claiming he wants to avoid AfD. I've seen questionable judgements first hand myself eg: Billy Ternent, University of Michigan Men's Glee Club (AfD) Experience in AfC, CSD and AfD all require a good understanding of at least WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:NOT, otherwise the first time somebody nominates the AfC submission you passed to AfD (and it happens), you'll struggle to defend it while running the risk of alienating the original author. As an admin working on AfC, I'd expect you to be able to pick out copyvios, delete them per CSD G12, and potentially block serial offenders. Just for the record, I think requiring a percentage of article space contributions isn't a good metric for someone spending a lot of time at AfC, where there will be substantial edits to the Wikipedia talk namespace, where pending or declined AfC submissions live. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - we certainly don't need more admins who add no content to WP, and whose only purpose is to play the patronizing card disrupting the work of editors who do add content. Worldedixor (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Worldedixor and Minimac, are you aware that Mdann 52 currently has a GA review ongoing? Matty.007 21:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by "currently has a GA review ongoing"? Four minor ref fixes at Moby without GA page started, or a few ref fixes in a whole month at Oblivion? Are you aware that the candidate did not (re)write anything of the text of either article? Kraxler (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    [1]. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Mdann, I am quite surprised that Oblivion (roller coaster) was nominated as a GA candidate, let alone that it seems to be on the verge of passing. Can you take a look at my comment here and see if you can spot and address the issues mentioned? Abecedare (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose I don't think there is enough understanding of policy, or care taken in applying it. Certainly there is not enough ability to state it clearly, as shown from the very sketchy answers. I refer to Kudpung's opinion for details. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - Not enough of the kind of work and experience we expect for admins, especially given the concerns raised on that count. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Sorry but from what I've seen there doesn't seem yet to be enough indication of having a proper grasp of how content creation editors go about their work. Computer tablet issues aside, perhaps a more thorough review should be made of what's being said before hitting 'Save'. Keep it up, keep improving, and maybe try again in the future. -- Trevj (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reviewed things again but am not seeing quite enough follow-up to questions, etc. I understand that RfA is often not a simple process, but all the same would have expected a little more recent input here. Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

17. Regretful oppose - I don't care if RfA candidates haven't created much content, but if that's the case I do expect to see a broad knowledge of the wiki's other areas. Unfortunately that's not the case here. Mdann is a regular at AfC but hardly anywhere else. That's a bit too narrow for me, sorry. I strongly suggest you widen your horizon a bit. Yintan  23:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose - The user seems like a genuinely nice guy, and I don't have any concerns about his temperament as an admin, but he seems to lack competence in some areas: spelling/grammar (which can lead to ambiguity which is definitely a negative for an admin) and understanding of basic Wikipedia policies (like consensus). I have also been less than impressed by the answers to the questions asked. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose The candidate may make a fine admin one of these days, but he lacks experience in content building, has less-than-stellar communication skills, and doesn't have a good grasp of key admin responsibilities. Majoreditor (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose All I had to read was the second half of the answer to Q11 - not all reports to AIV require blocks, as they're a last resort, not a first ES&L 11:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not mean block everyone at AIV; I more meant blocking those who need blocking; sorry if I was not very clear on this. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral (moved from "Oppose"). After reviewing some of the answers above, I can see that Mdann52 definitely has a mind for administration, but just not the practice on Wikipedia (in my mind) to have a mop just yet. There's just not enough edits in areas that, to me, show administrative experience. I like the decent amount of article edits, but there's just not enough in any other areas for me to think that Mdann52 is well-rounded enough in all of Wikipedia to be handed a mop. However, I now believe that they would not abuse it if they received it. Steel1943 (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral I don't like the answer to #6 or #8 particularly. Regarding #6, it's a conservative answer that likely wouldn't get him in trouble in practice, but it would have been nice for him to at least recognize the administrative discretion to delete unsourced negative BLPs that fall outside of the CSD criteria for attack page, or even better, have a more nuanced take on WP:IAR that recognizes that there are some situations where common sense trump process. Regarding #8, it could be a reasonable course of action to delete an uncontested AfD in some cases, but it's not our normal practice. The candidate would be in the realm of IAR in such a case, which conflicts with his answer to #6. As well, I think it would be a bad call. With the context of previous "Keep" AfDs, closing an AfD with no participation as delete doesn't seem like an appropriate action unless there's some other compelling reason to do so. If it were taken to DRV, such an action would surely be overturned. Gigs (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral support Obviously there are some significant concerns which indicate that you are probably not ready quite yet. Please take these to heart and don't feel discouraged. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I rarely comment in neutral but I am on the fence with this one. I think some of the oppose concerns are overstated. I think that the candidate is making good contributions. I do think that the candidate needs a little more experience overall and at least a little more exposure to a few other areas. Perhaps I'll move this but I think this is a "not now" for me. I encourage Mdann52 to continue and not be discouraged. Donner60 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral -- I cannot for the life of me make up my mind. Hmm... Sportsguy17 01:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral (moved from Support) - The candidate has rollback and reviewer which, in my eyes, are a per-requisite for anyone with a serious chance of becoming an admin. He has experience in many of the less glamorous areas of the site (such as adding categories, reviewing article feedback forms, New Page Patrol and anti-vandalism) which are of course the areas where an admin will find the most use for their tools and becoming an admin will allow him to imrpove the effectiveness of his work in these areas. He has enough edits to show that he is familiar with editing. It would be nice to see more manual (i.e. - not semi-automatic) edits and after reading the responses to the questions, I'm not sure if he has enough all-round experience to be awarded adminship. Its not bad enough for me to oppose but I don't think I can support it either. Oddbodz (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
7. Moral support due to the fact that I know how much time this user spends assisting other users (hence the proportionally larger talk space contributions); however, there is still too much room for improvement at this time. I suggest the candidate take some time while he is forced into tablet editing (to avoid typos which seem to be a major issue to some (Really? That's the best you can come up with?)) and read up some more on policies, guidelines, and even a few essays. Not never, but NOT NOW... Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   It wasn't all or even the main thing that anyone came up with, thanks all the same. --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

8. Moral support I believe this editor now has a good idea and list as to where more experience will benefit them for the next time they undergo RFA again. Mkdw^talk 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral -- (moral support) -- I also rarely comment in neutral but this is a good time for my second statement in this space. I'm familiar with Mdann52's good work at AfC and guidance of new users. These are the sorts of areas where we need more admin support. However, I agree with the comments about a lack of content creation and high amount of automated edits. I am disturbed that the nominators did not notice this beforehand, showing a lack of real support and wise counsel on their parts. Given some time, counseling, and effort, these issues could have been better addressed by edits and in responses to the questions. I would like to congratulate Mdann52 for the courage to step up to the plate and give the RfA process a try. After six months, I believe the result will be different. In the interim, this editor could: create some articles, bring an article or three to GA status, and take some of the articles worked on at AfC through the DYK process. Otherwise, the user should keep up the good vandal fighting work and perhaps somehow try to stay away from automated edits. - tucoxn\^talk 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   We talked with Mdann, and we all came to the mutual decision that Mdann was ready; given that he also had a GAN that seemed like it would pass. As for the "lack of real support and wise counsel on their parts", and his sterling work at AFC and vandal reverting; and given the fact that the candidate is a net positive, I think that a nomination will further Mdann's competence. Matty.007 11:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   That you've had a conversation is noted. Given trends, observations and other less recent difficulties at RfA, the above has simply become my opinion, of course. - tucoxn\^talk 22:15, 3 November 2013 (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.