Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc

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

Mlpearc

Placed on hold by pakaran pending bureaucrat discussion on 18:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

Closed as no consensus to promote following discussion. Pakaran 10:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Final (82/30/8); ended 18:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Pakaran 18:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Mlpearc (talk · contribs)

There has been a wave of talented and experienced users at RfA in the last weeks and I don't think anyone will mind if I throw one more name in the ring: Mlpearc. As some of you might have noticed, I am not as active anymore as I used to be (thanks, Referendariat) but that just means that when Mlpearc asked me to review his edits, I was able to do so neutrally - and I liked what I saw. Let's see how Mlpearc does on the "adminship-requirement checklist", shall we?:

• Tons of edits Y (21000+)
• been here for a while Y (since 2008)
• is active in admin related areas Y (see question #1)
• is friendly and helpful Y (just see his talk page)
• and is able to admit when he made a mistake Y

Add that he is CLUEful and you get a good candidate for adminship (unless I missed something really horrible that is ). I hope you agree with me on this and give Mlpearc a mop to help keeping Wikipedia clean and lemony fresh Regards SoWhy 18:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Conom

Lots has been made about the state of RFA in the last year or so. Here is a candidate I had a chance recently to review a lot of their work on the project, and I liked what I saw from him. What we have here is a sensible, experienced Wikipedian with a willingness to do some rather boring work. Mlpearc's record on this project is a long one -- he has been actively editing since 2008, and has proven himself to be knowledgeable, courteous, and fully capable of being a greater asset to this project with the administrator toolkit. Courcelles 06:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination

I have worked along side Mlpearc for several months now, particularly as a fellow tool administrator at ACC. Mlpearc has consistently shown that he knows policies, but also asks when he doesn't know, to people more experienced, treading carefully through his actions. He frequently provides helpful comments at Permission requests for patrolling admins, which frankly, he could just be doing himself. He admits when he makes mistakes and fixes them. His availability, to the project and the time he has committed to it, even if not directly visible, makes him a good candidate. He definitely has a clue, knows quite a few project norms, and I can only see him being an asset to the Administrator corps. I don't really know what else to say, because his work speaks for itself. If you don't know him, ask around, odds are someone near by does. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you SoWhy, Courcelles & DeltaQuad for you confidence and support, I graciously accept the nomination. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The first area I could jump right in would be working with files renaming, moving eligible ones to Commons and the normal cleanup after such moves. With the experience I've gathered during my two years at ACC dealing with username policy on a daily basis, I would feel comfortable patrolling WP:UAA and WP:RFCN. Other areas I would keep an eye on and would willing to handle requests is WP:PERM mostly WP:PERM/C, WP:PERM/ACC and WP:PERM/R, and would continue to monitor these requests. The next area I am interested in helping at WP:RPP which I would be new to; I have made some requests there and quickly learned that page protection is not a preemptive measure. The areas I would tread lightly though would be WP:BP, WP:ANI and WP:AIV outside the areas mentioned above. I'll have to spend more time at WP:AN as this is the place to get the all around exposure in administrative concerns.

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

A: I feel my first project I decided to undertake as some what of a newbie was this Proposal. This was my first exposure to many aspects of Wikipedia, collaboration, wiki-etiquette and reserve and as I found out a little later, be bold is a good thing to learn. I was told after I started that this probably did not need to be proposed. My proposal was accepted and for that I'm proud. I am also proud of the stubs I've created because other users have spent time working on most of them which tells me they're notable to other people. Lastly, I was involved in an article rescue Cedar Lake (California). These are the good things that make the whole involvement in this project worth every minute. Oh, and of course: ACC; helping new editors create their accounts and assisting account creators at ACC is very satisfying.

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: Yes I have, a couple come to mind. This one happened while {{tps}} I had noticed this user had left a message on FemaleMMAFan's page something about "he" was in charge of the area they were editing, I left her a message assuring her that no one had ownership of any area and the back and forth discussion with Paralympiakos ensued. Here is an example of a more recent experience. As far as stress I have found that taking a step back, a break, listen to some music, come back to the issue and if need be ask for opinions, feedback, and on the rare occasion ask someone if they could take over, they're different ways to lower stress levels if they actually become an issue.

Additional questions from Hahc21

4. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.

A: Good question, of course if I thought I was wrongly blocked it would have a negative impact, no one wants to be wronged. Blocks are very serious and could, if not correctly used be detrimental to current and future users the projects their reputation, credibility and ultimately their longevity.

5. Give me a brief interpretation of WP:IAR from your viewpoint.

A: Ignore all rules to me is based on common sense and a willingness to keep an open mind to new ideas, better ways to approach different situations. I wouldn't just start looking for rules to ignore but, if ignoring a rule to reach a better end then it's a net positive to all involved and the project.

Additional question from Glrx

6. What do you consider vandalism? In particular, why would you consider the reinsertion of Barstow residency vandalism as you threatened in the experience cited above.

A: There are many forms of vandalism, but to continually re-add a claim that is known to be incorrect can be viewed as vandalism. The notable resident Joe Martinez's article sourced him from Apple Valley and working through the searches it turned out that his parents lived in Barstow but for what ever reason they had their son 30 some miles away in Apple Valley, a couple small little turns to the facts but, both articles are now correct about where Mr. Martinez hails.

Additional question from Diannaa

7. I noticed you have been doing a lot of work with files the last while. Could you tell us a bit about that? Thanks.

A: Well, I guess I got interested in files while (and still) building my project in which I have a four wiki farm and one wiki is used as the image repository for the project. Working on uploading many files building the information and license templates has made working with files comfortable, as my contributions reflect I tend to do more of maintenance and organization type work which image files fit right in.

Additional question from Callanecc

8. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: As I mentioned in my standard answers above WP:AIV is one of the areas where at first I would take it slow and carefully. If faced with your scenario out of the starting gate, my first gut instincts would be, The experienced user even with knowledge of the talk page consensus should not of used rollback and should of WP:AGF, this was not a blatant case of vandalism. Issuing a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning even if it were blatant is also incorrect, the IP user has no other warnings for other edits. Rolling back the same information a second time and re-issuing the same warning template, all without responding to the IP's queries, and then a third time and still ignoring the IP users attempts at communication. I would swiftly deny the AIV request, noting the IP user was editing in good faith, I would advise the experienced user to revisit WP:AGF and WP:3RR and that he is subject to being blocked for edit warring. I would also remind the experienced user of the importance of using the warning templates and how they are meant to be used in succession according to their levels, and finally for using rollback in non-blatant situation multiple times I would remove his Rollback privileges until such time he could convince me or another Admin that he has a new and better understanding of vandalism, edit warring and dispute resolution.

Additional question from Ryan Vesey

9. Do you stand by this revert mentioned in an oppose below? If you do, why do you feel it was appropriate? If you do not, why do you feel it was not appropriate? In either case, what exceptions, if any, could there be to your answer (outside of this article).

A: Yes, I still stand be my edit, it was an unsourced addition, and therefore an appropriate revert. I apologize but, I'm not sure what you mean by the last part of your question. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The last part of my question was geared towards you answering the question in a different manner so I'll change it. What alternatives exist to removing the material and why do you feel that removing it is superior to those alternatives? Ryan Vesey 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Thank you for rephrasing the last part of your question, The "superior alternatives" would be to have the addition referenced at the time of the original post or as Warden states tag it with {{citation needed}}, I do not recall the circumstances at that time as to why I did not tag it as such. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from 99of9

10. (follow-on from Q9) Do you even stand by calling the edit vandalism in your re-revert? What action would you have taken if the other editor had continued to revert? --99of9 (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A: Re-adding the exact same thing without any changes or additions within nine minutes of my good faith revert, no explanation or edit summary left as to why they're re-posting or no questions pointed at me about my first revert, yes I can see how I would consider their second edit vandalism, as to my actions if they continued would only be speculation. Mlpearc (powwow) 07:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If all the criticism below has been taken to heart, do you now have a different answer to this question? --99of9 (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A: Yes, the comment I posted at the end of Chaosdruid neutral !vote was my first response, and without "adding new information to just answer this question therefore seemly more honest" I will settle to use that comment to answer this question, with an added assurance that all comments are being taken to heart. that comment is as follows: "In hind sight I can see the negative effect my revert had on the article, and probably on the editor also. I see that I should of looked some references for the post before jumping to that wrong conclusion, and saved some undue problems on the article, editor and many involved editors in this Request. I will change my approach to these type of patrolling edits as I now see it's better all around to try and help verify than to just remove it. thanx." Mlpearc (powwow) 04:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Carrite

11. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, would you please all names under which you have edited? Thanks. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A: I don't recall an estimate of edits I made as an IP prior to creating this account. My public accounts are as follows:

Alternate accounts disclosure:

• Mlpearc Public (talk · contribs · count)
• Mlpearc Phone (talk · contribs · count)

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Jorgath

12. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A: WP:ADMINACCT is, to me, a provision for the community to insure, first the accountability of Administrators in that administrators are solely responsible for all actions made with the tools given to them. Also all actions made by an admin with those tools should be explained so the effected editor(s) understand those actions and why they were made. Any editor may request further explanations of actions and the admin is expected to comply and fulfill that editor's queries to the best of their ability or the admin is subject to loose their access to the tools intrusted to them by the community. Secondly security, it is also expected that all Admins maintain their accounts in a manner to insure the account is not compromised by using strong passwords and changing them periodically. They are also expected to never allow access to their accounts by others or providing their passwords to any user for any reason. Admins who believe that their account have been hacked or compromised should report any such matters and also have their account block for security of the project, this could result in a temporary desysopping or even permanent if the true owner of the account is not established. If it is found that an admin has intentionally allowed another user access to their account no matter the reason can and most likely will be immediately desysopped.
WP:WHEEL, by description is once an administrative action has been reversed that same or similar action should never be re-applied by the original or any other admin without a discussion of the matter and a clear consensus is reached to do so. Theses actions will in almost all cases well be brought up to the Arbitration Committee for sanctions. WHEEL is the Administrators' equivalent to edit warring and is dealt with as swiftly with blocks and or desysopping.
Just like with edit warring, wheel warring is best avoided through discussions ans consensus. Personal I would think of it as "professional courtesy" and would never change the action of an admin without consulting them first. There are three areas that have room for exceptions and even these are very limited and rare, BLP issues, privacy, emergencies and page protection due to edit warring.
Mlpearc (powwow) 18:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I'm perfectly fine waiting a day or two. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from IRWolfie-

13. Following (loosely) the oppose of Keepscases, what is your interpretation of WP:CIVIl and when to act (as an admin)? When do you think profanity is appropriate for an admin?

A:Profanity IMO is never appropriate in a action, discussion or comment of an Administrator. In a discussion, in a passing comment or in a IRC channel to a known user or users as in a IRC channel and in a non-official manner a little "damn this" or "hell with that" is fine. Using foul words from anyone about, to or in anger is not to be tolerated in any instance. My views are much like that of a business office, there's things that can be said to a colleague, in the break room within reason are fine, then there's the language that is used in meetings, talking to an employee in an official manner such as a reprimand or a discussion with a customer these instances have no place for such language. My interpretation of WP:Civil is the same as the definition of the word "Behaving in a reasonable or polite manner". The userbox Keepscases refers to is in reference to the lighthearted side of my personality not as a license to say whatever I want whenever I want or act however I want whenever I want.

Just a side note: That very same userbox is my version (just a change of color) of this {{User_swearubx}} Mlpearc (powwow) 23:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Mlpearc: Mlpearc (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mlpearc can be found here.
• S#72 is ambiguous. Should probably be neutral. Leaky Caldron 09:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. -- Luke (Talk) 19:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. No one beats the nom support :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
2. no concerns. PumpkinSky talk 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes! Mlpearc is an editor I certainly have a lot of respect for. To start with, for the past several months I've observed Mlpearc's work at the various permissions pages: his judgment there is always sound, whether it's his comments on certain requests or comments on the overall process there (I agree that he should be able to handle all requests there by himself). Elsewhere, he's always been polite in my observations of him, kind, great to work with, and willing to help out in any way he can. I have never seen anything wrong from Mlpearc, and so combining that with all the good I have seen, I am happy to support his candidacy. My only "criticism" is that I wish he had run earlier. Acalamari 19:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
4. support; great candidate. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Support We seem to have much in common family and education wise and I think Wikipedia greatly benefits from mature editors who have worked their way through a few decades, as it adds balance and real life experience, and of course, the ability to recognize and correct your own mistakes. It gives a certain mellowness and thoughtfulness, which is evident from your work here. It is also difficult to question the judgement of your noms, whom I respect. I can support without any reservations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Support I had some run-ins with Mlpearc around the ACC interface and I can say he is very civil and friendly. I have no reason to oppose. -- Luke (Talk) 19:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Support as nom. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Acalamari, Dennis Brown, Ironholds, and the noms, all of whom I respect ... the odds are small that you've all taken leave of your senses simultaneously. And of course, I have to applaud the candidate's good sense in running this week, we seem to be on a roll. - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Looks OK to me. Seen around a lot doing sensible things. That mightn't sound much, but the others have said the best bits already... Peridon (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Support. I've seen Mlpearc around the place a lot, doing all sorts of good work, showing obvious understanding and expertise, and exhibiting a very collegial approach to the project - easy decision. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
11. An overall solid candidate, should do good work as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    I've read through his responses to Q9 and Q10 — I certainly disagree with his decision to revert the edit (as opposed to adding a citation), but I still feel Wikipedia would benefit from him having the tools. Therefore, I remain in the support section. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Strong support. I recently reviewed Mlpearc's work for other reasons and was very impressed with what I found. Risker (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - I've worked with Mlpearc on IRC and on-wiki. He's very knowledgeable and I'd trust him with the mop. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 20:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. Per nom. --John (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Support. Just with those noms, I'd be tempted to support.  ;-) But I'm pretty sure I thought you were an admin already. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Support - I have personally observed this user's great decorum over the past couple of years and I can fully support without reservations. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Support Long term clueful editor with a clean block log and a reasonable variety in their contributions. Moving to oppose per Q9 and especially Q10ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

17. Support Excellent candidate experienced ,knowledgeable and see no concerns and the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Of course... Courcelles 23:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Yes, you have my unreserved support. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Should have been an admin ages ago. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Stephen 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Support definitely trustworthy. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Support, figured you already were one. No complaints with your actions; I trust them heartily. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Support; long-term user with clue; good mix of on-wiki activities. -- Dianna (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
25. I've been watching this RfA even before it was "official." I was so looking forward to a "beat the nom" support. Ugh. In other news, until a week ago I thought you already were one. MJ94 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Strong Support. Great editor, my personal interactions with him have been nothing but positive. Will make a strong addition to the admin corps. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. I constantly see Mlpearc around everywhere, have interacted with him many, many times in a most positive and pleasant manner. His work on files, where we have backlogs, is indispensable and the tools are almost a prerequisite for his work there. He checks all my boxes, is an experienced, mature, and level-headed member of the community, and all I can say is that it's about time he was given the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    Support I have seen you around in many places as well as have worked with you in various venues, and I cannot say enough about how much you have done for the project as a whole. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    On second thought, I'm going to have to be neutral for this nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

28. Support based on a review of his work. Kierzek (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Support why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Support Looks like all round good editor Crystalfile (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Support I respect Keepscases oppose. I understand expecting high standards from those in leadership positions. Ironically, the userbox belies the Mlpearc that I have closely known for a wiki significant amount of time. I am aware of nothing less than respectful discourse in every interaction I've been a part. He is within the highest echelon of candidates that I would recommend and he is an exponentially positive net. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 11:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. Per nom. Rcsprinter (state) @ 13:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - excellent all-round contributions. Ben MacDui 13:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Support. Capable and deserving of the position. -- œ^™ 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - Anthony Bourdaine was asked , "Who are the best chefs". Without pause he replied, "All the guys in the back doing the REAL cooking'. Noms say it well. This guy is a worker...give him a mop! ```Buster Seven Talk 15:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Support - trustworthy editor who has a clean block log and has shown a diversity in their contributions. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    Support - I like what I've seen from this candidate, and sure they'd make an excellent admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} Move to neutral. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

37. Support - Trust the noms and the candidate's ability to wield the mop. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - good candidate. Opposes seem too nitpicky. – Connormah (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Perfect candidate --v/r - TP 21:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
40. Support. The candidate is a very good match for the job. Even without a lot of hardcore content creation, I can see plenty of evidence of successfully navigating disagreements, and that's all I need to see evidence of cluefulness. Lots of experience, clean block log, and plenty of strong recommendations from users I trust. (There are good-faith differences of opinion about reverting unsourced material, but I don't see anything that would be disqualifying.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    I've looked at the "vandalism" reversions that Worm that turned found, and the comments in this RfA that they have elicited. For now, I'm staying in support, but I'm open to persuasion. I think that the last of Worm's diffs can reasonably be considered vandalism, but I otherwise see some merit to the arguments that an administrator should not misuse the label. On the one hand, I think that WP:V allows editor discretion in reverting unsourced material, so I don't want to reject an RfA on the basis of differences of opinion about where to draw the line, but I think that calling good-faith editors "vandals" is potentially a problem. As I look at the edits, I get the impression that they are rollbacks, as opposed to edits in which the word "vandalism" was manually added to the edit summary. That's not in itself an excuse, in that rollback should not be used to revert edits merely because the edits are not high quality. I'd like to see evidence that the candidate is learning from this RfA in this regard, and will be more careful about edit summaries in the future, whether or not they become an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Tryptofish and noted. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Agreed. Ben MacDui 17:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    I've let some time pass, to observe and think, and I'm still supporting. I think Ryan Vesey made some good points. That said, my strong advice to Mlpearc is to really take the criticism about not-vandalism very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

41. Strong Support Great editor who would be a tremendous asset to the project as an admin. Electric Catfish 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
42. Support While it does somewhat worry me that the candidate reverts unsourced edits on the spot instead of putting a "citation needed" mark or asking the editor if he or she can cite the edit provided, outside of that, the candidate is excellent. --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
43. Support MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
44. Support - I thought Mlpearc was already an administrator.. Guess not! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 06:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

    Support - I went through Mlpearc's contributions last week when I saw he had an editor review up. After my normal checks, I decided that yes, he'd make an excellent admin and I would happily nominate him. So, I went to this page, and found to my annoyance that it had already been created by SoWhy, 24 hours earlier. I considered offering a co-nom, but I'm glad to see it wasn't needed. Mlpearc is an excellent editor, who will make an excellent admin. He has the right temperment, is willing to help out in adminny areas and I trust his judgement. I do appreciate the comments of the opposers, but I just don't see the problems as big enough to go neutral over, let alone oppose, given the strengths I've seen looking through his edits. Worm^TT(talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Moved to neutral, regretfully Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

45. Support per nominators, most of the above, and my own experience with working with Mlpearc. I've considered the opposition but do not consider the issues raised to be serious enough to at all worry me. AGK [•] 09:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Has been one of my mentors at ACC. He is clueful and has remarkable judgement skills therefore I find him competent enough to have the mop tools. --SMS ^Talk 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. Opposes are unconvincing, answer to question 10 is reasonable. Mysterytrey 19:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Mysterytrey. (Thank you everyone) just needed to poke in here :P Mlpearc (powwow) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

48. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure and raw number of edits. The pie chart shows a bit more user talk page activity and a bit less mainpage editing than optimal, but that's a fairly minor party foul in the big scheme of the universe. Excellent answer on IAR, which is a matter near and dear to my heart. That someone objects to the nominee's ostensible endorsement of naughty words pushes me exactly the other direction, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
49. Support clearly a competent user, and has done a ton of great work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
50. support. Good noms, good work, seems sane. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
51. support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
52. I gave him my trust there, so why not here too? mabdul 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
53. Support. Fully qualified candidate. As a nod to the opposers, I agree that we should all be careful to avoid labelling good-faith contributions as "vandalism," which is defined (both by Wikipedia policy and by common usage) as an edit that is intended to degrade the encyclopedia, rather than merely one that is suboptimal or might violate a sourcing guideline. Editor retention is everyone's job. But this isolated issue does not outweigh the candidate's many other positive contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

    His answer to Q10 does not make this an isolated incident. His answer to Q10 shows that he would count such goodfaith if unsourced edits as vandalism. (Clarification, the Q9 answer shows that he would revert even uncontentioous unsourced edits, the Q10 answer is that he would treat the reinsertion of unsourced edits as vandalism. Combined with Worm That turned's research in the neutral section it is difficult to dismiss this as a score of isolated incidents. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    You make a good point, but fortunately, the candidate has now indicated that he understands this criticism and intends to change his practice in this regard. Given that all the other indications for the candidate are positive, I take him at his word. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

54. Support Aside from my belief that adminship is no big deal, I would like to specifically address the candidate's handling of Q9. The first sentence of WP:V reads In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Somehow along the way, we have added the caveat "unless you don't feel like it" to the end of that extremely important line. Nowhere in the policy do I read that it's okay to ignore verifiability if you are new. Nowhere do I read that it's okay to let verifiability slide because we wouldn't want to scare a new user away from the project. The candidate did not make this revert in a bitey manner. He did it with a template which very clearly explained what the issue was and how to resolve it. I have seen established administrators handle similar situations with far less tact and understanding that this individual did. If promoting adherence to such a crucial policy as WP:V is now grounds for rejection, then RfA has become an even bigger sham than I thought. Trusilver 23:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

    I would like to point out that WP:V does state "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." In this specific state the material was factually accurate to boot. The notice to the person who added the addition did not occur until the 2nd revert. I have no problem with your support otherwise, I just had to point that out. Ryan Vesey 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

    Respectfully noted. Was the candidate's choice the best one he could have made? No... I don't think it was. But neither do I think it is evidence of a problematic admin candidate. I have made tens of thousands of NPP reversions and I know from firsthand experience that you eventually do have to make judgment calls on the place where a simple misunderstanding with a new editor becomes a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What a lot of others are seeing as bitey behavior toward a new editor I see as nothing more than an attempt at behavior modification. MOST recent change patrollers do not see it as a video game. Most are simply trying to protect the project, that is why we block for the absolute minimum amount of time required to ensure that. This is all I see in the candidate's case. Was his actions a little heavy-handed? Yes. Does it show evidence of someone who will make bad decisions consistently? I don't believe so. Plus... as Wizardman pointed out below, he DID label the initial reversion as good faith. To me, that shows a definite level of cluefulness. Trusilver 03:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Trusilver, I am overhauling my patrolling habits as I stated earlier at Chaosdruid's Neutral statement. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

55. Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
56. Support, roughly following the view of Newyorkbrad. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
57. Support opposes not convincing. Many unsourced additions are woefully lacking, thoughtfully reverting them is a routine part of article maintenance. Of course always look to see if there's a kernel of worth there, but often there isn't. I wouldn't call it vandalism, but such changes are a part of the process whereby polished articles degenerate into crap.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
58. Support no concerns, honestly thought he was an admin already. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
59. Support. Experienced user and also great answers to questions. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
60. Support — I can't see a reason to oppose and we need more admins. I wish you all the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
61. Support I have had some experience with this user over at WP:ACC and have seen his work there. I have no reason believe he would be anything but responsible with the mop. Topher385 (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
62. Actually per Q9 I'm jumping to support, surprised people are opposing it; he clearly labeled it as a good faith edit in the reversion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Wizardman. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    The edit by itself is questionable (no good reason was given for the removal of verifiable content). However, this becomes a real problem in the context: In the edit referred to in Q10, Mlpearc re-reverts, calling the good faith content re-addition of ChorleyRobbie vandalism. This edit by Mlpearc is what is closest to vandalism in the sequence: removal of verifiable content together with a personal attack in the edit summary. No wonder ChorleyRobbie made no further edits to Wikipedia. —Kusma (t·c) 07:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

63. Support Lack of content creation is a bit concerning, but in the end administrators administrate. I doubt he'll abuse the tools. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
64. Support You would be a great administrator! --Chris4315 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. While I'm worried a little bit about the incident brought up in the opposes, this editor is clearly thoughtful, and I'm going to trust them to read the concerns in this RfA and avoid any future repeat. Their answers to all other questions were good, in my opinion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
66. Support No concerns. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
67. Support I've thought about this one for a while and decided to move into support. My grounds for earlier opposition were valid and were related to Mlpearc's initial strong support for his actions raised in question 9 and 10. That said, after it was explained, Mlpearc has stated that he has re-evaluated his way of treating these. I firmly believe this is not politicking but is Mlpearc speaking the truth. It only takes 3 days to learn this, not another 6 months, so I don't see why to make Mlpearc wait. I hope that he will keep Worm's comments below in mind and my support also comes with the caveat that he will review the non-free content critiria before uploading any more non-free images. Ryan Vesey 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Ryan Vesey I just don't know what to say, well, the obvious thank you. I'd also like to commend you for your involvement in this RfA. You are an asset to this project. there is a list of things you should be commended for, your thoroughness, your clue, your commitment to this project and also your fairness and understanding. I hope you are thinking of your own RfA, no matter how this turns out, if you ever need anything that I can be of help please just ask. Not only am I re-evaluating my patrolling actions it won,t be any more trouble to double check the criteria of my uploads. Again thank you for your understanding you are a valuable Wikipedian. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

68. Support ultimately I think Mlpearc is more likely than not to be a net positive, based on what I've seen Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
69. Support No problem with this Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Aside from questions 9 and 10, I see nothing wrong. My recent interactions with him reinforce this support.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
71. Support...no reason to believe they will abuse tools or position...MONGO 11:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
72. Moral Support: A few rough edges need polishing. See you in six months. Ret.Prof (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
73. Support. Experienced user, I see no problems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
74. Support - The opposes have really latched onto a trivial issue. Unproductive edits are unproductive, whether it's edit warring or vandalism. That the term "vandalism" wasn't used in precisely the way the policy spells it out is hardly a damning indictment. Shadowjams (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Can you explain to me how the edit was unproductive? Ryan Vesey 22:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    I never specified a particular edit. Would you like me to pick from the litany, or did you have one in mind? Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    My mistake, I assumed that you were talking about the edit reverted in #9 & #10. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

75. Support While I understand that calling an good-faith edit vandalism is bad for the project (I often work with new editors, some of who are scared off by bad interactions), I think Mlpearc will be a net positive to the project as a sysop. David1217 ^{What I've done} 00:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - I have seen this user around quite a bit and have never seen anything that would make me think they would abuse the tools. Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
77. Support Know what? Opposes are strong, but nothing that could not be easily fixed. I liked the questions to my answers and, thus, i will support your nomination. Congratulations and Regards. —Hahc21 03:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
78. Support Rzuwig^► 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
79. Support as per Oppose #1... after all, every on this project knows that "cussing" in and of itself has been held by the community to be non-problematic - it's cussing at someone that is :-) Now, seriously, the editor's contributions are far more than generally what we desire on this project. Their attitude is far more than generally what we desire - with a little smartarsedness/self-mockery when and where required. I'm convinced that they understand NOW how seriously we take the word "vandalism", and we'll see no more such issues. Simply being a net-positive is never enough for me to support: this editor is well-beyond such, and appears to have learned significantly in this RFA as it is dangerouspanda 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
80. Support Despite any concerns expressed below, I think this user would serve as more of a help than a hindrance as an admin. Michael (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
81. Support per SoWhy, Courcelles & DeltaQuad. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
82. Support per the nominators and the answer to my and Master&Expert's questions. Regarding the concerns below I agree with Mike 7, in that I think the good this user will do as an admin will way out way the possible bad that they may do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Userbox is clear: "This user uses profanity, swearing, cussing, cursing, and expletives often." No thank you. Keepscases (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   But... do you find any instances of such behavior on Wikipedia? Lord Roem (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   Maybe it is just a statement that he should remove it and the vote might change. Maybe, although Keepscases was more fun when he was asking interesting and obscure questions instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   Just to point out, I did a quick check through the talk archives and found only two examples. The first was over two years ago and was an issue that was eventually resolved. The second was made in good humor. So I see nothing serious in that regard. Ryan Vesey 03:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Userboxen are often used humourously, and unless they are deeply offensive which this one is not, it's probably best not to put too much emphasis on them as a reason to oppose an RfA. But Keeps knows this already. Ubx are almost always created and used in good faith, and it's highly unlikely that a candidate of Mlpearce's maturity would consider this one to be disadvantageous to his RfA. His userboxen are discrete, and hardly anyone, except those looking for a reason to oppose or support an RfA, would probably look at them anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   Keepscases, I am curious as to why you have a problem with swearing? Worm^TT(talk) 21:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose I'm not liking this incident. The edit seems to have been factually correct; it just lacked a citation such as this. The good faith editor repeated the edit and the candidate then continued to edit war by reverting again. He placed a template on that editor's talk page and they haven't edited Wikipedia since. It would have been better to have placed a {{citation needed}} tag or better still to have shown that editor how to find and cite a source. Other candidates currently at RfA seem to know how to go that extra mile. Warden (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   User talk:ChorleyRobbie has only made 25 edits in 18 months.[1]. His current absence is in no way indicative of a reaction to a legitimate warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   I can't fault the Colonel's diligence or logic, but if reverting an unreferenced edit or two is the nominee's worst then I doubt we have much to worry about. Ben MacDui 13:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   Looking at another month, I soon find this example. In this case, an edit is identified as vandalism when it just seems to be a minor difference of opinion about the genre of the Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil. The IP editor in that case is soon stitched up as a vandal and blocked, even though their history indicates that they were reasonably good faith. The content which is being defended in this and similar cases seems to be pure OR, as there are no citations to support the supposed genres. If you actually go to sources to see how this track might be best described, you find that it evolved from "gothic acoustic blues" to a "mad samba". Both Jagger and Richards described it as a samba and, as the composers, their opinion should have priority over that of Wikipedia editors. The candidate seems to spend a lot of time working with popular music of this kind but these examples don't indicate that he's actually raising their quality. I worry that he will just use admin tools to bully and drive off editors who aren't vested contributors. My oppose stands. Warden (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

   At least one of the editor's edits was borderline spam, and another was an 'it is rumoured'. With an patchy history of editing like this, it's hard to say whether or not they have gone for good. Peridon (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose per concerns below about lack of content contributions and candidate's answer to question 9: "It was an unsourced addition and therefore an appropriate revert". Candidate probably needs to do some more thinking about why people contribute to Wikipedia—and why so many people stop contributing to Wikipedia. I think a serious effort to build some content on the candidate's part would give him that insight, enabling me to support a future RfA.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose per answer to Q9. That is not an acceptable view on content building for an admin. —Kusma (t·c) 05:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   Strongly per Q10, as the candidate does not seem to know what vandalism is (hint: in this incident, there is an editor removing verifiable content that has been added in good faith). —Kusma (t·c) 08:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

5. weak Oppose This ones tricky, I share Marshalls concern(s) as above. Having known other edtors ive talked in day to day life who stopped editing for this (acqusation of vandalism when good faith) reason, Im inclined to voice a weak oppose here Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Not much article development. Seems to bite newcomers, rather than to explain policy and encourage improvement, and defend bitey behavior or misuse of "vandalism" (as in above responses to softball questions). Not ready to be an administrator now. Perhaps in 6 months. Otherwise, seems like a good editor who should gain experience in developing an article to B- or GA status. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose This will be my first oppose that finally comes down to the lack of content creation. I was leaning neutral, and even a weak support before I saw the answer to question 10. Let me begin by pointing out that it appears the information was factually accurate. I would still call the original revert a case of biting the newbies (the editor had been around for a year and a half, but didn't have the edits to not be considered new). An obvious solution is adding a citation needed tag. While I could take this as an isolated incident, I feel that this event occurred due to a lack of experience in content creation on your part. Let me conclude with my response to your interpretation of how we should treat unsourced additions. Note that WP:BURDEN allows for reverting unsourced additions; however, "Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." Since you have made no indication that you believed the information to be inaccurate, I am surprised that you stood behind the revert. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   Note that should you feel inclined to reply, I am completely open to it. Feel free to use my talk page if you don't want the discussion here. Ryan Vesey 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   Note that my stated comments stand, but I am currently indenting my oppose as I decide where to place my !vote per this edit made before I opposed. Ryan Vesey 19:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Note that the edit has cause me to remove myself from the oppose column. I have no problems with said edit. It shows an example of the skill I felt Mlpearc was lacking. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   Ryan Vesey there are many edits just like that one out there with my signature, this is the type of person I am, I guess no one has come across those. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I recognized the username as a good guy and thought this would be an easy support. Q1-Q3 were good. I read the incident in A3. It was good that the candidate pointed it out, but the emphasized part that further (good-faith) edits would be considered vandalism troubled me as both misunderstanding the definition and intimidation. Both issues seemed redeemable (candidate would "tread lightly" at AIV), so I asked Q6. The answer is not satisfactory. The answer skipped the general definition, it didn't catch the threat part, and it reiterated details. The candidate either did not research the definition of vandalism before answering or did not understand the definition. Admins should do both. The implication that the editor made "a claim that is known to be incorrect" is troubling in light of the claim was later shown to be correct. (Google(Joe Martinez resident Barstow).) There are technical distinctions about the intention of the editor that are missed. The candidate should be getting a lot more out the incident. It's not that everything turned out OK in the end or that some "known" facts are to blame. Glrx (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose I also thought this would be an easy support, as I've seen good things from Mlpearc personally, but the overzealous reversion of good faith edits as opposed to more helpful guidance or simple citation needed tags, combined with inappropriately calling good faith edits vandalism as shown by Colonel Warden's diff and the answers to Q9 and Q10, put me down here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose due to the answer to question 10. I don't see anything wrong with reverting the addition of unsourced content, but calling a single revert of that revert "vandalism" is simply wrong in my opinion, but I'm most distressed by Mlpearc's defense of that position. Two additions of unsourced content is not enough to declare that an editor is acting in bad faith, and I would rather there not be an administrator who jumps to such conclusions this quickly. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per Q9 and especially Q10. Admins need to know when an edit is sufficiently contentious that it needs immediate reversion, and when it just needs to marked [citation needed], and they really must understand the difference between vandalism and goodfaith editing, ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose Making a one-off mistake as in Q9 is something we're all going to do. To not seem to understand why A) the revert was overkill and B) labeling it as vandalism is just plain wrong is troubling enough that I need to oppose. Again, it's not because of the action (wrong though it was), it's not understanding why it's a problem. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Indenting oppose per [2] which indicates the user sees the problem in Q9 and Q10. Hobit (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose Admins must have grasp on policy. The WP:VANDALISM policy is one of the easier chunks of policy to understand. Q10 demonstrates failure to recognise good faith content and describing the re-addition of such as vandalism and maintaining that line here, as well as obfuscation around their answer to Q10, is plain wrong and unacceptable. FWIW there are 5000+ hits on "Stephen Kirwan, Ben Evans, Tom Parsons", named in that disputed content. An easy check to have carried out before starting an edit war. Leaky Caldron 14:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
12. I find myself in strange company down here, especially considering the number of clueful editors supporting, but I'm just generally not comfortable with this nom. I am surprised to see no reference so far to his running for CheckUser and Oversight this year; this rings slightly of hat collection. After looking through his last 1500 edits, going back to April, almost all of his content work seems to consist of reverting genre-taggers, which is useful work but not demonstrative of anything much in the way of dispute resolution or broader knowledge of policy: #10 shows edit warring with Twinkle's vandalism flag set, which is completely inappropriate.
    Moreover, I find myself just not generally comfortable with Mlpearc's communication style: I feel strongly that admins should be excellent communicators, and Mlpearc's comments are frequently difficult for me to follow due to the basic and persistent spelling and grammar problems. Clerk-type admins have closer contact with inexperienced users than most, and weaker English skills will act against that.
    Lastly (and I would not otherwise consider this, but it's definitely a factor when it comes to borderline cases) I've little confidence in the nominating admin's record at RfA, both in terms of voting record and in some previous poor nominations. I can't trust that assigning the bit to a niche editor who hasn't really demonstrated firm understanding of the project's goals is going to work out for the best. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Minor correction, I did not apply for CU. This can be verified by any of the Abrcom members above in the support section. Mlpearc Public (Powwow) 17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    I will verify this, as the arbitrator who co-ordinated the last round of advanced permission appointments. Mlpearc had actually jumped all the hurdles to be appointed as an oversighter; unfortunately, in a last minute verification to ensure that non-admins would be fully able to use the oversight toolkit, it was noted that one key function had not been enabled for non-admins. This is the reason that Mlpearc was not appointed. The Arbitration Committee will be reviewing whether or not it is feasible to add this key function (deletion suppression) to the toolkit prior to the next round of appointments. Risker (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you Risker. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose because of the answer to question 10. Unless it's obviously being added in bad faith, such as blatant and serious BLP violations, there's no reason whatsoever to call any such revert "vandalism" per WP:NOTVAND.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Demonstrated in this RfA does not understand WP:VANDALISM. Seems to remember about the incident enough to justify labelling vandalism, yet couldn't recollect specifics enough to know why he didn't consider tagging instead!? (Tagging {{citation needed}} to give the editor chance to meet burden to source content is hugely logical and therefore shouldn't have escaped his thinking. Why did it? What was hurry to re-revert? It's clear he acted impulsively.) But given plenty of time in this Q&A to research & reflect, candidate stands by actions of original incident. (How can the closer of this RfA possibly grant Administrator considering the importance to know what vandalism is and isn't? Is there a hurry to add new admins? The nom needs some time to understand WP:VANDALISM. At this point the nom is promising to do RS research for the editor next time, that might be ideal but I don't think it's realistic. What's the difficulty of simply typing in {{citation needed}}?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose - This pains me, but this misunderstanding concerning Vandalism in Q10, and also the response "People who disagree with my good faith edits and don't go out of their way to explain why clearly have made a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (quote per WP:Vandalism) shows a failing of AGF that I'm uncomfortable with. Achowat (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    Can you give a diff to that comment? I haven't found it. Ryan Vesey 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

    That just does not sound like me, I would also be very interested in a diff. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

16. Oppose as per KW above. There are already far too many administrators without the first idea of what it takes to produce and maintain decent content. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose with regret. This editor is an asset to the encyclopdia. My opposition is based to a large extent (but not only) on a biography of a living person that Mlpearc created almost 2-1/2 years ago, Don Branker. This is an article about a rock concert promoter that relies after all this time on just three sources: an online posting of a press release (not independent), a YouTube video uploaded by Branker himself of an interview with Branker and some rock stars (not independent and possibly problematic in terms of copyright), and an online preview chapter from Branker's possible upcoming book (not independent and promotional). If this was the state that the article was in shortly after creation, and if Mlpearc had subsequently added higher quality sources, then I would not raise the point. I do believe that Don Branker is notable, but when I look at the reliable sources cited to show notability and verify claims in this BLP, I conclude that they are very poor at best. I do not expect that every candidate for administrator must be an outstanding creator of new content. The encyclopedia needs work in many areas. However, speaking as a new content creator myself, I do expect that the new articles written by a candidate come much closer to our standards of excellence than this particular article does at this time. I wish the candidate well and encourage this editor to spend a few months improving the sourcing of the editor's current articles, and also to create a couple of outstanding, well-referenced new articles. I look forward to supporting another RfA after that has been done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose - bitey behaviour towards new users is something we already have an excess among admins (pot & kettle, I know). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday World & Splashin' Safari is troubling - treating AfD like cleanup, comments like I await comments from editors who do not regularly edit amusement park articles are incivil, etc. WilyD 10:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per WilyD, and Q9/10. Saying just "NOT NOW" with a link to WP:NOTNOW in an RfA seems very immature, as he did here. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 13:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    It should be noted that Mlpearc did respond to Master&Expert, explaining his reasoning of the !vote. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

20. Oppose Some answers to questions give me concern. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose I've found this user to be very bitey, and he jumps to conclusions very often. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    1. Any links for editors like myself to look upon further? Secret ^account 09:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose. A candidate for adminship should know that edit warring is not vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose – The link pointed out by WilyD and the answers to questions 9 and 10 concern me. I cannot support at this time. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
24. I have the same concerns as Gfoley4, while at the same time recognizing the very good work at ACC and WP:PERM. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose though I'll admit that I been on the fence with this one, and might change my vote to neutral if this becomes a close call. On the positive side if ArbCom bothered to consider Mlpearc for a checkuser/oversight position as a non administrator it tells a lot about the trustworthiness of the editor. And I'm not that bothered with WilyD link as I've seen much worse in my observations in AFD debates from many of the people participating in this RFA, both supporters and opposers (though the double voting is bad). But his answers to questions 9 and 10 and standing by his responses until this RFA started to sink shows, both confusion between what is vandalism and what is typical unsourced but good faith editing and shows some stubbornness on the part of the user, which is a bad quality for a future administrator. But what made me oppose this RFA instead of going neutral/not participating was the article that Cullen328 linked in his oppose vote. To be fair, that article is simply crap for a BLP, horribly sourced without even a lead section without much of an attempt to fix it. While I understand you created the article early in your wikicareer, the way you continued to edit that article even recently without fixing the concerns shows a poor grasp of general policy knowledge. I do however, want to see what Logan is talking about "bitey" and "jumping to conclusions" as those are serious allegations against an editor in a RFA. Secret ^account 09:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Bleh I just saw the "article rescue" on Cedar Lake (California), and it was him removing the prod with the rationale I been there, and then adding some unreliable fansite source saying it was used as a backdrop in Bonanza, while another editor did all the work rescuing the article. Six months later he found interest in the article again and what he did was minor edits like adding pictures and categories and not much else. If that's the "best article" he has done in question two, and considering the Don Branker article I just tagged for more sourcing/cleanup (a quick search gave me some passing mentions and Branker problems with Evel Knievel and not much else in reliable sources though I might be wrong), I can't support this RFA right now. I opposed people for lack of article writing before and got criticized, but this RFA is a textbook example of why all RFA candidates should have a knowledgeable grasp of article writing before you attempt one. With that in mind and some of the answers of the questions, I'm seeing such a lack of inexperience with our basic policies that I honestly rarely seen from supposedly a "strong candidate" in my many years of participating RFA. I know I'm sounding a bit like an asshole here, but I'm just trying to help for you to become a much better editor. I'm really sorry about this. Secret ^account 10:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Wow, I see they're many ways to discourage editors from contributing. I now understand why good contributors leave after a RfA, what's the point to helping at all, and I'm being called "bitey". Thank you Secret for your input. P.S. please do not change your !vote, you are fine just where you are at, I do not want help from editors like yourself. Sorry, I just had to comment here Mlpearc (powwow) 16:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    "I do not want help from editors like yourself"? Secret has gone out of his way to apologize for his oppose -- not that he needs to -- and it seems to me you're attacking him in such a way as to cast further doubt on your Rfa. Have I misunderstood? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    I know my oppose sounded a little bit on the harsh side, but you have to understand where I'm coming from. I was going to stay neutral or maybe weakly support near the end per Risker near oversight appointment and the other good work you do but looking at the Blanker article I just felt I had to oppose. You were still editing the problematic Blanker article five days before your RFA without fixing that BLP citations tag that been in that article for two years. If you created the article as a newbie and ignored it soon afterwards, it would have been a minor issue. But the way you kept editing the article while ignoring that really serious cleanup tag, that is a massive red flag that's unacceptable for any editor, especially a candidate running in RFA. That AFD linked above while I've seen worse, it's shows a lack of clue with our deletion process. Claiming an article rescue on Cedar Lake (California) when Stepheng3 did most of the article work is a bit misleading. All of these things simply add up and its simply upsetting the lack of understanding with key policies like properly sourcing a BLP. I'll be glad to support a future RFA in a few months once I see a broader level of experience, and I hope you take this, and the rest of the oppose votes as constructive criticism to become a much better editor. Secret ^account 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    For one thing you should re-read my comment on the article rescue I do not and did not take credit for saving that article. Do you have any idea what I went through to get those images ? "minor edits like adding pictures" If this is how you hand out constructive criticism then please keep it to yourself. And to Shawn in Montreal I fully understand and accept his apologies for his !vote in this RfA, but where I come from if your sincerely trying to show someone the more acceptable way of doing things then that's what you do, if the only way you know how to do that is to stomp all over their young rookie ways then it's better to say nothing at all. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    1. Please don't take my oppose vote that personal. I don't mean to insult anyone in the end. Like I said, I simply felt that the Branker article that you wrote and continuing to edit it as soon as five days before your RFA while ignoring the big BLP sources cleanup tag and a combination of some of the oppose votes above shows a terrible lack of experience with our content and deletion policies that I just couldn't believe it for an otherwise excellent RFA candidate. I fully agree with Reaper Eternal below, I'm willing to support a future RFA if I do see improvements in these areas. Instead of attacking my oppose vote, just realize your mistakes and learn from it. I'm always open to teach editors to become better content editors, I could mentor you if this fails. I know how bad hell RFAs is, that is why I always been one of the most lenient participants in this process. It takes a lot to make me oppose a candidate. I have an anxiety issue that I just can't stand RFAs and panic when I went to one, despite being able to handle everything else perfectly fine when I had the tool. I got desysopped from something that was beyond my control mentally and I had to go through RFA again and it was a disaster. I took things personal, fucked up, and I still want my last RFA to be deleted because of my freaking out stupidity in it. Please don't fall for the same mistake I did and take things person. You still have a chance of passing the RFA. Don't screw it up please I'm begging you. Secret ^account 09:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

26. Oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday World & Splashin' Safari was just two months ago. It seems to display such a lack of understanding of why we delete articles (or not) and how Afd is to be used that I cannot support this Rfa. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose I am not comfortable with the thoughtless reverting. The appropriate approach is to do the research, or leave the content alone. Tag it, question the editor, or do some reading/research, but don't simply, unthinkingly, press the revert button. Removing valid content is closer to vandalism than adding it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Oppose From the incident referred to by Colonel Warden above and the incorrect labelling of goodfaith edits as vandalism gives the impression that the candidate is "bitey". I have to oppose as I consider the candidate to not possess the "temperament required for an admin". Suraj T 17:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Damn, there I was almost making a "net positive" support and you go and do this. Admins need to keep a cool head and this wasn't a good omen. RfA is tough for a reason and this is it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    This is a hobby, a past time, a project I fell in love with. I wanted to volunteer to do more. I know RfA's are designed to see what your made of, but that particular comment, to take some thing I opened with and say that I'm proud of and basically spat all over it, I don't want to volunteer to help editors like that build anything. Truly sad. If voicing my feelings about how I see, interpret or take comments has ruined my future with this project then this is truly sad but, I will be able to sleep tonight. I am a net positive. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

30. Oppose - Basically per Shawn in Montreal (talk · contribs), Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs), Secret (talk · contribs), and Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs). The answers to Q9 and especially Q10 are worrisome and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what is vandalism, the AFD does not demonstrate knowledge of the deletion policy, and I am concerned about his ability to hold up under pressure from the edits during this RFA. I don't consider applying for OS to be a sign of "hat collecting" contrary to what Thumperward (talk · contribs) says—he doesn't even have most of the non-admin user rights. Frankly, given some of the stuff I've deleted and submitted to the oversight team, oversighting must be a very unpleasant job. I also disagree strongly with Keepscases (talk · contribs) oppose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Honestly, though, I feel that the candidate will be ready for adminship in as little as perhaps three months. It seems to me that every misunderstanding has been dug up here, so if he takes the advice to heart and re-reads the policies, there is no reason why he shouldn't be an admin soon, since I have seen a lot of good work from him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for the moment. Moved to oppose I've gone through this candidate's contributions looking for substantial content creation (as opposed to anti-vandal stuff, copyediting, etc, which are important and I'm not denigrating). I've yet to find anything I'd call "substantial" content creation work, but while I was looking I found this article written by the candidate, and I wonder how RFA contributors feel about the sourcing (as the basis for a BLP) and the general strength of the writing. I'm going to dive back in and keep looking.—I'll tell you now that my plan is to find a substantial content contribution from this editor and check it for copyvios and sourcing issues. If I find one and all's well with it then it'll be a support from me, otherwise not.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And Don Branker, a BLP. Sources listed are a press release, youtube, and DonBranker.com.—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I admit my first attempt at a BLP two and a half years ago barely squeaked by with those references. I'm not really the content type more towards the maintenance side, but I do have a small list. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

After some wavering, I'm going to stay here. I'm very close to an "oppose" for lack of content contributions, but the candidate appears exceptionally well-qualified in other areas and well-equipped with clue, so I can't quite bring myself to be That Guy.—S Marshall T/C 18:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Neutral as I don't plan to go through the candidate's contributions. However, while I don't think one (or a few) incident should disqualify an otherwise good candidate, I think Mlpearc should seriously reconsider his view on vandalism, given the answer to Q10. It's entirely possible that as an infrequent editor, the person didn't think of checking the revision history and simply reinstated their edit assuming that it didn't get through due to a technical fault. And even if they did it deliberately, at worst it was a poor response to a content dispute--hardly a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (from WP:VAND). Good luck. wctaiwan (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Difficult. I've seen MIpearc around, and like others, I've only seen positive things. The edit brought up by Warden doesn't concern me in the least – it's the idea that it's okay to call that vandalism. 'Vandalism' is a frightening word to a new user. How do they know what it is, or what they did wrong? Did they even know it was against policy to re-add their good-faith contribution? Sometimes we get so caught up in our own jargon that we forget that 'vandalism' is quite a serious thing in the real world, and it can never be fixed or 'reverted' with a simple mouse click. I'm on the fence (hence the neutral) and will probably return later to either stay here or support; regardless of the outcome, I'm confident that MIpearc will take the opposers' constructive criticism to heart in his/her future editing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you, and I already have. Mlpearc Public (Powwow) 13:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I was intending to support, but I can't ignore your answer to Q10. The fact that you made an isolated mistake doesn't bother me, however you should be willing to acknowledge that your edit summary was incorrect as the edit you were reverting wasn't vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral Q9 and 10 can certainly be improved, but I think this is just one mistake that this editor made. He is a trusted editor though, but still, I'm going neutral. Minima© (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Regretful Neutral The weight of strong stuff I've seen from Mlpearc kept me from opposing until now. I'm not keen on good faith edits being labelled as vandalism, and I've told editors off for it many many times. There's a very narrow definition, and that is an intent to harm the encyclopedia. When combined with WP:AGF, vandalism should only be labelled as such when there is no obvious way it could be aimed at helping the encyclopedia.
   So, based on the opposes, I looked into Mlpearc's labelling of vandalism in the past 3 months and I found about 20 of these (another, lower quality article), where he labelled changing a music genre as vandalism. I also found this putting correct (but undue) information into a featured article and another undue but correct item on seven dirty words. Based on his answer to question 10, and the diffs I've found, I'm just not happy that Mlpearc understands how much damage the word "vandalism" can do. I don't believe he'd make a bad admin because of this, but I do have to withdraw my support. Worm^TT(talk) 13:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   But is he a net positive that can rapidly adjust and learn from his mistakes? Is his demeanor what we want, even if he needs to shore up a few deficiencies? I respect those that disagree, but I really do think so. We learn most of this post-bit anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   When it came down to it, Mlpearc had the choice of sticking to his decision or changing his mind. I hope he spent some time weighing things up in his mind. He chose the former, and it backfired. So he changed his mind. Now, I'm pleased that he did, but since there's a pattern of labelling edits as vandalism and given the pressure he was under to change... I'm minded to oppose, rather than support. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

6. Neutral Unfortunately, Thumper sums it up best for me (less the hat collecting, as I do not see that being the case). I can see an isolated incident or two where you might misinterpret an edit as vandalism and revert it, but showing a systematic history of reverting users who may have been acting in good faith is a great way to dissuade future editors from joining the project. I do note that you have followed some of these reverts by leaving a note on the talk page of the editor, so I'll give you that. Still, I have seen you around doing productive work, and I have faith in you enough that I'll keep my vote here unless something huge is discovered. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral - The positive contributions I have seen from this user means that I cannot oppose, and even a lone incident would probably keep me in the top section. However, multiple incident, neither with an expression of regret or an acknowledgement that a mistake was made, leaves me unable to support this user. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Neutral Though any infringements have been almost negligible in effect, it has affected my vote, which would almost certainly have been positive. Unfortunately that was a whole section that was deleted as vandalism, and yet here the article stands today with that section in it, and indeed expanded upon. I think that such actions taken using automatic systems may be your problem there, and that the appropriate response would perhaps have been reinstatement/rollback and an apology to the editor concerned (and probably more thought and care taken when pulling such large chunks of text); after all it can not have been that difficult to find a ref (BBC Manchester Confidential Manchester Evening News all existed at that time) and surely making a valid edit viable is much better than deleting it - help rather than hinder. Can you add anything that would sway me to a support vote? Chaosdruid (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   In hind sight I can see the negative effect my revert had on the article, and probably on the editor also. I see that I should of looked some references for the post before jumping to that wrong conclusion, and saved some undue problems on the article, editor and many involved editors in this Request. I will change my approach to these type of patrolling edits as I now see it's better all around to try and help verify than to just remove it. thanx. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   No admission of making a mistake, or taking a wrong action, or taking action based on incorrect knowledge, in above paragraph. (Interesting.) Overlooked text "wrong conclusion". (Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

   It is unfortunate, as many here (myself included) would have supported you without hesitation were it not for these seemingly petty issues which seem to be adding up to something more. As I started to look into links and diffs raised by others I find myself even less able to support and so will remain neutral.

   There are too many uses of vandalism in edit summaries where there is no vandalism, and using Twinkle for this sort of thing is very dangerous. I have dabbled with Lupin, Twinkle and Huggle and spent many a happy hour reverting vandalism. Though I can see on that AC/DC page that there was an ongoing issue with vandalism going back to at least 15 May, quite rightly dealt with by non-automated means for the first batch of ten or so, the edit summary must reflect what has actually happened. Unfortunately it gets worse, with one editor being told they were being reverted for "Changes to established infoboxes [..."] and that is clearly and blatantly not true, as the editor was nowhere near the infobox, and was in fact editing the opening sentence of the article. While I realise that page attacks can be problematic, and that we have all made mistakes in the past, I dread to think how many good-faith reversions you have made using Twinkle under the vandalism pretext. I cannot support an admin who cannot see the error of their way in thinking that this one incident is in isolation when it seems obvious it is the "quick fix" of twinkle that has allowed you to err in such a major way.

   The issues for me are are plain: misusing edit summaries (in itself a pretty bad error); misunderstanding of what does or does not constitute vandalism (or plain ignoring it); minor abuse of a tool; and biting.

   I would hope that you consider blanking your auto edit-summaries when using automated tools such as these, something I also had to learn the hard way when using AWB ;¬) It can be difficult, as sometimes you cannot preview what is going to be placed, as it can be difficult when confronted with options that do not fully cover ones intentions. In these cases I open the page histories in a new tab and look at them on their own. I find it hard to accept this though, as I know Twinkle gives one option as good faith, as you clearly used in these previous actions: reverted good faith ... and reverted edits ....

   I am going to give it the "wait a while and improve and try again" line. If a small amount of time passes, three to six months, I would not consider any actions prior to today in assessing your future request. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

    Question: - May I please ask you a question Chaosdruid ? You reference this edit and edit summary in your comment above, could you please explain specifically what is wrong with it ? I realize many editors are taking time to point out issues that they could just as easily not a just simply !vote. But I really would like to know the specifics of this one. Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Mlp, your edit summary indicates the edit was to the infobox. The edit was actually done to the intro of the article. The edit notice on AC/DC is to first discuss changes to the infobox and the intro of the article. Your edit summary was a bit off but your edit itself was in line with the edit notice on the article. I am not too familiar with AC/DC and some of the current members of the band may be from England but i am pretty sure the band itself is Australian. Similar to how some member of U2 were born in England to English or Welsh parentage but the band itself is Irish. Adding in to the intro of AC/DC that the band is English is certainly one of those things that should be discussed first. I would consider your edit summary in reverting the "+ English" to be a small issue but i could see how others might have greater disagreement with it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you Deliriousandlost, I recall the instance now, that's the reason I added an explanation of the edit on the IP's talk. As you mention the editnotice that I placed on the article a while ago does state the infobox and/or the lead section. Thank you for your poke Mlpearc (powwow) 08:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Many times, issues like this never get addressed until RfA, which is unfortunate. To me, the question is:"Will the editor now fix the problem since it has been brought up?" and I feel pretty comfortable that he will, based on his previous instances of admitting a shortcoming. If there is one flaw that we can feel comfortable that he will address, then I am compelled to keep my support vote and give him the benefit of the doubt. I was given the same chance in my RfA regarding a lackluster CSD record, so I think it is proper to extend the same courtesy to him. I respect those that won't reconsider their votes, but think it is worth considering. None of us are perfect, and an admin that will address his shortcomings is better than one that won't admit it to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   The concern I have is that either being clueless or too unconcerned to follow one of our most straightforward policies correctly as an editor, and having to be convinced by peer pressure in this RFA to "see the light", doesn't convince me that there are not more dangerous areas where, as an Admin., they might exhibit similar unacceptable shortcomings. My glass is rarely half full and so it remains here, for the time being at least. Leaky Caldron 14:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you Dennis Brown, This has brought issues that I never knew I had, and my two editor reviews were no help, things like this should be brought up at a review as you mention. Thank you for your support and your trust that I will fix the issues now brought into light. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I think skepticism is generally a good thing, but for me, the most important quality in an admin is someone who can listen to others when they point out flaws, and is humble enough to put forth an effort to fix them. I can say that my perspective on many things has changed since having the bit, and you learn a lot after you get the mop. Attitude is the most important attribute, as well as a good general understanding of Wikipedia. I've learned more in the last few months than I did the first few years. So I do respect skepticism, but there is nothing wrong with having a little faith in someone either. In the end, is he a net positive? In my eyes, it is a clear yes. We all, including you Leaky, will help him shore up the faults over a few months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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.