Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert

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

Master&Expert

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (39/43/20); ended 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, here we are with roughly an hour left before this RfA is scheduled to close and a bureaucrat comes to deem it highly successful... as a learning experience for next time (assuming of course I return to RfA at some point in the future). It's been a very interesting week, to say the least. I've gotten the opportunity to interact with many different people and to hear the views of a broad segment of the community, something for which I am very grateful. There are three very important lessons I've taken from this experience:

1) — Copyright policies on Wikipedia are much stricter than I had thought them to be. I was under the impression that so long as you verifiably got the express approval of an original author to use content on this site, then it would be safe to do so. As I've learned over the past while, I was wrong. I've been editing here for over five years now and have been a registered user since 2008, yet I was not clear on that until now. Just goes to show that even people who've been around a long time sometimes struggle with the basics. But, like I said, it's a learning experience.

2) — RfA is much friendlier and more proactive than it was when I had first become an active participant in it roughly three or four years ago now. I'm not going to pull any punches when I say this: back then, it was a toxic environment. The RfA of 2009 was a place where people could easily have their spirits shattered by the heavy scrutiny and the sheer harshness of the comments left there. Today, it is a very constructive and helpful environment, where the opposing viewpoints generally provide positive feedback and a few pointers towards improving the prospects of success for a future RfA. That is exactly what this community process ought to be, and I am pleased to see it turning out this way.

3) — RfA really is a discussion, and not a vote. It may have the same basic format of a straw poll, but what it really entails is a significant degree of interpersonal interaction and commentary aimed at determining whether or not someone is suited for the bit, and if not, then what they can do in order to better prepare themselves for the role. It's true that I came in here with that basic notion ingrained in my head, having been here numerous times before, but the point never really hit home until I actually took the plunge and faced this process myself.

This experience has really helped to renew my confidence in the Wikipedia community. It really is a much nicer place than it may seem, when all is said and done. We're all human, and nobody is perfect. But through our dealings with one another, we can grow as individuals, and in the process create a better Wikipedia for those here to contribute to this vast database of knowledge, or otherwise borrow from it.

So with that, I'm withdrawing this RfA, with my sincerest regards to everyone who participated, regardless of whether you supported, opposed, or went neutral. It's been a real pleasure, and I hope to see you all again sometime.

Kurtis (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Master&Expert (talk · contribs) – Before we even begin, I just want to get one thing out of the way — I'm probably not your ideal candidate. I first edited in June 2008 and have made over 3,000 edits in total, nearly 40% of which are to Wikipedia space (specifically ITN/C and the very process I'm going through today). In October 2008, administrator Thingg granted me rollback rights [1], but generally speaking I find reverting vandalism to be boring. The only article writing credential to my name is a DYK from all the way back in December 2008, and I find it hard for me to really concentrate on bringing an article up to GA or FA status. I'm sort of a cross between a WikiGnome and a WikiElf — I make incremental changes to articles, all the while offering my opinion wherever I can behind-the-scenes. I've made occasional comments at AIV, UAA, ANI, AN, ARB/N and elsewhere. I also nominated some articles for speedy deletion, and have been known to occasionally partake in AfD discussions. Not your typical RfA shoo-in, I know, but these are the facts. Make what you will of them.

So why am I here today? Put simply, the role of an administrator is perfectly catered to my personality. I love helping people wherever I can. I find it empowering when others look to me for assistance, and I'll go out of my to lend a helping hand where I know I can make a positive difference. There are many occasions where I feel inclined towards clearing out admin backlogs, or reaching out to somebody caught in the middle of an edit war asking for a fair hearing and an unblock. I would definitely be a pretty lenient administrator overall, but I do think I'm smart enough to know not to bury my head in the sand.

For a long time, even the notion of myself submitting an RfA was terrifying, despite having been offered nominations in the past by certain users (you know who you are), because I was worried that the community as a whole would not feel fully confident in my judgement. Make no mistake, I know I'm not perfect. There are many times when I am dead wrong in my sentiments, and I won't shy away from admitting it. What you'd get from me were I given +sysop is a calm, patient, and extremely cautious administrator. I would not jump into things without being familiar with them first, nor will I be afraid to ask for help when I need it. I'm very easy to get along with and I'm always open to communicating with others who disagree with me. So after a while of reflecting, I figured, "what the hell?" If I don't succeed, it's not the end of the world.

So although I'm not your typical RfA candidate, I ask that you trust that I will not do anything disastrous with the admin toolset. Wikipedia needs more admins, and I'm here to do what I can. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:37, 31 July 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: Handling unblock requests, checking CSD nominations, closing deletion debates, volunteering at the administrators' noticeboard, the incidents noticeboard, UAA, AIV, and posting ITN headlines after consensus has been reached on the candidates listing.

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

A: It's been a long time since my DYK (as mentioned above), so I guess I'll have to go with my involvement in anything related to the ongoing Syrian crisis. I've been quite active in editing the article, but even more so on its talk page where I do my part to help out anyone who's looking for information or is proposing a change in formatting (title, layout, etc). I know it sounds minor (and it is), but I am still pleased with my involvement there.

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: There are times when I find myself somewhat frustrated when other users disagree with something I've said, or I feel I've been spoken to in a needlessly aggressive tone. When that happens, I respond as calmly as possible and maintain focus on the content of their argument, rather than the manner in which they've expressed it. That way I can hopefully diffuse a situation and come to a positive resolution. I'm also pretty keen on whether or not it is wise to pursue a matter further; some things are just better left alone.

There is something else I'd like to bring up. Not so long ago, I removed vandalism to another page with this edit summary. I was attempting to be sarcastic so as to provide humour, not to demean somebody. Is it not typical of me to be that way; I'm much more cautious about the feelings of others than what I'd shown in that edit. I promise not to be that way as a sysop.

Additional question by Dennis Brown

4. Philosophically speaking, what are the most important things that an admin does?

A An administrator is here to help in any way they can. They are ordinary volunteers that have been entrusted with an additional toolset by the Wikipedia community for the purpose of providing maintenance for the safekeeping of our articles and other contributors. That's the most basic explanation I can give.

Additional question from Graeme Bartlett

5. What are the requirements here for uploading images? I am asking this because of File:2011arabprotests.png which may or may not be free.

A: For an image to be accepted on Wikipedia, it needs to have a very clearly labelled copyright status, and must fall under one of these three categories: either a) it is public domain, in that the original copyright owner has died (or otherwise it may have been free from the beginning); b) the original owner of said image (generally the uploader) has granted express permission for it to be recreated elsewhere; c) it is fair use, which means there are some fairly strict limitations to its usage. As I recall, I was not the original uploader of that image, but I did regularly update it at the time. I must have forgotten to re-add the licensing information in the process. Sorry about that. =/

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

6. An IP editor has reverted you for the 7th time in 24 hours on Shane Victorino and you are the first admin to notice it. What do you do?

A: I'd probably bring it up at ANI and look for more feedback from the broader community. I would definitely not feel comfortable blocking them, given that I'm the one they've been (it would seem) harassing. If a block is required, I'd prefer another administrator to apply it.

Additional question from LuK3

7. When should an article be indefinitely semi-protected?

A: Generally speaking, articles should not be indefinitely semi-protected unless they would otherwise attract an exceptionally large volume of vandalism (examples include "fuck", "Israel", "Scientology").

Additional questions from Hahc21

8. A user is trying to upload an image from Flickr using the license cc-by-nc-2.0, which does not allow commercial use. How would you proceed?

A: I think that, so long as they provide a link to the source to assert that the content has indeed been licensed as such by the original author, then it should be fine. Then again, I'm not really the top expert on image licensing. I'd probably redirect them to somebody with more experience in the area.

8.1. Let's pretend you are the first admin to spot some sort of edit warring (or any difficult situation) at a BLP article, say Ricardo Arjona, over some content that could be controversial. If any of the users haven't clearly violated 3RR and both have legitimate purposes for their behavior, how would you proceed?

A: I'd leave a note on both of their talk pages to cease edit warring and to discuss the issues on the article's talk page (emphasizing the importance of doing so on biographical articles), and then I'd also bring the content there for a discussion on what can be done with it so as not to defame or otherwise cause harm to the subject of the biography. If it doesn't get a lot of traffic, I might even request outside opinions or bring it up at this noticeboard. If they continue to edit war, I would block them both for 36 hours.

Additional question from Jorgath

9. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A: I interpret it the same way as I interpret this policy or this policy, with the caveat that the ones you've listed are applicable to administrators. With regards to wheel warring, it is always best to talk things out before undoing an administrative reversal of another action; it is the same basic principle behind our policies against edit warring. Administrators absolutely should be held accountable for their actions — a sysop who is overly trigger happy, brusque, uncommunicative, or even a "bad faith" contributor has the potential to drive off many potentially valuable editors to this site.

Additional questions from TBrandley

10. Due to content on a page, a user starts to personally attack you, he violates the WP:COPYVIO guidelines on a page by copying copyrighted content onto a page. How would you proceed? TBrandley 05:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A: By removing said content and asking another administrator to deal with the situation (or perhaps bring it up at AN/I).

10.1. An editor makes an inappropriate non-admin course? What do you do? TBrandley 06:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A: I'm assuming you mean "non-admin closure" of an AfD? It would depend on the circumstances — if they closed the AfD prematurely on a clearly controversial subject matter (ie. before any dissenting opinions could be cast), I'd probably re-open the discussion and leave the editor a note on his talk page politely explaining the rationale behind my decision for doing so. On the other hand, if they closed something as "no consensus" (or even "keep") in cases where the answer was not clear-cut, I'd probably just revise their closure and leave a note on their talk page reminding them to only close deletion debates in situations where the consensus is clearly to keep the article.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• The AfD vote counting tools don't work correctly by default for this candidate, because his signature doesn't exactly match his username (uses & instead of &). This can be overcome by specifying an alternate username, or by using these links:

• AfD Votes
• AfD Closures

-Scottywong| gab _ 23:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Stats on talk page. —Hahc21 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm anticipating an eventual closure per WP:SNOW, with minimal support and plenty of people opposing (and I'm guessing not just for lack of activity/experience and that one instance of rudeness, either — I think there's probably other concerns that have yet to be materialized below). I'll keep it open for several hours more, then I'm going to withdraw. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take the oppose votes personally. They are a reflection of your contribution history, not on you as a person. Electric Catfish 23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, of course! I'm very familiar with RfA; I had been under the impression that this would fail were I to submit it today. What I'm worried about is somebody coming here with opposes based on their general impression of me from elsewhere. I suspect I've given somebody or other a negative impression, and I do think I'll see something to that effect before this RfA is closed. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't withdraw. I read somewhere opposes come first, with supports following thereafter. You offered bringing up diffs that show you helping new users, and I don't think that would make it any worse. The reason I opposed was because you looked at the link again, 4 months later, and while recognizing after inquired about it, you didn't recognize it then or the second time. Mysterytrey talk 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If all else fails, at least you receive some helpful advice. MJ94 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mysterytrey; I'm confused as to what you mean by failing to assume good faith at this point. I had acknowledged that it was likely not vandalism or made with ill-intent. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I attempted clarification at all my comments. Mysterytrey talk 17:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• On second thought, I'll leave this to run and see how things go. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Very wise - take the feedback, both positive and negative, and learn from it. GiantSnowman 15:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral support I think the experience issues are valid, but I've seen this user around a lot and I've found their input fair, balanced and useful. May not be ready yet, but has great potential. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Moral Support Moved from Oppose. Electric Catfish 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - though unlikely to have an impact at this stage. Edit count is on the low side, but from what I've seen he wouldn't do a bad job as a sysop. Learn a lot on the job maybe, but he wouldn't destroy the wiki. Better luck next time mate. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
4. BEING AN ADMIN IS JUST NOT A BIG DEAL - M&E - sorry, you have very little chance. You are going to be opposed for all sorts of petty reasons. But be aware that there is absolutely no proper reason you couldn't be an admin. You won't ban Jimbo Wales, you won't have the main page raining penises. If RFA was working then the oppose !votes would disappear. So good luck, and frankly I wouldn't even worry that much about doing whatever the opposers (who will be of great number if this is run to its end) say - the adminship rules will fairly shortly be sorted and consequently their pedantic opposes will be of no relevance. Just carry on the good work, and shortly you shall have the tools Egg Centric 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Support - While M&E's edit count is low, I've seen him around for a long time. The thought, concern for others, and analysis I typical see from him would make him a great admin. The edit from April is the only such edit I've ever seen from him like that, so I'm chalking it up to an off day, we all have them.PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Support I don't see the harm in a WikiGnome/WikiElf becoming an admin. It's ok to have more admins with experience in those areas. AutomaticStrikeout 01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Support despite MisteryTrey's troubling dif, but that edit summary was by far the most snarky I saw in your contributions and I'm prepared to overlook it as an isolated incident. The author of User:Master&Expert/ArbCom Elections 2011 clearly has the smarts and the understanding of the community to make an admin. Deleted contribs look OK too. Article involvement is a little on the low side for current community standards at RFA (I wouldn't nominate some with your edit count, even if I thought they were like you ready for adminship). Suggest you try your hand at reviewing at FAC. Somebody on this page suggested that you consider a username change, I nearly did a few weeks ago, but held back partly because some people put too much weight on suggestions from admins. So as a fellow editor I'll just point out that to me as a Brit "Master&Expert" made me assume power hungry teenager. Judging from your edits if that username ever fitted you you've long outgrown it. ϢereSpielChequers 06:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Actually, the origin of my username is explained in this image. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Just as a side note, I don't collect the cards myself, at least not anymore. I used to take a big interest in anime, and that included the Yu-Gi-Oh! television series. I got enthusiastic enough to purchase a booster pack containing 9 cards from the related trading card game (as I recall, it was the Metal Raiders series). Then I purchased several more of those, as well as a number of starter decks — one of which was Starter Deck: Kaiba. Among the 50 cards included in the deck (as is standard) was one named "Master & Expert" (see this page for more info). Hard to believe that all happened roughly ten years ago now... but I guess the name just sort of stuck out in my head back when I was figuring out what to call my Wikipedia account when I was registering in 2008. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

8. Support One of the first steps to truly making adminship no big deal is allowing more people to be admins. I find this user's attitude and prose sincere and believe he would make a good admin. Unlike some of my fellow editors I'm less concerned with the experience than I am with the willingness to help and learn, and I've heard many times before that admins learn most of their role after being promoted. While the low edit count does concern me, it appears to me that he will be proficient in the areas in which he wants to help. Worst comes to worst and he does something egregiously wrong it will go to ARBCOM and he will be desysoped. On the other hand he may just end up being a great admin who demonstrates that RFA standards are much too high. Sædon^talk 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Support He's been nothing but helpful when I've encountered him, and I think editcountitis is too much of a barrier to RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Too candid for his own good; a common enough mistake in first RfAs. M&E should hopefully learn a lot from this, and with any luck it won't turn into a nasty pile-on (see oppose #6 for an example of the usual disease). From what I've seen of M&E, he's the sort of editor that wouldn't abuse the bit, and that's what really matters. To pass, he's likely going to need to dig into articlespace for a while and show his detractors that he can apply what he knows of dispute resolution directly to working with others on building articles. The answer to 8.0 is wrong, FWIW (if a file isn't free by our standards, we can only use it under fair use terms, and so we'd need an FUR for a noncommercial image) And yeah, even if an edit is not useful, it's best not to be too scornful in the summary when reverting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Weak support Generally a good editor who would probably make a good administrator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Weak/Morale Support The candidate's ability to reflect on themselves honestly shows character. I am concerned about the lack of knowledge about files, particularly that "NC" is not compatible with our license, but that's something that will be gained with experience. The edit count is low, and the article edits even lower, and the (paraphrased) "vandalism fighting is boring" is bothersome. However, my support comes down to trust. I trust this candidate not to fuck up either intentionally or by mistake. We have enough edits to know that much.--v/r - TP 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Support The copyright knowledge do concerns me, but or me the important thing is "trust", and this use has that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Moral Support and I hope to support a future RfA. Honesty and kindness are often hard to find. — Ched :  ?  17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Support while you have already indicated that you will be withdrawing your candidacy in several hours I think it important to note that I think you would be a trusted admin, please take the comments below to heart and come back in a few months I will happily support then again. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    I've reconsidered. I think I'm going to let it run the full circuit and see what else may come up. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

16. Strong Support We need your attitude in the admin ranks. Let's have you learn the rest on the job.→StaniStani  20:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Slightly moral at this stage but support. As per Ched - honest and forthright in his opinion. Somewhat self-effacing attitude is a big plus in my book. Edit count is not a reasonable opposition reason unless it is clearly also demonstrates inexperience - which in this candidates case I do not think it does. WP:NETPOS. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Support, though I recommend M&E read up on the image policies. Hahc21's question 8 has a clear-cut answer (and a more detailed, not-so-obvious answer) that shows up both there and in the speedy-deletion criteria. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Moral again, dont take this though or too much heart, its a bear pit here, just the way it is:) The traits highlighted by Perdo would certainly be admirable and desirable in a future admin. Keep on going. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Excellent attitude and quite accurate views. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that this is heading so far into the pit. Juliancolton (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Juliancolton is quite right. The Moose is loose! 12:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Moral support. Experience can be gained over time, and hopefully your next RfA will be successful. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Support I agree with The Moose. MJ94 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Support I don't see m&e going off half-cocked with the tools. Rather, I think he/she will be a reflective admin. Definitely a desirable attribute. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Support I find the opposes, despite their number, to be absolutely unconvincing. I see an excellent editor who will make an excellent administrator. He lacks experience in some areas, but nothing that can't be easily fixed. Trusilver 03:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Moral support: Not ready yet, but has great potential. The experience issues are valid. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Moral support, trying to be a bit more positive than a "neutral". I'm convinced that the candidate is a genuinely nice person who cares about Wikipedia and wants to help. I'm also pretty confident from what they've said that they won't be unduly discouraged by this RfA, but just in case, I want to say: please don't be discouraged. My advice is to spend some time seriously studying what administrators do, and next time don't do a self-nomination. If you ask an experienced administrator to nominate you, they can make sure that you don't try the next RfA until you are ready, and that you will have thought everything through in advance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Clone him: while I find his username a bit off-putting (no offense), he's clearly the sort of person that would help fill and improve the admin ranks, at least from what I've seen. Those opposing because of their personal "criteria" should be ignored, IMO. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Moral Support. Or for that matter clone him per SB Johnny above. Agree with Mailer diablo - I hope your next RfA will be successful. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - per Wehwalt/Julian - M&E has always been helpful whenever encountered and will be only be a net positive with the tools. – Connormah (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Support. A great and helpful that will be good with the tools. TBrandley 18:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Support - I think that even being brave enough for an RfA with "only" 3,000 edits says a lot. Edit count doesn't really matter a whole lot, sometimes people want to have a life outside Wikipedia. Per Julian. The opposes all seem like weak reasons. The answer to Q8 looks correct to me, and believe it or not, some people like to have a life outside of Wikipedia. 3,000 changes is, in reality, a lot. Anybody who makes 3,000 changes to a "normal" encyclopedia would surely be able to do things that the administrators here can do. The fact that nowadays you have to have 10k+ edits to even be considered for adminship bothers me. Quantity < Quality. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
33. Strong support - anyone who has the guts to put themselve forward certainly has confidence. However, I am particularly impressed by your answer to question 9. I have rarely seen many candidates on RfA answer that question so candidly rather than "beating around the bush." From my experience, some try to answer that question in a coy manner so not to offend the established admin corp. Your answer was rather frank and to the point, so I am not surprised at all to see some of the established members of the admin corp (i.e. JamesBWatson) oppose your nomination. Also, your comment on that edit summary was rather humourus, not offensive at all, nor is it biting. I have seen worst. `That's exactly my understanding of those policies (above). I hope you let this RfA takes it natural course, and not to close it too soon. Whatever happens, happens. Admin work can be learned. We need more people like you for the role, who do not necessarily fit the admin clique corp. I wish you all the best whatever happens. Good luck!Tamsier (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Why not? A low edit count is not an issue in my book. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
35. Some of the opposes concern me, specifically Atama's, but I feel he's a net positive in the end of the day. With more experience this should pass within six moths easily Secret ^account 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Support I feel confident he won't break the wiki and will use the mop sensibly. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Has common sense and humility, and is unikely to share the extraordinary attitude that administrators are the "face of Wikipedia". Kablammo (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
38. Support Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Support — What harm can it do? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: For someone who insists that they are planning to help wherever they can, I must admit Mysterytrey's link is disquieting. It's very bitey. Also not impressed with content contributions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   I don't mean to badger, but I just wanted to address this quickly, for the sake of disclosure and clarification. I mentioned that incident in my answer to Q3 above; it is very unusual for me to speak that way to anybody. I can cite many more examples of myself being proactive with newer contributors. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Concerns with experience and activity levels. Only 671 edits to article space, about 3300 edits total is squarely on the low side. In the first 6 months of this year, he had a total of 139 edits, which is less than one edit per day. This is a far lower than average activity level for a typical admin candidate. Additionally, an interest in closing AfD's has been expressed, but the candidate has participated in less than 100 AfD's, which in my opinion is not enough to grasp the intricacies of AfD required to make an effective closer (user also has no non-admin closures). In closing, the candidate has been around for a long time and clearly is familiar with Wikipedia, and I think I would be more apt to support if the candidate showed more interest in Wikipedia by contributing regularly to areas of interest. -Scottywong| express _ 23:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Now, usually I'm the last person to oppose based on something relating to edit counts etc., but there's just not enough recent edits to show that the candidate have a sufficiently wide and depth level of experience. With edits often in the tens per month, are you even going to be using the extra tools? KTC (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   Make that oppose based on A5 as well. I wouldn't expect a detailed reword of WP:IUP and associated pages, but part (a) & (b) are quite simply incorrect. KTC (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose Like Crisco says, Mysterytrey's link worries me. Additionally, the candidate does not meet my criteria, most notably #2. I don't think the candidate has enough experience or need for the tools at this time. Scotty pretty much summed up my thoughts. MJ94 (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   Just so you know, I am not opposing based on your lack of content creation. I am, however, opposing due to your lack of mainspace edits and overall activity levels. MJ94 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose First of all, I see zero articles created. I'm not looking for a FA or GA here, not even a DYK, I just want to see a few well-sourced articles, and a few BLPs, too. Also, your mainspace edits (20.66%) are too little. Also, you intend to work at AIV and UAA. I barely see any edits to these venues. I'd have no problem supporting in the future, I'm just a bit concerned. Electric Catfish 23:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   Just as a note, I actually technically did create Human rights in Qatar [2]; the article in its original state was considered a copyright violation, and promptly blanked. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for the note. However, I'm still opposing because of my concerns. Best, Electric Catfish 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC).

   Moving to Support. Electric Catfish 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

4. Not yet I have never interacted with this user but I believe I've seen them editing a few times. Unfortunately, I believe this user has a small amount of edits specifically with article space. I may reconsider if you wait 6 months. Additionally, echoing what Scotty is mentioning above, you only have 671 edits to the article space. While I think several of your answers are pleasable, I strongly recommend editing more articles. I'm surprised that you've been a user for 4 years and only have 3,349 edits. The monthly edit counts also show you nearly always have fewer than 50 edits. The most recent significant activity you had was this past December, nearly a year ago. I wouldn't oppose simply because of edit count, but I feel you need more work. You shouldn't be discouraged with this oppose comments, rather take several of these comments as advice. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose An editor review in all but name. FWIW I'd recommend seriously considering a change of username; as I can't express this with subtlety, I'll come right out with it: Master&Expert sounds like the name of a wannabe mod from some AOL BDSM forum. Circa 1997. Even the vanilla interpretation seems somewhat boastful and rather asking for trouble if you're unable to always live up to it. Anyway, I hope you've found this experience useful. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   PS. Re the nomination statement - I'm intrigued to know what it is M&E says he will go out of to lend a hand. The front door? His prize Cucurbitaceae? But seriously. Just from this RfA alone, its clear that M&E writes well. Editors that can do so are in short supply and I'd like to see him put those skills to use where they're needed. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose Not even close to the amount of experience I want to see in a candidate- especially in the areas where you intend to work. Although I'm not really one to oppose a candidate just because of content creation-related reasons, we are still a Wikipedia, and I'd like to see some time spent on contributing to it so that I can see that you understand what Wikipedia is about. Not supporting until and unless there is enough evidence, through contributions and actions, to show thorough knowledge of policy.--Slon02 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Master&Expert, I think you do have the makings of a good admin. I really do! I just don't think you're there yet. I think it would do you a lot of good to do some really extensive content work, because so much of what admins do is based on knowing how content writing works. I don't really care how much you edit per month, but more content work would really help you understand some of the most important admin jobs. You could "check some boxes" and go participate at some number of AfDs, report X vandals, etc., but I don't recommend it. Find some articles you're really interested in and push them to be the best they can be. If you want to help out by leaving thoughtful comments at AfD, do it! If you want to help out by whacking vandals, do it! If you really like helping newbies, check out the Teahouse, the help desk, and places like that. That's how you'll get the experience commenters want to see, and you'll be a lot happier than by checking boxes. So, tl;dr, work really hard on a couple articles you're passionate about and find an administrative area that is fun and that you enjoy. If you want help with any of this, please ask me! I would love to help you. Happy editing and best wishes, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose - NOT NOW. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   WP:NOTNOTNOW. Jenks24 (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Just as a note, I spoke with Mlpearc on his talk page, and he gave me this kindly worded response. As I'd suspected, he had never seen me prior to this RfA, so he did mistakenly get the impression that I had a less than informed understanding of what adminship entails. The issue is now resolved. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 10:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose per all above--Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose, more experience needed. --Makecat_Talk 05:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose - 671 mainspace edits is not going to cut it for me and per all above Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 08:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose No one big "WHAT! This candidate doesn't know what he/she is doing!" issue anywhere, but a number of little details, each of which contributes to the feeling that the candidate is not clear in various areas. For example, doubts are created in my mind by vague "I like to help where I can" type remarks, which don't give me the impression that the candidate has any clear idea what being an admin involves. Comments such as "reaching out to somebody ... asking for ... an unblock" and "I would definitely be a pretty lenient administrator" lead to doubts as to whether the candidate intends to attempt to administer policy impartially, or to use the admin position to increase the influence of his/her own "lenient" views. There are various other reasons for not being happy too. For example, I find it surprising that in answering question 6 the candidate did not notice that the question, at least on the face of it, seems to suggest that maybe he/she has been involved in an edit war. (It is possible that there are 7 reverts of 7 different edits that he/she made, but the more obvious reading cannot simply be ignored and not addressed.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    I actually interpreted the 7 reverts as being myself making 7 entirely different edits (not re-adding the same content after having been removed), only to be reverted constantly by the same user. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    And with regards to the hypothetical scenario where I'm engaged in an edit war, I think I'd probably still report the situation to AN/I, where people would be keen on noticing that I myself have violated 3RR. I might wind up blocked, after which I would re-evaluate my actions on that page and submit an unblock request with a guarantee that I will disengage from the dispute altogether and focus on editing other areas. I don't mean to sound haughty when I say this, but I'm very averse to edit warring — if someone reverts something I've done, I'd be much more inclined to politely bring it up on their talk page (which I have done several times before), as opposed to mindlessly undoing their revision and turning the article into a battleground. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    OK, I accept that you could have read it as reverting 7 different edits of yours. It seemed to me that was a less obvious reading than that you had been in an edit war, but I suppose what looks like the most natural reading to me may not be the most natural to you. Also, in a way it's of limited relevance anyway. From what I have seen of your editing, I think you are unlikely to get into such an edit war, and if you are never going to get into an edit war then "what would you do if you were in an edit war?" could be regarded as a meaningless question. In another way, though, it is a meaningful question, since how you answer such a question could give an indication of your approach to unexpected problems that could arise. On the whole, though, I think that any relevance of this is too marginal to be a significant factor, so I am striking out my original comment on it. However, I still think, as I said above, that there are various little concerns that cause me, unfortunately, to maintain my "oppose". However, I do think that you have a good many strong points, and my opposition is a "not yet" rather than a "nver". I look forward to seeing, when you have had a bit more experience, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert 2 being successful. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks, although I'm planning to change my username in the near future. Odds are it'll be located at this page when it is created. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comments from Master&Expert, both here and on my talk page, have shifted my oppose to a weak oppose. He has given satisfactory answers to some of my concerns, but I still think he would be better off getting a bit more experience first. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    For future reference, James is referring to this exchange I had with him on his talk page. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose - I stopped reading at "I find reverting vandalism to be boring" not really, but you know what I mean. GiantSnowman 09:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry if I'm missing something, but why is that comment bad? I'm sure we have plenty of good admins who think the same thing. Jenks24 (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

14. Oppose. Enthusiastic and with good intentions, but unfortunately, the candidate does not meet my my RfA criteria - even on aggregate which I'm usually happy to take into consideration. The number of mainspace edits is far too low, and although my vote is not guided by the votes of others, I find that JamesBWatson and Scottywong have said anything else I would have mentioned. I would suggest the candidate take a good read of WP:Advice for RfA candidates, and tries again in not less than 6 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Reluctant weak oppose for now. M&E, I've seen you around quite a few times, and I really do think you'd make a fine administrator. But as has been expressed by others in this section, now's not exactly the right time. Take some time to address the concerns of those who have opposed your RfA, and hopefully we'll see you here again in the future. Best regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Yes, adminship is no big deal, but that does not mean we reject any need for experience. I am more than happy to support less experienced admins, but this really isn't enough. Mysterytrey's link is also a problem. I sense a good attitude and a real desire to help; I'd suggest that the candidate find ways to help as a non-admin first (and, as an aside, it might be worth clerking at a few places to get a feel for it - if they find anti-vandalism boring, they won't get much more excitement from dreary admin tasks). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Per answer to Q8, wouldn't pass this, which is a guide to editing, not a guide to all that an administrator would need to know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Might be willing to make an exception based on the low edit count, but the misunderstanding of Free image rules is damning enough to keep me in the "Oppose" category. Achowat (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose - I don't expect a copyright expert, but the most fluent licenses (like the Creative Commons licenses) should be well known. We already have enough problems related to the license stuff. mabdul 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose - I'm very familiar with M&E and think he's a good editor. I think he might be a good admin some day as well. I think he has good sense and some of the core qualities an admin needs. I believe he needs to take care not to interact with people as he did in the diff MisterTrey provided, though I think that was just a mistake rather than an indication of overall bad judgement. Some more familiarity with policies and guidelines and more experience both in article space and in Wikipedia project space would prepare him better for the admin role. -- Atama頭 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose. I'll say first that Mysterytrey's link actually doesn't concern me. But I don't think the level of activity from Master in the last four years is enough to really gauge whether his being an administrator is appropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
22. I'm a stickler on the activity front, and failing to even hit 100 edits in a month most of the time is concerning. Couldn't care less about the above diff. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose - don't care about the diff at all, just opposing based on candidate's nom statement which betrays a lack of seriousness concerning what an encyclopedia's about.VolunteerMarek 05:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    I'm sorry for pestering you, but I'm curious as to what you mean by "lack of seriousness". Does my approach to this process come across as frivolous? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    I think that whole clause ("seriousness concerning what an encyclopedia's about") pertains to your candor regarding your content contributions. Bear in mind that many opposers will do nothing but skim the nomination statement; this is why it is a brave candidate who dares be honest about himself in a nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

24. Oppose - While Mysterytrey's link does not worry me much, I don't think the level of activity from Master is enough for his intentions to become an administrator. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose - Master&Expert appears to be a well-intended editor, however, his level of activity on Wikipedia is somewhat limited and concerning. 40 out of the 50 or so months on the project, Master&Expert has had an edit count less than 100 - and although an edit count isn’t everything - experience is. I hope Master does not take to heart any of the opposes, rather takes their comments as constructive criticism. I also hope that this editor considers running again in 6-12 month’s time - by then, I'm sure they would have taken on board the advice offered by their peers, and I will obviously move to a support on those grounds. Good luck! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose answer to question eight is incorrect. Per Demiurge.Thine Antique Pen 11:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    Sigh. (pre-this.)Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

27. Oppose – I'm regretfully going to oppose this nomination. Master&Expert is a good Wikipedian with honest intentions. However, this is not enough for being a successful admin in future. I don't think anyone can be perfect, but there are a few things I'd like to see in a prospective admin, and one of them is substantial content work, which unfortunately is not enough in Master&Expert's account. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Not yet. Due to the low number of edit experience at this point in time. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. Come back in 6 months to a year after having brushed up on the admin related areas which you intend to participate. I also strongly suggest you do some content work in the mean time, ideally you will bring an article or two to GA at least, and it would be even better if you have brought an article to FA promotion. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    I've already linked this slightly further up, but please read WP:NOTNOTNOW. Just because the general feel of one's comment is "not now", does not mean it's a good idea to give an all caps bluelink to a page that is designed for newbies who have no real idea what adminship is. Jenks24 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

30. Regretful oppose There's no reason for me to vote for support. Very few edits are on articles. Not enough experience editing Wikipedia. I think this RfA is not for you. Hopefully you can succeed next time. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 12:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose I would be delighted to support this user in six months if he responded to the criticisms in this RfA. I think the criticisms are light and worth addressing, and it is better to get admin rights with more community support and less controversy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Regretful Oppose Honest motives, wants to help, but distinct lack of article space edits and generally, 3000 edits is not really enough. Also, as highlighted by others, problems with Q8.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose Per [3]. I did not like the example:Let's say you are engaged in an edit war with an IP.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose While I have no doubt that you (M&E) would act, given the tools, with all the right intentions, an sound understanding of the basics of copyright policy is critical. I will say that I like you, I like your attitude and your nomination statement, and I hope to see you here in the future. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 02:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose Very little experience. Crystalfile (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Oppose Sorry to have to pile on but we as a community have been challenged to participate here whether we like it or not. I'm sure if you persist, in the future (with more experience), you will win the mop. Right now I don't sense the dedication of daily participation to the encyclopedia. The mop correlates to cleaning and cleaning is constantly necessary. every day. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow your sentiments. Am I mistaken in interpreting your rationale for opposing my current RfA as being based on the fact that I don't edit Wikipedia every single day? Not that I disagree with your reasoning, I think it's a valid concern — my question is more to do with my confusion regarding your comments. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    Ive struck daily. My concern is that if you are rarely here, the work load (for admins) stays the same. If you don't have time to do the job, why apply for it? Whats the upside of your candidacy? We don't need another sysop at the Administrators Banquet Table. We need someone that will roll his sleeves up and do some work.```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

37. Oppose Seems to focus on sensitive articles about the Middle East such as History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule but seems too inexperienced to be given admin powers over them. Warden (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    Just as a disclaimer, that is merely my topic of interest (or one of my various interests, at least). I have very little intention of applying administrative tools to work over there. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

38. Oppose - Activity is debatable, but I just see activity too low and experience in desired areas to be insufficient for adminship. I can see no strong argument that the candidate has a valid and justified need for the tools other than a status symbol. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose I would like to applaud you for taking your first step out and giving it a swing, but I don't feel your ready for the tools yet. Your answers to the questions are not evasive, but lacking the fundamental understanding of why such policies exist. Not knowing the basic ins and outs can get you into a big mess with the tools, even for someone who knows policy, I sometimes pour back over it before taking an action. Further more, your 15th deleted edit dates back to January 30, 2011 and a few more deleted edits later, it's August 2009. That's not showing me that you have been keeping up with CSD, and area you want to be involved in. I also look at your last 500 wikipedia space contribs and find no edits to UAA and AIV. Also question 7, vandalism is not the only reason to protect, there are quite a few more important ones. I'm sorry, but I can't support at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

    By "more important ones", I'm assuming you're referring to biographical articles. I've actually checked a few of them, but have never seen any that are under indefinite semi-protection. I figure it would probably be best, though, to appy an indef semi-protection on certain biographies if the subject of them is controversial enough to attract defamatory (or libelous) remarks. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

40. Oppose I am sure that you have the best interests of the project at heart, but your nomination leaves the impression that you do not plan on fulfilling the normal admin role. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
41. Oppose. As per Anthony.bradbury above, the nomination statement leaves me with the impression that you know that adminship is not something that would be a good fit for you, but you want it anyway because it will give you more of that sense of "empowerment". It's hard for me to tell if you're sincerely not very confident in your skills at being a potential admin, or if you're deliberately trying to sound humble in an attempt to cover up the fact that you're quite egotistical! -- œ^™ 23:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

    Actually, this comment, which I left on my talk page in reply to ItsZippy, would probably better explain why I'm not interested in vandalism reversion, but would otherwise love to pitch in as an administrator. With regards to the perceived arrogance, I've been told by many people throughout my life that I come across as having low self confidence; it's gotten better in recent times, but I'm still not that sure of myself overall. I was always under the impression that I would fail RfA dismally — not because of inexperience, but because people just wouldn't sense in me any real degree of clue. I truly believed that I came across to somebody or other as immature, incompetent, and lacking in overall judgement. I doubt you're interested in seeing these, but if you want past examples of this, check out these three edits and my most recent editor review. If it's the honesty I spoke with in my self-nom statement, I just figured people would rather have Wikipedians who are upfront and open about their flaws and their mistakes than someone who acts like they're above making them. I don't see adminship as a "big deal" — it's an extra set of tools for maintenance work. Just having a "mop and bucket" is not enough to persuade me into agreeing with somebody's argument. I doubt I'm the only one who thinks that way. I also notice the high standard that the community sets for its administrators. I never thought of myself as living up to it, and I didn't want to put too much pressure on myself. Whenever I thought about submitting an RfA before, I would always say to myself, "You wouldn't pass RfA, M&E. You're one of those people that just isn't suited for the role." Then I mulled it over, and I figured, "you know, I probably wouldn't be that bad as an administrator; it's not like I'm going to block Jimbo or delete the main page. I have pretty solid communication skills, and I practically thrive on mundane tasks. Isn't that what Wikipedia needs in administrators?" I'm actually surprised that I even have a support camp; I was thoroughly expecting before this RfA even began that it'd be closed early per WP:SNOW. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Follow-up discussion located here, for all who are interested. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

42. Oppose Per Snottywong. Suggest reapplying at a later date. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
43. Oppose, the level of activity far below what I would expect from someone asking for adminship. Also, was there a good reason to keep this RfA open for this long? It was clear days ago what the outcome was going to be. If you wanted to get some feedback, then everything that could be said was already said, again, days ago, and several times over since. Dragging this RfA out to the last indicates a disconcerting degree of stubbornness and lack of clue that do not bode well for the future RfA attempts. Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    I said earlier that I'd let it run the full circuit. I'm actually going to withdraw shortly prior to it being closed by a 'crat, so as to leave my final thoughts on the whole ordeal. And there have been newer pieces of advice, such as the one from Mr. Stradivarious below. I also wanted to continue this process for the purposes of having more interaction with my fellow Wikipedians. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Like I said, a disconcerting degree of stubbornness and cluelessness - hopefully mostly the latter since that can be remedied with time. Regarding the "ordeal" - your RfA has been anything but. It has in fact been rather mild and gentle. About more interaction with fellow wikipedians - that's not what RfA is for. An RfA is not a self-help group and not a place for holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Both for the candidate and for the voters, an RfA is like going to the dentist; it is about getting through the process quickly and moving on. If you insist on staying in the dentist's chair for longer than necessary, you are sending pretty strange signals to others. If you really want to learn something valuable about the process, rather than waiting to see if someone says someone says something new at the 11th hour in your RfA, you would do much better by simply observing all the active RfAs for a month or two. You'll learn everything you need to know and more about what it takes to get through a successful RfA. By insisting that your RfA drag on to the last you are just needlessly pissing off quite a few people and wasting their time - not something that is going to help you later. Yeah, you certainly have the right to keep your RfA running for the full week, but that does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Oh, I completely agree when you say it has been "mild and gentle" — my interpretation of the term "ordeal" is quite broad, and not necessarily with negative connotations. I've been to RfA many times before, and I've seen it at its absolute worst. The community has generally been quite friendly and constructive in their assessment of me. I had a feeling I would fail based primarily on my smaller edit count and relative inexperience, but I thought the length of my tenure here and the community's familiarity with me might bring them to reconsider in my case. Nevertheless, adminship is not the "be all, end all" of my Wikipedia experience. I'm glad I went through this process and got a feel for it, and again, got the chance to interact with many people I had never spoken to before and gotten to know their views and dispositions.

    As to your sentiments regarding RfA being about "getting through the process quickly and moving on", I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I consider it a community discussion with a sort of "straw poll" format to determine whether someone is suited to handle the advanced toolset that +sysop provides. Communication is probably the single most important trait that an administrator ought to possess, and the ability to admit when one is wrong and to listen to the feedback from others who want to help a person grow as an individual is paramount to the development of character.

    Believe me when I say that I would have withdrawn a long time ago had I not been persuaded otherwise, and I think it'd come across as somewhat indecisive of me to do so after explicitly stating that I would leave it to run the full course (as it has essentially done at this point in time). I don't mean to sound dismissive when I say this, but the extent to which it irritates people is entirely up to them; they can worry about what other people are up to and let themselves get bent out of shape over it (not necessarily suggesting that this is the case with you), or they can do something more constructive with their time such as writing articles. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

    Another fine example of something that only a green and inexperienced user would do in an RfA. Don't engage in extensive arguments with the opposers, especially on subjective topics, and especially in posts 2000+ bytes long. This is the surest way to try people's patience, to really piss them off and turn regular opposes into strong opposes. Whether you respectfully disagree with someone or think that they are full of crap, you chuck up your objections and leave the opposers in peace. Nsk92 (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Strong neutral. Probably be a admin with a good-decision-making skill, but I can't be sure. The diff Master&Expert's mentioned in Q3, edit, on April 7th 2012, may not have been vandalism, yet he failed to agf that it may have been a clarification after seeing it twice ¹, for anyone who doesn't enable pictures to be shown, just short of "...was a male Malawian politician...", and it may have been bitey to the user. Not falling in line with "I love helping people wherever I can...". Mysterytrey talk 23:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   Odds are it wasn't actually intended as vandalism, now that I look at the edit. Probably just a misunderstanding on the part of whoever inserted it there. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   Looks to me like a pretty obvious editing test/silly vandalism edit. Another editor subsequently warned the IP for it as well. While the edit summary isn't ideal, I don't find it all that disturbing, unless he's doing that a lot. Shadowjams (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

   The problem is seeing it the second time, with a fresh opinion (4 months later), and not recognizing it isn't necessarily vandalism. Still probably won't be opposing or supporting, at least for the moment. Mysterytrey talk 23:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   I don't believe I have ever seen anyone identify their position as "strong neutral" before. Seem just a wee bit contradictory. "I definently, for sure, cannot make up my mind one way or the other, without a doubt." Sorry, But I just couldn't let this pass without comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I for sure am not going to oppose, and it is unlikely for me to support in this RfA. So if neutral means 'not taking sides' ^{courtesy of Bing}, then I definitely won't be choosing one or the other.

2. Neutral and may likely vote to support in the next one. I haven't been around you a lot, but I have seen some very good work from you, enough to think you likely have the skills, but maybe not yet the discipline. I might *think* what you said above once in a great while, but it would be a pretty serious error if I said that as an admin. Give it 6 months, listen to the other items you will hear this week, and prepare yourself mentally for the job. I can't oppose, as I think you would likely curtail the incivility and wouldn't delete the main page, but I can't support yet either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Although, do bear in mind, that was essentially a one-off incident. It is exceedingly rare for me to speak in such a sardonic tone. If I were blocking an editor or anything to that effect, I would only use summaries such as "vandalism-only account" or "disruptive editing". I'm also quite keen on avoiding outright reversion wherever I can, instead building off of whatever good content was contributed. That's just for the purposes of disclosure, so nobody will get the wrong idea about me ("Oh, God, it's M&E... uh, hi!" =D ) Master&Expert (Talk) 00:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   And I do think well of you, and think eventually you could make a good admin if you spend the time and effort. I didn't labor the points that others are making as they have already done so. I think that an RfA that doesn't end with someone getting the admin bit doesn't have to be a failure. Hopefully, others will be kind enough to offer useful, constructive criticisms and observations in their !votes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Absolutely, and I am very pleasantly surprised at how polite and approachable the people who commented have been. I honestly came in here thinking I'd get comments like, "Absolutely not — Frankly, this user does not have the prerequisite clue, yada yada yada", or something to that effect. I've seen RfA at its worst; it's not pretty. But this has been a much more pleasant experience than I expected it to be. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   RfA isn't broke, we were. All we can do is take individual responsibility, and choose to make it a positive experience, regardless of outcome. Many people greatly underestimate how much of a powerful and positive difference it makes wiki-wide when they choose to make a thoughtful, honest and polite comment. Not everyone will, but you should feel free to ignore those that don't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Dennis, it's like you've mind-melded with me — that's almost exactly what I said back in December of last year. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

   Then that is one more reason I hope you shore up some shortcomings and try again in 6 months. To me, attitude and perspective outweigh how many articles you've started or how many AFD's you have NAC'ed. Most of what you need to know, you learn after you get the bit, but you still need a well rounded foundation to build on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral I can't oppose Master&Expert (and i think that some user's above comment over changing username is completely ridiculous) but not ready to support either, so i'll end up here by now. I have seen him a while (even at my RFA) and he has a good track history although too few edits i could say. Nevertheless, he is a good user after all, so i'm leaning to support, probably on his next RFA. —Hahc21 04:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I wish I could support, but really, if you're not planning to contribute, there's not much point. Deb (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral I think the candidate has the right attitude to helping people. However he does need to read more of the policies guides and essays, and try out more things. A4 is not what I expected, and I think you should have read up on the topic. There was enough time to do this. The image file in question just had no information or copyright license at all, although it looked to be some kind of derivative map, probably something off commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral - right attitude, good potential, so just put a few more runs on the board and I'll be a comfortable support. Manning (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral; I'm not worried about the (relative) inactivity, but like it or not being an admin nowadays is a big deal and needs a good handle on policy: not because it makes one important, but because they are the "face" of Wikipedia. I think all you need is a bit more familiarity with the "bureaucracy" (by reading and practice), and you'll be ready. — Coren ^(talk) 14:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Neutral I am torn on whether to support or oppose. The experience is a little short off and 3000 edits over 4 years is extremely low.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Neutral of the "not quite yet" variety. I think you'll be a good admin eventually, and I'd be fine with it if you end up becoming one this week, but I'd be happier if you took six months to work on the issues others have brought up above and then became one. That said, I'm watching answers to questions, and I am open to changing my position either way. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Neutral The principal problem I'm seeing is the low edit count, but I think this user has the means to be a good administrator down the road. Michael (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Neutral - Adminship is not a big deal. The candidate has a great attitude and is applying with the best of intentions. The comment that some are concerned about comes off as a more snide, sarcastic remark - I found it to be rather funny, honestly. For those reasons I cannot oppose the candidate. On the other hand, the candidate's level of activity (one edit a day) is very low for an admin and admins should generally be active. For this reason, I cannot support. I have no qualms supporting if the candidate gets more experience and has a couple thousand moer edits go without issue. Best of luck. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Neutral I was going to oppose, based on the (relatively) low edit count, but there's no need for me to pile on up there. I don't really care about the diff noted above, as it seems to be an isolated blot on an otherwise decent enough editing history. M&E seems like an editor with a fair degree of clue, and I hope s/he takes the learnings away from this and returns here in the future. — sparklism ^hey! 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Neutral, with strong moral suppport. I'm going to stay neutral here, because I'm convinced I'm seeing a good admin candidate - but I'm not convinced the time is yet ripe. A bit more experience, some more content work, and a bit of brushing up on some of the concerns voiced above, and I expect I'll be supporting next time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Neutral, with strongest moral support. I have commented on other RfAs that we need more admins to alleviate the backlogs and distribute the tools to as wide a base of qualified individuals as possible, and M&E's attitude is clearly in the right place. I am a little concerned about number of edits and the answer to the CC license question. I think that the entire RfA process is abysmal in its approach to 'consensus' and that adminship should be granted much more easily on an provisional basis (as per Jimbo Wales' recent suggestion) rather then the virtual body-cavity search that the current process represents. I hope this RfA should serve as an example to other candidates to go find the "right" answer to some of the questions (such as the question on the CC BY-NC 2.0 license) before responding - it would have reduced a good deal of the anxiety expressed. I appreciate M&E's willingness to raise his hand for the mop and hope that if not now, soon. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    I actually did search around for the right answer, but I couldn't for the life of me find it. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    This may have helped you: [4]. Regards. —Hahc21 00:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Oh and FWIW, i asked the questions at tle most recent RFAs hehe, so you may have also looked at what the other admin-hopefuls (now admins) answered to give you a little insight on what the answer were like. Although it's not totally bad, you missed the point that cc-by-nc 2.0 is not free enough to be uploaded in Commons, unless the NFCC applies, and mostly id doesn't. —Hahc21 00:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Which is why if you're gonna be Flicker-washing porn you stole to Commons, be sure to select the Commercial Use OK license option. (I'd say just joking, but I'm sure there are Commons administrators who appreciate my helpfulness...) Carrite (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Why are we asking Commons trivia questions again, since ArbCom just ruled that En-WP has no purview over Commons activity?

    Hach21, I'd like to make a technical correction to what you said as well, since it's a widespread point of confusion. NFCC is an English Wikipedia policy, and if its conditions are satisfied, allows a nonfree image so exempted to be uploaded locally to Wikipedia. Commons has no exceptions whatsoever to the "free images only" rule, including no exceptions for claims of fair use. Exempted fair use images must be uploaded to the local project using them, not Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

15. Neutral with moral support. I've run into this editor before and had good impressions. After reviewing AfD participation, I think more participation at the discussion level would probably put the editor on a stronger footing with respect to closure discussions, something the editor has indicated an interest in doing. AfD requires a fairly balance of not only policies but a variety of precedents and so forth. as a result l feel that more experience would, as Dennis Brown suggested, lay a firmer foundation for that particular flavor of admin work. I won't oppose, I really think this editor has their heart in the right place and I've no trust issues at all, but I do think I'd rather see a little more experience before giving my full support. Which I look forward to doing.--j⚛e decker^talk 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Neutral - No need for blocking buttons to help people out, eh? There are plenty of places on WP to do that without an expanded button set. Kudos for not withdrawing the nomination. Sort of a NOTYET situation, in my opinion, if not a WHATFOR situation. Don't put yourself in the place of looking for validation from AfDRfA; it's a nasty process surrounding the granting of powerful vandal fighting tools, not a plebiscite on one's personal worth. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Alphabet soup fix: Carrite (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    No one Wikipedian has an absolute need for the tools, per se, but Wikipedia needs administrators (and for more than just vandal-fighting). I've been through two editor reviews; if I were just searching for feedback, I would have submitted myself there for an additional third time. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

    I'm mortified that there is such a thing. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

17. Neutral, I think the inexperience shows in some of the issues that have been pointed out here (and I won't belabor them). I certainly don't see anything unfixable here, though, and I'd look forward to being a couple sections up in a future RfA, since it seems the candidate is willing to carefully consider and take on board the criticism offered here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Neutral per Dennis Brown. --John (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Neutral I came here intending to support, but the answer to Q8 and the recent inactivity are enough to push me to this section, particularly since Q8 can be relevant to article text, not just to images - and M&E indicated interest in deletions work. Just FYI - the correct answer to Q8 is "A NC-licensed image is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia, so would have to be used under the NFCC." This is similar to the rule that a "you can use this on Wikipedia"-licensed image is not sufficiently free for Wikipedia. I'm watchlisting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master&Expert 2, so don't be a stranger! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

    Just noticed the comment about username changes. Guess I'll watch two locations. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

20. Neutral. Looks like a trustworthy user who would make a good administrator in the future. If this candidate gets more experience I will probably end up in the support column the next time around. Deleted contribs look good (love how I can check those now!), and judgement at AfD seems sound. The only gripe I have is that I would have liked to see more specifically policy-based arguments at AfD rather than assertions like this and this. It's not that you were wrong with these arguments, it's just that you need to show how they relate to our deletion policy as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:32, 7 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.