Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Neutral: grammar
weak statement, but based on 9, and subsequent discussion
Line 149: Line 149:
#'''Oppose''' per answer to Q9. That is not an acceptable view on content building for an admin. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 05:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per answer to Q9. That is not an acceptable view on content building for an admin. —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|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). —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 08:05, 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). —'''[[User:Kusma|Kusma]]''' ([[User talk:Kusma|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Kusma|c]]) 08:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
#'''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 [[User:Ottawa4ever|Ottawa4ever]] ([[User talk:Ottawa4ever|talk]]) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 10:50, 6 August 2012

Mlpearc

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (49/5/1); Scheduled to end 18:35, 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 checkY (21000+)
  • been here for a while checkY (since 2008)
  • is active in admin related areas checkY (see question #1)
  • is friendly and helpful checkY (just see his talk page)
  • and is able to admit when he made a mistake checkY

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. No one beats the nom support :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. no concerns. PumpkinSky talk 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  4. support; great candidate. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  7. Support as nom. Regards SoWhy 19:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  11. An overall solid candidate, should do good work as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  14. Support. Per nom. --John (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  17. Support Long term clueful editor with a clean block log and a reasonable variety in their contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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)[reply]
  19. Of course... Courcelles 23:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yes, you have my unreserved support. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Should have been an admin ages ago. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Stephen 00:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support definitely trustworthy. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, figured you already were one. No complaints with your actions; I trust them heartily. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support; long-term user with clue; good mix of on-wiki activities. -- Dianna (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. 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)[reply]
  30. Support based on a review of his work. Kierzek (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Looks like all round good editor Crystalfile (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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)[reply]
  34. Support. Per nom. Rcsprinter (state) @ 13:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - excellent all-round contributions. Ben MacDui 13:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Capable and deserving of the position. -- Ϫ 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 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)[reply]
  38. 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)[reply]
  39. Support - I like what I've seen from this candidate, and sure they'd make an excellent admin. ItsZippy (talk • contributions)
  40. Support - Trust the noms and the candidate's ability to wield the mop. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - good candidate. Opposes seem too nitpicky. – Connormah (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Perfect candidate --v/r - TP 21:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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)[reply]
  44. Strong Support Great editor who would be a tremendous asset to the project as an admin. Electric Catfish 23:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. Support MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 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)[reply]
  48. 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. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    But... do you find any instances of such behavior on Wikipedia? Lord Roem (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mlpearc&oldid=506057518"