Testwiki:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (66/45/10); Closed at 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC) This RfA was withdrawn by the candidate. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:User - (previously known as Ohmpandya; also known as MFC and Oreo) I'm not really sure where to start. He has been an active member of our community for about four months now, and has gained more experience than I've seen in any adminship candidate in a while. He spends a good quantity of time reverting vandalism, but also spends plenty of time on articles and other things (such as spending time at WP:FPC). Before it "closed", he was a clerk at WP:ACC and spent some time there. Among some stats:

  • 13 successful Featured Picture nominations
  • 11 DYKs
  • Over 22,000 undeleted edits (along with about 1500 deleted)
  • Helped raise Heuschrecke 10 to GA
  • About 285 AIV reports
  • Perfect edit summary usage

When promoted, he's going to be one of our most active admins, and I know he's going to be very good. If he isn't fit for the tools, I'm not sure who is.   jj137 (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Alexfusco5: As Jj137 has already said, MFC is an excellent contributor with contributions many good and featured articles. He spends a lot of time reverting vandalism but also is part of WikiProjects and unlike most editors always uses the edit summary. He used to help out at WP:ACC but now helps on the mailing list. MFC is definitely one of the most qualified users for adminship in a very long time. Alexfusco5 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Sharkface217: Where to begin? MFC, aka Oreo, is by far one of the most prolific, dedicated Wikipedians I have known. I met MFC ages ago through the Award Center, which I currently run. He bravely took on challenges and quickly earned a reputation as one of the best contributors to the project. MFC continues to amaze, as he not only improves articles for AWC but also sponsors and oversees a good deal many challenges. For example, for the Anti-vandalism drive at AWC, MFC surprised everyone by warning over 2400 vandals, 200+ AIV reports, and 20+ vandals banned/blocked in under a few days time. The number of barnstars MFC has is truly stunning. Besides this, MFC is part of several wikiprojects and recently designed a helpful newsletter bot, which has been utilized by several wikiprojects. I have the utmost respect and admiration for this editor, and I only wish that I can be as helpful to Wikipedia in a month as he is in a week. I strongly support MFC for the mop and hope you can do the same. --Sharkface217 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept - thanks for the nom JJ - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw this nomination. Thanks Jj137 for nominating me and Alexfusco and Sharkface who co-nominated. Thank you also, to all the voters regardless if it was oppose or support. You comments of Oppose will only help me to become a better editor. Again, thank you. I hope to run again when I feel the time is right, and I hope the opinions of opposer's have changed about me. Thanks again, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A:
  • WP:AIV – This is (almost) never empty. It’s been a pleasure (well, not really) reporting vandals here, and I would love to take it one step further (ip appropriate)
  • WP:UAA – Usually when a terrible username is created there is little possibility that he/she has come here to do good. (except this guy – the only one I know)
  • WP:SCV – Without a doubt! ENORMOUS backlog. Corensearchbot is not always right, but obviously copyvio’s are supposed to be destroyed
  • WP:AFD Sure. Needs some help when it comes to the ~100 nominations every day. I would mostly work on WP:SNOW deletes.
  • CAT:PROD – Mostly working on expired prods, and checking the reasons before deleting.
  • CAT:CSD NEVER empty. I will see if the article falls within this and then delete it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are probably my featured pictures. Article wise, it looks like List of Super Bowl Champions will pass WP:FLC. I have also significantly improved Heuschrecke 10 and Rickey Henderson, and Boston Celtics.
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:A minor one. This user, seemed to be never showing good faith, and never being civil. She violated the 3 revert rule several times, and was obviously blocked for that. And, to make matters worse: removing 3RR warnings, and not showing good faith in edit summaries. Other than that, I have not been in any other edit conflicts.

Optional question from User:Guest9999

4. When (if ever) would it be appropriate to close an AfD discussion as WP:SNOW after less than a day of discussion? Guest9999 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A: Most editors, prefer an AFD discussion to go at least 3-5 days before it is closed as keep/delete. Nominations like these would be closed per WP:SNOW. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Thedjatclubrock

5: What is the difference between a block and a ban and in what situation is each implemented?

A ban is a just a formal revocation from Wikipedia. They/It (rather) can be performed by Jimbo, the community itself, or the Arbitration Committee. A block is a not to punish users, but just used to prevent them from editing on Wikipedia. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

6:A recently banned user, is discovered to have made a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet, seems to be contributing positively, and hasn't caused trouble. You notice ALL of their edits are reverted. You also notice that they were all positive edits and you are wondering if you should restore them . What do you do?

Good question. Is this account an "account" or an IP - please clarify then I will proceed further with this question. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both the sockpuppet and the original accounts were registered.Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C)
A. Thanks for the clarification. The edits would be kept revered regardless if they showed that their edits were good faith. Thanks for the questions - - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC).

Optional questions by MrPrada

7: What is the process you use for closing multiple related pages for deletion?
A: Can you clarify this question? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for instance, Article 1 is conominated with Article 2 and 3 for deletion, all votes are in favor to keep. What do you do?
8: Why the difference in answers to question #2 from your first Editor Review (5FEB08), second Editor Review (2MAR08), and this RFA (24MAR08)?
A:Question 2 on my RFA, and question 2 on my editor review are two different questions.... Please clarify this. The "best contribs" question, or the "Edit conflict" question? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, the "best contribs" question.
9: An article is listed at AfD. The nominator makes a compelling argument that although the article is the subject of verified sources, it is not notable. After five days, there are ten votes to keep, although none of them disprove the nominator's original comments that the article fails the notability standard. Only the nominator has dissented. Should the article be kept per WP:SNOW, or deleted?
A: It depends. First, I would contact the voters and ask them to see the nominator's comments. It all depends after that if they change their vote or not. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Optional follow-up/9a.: If the 10 votes were still "Keep" per WP:ILIKEIT, but the subject was non-notable in your opinion or did not meet the policy/guidelines, would you be inclined to keep or delete the article?
A:
10: Should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination) be sent to WP:DRV?
A: I suppose that's anyone's who thinks the articles should be deleted choice. I should have looked at it more closely to see if the discussion was still going on. - Which I missed. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not-optional joke question by WBOSITG

11: Why didn't you tell me you were doing this now?!
  1. Whoops. ;) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And some proper, optional ones from WBOSITG

12: A user comes to WP:UAA and reports a new user with username "SFEFVSZZ". Do you block?

A.It is confusing - hence violating the policy. But, this one I would consider checking his contribs, and to see if he is a troll, or not. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

12b: What about "FOVKK34FFVSSLLLA!"?

A.Yes - totally confusing username (violating the policy) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

13.) - Why do you wish to be an administrator? - jc37 23:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A.)


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Milk's Favorite Cookie before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. Trustworthy, experienced, could use the tools. Anthøny 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support I have seen Oreo contribute alot on wikipedia. He will be a very good admin.--RyRy5 talk 01:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support As co-nominator Alexfusco5 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support - had this RFA on my watchlist. Seen this user around, does great work, will make a great admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support, obvious. Wizardman 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Support Appears to know everything an administrator needs to know. The user has made much constructive contribution to Wikipedia and seems to be trustworthy. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Redraw my support based on evidences presented below (e.g. use of personal template when notifying users to NOT use templates when sending personal messages). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Apologies to Mailer Diable for the near-copy of his support style.This support is endorsed by · AndonicO Hail! 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Definitely « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 01:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - No way am I going to pass up this chance! Soxred93 | talk bot 01:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - Reviewed this editor recently. Experienced and trustworthy; I feel this editor's strength lies in administrative tasks. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - I already had this watchlisted quite a while back. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. Yep. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - Good guy.  Sunderland06  02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support per my co-nom. --Sharkface217 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support as nom. (Aah, I always forget)   jj137 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - I really had thought Oreo was already an admin. iMatthew 2008 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support I would have co-nominated MFC, but I came here a bit too late. Excellent editor. Helpful, nice, and very knowledgeable. — scetoaux (T/C) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - Per personal interactions with user. I see him everywhere and his comments are thoughtful, helpful, insightful and exude policy knowledge. A real asset. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Solid user, knows what he's doing, understands pretty much everything about the project. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. I certainly support whom I consider to be a level-headed and well-rounded editor. Valtoras (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I ask that you forgive my relatively poor grammar in this discussion. Simply understand that I believe this user to be a fantastic content contributor and a very civil editor, and would do well with administrative tools. Valtoras (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support Saw his name in AIV many times. I trust to give him the tools and buttons. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support - Sorry MFC i hadn't seen you had been nommed otherwise I would have co-nommed ;). I have seen this user quite often on WP:AIV, seems like MFC could use the tools to me. --ChetblongTalkSign 05:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support. This was one of those times where something didn't feel right, and I needed to do some deeper investigating. What I decided was that some of the oppositional votes just didn't feel right. Examples: Marty Rockatansky states below that this candidate closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination) via WP:SNOW, and "there was still discussion going on". Well, Marty was the sole remaining delete !vote in an 11-1 consensus, with one editor changing his delete !vote to "strong keep" after a revealing source (here and here). While I am in no way discounting Marty's !vote or his right to oppose below, I personally would have closed this as the candidate did. I'm sort of preempting Q10, I know, and I reserve my right to change my !vote based on the answers to the pending questions. However, even after circumspect weighing of Shoessss's and John's arguments below (arguments that certainly make one take pause), I feel this candidate will serve the best interests of Wikipedia and will be a net positive. Mistakes may be made, but that's no reason to oppose, in my opinion. Tan | 39 05:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. You mean you're not an admin?!?! I honestly thought you were already. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 09:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support: I have seen you around, especially helping at WP:ACC -- good work! The Helpful One (Review) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - Very expirenced editor. I'm confident this user would make a great admin! TheProf | Talk 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. per above Dlohcierekim 12:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. Strong SupportNothing444 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. Hang on... let me just check you aren't one already.... Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. Weak support I see him around everywhere, and I think he knows what he is doing. I'd say that I trust him with the tools. нмŵוτнτ 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Strong Support Great user will do lots of good :) Harland1 (t/c) 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Changed to weak support (see below) Harland1 (t/c) 11:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. I trust this user not to abuse the bits. SQLQuery me! 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support. I have had only positive interactions with this user. I trust him to make good decisions with the tools. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Strong Support The user has always been friendly and civil. He is fully capable of being a administrator. - DiligentTerrier and friends 20:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support x10^∞ thought you already were or at least acting on that high of a level--Pewwer42  Talk  20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. Über ultra strong support Has experience to be a trusted admin. Trusted, friendly, and civil. Thisisborin9talk/contribs 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. Strong support I see this user around so often, and he always up to something good...this user will do wikipedia a world of good! --Camaeron (t/c) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support I've seen much improvement since last RFA. SpencerT♦C 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support No concerns--Werdan7T @ 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support, prolific contributor, no evidence that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
  42. Support, knowledge of policy and guidelines is irrelevant when the user is a so good article editor as Milk's Favorite Cookie and also willing to learn, which I am sure he is. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - I have seen his work and think he would make a trustworthy admin and a great role model - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support- Per Jimbo. I have seen this editor around doing alot of work, I see no evidence that he will misuse the tools.--Sallicio⊕ 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  45. Strong Support. I'd trust him as an admin, and do as an editor. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support - Dang, I really wanted to make this support on Friday. I'm going to support because this candidate is a teenager. Pure and simple. Sound illogical basing a decision on age? Sure does to me. ScarianCall me Pat 17:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Question for Scarian: So in other words, you trust teenagers more than any other age group? Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Nope, I never said that. My support is real but my overall comment is generally intended for humour. ScarianCall me Pat 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Well done, then. Basketball110 Go Longhorns! 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support Great editor, would make a great admin for Wikipedia. No way he would abuse. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  48. Strong Support I have interacted with this user several times and was very impressed. Kimu 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  49. Weak Support - seems good but I am worried about some of the opposes below. — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support Sure, why not? Meets my standards by far, has made mistakes, but overall is excellent. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  51. Super-mega-slightly annoyed you didn't tell me so I could co-nom ¬¬-support. Well done! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  52. Strong Support Of course. Good luck Oreo! Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 22:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  54. What WBOSITG said... But I started Heuschrecke 10 and asked you to help... ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 23:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support: User deserves the tools, and I do not see how he could abuse them. I was neutral before, but it was a mistake on my behalf. Good Luck! Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
  56. Support, good editor. --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 01:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  57. Hot potato Support I can't see why not. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  58. Weak Support Good user but maturity and judgement are issues here. Harland1 (t/c) 11:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  59. Strong Support - you should get it you know?? Markreidyhp 12:56, March 26, 2008S
  60. Support Sreaking amazing guy. Very prima facie. flaminglawyerc 19:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support User seems just fine. Captain panda 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support - Good luck! Jaxfl (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support - It took me a long time to reach a decision here. An excellent contributer and works really hard it seems. Just please take care and put a stop to the issues raised below. Being thoughtful rather than impulsive goes a long way. Lradrama 09:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support An excellent vandal fighter and very active editor. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support I have dealt with this user fairly frequently, and he is a very responsible and helpful person. I see no reason to think he would not be an excellent administrator. J.delanoygabsadds 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support Milk's favourite nom. Joelster (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose 3rd RfA in even fewer months. Calm down. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Isn't this only his second RfA? December his last? And yes, I know trying to reason with Kmweber is useless, but I want to get my point out. Soxred93 | talk bot 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    He had one in late December and one in January, neither of which were linked in the nomination, which was disappointing: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohmpandya and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohmpandya 2. Daniel (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sox, please retain civility. These personal attacks (from various people) on Kurt are really getting tiresome. Yes, he holds a position that is in the minority, but he is FULLY justified in holding them. I am getting so sick of his being attacked every time he takes a position, that I am seriously considering an RFC on this issue (I mean, Kurt has been taken to two or three on this issue, and his right to oppose on these grounds has been defended, why should he have to suffer attacks EVERY SINGLE TIME he !votes.)Balloonman (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Soxred has a right to his opinion, just like everyone else! Reading what he actually said, i think Balloonman is the only person on this board making a personal attack. I questioned Kurt's oppose of TPH, yes! But i'm going to tell you now. At no point do i type to attack. I really like and respect that Kurt has an opinion not shared by everyone. I really think that if it bothers you, Balloonman, so much. You should consider taking a short wiki-break. Good luck to all three of you in whatever you do today! Cheers, TheProf | Talk 12:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I don't mind people disagreeing with Kmweber, but it is when they get to mocking him and belittling him, that I object. As for what Soxred actually said, let's see, I know trying to reason with Kmweber is useless. That is a personal attack. Balloonman (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    No, it's not, but this isn't the place to discuss this. That's what user talk pages are for. Nick (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Discussion continued/finished at User talk:Balloonman. Thanks TheProf | Talk 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Meh, I was beaten to it, but anyways; Guys, please. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Trying to reason with Kmweber is useless...I think than rather it being a personal attack, it is actually a fair point. Kurt never replies to comments made about his opposes. Lots of things could have been resolved and he might not have recieved as much negative feedback if he had participated in discussion. Many perfectly good candidates may self-nom because, put simply, they need the tools. On some RfAs, Kurt Weber's oppose is the only oppose there, which shows he doesn't even read through the RfA. That is unacceptable behaviour when participating in RfA, especially as it says in the guidelines to review thoughfully and read an RfA through. Lradrama 09:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    To all involved: Be Civil. Kingturtle (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose due to an unfavorable impression during my only interaction with him when I edited as Template:User. (On an unrelated note, for those who will WHOIS it, I suppose now is the time to reveal that
    I attend Cal State Long Beach, which was already somewhat given away by my picture of the Metro Express bus.) The edit, which removed some hardcoded image sizes, was rollbacked by MFC [1], which he later rollbacked himself [2]. He also warned me [3] and then removed that warning [4] without comment. I decided to leave him a note [5], which I see now accidentally erased someone else's (not sure how: I used the + tab), [6] which he reverted, again by rollback.
    What is wrong with this is manyfold. Rollback is never to be used on content edits or edits that are clearly not vandalism. Removing pixel sizes is not blatant enough vandalism to warrant rollback, but an edit summary asking what the hell. He removed the warning and later removed my message without ever directly admitting he was wrong or acknowledging that I was right (or wrong) and with rollback-like summaries. The timestamps show a minute difference between jj's and my posts – simply put, it was an edit conflict wherein he saved his page first, then I saved mine, and his edit was lost. Unfortunately it isn't the kind that is detected until one checks the history. MFC didn't even try to salvage it (repeat: didn't acknowledge that he had read it at all), but reverted it like he didn't even give a damn about why I removed pixel sizes. This consequently is problematic. A user who works extensively with warning and removing vandalism interacts with anonymous users quite often, and I do not want to see people who violate WP:CIVIL (no explanations at all, but brusqueness in dealing with 134.139), WP:AGF (assuming that I had purposefully erased jj's message when I had not, and not restoring it at all, and not explaining why at all), and WP:BITE (over-eagerness in dispening warning templates) doing such tasks as warning and blocking. Above all, I feel that MFC does not communicate adequately enough, instead assuming that the anonymous IP user 134.139.42.72 was very experienced wifh Wikipedia and knew exactly what was right and wrong, and that he or she was perfectly cool, alright, awesome with having HIS OR HER EDIT ROLLBACKED LIKE HIS OR HER OPINION DIDN'T MATTER. I happened to be such a user, having been here for three years. But my fellow classmate may not and would probably be scared off by such blunt treatment. I don't give a damn if MFC was 99% right and that he occasionally makes mistakes, that 1% – especially the 1% of that 1% that tried in good faith to communicate with MFC – is going to be seriously and irrevocably upset. Such heavy-handed tactics will drive off any user that isn't already a Wikipedian. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Everyone makes mistakes, and from your description of the story, I think MFC did his best to correct the error of his ways, then moved on and continued patrolling. --Sharkface217 03:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Did his best without any communication whatsoever, through rollback summaries that offer no explanation whatsoever. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per the lack of understanding of the non-free image criteria and copyright. The majority of the images that have uploaded under fair use have been deleted, due to a lack of source, no justification of the purpose of the image, incomplete fair use rationale or none at all. As an example, Image:Son of the shark cover.jpg, Image:Bervin Alexander wiki screenshot.jpg, Image:Cambell john poster.GIF, Image:Dammerung Im Traum screenshotalbum.jpg, Image:Live in orance county albumshot.jpg, Image:Ss contrefacon cover.jpg (fair use rationale was added later by Europe22) and Image:Spikejones stero.jpg had incomplete or no fair use rationales. Image:Daniel_Craig_McCallum_image.jpg is another example, it was licensed and uploaded as fair use even though the image was taken in 1878, which would make it exempt from copyright as it was created in the United States before 1923. I also see some questionable speedy deletion tagging. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and many others in [15] could have been easily fixed by removing the plot, but it was tagged it for deletion instead. Please note the second point in CSD G12, stating "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving". [16] is also pretty questionable. The article does not seem to be a copyvio of that site. In all, I feel I cannot support this until these issues are addressed.—Dark talk 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I should have been more careful on this one, but I was going a little fast per this. And about the images, I did learn. See [17][18] - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Hbdragon88, DarkFalls, Dschwen and my comments in neutral. I don't think the candidate will be a good administrator at this time, especially given the candidate has very little in the way of encyclopedic contributions and will struggle to use the administrator tools when stepping in to resolve a content dispute, in an effective manner. Daniel (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I have no idea why he closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination). There was still discussion going on. He's not even Admin yet but already tries to act like one. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    He probably shouldn't have as many people believe that discussions with at least one delete should be closed only by an admin. That being said, the fact that there was ongoing discussion does not mean the conversation goes on indefinately. This closure as a Keep was completely acceptable as it had been more than the requisite time and overwhelming majority. His fault is not one of breaking policy or guidelines, but rather a position that SOME (not all) people at AfD hold.Balloonman (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, AFD says an article may be debated for up to five days, and the AFD in question was suitably aged. Non-admin closure on this particular AFD was not overstepping the bounds. If further discussion was needed, it needed to be discussed on the talk page in question, and if the nom disagree with the closure, it can always be taken back to AFD. Yngvarr (c) 12:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Lack of experience, still needs better understanding of policy, occasional poor communication skills. On my one meeting with him, he nominated a featured picture I took and uploaded for delisting without informing me. Another user pointed this out, I was informed, and I uploaded a larger version of the picture. The picture was kept as featured, but I was left with the impression that the picture could have been delisted if that other editor hadn't stepped in. That would have been a shame. The whole process (which can be seen here) could have achieved the same result with a single message to me as the uploader. If it sounds petty to oppose based on one incident, take this as being the recent interaction that tipped me from neutral to oppose. A fine editor, but more experience required. --John (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - At this point you have made 22, 253 of your total edit count of 22,282, in just over the last 3-1/2 months. I believe that works out to 99.9% of your edits in less than 4 months. Goodness knows, there are fast learners out there, but *^#% that is fast. Personally, I would like to see, just a tad more experience in administrative duties. Is this a reflection on the work you have done so far? No, great work. Is this a reflection on well-rounded experience and a thought process, that goes into a decision making, where both sides may have valid arguments, Yes. Sorry, the Yes wins out. Either way this goes, good luck to you and great work, up to this pointShoessss |  Chat  04:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - I feel pretty bad for opposing since every time I've seen the user I've been impressed by their contributions and demeanour but the concerns raised above and some other niggling issues to me paint a picture of a great user who is just not quite ready. Guest9999 (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per Daniel, DarkFalls, and Marty. The AFD close is particularly disturbing as it is recent and snowing it was an obviously bad decision - for an admin or anyone else. --B (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Excellent as an editor, but I don't think he's quite up to the skills needed as an admin yet. There have been some questionable actions tagging speedies and working in deletion discussions and a general lack of communication. I'm also concerned by the number of RfAs, the inflated award count and that almost all edits have been performed in just the past few months. Shell babelfish 05:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per above. –Pomte 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - Milks is an enthusiastic contributor, and I think that's great, but my experience with him is on the DYK page where he has made numerous nominations that fail to meet the DYK rules. In spite of being informed that his nominations don't meet the criteria, that he is wasting the time of reviewers by making bad nominations, and that he needs to pay more attention to the rules, he has continued to nominate articles which fail to meet the criteria, which indicates to me a careless and slapdash approach and a lack of consideration for other users. Also, I think six months of solid contributions is an absolute minimum for adminship, and then only for the best candidates. So I cannot support adminship at this time. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. "I would love to take it one step further" (Q1) - not comfortable with someone who would enjoy blocking. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    More here (last part of the diff). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I really think you took this the wrong way. I didn't mean it the way you took it. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    You are aware that the comments in those diffs are from Balloonman and not the candidate, right? SorryGuy  Talk  00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    Only the last one was me, it was a joke response to your comment above... it wasn't MFC... thus the smiley face... and H20 your not an admin? I thought you were! ;-) Balloonman (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Weak oppose I struggled with this one. I have a good impression of MFC from my personal encounters with him and seeing him around, but the DYK issue and questionable speedy issues make me oppose. As does the point observed by Shoeless above. over 22K edits in 3 months, I can't see how anybody can make that many edits and think about what they are doing to make that many edits.Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose MFC has have been around for only 3 months and has done an amazing amount of wiki-gnoming. However I do not see much evidence of actual encyclopedia building. When he answered (Q3) that he hasn't been in any conflicts this does not indicate that he has been able to keep cool under fire, but that he hasn't been editing articles in a way that can create a conflict. Most indicative is the lack of the talk page edits. Of the 1603 about 20 of them relate to rating the article as a a "good article" and the rest seem to be assessment, or "oldafd". I cannot find any instances of disagreeing with another editor on how to edit and reaching a compromise. Disagreement among editor and how it is dealt with is the most important user interaction on wikipedia, and without experience in this area I cannot support. Jon513 (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose This was a difficult one to oppose. There are some issues regarding your judgement in AfD debates, which is unavoidable. Yet youve made over 22,000 edits in the last 4 months, which is somewhat astonishing. You have good skills in regards to your dealing with other people from what ive observed. Id just like to see some more experience, come back in 3-6 months, and i'd be certainly ready to hand you the mop. Thanks. Twenty Years 10:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Astonishing and frightening. Let's put that in perspective. 22K edits in about 3 months works out to about 7200 edits per month or 240 edits per day. If he spends just 1 minute thinking about each edit, then he is spending 4 hours per day editing wikipedia. That's 4 hours uninterrupted doing nothing else. I doubt if he spending 4 hours every single day editing wikipedia... and I doubt that he spending an average of 1 minute thinking about his edits---which has come out in some of the comments made on this page. I can't support somebody who doesn't think more of their edits.Balloonman (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    See WP:HUG. · AndonicO Hail! 14:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm familiar with Bots, but if we wanted a bot as an admin, then we should nominate the bot, not the user. 22K edits in three months says this person relies too much on the bot to do his job and not enough time elsewhere. I think this belief is substantiated elsewhere in the other comments made about MFC.Balloonman (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Huggle is most definitely not a bot... simply a vandalism reverting tool that is very fast. There's a fairly large difference.   jj137 (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Agree with Jj. There's a huge difference between a bot and a tool. Huggle is a useful tool that allows you to revert vandalism quickly. MFC is certainly not a bot, just a user that likes to help improve the encyclopedia and keep it vandalism-free (an impossible goal, but one we work towards anyway). Enigma msg! 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Weak oppose I don't think you have been contributing long enough. In about 3 months you will be ready. --MacMad (talk · contribs)  11:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Per Daniel, Shell Kinney and Dihydrogen Monoxide. I think this user is a little too focused on the counter-vandalism aspects of administratorship, which all though may be seen as a good thing, isn't my cup of tea. Rudget. 12:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose This user is admonishing me about a change I've made in 2005. Lack of common sense. User:Ejrrjs says What? 13:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    That change was made when they were still a very new editor. Even so, I think it was a mistake.   jj137 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    That was about 5-10 days after I started editing. You really can blame me for that. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per above, and the general feeling I get that the user is here to be an admin first and a contributor second. Nick (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Good contributor, but from my experiences, I feel he isn't ready for adminship yet. There are still some unresolved maturity issues that need to be addressed (random example). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    And now we know why "evidence that the candidate has a sense of humor" is something most RFAs deliberately lack. — CharlotteWebb 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Seems to have some issues with some Wikipedia etiquette (per example above). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Oppose based on inexperience and questionable decision making. Please be patient. Keepscases (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose In addition to the understanding of policy concerns raised by others, I, too, have concerns. To provide an example pertaining to WP:V/WP:RS/WP:SPS, I found myself somewhat taken aback by MFC’s support comment for the Heuschrecke 10 FAC of “well cited”, when the article utilizes personal sites, hobby sites and a likely copyvio. A firm understanding of sourcing policies and judicious application thereof is critical; despite being an enthusiastic and helpful editor, I don’t think MFC is there yet. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose A very active user with good contributions. But the examples above are cause for concern, WP:SNOW is to be used very carefully, afds are sometimes subject to complete reversal, and this post to Twaz just killed my eyes. Not mature enough for the mop, I don't trust his judgement right now. It may change of course, in some months. Seriousness and consideration are necessary qualities for an administrator. Expeditive unconsidered admin actions have many times resulted in massive drama, and it's very bad for WP and the people involved. CenariumTalk 16:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Reluctant Oppose. Clearly a dedicated user, and I'm not one to oppose on most philosophical image issues, but has had non-free images in userspace as recently as February (here here and here (admin)) in addition to the concerns raised above lead me to question this user's ability to interpret policy. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. This editor is a kid (and more importantly, acts like a kid.) Short tenure, too immature, plus eagerness for the tools equals unqualified candidate. Try again in 10 years or so. (No, that last sentence isn't a joke or an insult. I just think admin candidates should be adults.) Friday (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    (threaded discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie#Friday's oppose; moved from main page)
  28. I am not comfortable with his having the block button; he reports people ontheir final warning to AIV way too often. Above concerns as well. Sorry. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC
    A user who obviously is a troll, especially an anon, should be blocked no matter what "Warning Level" they are on. If a user replaces a page with "You worthless Mother F*cking Cu*t" I'd block them on sight for a few hours (or in my case, report them immediately). I wouldn't wait for them to do it 4 more times. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 16:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Huggle. A bug. Several people had this problem. See some evidence here. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. Weak Oppose I would really like to support, but I think the candidate lacks experience, and some of the decisions they've made as a user would suggest that they don't meet my criteria - specifically points 2 and 3 (Do their actions suggest problems down the track; Do they understand policy, and can they understand the reasons behind the policies). Orderinchaos 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. I've thought long and hard about this one. MFC is a prolific wikignome, and does much good work. But I've also encountered a few questionable speedy noms, and the examples given of AfD closures (including the one MFC listed as a clear WP:SNOW bother me.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Apologies, because I do respect your contributions MFC, but for a number of the stated reasons above I can not say I trust you will the tools. SorryGuy  Talk  00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. per DarkFalls and dihydrogen monoxide Antonio Lopez (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. I came here to support, but I'm afraid that I have to oppose, and very firmly. Aside from the AfD mistakes, the relative lack of article-space work, that one water guy's concern, and the various other stumbles pointed out, I feel that you're on Wikipedia solely to become an admin, which... trust me, is not very different from being an editor without any fancy delete buttons. Also, this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, not some roleplaying game, though I admit such a game might be quite fun. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Lack of article space work? Check his contribs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I've checked them many times, and each time I'm more convinced that it's true. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have also checked his article-space contributions and I agree with Nousernamesleft's assessment. Jon513 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    To expand on my point: quality over quantity. This user has almost ten times the number of mainspace edits I have, and has only one sixth the recognized mainspace content (one eighth if you count the two pending.) Additionally, he has a terrible answer to question six. The sockpuppet should be blocked, true, but reverting positive contributions to the encyclopedia just because someone who was breaking policy in an unrelated way made them is against everything an encyclopedia stands for. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  34. Oppose per Gatoclass (I also noticed MFCs odd DYK submissions) and others - active contributor, but doesn't seem to understand many policies. ~ priyanath talk 02:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Oppose I just don't see an admin level knowledge of Wikipedia Policy in this editors answers, great editor though. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  36. Oppose - Not enough experience and seems to rely on auto-tools a bit much. ArcAngel (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    If you are refering to "Huggle" as an auto tool, you are very wrong. Huggle needs user-feedback to work, and will not operate without such. In addition to that, there is nothing wrong with relying on Huggle, It's fast, and gets the job done. Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 16:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hello. Can you give some examples of when I used auto-tools? Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    My apologies, I thought Huggle was auto, based on the ungodly number of edits you've accrued in the past few months. Still, with only about 4 months practical experience, I like to see about twice that amount of time before I would feel comfortable in supporting. ArcAngel (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Are you kidding?[19][20] That's threetwo [removed one because I forgot about everyone having rollback] examples of using different automated (or semi-automated) scripts. I didn't even have to do much searching. Your monobook also shows a slew of scripts installed. The crux of the argument isn't the exact nature of the scripts but the fact that you don't appear capable of making edits without them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Most scripts were put in this week. Any as of now, I can't think of any one who doesn't use Twinkle. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Myself, for one. 25,724 total edits. Automated tools are simply not needed to be an effective editor/administrator. I'm not saying they're bad by any stretch of the imagination, but over-reliance on them can be a bad thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Hasn't been active for very long; questionable judgment in AfD debates Wsanders (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. Oppose - per DHMO. Tiptoety talk 22:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. Weak Oppose Apologies, but there seem to be some pretty serious issues that need to be resolved before I can feel completely comfortable supporting. GlassCobra 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. I am uncomfortable with giving the mop to someone barely a week after something as inappropriate as the action taken in Nishkid64's random example. -Bwowen is now a Forgone conclusion! t|c 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - too many instances of poor communications recently, and too "automatic" for us to tell if he has the judgment needed in admin decisions. krimpet✽ 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Unfree images on userpage shows a lack of commitment to the principles of the Free Encyclopedia. ➪HiDrNick! 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    I do not see how this shows "Lack of commitment".--RyRy5 talk 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Experience is not the only thing that matters. This user feels that MFC isn't committed to a free encyclopedia, and that's important to him. Enigma message 18:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for explaining.--RyRy5 talk 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  43. Oppose in the slightest: Pseudo-admin closure of an AFD, little understanding of image policies, an upsurge of recent editing activity, and various other issues expressed elsewhere. The way these and his RFAs are going, he needs to wait another 12 months. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  44. Reluctant oppose; sorry, but the knowledge of policy just isn't quite there yet. — Coren (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. I hate to jump on a bandwagon here, but the FAC vote brought up by User:Elcobbola, detachment from writing per User:Nousernamesleft, and concerns about FU in userspace leave me no choice here. Relata refero (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. He seems like someone who does things in a hurry and leaves behind a mess for everyone else to clean up, displaying a serious lack of judgement. It's like his goal is to do as many edits as possible, without spending any effort (eg. machine translating articles from languages he doesn't speak, and not bothering to clean up the resulting nonsense, this would apply to pretty much all articles he's started). Those are not good qualities for an admin. - Bobet 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral Contrary to the above answer to a question about WP:SNOW, MFC recently did a non-admin close on the AfD for Lunar ark less than a day in and after only four votes. Not sure they can be trusted with the tools if that is what qualifies as "a snowball's chance in Hell." Beeblbrox (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    If you look at that AFD, it was pretty obvious that it was a WP:SNOW. There was a mountain of reasonable evidence for a keep. --Sharkface217 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hmmm... I did look at that AfD, and I don't see that WP:SNOW was obvious. Particularly since it had not yet been 24 hours since the nom.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ohmpandya 2 and some odd speedy deletion tagging lately (now deleted), where the tagging suggests (through failure to check the history of the article, the title of the article, and the author) that the candidate may not inspect articles as closely as I expect before speedy deleting them. Daniel (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Changed to oppose. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. I find it a bit odd that MFC states My best contributions are probably my featured pictures. yet he has not contributed a single of those pictures... --Dschwen 02:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    One more thing Sharkface states The number of barnstars MFC has is truly stunning. What's the deal with that?! Most were awarded by Sharkface, and in a way I can only call inflationary. --Dschwen 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sharkface has always been very (overly?) generous with Barnstars. I received one from him about 2 years ago and went to his page to thank him and found out that he had given them to scores of people, thus I wouldn't hold that against MFC.Balloonman (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    What makes me feel uneasy about this RFA is that MFC appears to belong to a clique of people who seem to regard WP a litle too much as a myspace replacement. Don't get me wrong here, he seems to be a really nice guy, which is probably the reason he can rally so many supporters. But the question of maturity was raised in an oppose comment above, and when I look at the signatures in the support section the sheer amount of font tags and flashy color css makes me a bit suspicious... --Dschwen 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    In defense of my barnstar awarding regarding MFC, I'd like to point out that he earned all of those barnstars through highly specific service to WP:AWC. --Sharkface217 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. It's not a very good rationale, but I have sort of a gut feeling. I don't want to oppose, but I feel unusually hesitant to support. I would have liked MFC to wait another month or so before pursuing an RFA. I'm probably going to get berated for this, but I might change to support later. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm a little confused, except for the very short delay between the RFA's, please explain your "Gut Feeling". Thanks Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
    Don't get me wrong, I think that MFC is a very good user, but I do think that it would be better for him to wait some more before doing an RFA. It's just sort of an intuition I have from having nominating other users for RFA. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 04:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Alright, thanks for the reply, Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC).
  4. Neutral. I was concerned by your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination) for two reasons:
    1. I felt that nominator had come back with another interesting comment right before the discussion was closed, and I would have like to have seen a response to it, because I my self was yet to decide on keep or delete. User:Marty Rockatansky stated at 21:07 on March 22 that I suggest to add this discussion under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts as well that guys with more knowledge of the sport can decide whether keep it or not., and the discussion was closed less than five hours later.
    2. Secondly, I noticed that you forgot to close the other articles that were conominated as keeps, and update their article histories accordingly. While you took care of this quickly once I pointed it out, you still did not add the article history template, and left the prod tag on the last article (Bernardo Jua). I would be inclined to support you, I will think about it while I go over the answers to your questions, etc., but I thought it pertinent to bring this up as it was only this morning. Mrprada911 (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Still neutral pending answers to questions. Mrprada911 (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Sorry, but you're too new; I prefer admins to have sizable contributions spread out over a much longer period of time than yours. All it shows is that you can amass a number of edits in short order, which isn't necessarily a good thing (just as it isn't necessarily a bad thing, either). The fact that you keep coming back here (this being your third RfA) is extremely worrisome in my mind. I think there might be a net positive to the project if you're an admin, which is why I'm neutral, but I still can't help feeling like you could do with some more time here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral: I'd like to support, but I am still waiting on an answer for my questions. Thanks, Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC). Sorry, I really don't want to oppose, but I don't agree with your answer to question 6. In this case, I think WP:IAR would apply, if the edits were all positive. I believe the sockpuppet is probably trying to "Turn over a new leaf" in that case. I'm going to have to remain neutral, maybe next time. Good Luck! Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 01:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
    That was a bad interpretation of the rules on my part. Sorry, Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
  6. For the moment, neutral: I can't reach a firm conclusion until you answer more questions. I know they're optional and all, but they look important to me. Smartguy777 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
    Still neutral, but for a different reason: Not bad, but not good either. Right in the middle. Smartguy777 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC). PS: Why is my one number 2 if #2 is way back up there? Is it a glitch?
  7. Both ideas have got their reasons. Maybe in a few month. abf /talk to me/ 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral not sure at the moment. SexySeaShark 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral per Speed CG. Fallen Angel 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Neutral MFC is very dedicated to improving Wikipedia and is obviously a hard worker. However, admins face a lot of situations rife with conflict and MFC's stated limited experience with conflict situations gives cause to wonder how MFC would react under those condictions. It appears that MFC has the makings of a great admin with some more experience under his belt, but I cannot support at this time. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. I'd really hate to oppose MFC, due to his having made some progress from previous RfAs. Even so, I'm afraid I don't think he is quite ready. Several months of good edits, especially outside of the anti-vandalism arena will make the next one a dead cert. Spend a while writing a few DYKs and getting away from Huggle for a while. Regards, EJF (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.beta.math.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=Testwiki:Requests_for_adminship/Milk%27s_Favorite_Cookie&oldid=26251"