Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mandsford


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Mandsford
'Final (59/16/4); ended 18:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC) - While there are several valid reasons given by those opposing this candidacy, the reasons basically boil down to "he doesn't completely'' understand all the policies and guidelines". This is something easily addressed, and more than one editor has indicated a willingness to mentor him on this. While the discussion is close, I believe there is consensus to promote in this case. - ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 18:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC) '''

Nomination
– Mandsford has been in the community since May 2007. He is one of the most active AFD participaters using sound policy based argrements. . He is the author for most of the Month and Day articles March 1981 for example. He was blocked for incivility almost two years ago but he learned from his experience. We need more AFD closers in RFA as AFD is constantly backlogged, and I'm sure Mandsford will make a fine admin. Thanks Secret account 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

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 area where I think I'd do well is in closing a deletion debates. I have enough understanding of Wikipedia's policies and common outcomes to examine the policy arguments made by different commentors.  Although I think that most of these can be closed in ten words or less, I have enough experience with the reason for a particular policy that I would be able to respond to a person who asked why a decision was made a certain way (WP:MEMORIAL is a perfect example of something that an absolute necessity, for instance, although it's going to cause hard feelings when it's invoked).  I had originally added the matter of giving fair warning to people on civility, although it's been pointed out that you don't have to be an administrator to do that; I already do quite a bit in trying to defuse situations that may be getting out of hand, usually by pointing out that civility can include "aggressive behaviour", and that some things aren't necessarily incivil, such as an opinion of the quality of an article (that's still a fine line); I honestly don't want the power to block a user, although I could be prepared to carry that out if it appeared that repeated warnings failed.  I'm aware that administrators do other things besides handling AfD matters and keeping the peace, but most of my encounters with admins are through the AfD forum.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The articles that I'm proudest of are the month and year pages. I work on those in userspace, and my goal on those has been to have citations for each item before putting them up.  The other contribution, though, is trying to keep new editors here.  We were all new once, and any time that we have a first-time contributor whose article has come up in AfD, I make it a point to acknowledge their work, even if it comes with a statement that the subject might not meet notability requirements.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I haven't had conflicts over editing recently. Generally, I try to create good-quality articles that have sources or citations.  Have other users caused me stress?  It happens, although over the course of time, not as often as it once did.  I've learned other ways to deal with an argument besides responding in kind (sometimes, you just have to let it go with the meaningless "Perhaps someone will agree").  I try not to start an argument, although I recognize that I can be rude or sarcastic, and that sometimes I step on toes; I've had my feelings hurt before at AfD, and sometimes I'm the guy who causes hurt.  I do feel that it's necessary to respond to a rude or bullying comment, but there's a middle-ground between the two extremes of tolerating aggression or trying to be more aggressive.  As I told Secret before the nomination, I was blocked for a day back in December '08, and it was the best thing that could have happened to me; if nothing else, I try to give some consideration to what I write before hitting the "save page" button.  Mandsford 15:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Chzz
 * 4. In one of the above AfDs, you mentioned inherent notability; can you explain what you'd consider inherently notable, especially re. smaller geographic places and educational establishments. I'm interested in both how you would apply policies, and your own opinions.
 * A: The short answer to what I consider "inherently" notable is what is provided as generally presumed to be notable under the exceptions to WP:GNG that are in WP:N, and that what I might prefer doesn't matter. "Inherently" isn't a word that's used in WP:N, although I think it's more accurate than "generally" notable  or "automatically" notable when referring to certain classes of people, places and things that are entitled, as a matter of policy, to an article in spite of a lack of information.  Hence, if reliable and verifiable sources show that somebody was a Congressman in South Dakota in 1919, we do not debate the question of whether it can be proven that, while in Congress, he did anything that we would consider historically significant; the mere fact of serving in a nation's legislature would qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; in addition, that type of exception means that if someone is, or ever has been, in the Uruguayan legislature, proof that she held office is enough, and we don't debate over whether we can read about her in the news.   Whether I, personally, think that some things ought to qualify for that type of exception, or ought not to, doesn't change what the policy says.   By the same token, if ten people all say that an article about the Uruguayan legislator should be deleted and nobody says that it should be kept, it doesn't change what the policy says (if there's no reliable proof that the person actually was in the Uruguay legislature, that would mean that she doesn't qualify under WP:POLITICIAN to begin with).

The second question referenced two things that get debated a lot, and for which we have common outcomes, but no set policy, specifically smaller geographic places and educational establishments. The two that seem to come up again and again are populated geographic places, and high schools. Obviously, none of those are inherently notable as I define it (i.e., a specific exception in WP:N), although each of us have our own opinion of whether we consider them notable, and you've asked what I think. My opinion is that the common outcome on schools is a reasonable compromise that's developed over the course of time, with high school articles tending to get kept and those on elementary and middle schools tending to get merged. On populated places that aren't incorporated, it's a gray area, although the common outcome places greater weight on census designated places, and on communities that are identified in atlases and other independent sources; should the small community that's 15 miles away from the nearest town be given different weight than the neighborhood in Seattle? People will debate that and have different opinions.


 * Additional optional questions from Atama
 * 5. When do you feel that it's important to ignore a rule, and have you applied that philosophy to any decisions you've made in the past?
 * A: The first time (and the last time) I had encountered the statement "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" was in the course of an AfD debate. I'll have to do some checking to find the link, but it was in the context of someone who wanted to nominate fifty or however many articles for deletion, but didn't want to go through the procedure of tagging each article.  IAR was raised, and my response was that the requirement didn't prevent him or her from improving or maintaining Wikipedia-- perhaps it was less convenient to simply say, "here's my list of what I want deleted", but it didn't prevent the nominator from pursuing anything.

Getting to the heart of your question, rules get ignored regularly, not just on Wikipedia but in every other aspect of our lives. How we respond to the violation of a rule is just as important as the rule itself. The two extremes are no rule at all (no speed limits or no requirement that anything written on Wikipedia be accurate) or the opposite extreme, strict enforcement of any violation (ticket for the guy going 56 mph, or blanking an article that isn't sourced). Just as society wouldn't function if we had no traffic rules or if every violation meant being taken to court, Wikipedia wouldn't work if we had no sourcing for our articles, and it wouldn't work if we erased all articles that were lacking in sources. We should never completely ignore rules, but there are few rules so important that they must be enforced immediately and rudely.


 * 6. What are your feelings on the way that biographies of living people are treated, and what changes should be made to the way that Wikipedia handles them (if any)?
 * A: The provision that I think is the best is the statement that there is certain material that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Given that a living person could file suit against the Wikimedia Foundation over libelous statements and invasion of privacy, it's an absolute necessity to have rules in addition to those that apply to all articles.  It doesn't matter whether one thinks that the Wikimedia Foundation would win in a lawsuit against it by a particular living person; defending a suit is expensive, whether you're "right" or not.  The change that I would make, if it were practical, would be semi-protection for BLPs. Just as an anonymous IP can no longer create a new article, I see no value in allowing one to edit a living person's article.  Mandsford 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano
 * 7. What would you do if you stumbled upon the following articles, & ?
 * A: I'll start by saying that the odds are 1 in 3,393,337 that I would have chanced across either article by a hit on the random article button; and I'll follow by saying that I'm glad that people volunteer to patrol, looking for new articles as they get posted. In both cases, a speedy tag was placed under A7, "no indication of importance" within a few minutes after the article was posted, and in both cases, the article's author was notified and given an opportunity to contest.  Would I have waited longer to see if there would me more content?  Perhaps, although I don't see anything wrong with putting a speedy tag on an article even within a few minutes of the last edit (if someone appears to be making a series of edits, perhaps one should wait longer).  There's nothing wrong with tagging an article -- it's a way of saying, "there are problems with this and you should have a chance to respond".  I'm not sure that "no indication of importance" was evident from the face of the article about maritime safety; on the one about Sorj Salandon, though, I think that the call was acceptable-- the importance asserted was "won Medicis"; if the tagger typed in Medicis he or she would have been redirected to the House of Medici rather than to the Prix Médicis; nobody's perfect.  Mandsford 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * follow-up question Exactly which one of the A7 categories of articles does the Maritime safety article fall under? Is it a person, or group/organization, or animal, or web content? And are you saying you would as an admin delete an article about someone who won the Prix Medicis?  DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Three questions there-- I understand, the first and second ones are rhetorical, point made; on the third, the situation was an evaluation of whether the article, in the form presented in the example, gave "no indication of importance" and should be tagged; on the other hand, an article that showed, through a reliable and verifiable source, that someone had won the Prix Medicis would be kept.
 * From WP:CSD: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 11:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Mkativerata
 * 8.There's been call for some deletion examples, and while I'm already in support, I have a couple. How would you deal with 1 and 2?
 * I would have put the A7 speedy tag on both of them too. The first one, a hypothetical, says that a group "is a well-known gang" and "its leaders...have been convicted of killing many innocent people", with no sources; "well-known" means essentially nothing except the author's personal POV that the subject is notable; unsourced assertions that two named people have been convicted of homicide are WP:BLP violations; "many" is, to me, a signal that the author has no source that would recite a number (I would ask "How many?" and the punchline is "The answer, my friend, is Blowin' in the Wind"); the part of innocent people is POV too, but the type that one would fix with neutral writing rather than sourcing; still, I think A7 is appropriate.  On the other one, I'd call it an even stronger case of A7: the subject "is a young rugby union player from Brighton, Sussex. He plays as halfback and was part of the successful Brighton College 1st XV and has turned out for Harlequins on a number of occasions."  There's no assertion that he is notable in his own right; and although playing for Harlequin F.C. would appear to qualify under WP:ATHLETE, it doesn't say that he played for them; it says that he "turned out" on a number of occasions (and doing a simple search, "turned out" seems to mean the same thing in the U.K. as it does in the U.S., i.e. that one tried out for the team).  It would only be an educated guess, from the context, that it's a reference to the Harlequin rugby team; where I live, Harlequins refers to a series of paperback romance novels.  I'd add that while I think that making jokes is okay in a discussion-- and in some cases, levity is needed when a discussion is becoming heated -- I generally don't think that one should attempt to be funny in closing a discussion; the only exception might be if it's WP:SNOW, and even at that, one of the participants in the discussion usually makes the humorous reference to that.  Mandsford 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from  DGG ( talk )
 * 9 Why did you say delete instead of merge/redirect to the relevant community for ? (I am not saying I necessarily disagree) DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A Several reasons. First, mass creation and abandonment of articles is a problem for Wikipedia and it's something that needs to be discouraged unless there is an exception to WP:GNG (as I've said, mass creation of stubs about subjects that are presumed to be notable is within policy); I'm a firm believer in making sure that we be careful about the precedents that are set.  Second, there is no bar to anyone mentioning the police department or sheriff's office within the relevant community if they wish to preserve that information.  But most importantly, my experience is that the word "merge" means different things to different people, and I call it "the m-word" because one never knows how it will be interpreted.  Sometimes, even the mere suggestion that the material should be merged, rather than kept or deleted, leads to comments that we should close the discussion and reassemble at the article's talk page; I recall at least one ruling where nearly everyone was recommending a merge, and the admin closed it as a keep and gave an opinion about where we could go with out merge talk.  I've seen a similar instance where the conclusion was that, since people were saying merge, rather than keep, then the article should be deleted.  In all fairness, I've seen more instances where people were suggesting a merge and it closed with "The result was merge to [what people were suggesting]".
 * 10 Do you still hold by your !vote at Articles for deletion/Seven Minutes in Heaven (play)?   DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A Yes, and it's not because I'm afraid of looking "wishy-washy"; the original reason for saying "Delete" was that there was no showing of notability for a separate article about the subject, which is a play being presented in what is described as an "off-off Broadway" playhouse in New York City. Although I appreciate that someone located reviews of the play, they're all reviews from New York local sources, where coverage would be expected.  We have no rule that everything covered in the New York Times is presumed notable, and with good reason; the NYT covers international and national news, but it also has to provide its readers in New York and New Jersey with local news.  Mandsford 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Rami R
 * 11. How would you close this AFD? I'm more interested in the thought process than the actual close.
 * A: Sorry not to have taken this one before #12. I appreciate the test, and, whether I get to be an admin or not, I'm happy to explain my thought process in impartial resolution of an AfD debate.  First, I looked at the date that the article was nominated and the date of last comment; it had been up for nine days, and there was no relisting, so it's appropriate now to read the thread; following the discussion as it progresses isn't much different than prejudging the case.

Second, since the debate had been up for at least seven days, I read though the comments. I looked briefly at the article in question, but formed no opinion on it (on its face, the article was about a person who had been arrested the month before and charged with various crimes). Following through the comments, one finds different references to various aspects of policy; there are two, however, that bear directly to the question of notability of the subject. The three policies raised concerning notability were WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E (by the nominator and a subsequent delete !vote) and, by another party, WP:N/CA, the notability policy applying to criminal acts. The arguments referencing those policy considerations were the three upon which the issue turned. Some arguments were made that not consistent with policy-- one person felt that WP:BLP concerns justified deleting the article "until there is a conviction"; some were made early on about the irregular procedure in the case (the nom had removed a speedy, and said that he or she was "unsure" about deletion); some were observations about crystalballing, recentism, POV, and inaccuracy of information, all of which reference policy, none of which bore directly on the basic issue-- is this person notable enough for their own article? Now, how would I have decided it? It would be an unpopular call for any administrator; if this had been a vote, the "deletes" outnumbered the "keeps" by 12-8, but some of those didn't address either BLP1E or NOT#NEWS. Of those that did, I found the most relevant to be that the initial BLP1E was vitiated by a showing that the person was suspected in multiple events; and that the continuing news references to the subject weakened the initial NOT#NEWS objections. Hence, had it been me, I would have ruled it as a keep, with an acknowledgment of the one-event and not-news concerns. Mandsford 02:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Hobit
 * 12. I'm currently opposing mostly due to Q10 (though Q7 plays a role also), but as I wrote an explanation of my !vote here I realized I might be the one who is mistaken or I might be misunderstanding you. Could you provide a guideline or policy based justification (with links or quotes) for your !vote in that AfD and/or for the reason you gave for discarding the sources because they are "local"?
 * ATo be fair, "discarding" is your word, not mine; these are reliable sources for information about the play, but the question presented concerns whether I would change my !vote about the notability of the subject based on the presentation of evidence of coverage of an "off-off-Broadway" play by "Show Business Weekly: New York's Performing Arts Weekly Since 1941"; "Time Out New York"; and reviews by the theater critics for the New York Post and the New York Times.


 * We do not have an exception to WP:GNG that says that all productions at "off-off-Broadway" playhouses in New York are presumed to be generally notable; none of the persons involved in the production (Steven Levenson, Adrienne Campbell-Holt, Erin Felgar, etc. are notable. As a !voter, am I persuaded that the reviews confer notability on this production that isn't Broadway and isn't off-Broadway?  No, I'm not persuaded to change my !vote.  The more relevant question should be, how should an administrator decide whether the article is kept or deleted.  He or she should look at what each of the participants have said concerning that issue; if the admin has a personal opinion about the article, then the admin has no business closing the discussion in the first place.  You've posed the question of how I would close a particular deletion debate; I'll be looking over that in just a few minutes. Mandsford 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd not formatted space for the answer correctly and so fixed that, hope that doesn't offend
 * 12a Sorry my question was unclear, let me try once more. Do the sources supplied meet the GNG?  Could you explain why or why not by citing relevant parts of guideline or any other guideline/policy?   If you find that they do meet the GNG, could you explain why you believe deletion is none-the-less the right outcome?
 * A: Thank you, but I think it's clear that my answers to the first twelve questions are not what people are looking for in an administrator.
 * Seems like a bit of a rash conclusion, seeing as you're currently at 85% Support! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You aren't yet what I'd like in an administrator, but I seem to be in a small minority.  And even I think you will be a good admin at some point, I'd just like you to apply the policies and guidelines a bit more carefully in deletion discussions (and ashamedly  assumedly closures) and would prefer you get a few months to get better at that.  Hobit (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting to your question now. Sources like the New York Times and the Daily News are unquestionably reliable sources; they would meet GNG. The second question is "could you explain why you believe deletion is none-the-less the right outcome?"  The "right outcome" is whatever the consensus of the participants happens to be, as assessed by the administrator, not what the administrator's personal belief might be; there's a lot of leeway for the participants to argue the points that are described in "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT."  Since I'm a participant in the discussion about Seven Minutes in Heaven, any of my further arguments would be that there is no long term significance to the play; if I have to explain why that's relevant, it's in WP:NOT "the enduring notability of persons and events"; it's in WP:N ("it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage"); it's in WP:EVENT "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)"... and it's in the spirit of giving the editors a wide range to argue for or against an article in question.  Mandsford 00:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Optional question from Uncle G
 * 13. Assume that you had administrator tools, and that it was past the 7 day discussion period. What would you do upon encountering the following AFD discussions, as they stand now, and why?


 * Q: Articles for deletion/Maddison Gabriel
 * A: This one was the last that I decided, and the most difficult. There are strong emotions on both sides, meaning that the result will upset some people and delight others.   We have a lot of factors at work here.  Discounting the participation by Mom and a couple of IPs, it's actually an even split here.  The points in favor of keep-- notability based upon coverage, specific to the subject rather than a mention, in newspapers in Sydney and in New York, supported the assertions that she was notable  under the definition of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.  There were arguments that she "completely" failed WP:BIO and that she had "absolutely zero notability", but no elaboration that would overcome what was presented.  I'd rule it as a keep.  Mandsford 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Q: Articles for deletion/Velocitron
 * A: The split on this article about a fictional planet from "Transformers" was between delete, keep or merge to a list of Transformers planets. The nominator pointed out that the article had been unsourced for years and that it didn't appear to have any independent notability; another editor did a search and found other non-Transformers uses for the term, but nothing which he or she felt was notable.  The lone keep argument noted some real-world notability in the case of a song and the fact that the Transformers franchise was unquestionably notable.  There were three merges, and one of the deletes said "delete and redirect".  Based on the arguments, the consensus on this one would be merge the article about the planet to the List of Transformers planets.  Mandsford 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Q: Articles for deletion/List of people killed by dogs in the United States
 * A: I was delayed in answering this one, so I looked at the discussion as it stood at the time that Uncle G asked (3:58 on Friday). There were five deletes, only two keeps.  The nomination was premised on (a) the people on the list were not notable and (b) the statistics that had been composed were original research to make a point about "pit bull type" breeds.  Other reasons for delete raised were that it was a "non-encyclopedic list"; that it was indiscriminate; that it was a violation of WP:MEMORIAL; in response, it was pointed out that it had good citations; that it was useful; that the list was part of a project; and that the list was about the attacks rather than the victims.   My ruling on this would have been to relist it for further discussion.  I don't favor deleting a well-sourced article without a compelling reason; citation to reliable and verifiable sources is the one rule that has been ignored more than any other.  The apparently never-before-published table is, indeed, original synthesis; unsourced material should be removed; but its presence, by itself, doesn't mandate removing the entire article.  I think nearly everyone would agree that the individual persons on the list were not notable (one does have her own article); this should have been presented as a list of incidents in which dogs killed people, rather than as a list of people.  Statements that it's "useful" or that it's "not encyclopedic" don't reflect anything more than personal opinion.  It's not an indiscriminate list (everyone seems to have their own definition of that) in the sense of a lack of information to discriminate between one entry and the next.  There's nothing to suggest that this was ever intended as a memorial for the individuals referred to.  As is often pointed out, it's not a vote; I think that there's enough points raised on both sides that a relist would be my choice. Mandsford 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Q: Articles for deletion/Civil Coping Mechanisms
 * A: An obvious delete. Nobody, including the author, opposed the deletion; as the nominator noted, he and the author had discussed the subject (it's on the article's talk page).  It was relisted once, and attracted only one comment, also a delete. Mandsford 22:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 14 Would you be open to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if you pass as there was many valid concerns on your RFA? Thanks Secret account 21:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Even those of you who support the nomination have told me when they thought I was in the wrong; on those who oppose the nomination, I've known many of you for a long time, and I appreciate the criticism; I hope that all of you, support, oppose or neutral, will still feel free to be frank with me, whether your name is "Frank" or not.   Assuming "the worst", then the moment that it appears that I'm simply pursuing my own agenda, or that I'm using the badge to as some sort of leverage, or that I know it all and can't be told otherwise, or that I'm too ignorant of policy to be applying it, then it's time to go. Mandsford 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Even those of you who support the nomination have told me when they thought I was in the wrong; on those who oppose the nomination, I've known many of you for a long time, and I appreciate the criticism; I hope that all of you, support, oppose or neutral, will still feel free to be frank with me, whether your name is "Frank" or not.   Assuming "the worst", then the moment that it appears that I'm simply pursuing my own agenda, or that I'm using the badge to as some sort of leverage, or that I know it all and can't be told otherwise, or that I'm too ignorant of policy to be applying it, then it's time to go. Mandsford 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Mandsford:
 * Edit summary usage for Mandsford 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

 * Edit counters have the potential to be evil, but do you mind opting in at X!'s counter? Thanks,  — fetch ·  comms   16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've had several people recommend that I stay in the running, pointing out that more people support than oppose the nomination-- kind of like, "It's 40-10 in your favor, are you nuts?!" One of my concerns had been that it takes a long time to answer the "what would you do" questions, and each one potentially gives rise to "what did you mean" questions; I do want to acknowledge people, and since I'm on my lunch break right now, good time to do it, but for all of us, our day jobs have to come first.  It's been pointed out to me that I don't have to answer each and every question posed to me, and the answers are optional.  Another concern is that the people who say oppose really do have a good point about whether I should be an administrator; clearly, I'm popular-- I see praise for being fair-minded, straight-talking, good sense of humor-- but there aren't many people who have been able to say, "yeah, he knows policy" or "he answered that question well" (incidentally, my thanks to Ironhold for making me laugh out loud-- I never write LOL unless I actually did laugh).  Overall, the larger concern for me has been, do I really want to be an administrator?  I have a Howard Cosell reputation over at AfD, some people think "tell it like it is", others think some of my comments are inane, but if being an administrator means that I have to compromise my principles-- I'm pretty good at sticking to what I do best.  I guess the best way to put it is that it honestly doesn't matter to me whether I become an admin or not, and if anyone wants to quote that, italicize it or bold print it, no problem.  In that the outcome doesn't matter to me, I'll ride it out until August 31, and I'll try to answer your questions.  Mandsford 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Beat-the-nom Support—I've seen only good work from this user and have no qualms with them wielding the mop. Airplaneman   ✈  16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as nominator Secret account 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Mandsford has solid AfD experience and even when we don't agree I respect the perspective he brings to the discussions. His arguments aren't biased nor do they stray from established consensus. He would make a great AfD closer.  Them From  Space  16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Mandsford is a sensible, experienced AfD contributor who gives intelligent and policy-based opinions. Also, (s)he possesses a sense of humour which is a valuable admin trait - AfD would be a little duller without Mandsford's comments. Good luck! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support With sincere apologies for my hasty oppose, I see after further review that in fact, as you say, the block shortly after the comment I referenced seems indeed to have been "the best thing that ever happened to you". Subsequent to that, I see nothing of concern, and a healthy history of positive contributions to AFD, along with good humour, intelligence and tolerance. Apologies again, and this is in no way an excuse for my 2008 based "oppose", but you should probably archive your talk page once in a while - it's pretty big. :-) Begoon talk  16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Seems fine to me. Good AfD experience, would be helpful there. Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. AfD work looks great to me, and the candidate shows civility and good humour, and seems to understand consensus well - and the AfD backlog often needs mopping up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Agree with the above, the candidate has a good body of quality input at AFD, and appears to be well-suited for adminship. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support More than demonstrated his suitability with good work at AfD. Rje (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support . I was somewhat surprised by this request, but I guess I always assumed you'd never run because you didn't want to be an admin. However, I think you could be a damn fine admin. We do indeed need more admins to close AfDs and Mandsford shows himself to be consistently clueful and widely read in his AfD comments, where I'm constantly impressed (often as either a nominator or a closer) by the consideration that goes into his comments. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC) With deep regret, moving to oppose :( HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, I quite frequently don't agree with Mandsford's opinions at AfD, but they're almost invariably sensible ones nonetheless. A conscientious user that definitely puts thought into what he does, I'm confident that Mandsford will make a good admin. ~ mazca  talk 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) No problems here. ~ NS D  (✉ • ✐) 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I've frequently cited his arguments when I'm closing heated AfDs. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - huge number of edits, sufficient WP edits, and autoreviewer. The only minus is the current lack of a user page. One of our most clueful and civil editors. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Pretty much everything checks out. In fact, it has done for some time. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Looks good with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) In my view, Mandsford is one of the most thoughtful and sensible contributors at AfD so of course I think he will make thoughtful and sensible AfD closes. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support no reason not to Inka  888 22:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - no problems here. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм  &#124; Spare your time?  22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Trusted user, should do fine w/ the tools. Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Trusted user who has a clue. Pichpich (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  Ray  Talk 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support – We need more users working at AFD, and this candidate will be a fine admin. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) weak support. AfD hero (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support Although the candidate's portfolio has quite a few thin spots (e.g. no user page, no opt-in of X!'s counter), the need for the tools in support of AfD work is what convinces me to vote in favor--Hokeman (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support – An editor who has matured with experience and learned from mistakes. He's found an area where he does excellent work, and would use the admin bit to further that work. All valid reasons to support and nothing to cause me any concerns. --RexxS (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) If all admin candidates were able to demonstrate the levels of policy-based decision making that Mandsford can, we wouldn't have had people crying about the lack of successful RfAs the other week, because the minority of people that believe sysops should have this quality wouldn't be opposing. Will be an excellent admin. --WFC-- 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - An excellent AfD mind. I've agreed and disagreed, but I highly respect the sum of Mandsford's opinions. The oppose only reinforces my opinion here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Contrary to Colonel Warden; if somebody has changed their mind after encountering new evidence or persuasive arguments from others, and struck through their old opinion, I find that very impressive. I think wikipedia needs more people - and more admins - like that. bobrayner (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) * I do not object to him changing his mind and thought I had said so clearly. The objection is that his judgments are too hasty and shallow. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Support As with so many things, I can't see eye to eye with the Colonel. Dloh  cierekim  14:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Definitely. Remember disagreeing with him but always found his arguments to be solid. A wonderful candidate.  ceran  thor 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Very rare I disagree with the Colonel, but I dont see an issue with offering a provisional opinion without doing much research as long as you watchlist the discussion and have the flexibility to change your view. Hasty admin decisions have much more potential to cause damage even if your ready to reverse them, but the candidate seems thoughtful enough to know this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Seems like a good candidate. Bastique ☎ call me! 18:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Diego Grez (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per WTHN. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 21:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Good choice! He is an intelligent presence at AfD. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Support openmindedness is undervalued - often there is no black and white, only shades of grey...so worth a go with an indecisive mop, or maybe not. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Stephen 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) Support I note the opposition and many of those who oppose have made fair points. However on balance a net positive with the tools. Pedro : Chat  10:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - looks good to me.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 34) Weak Support: Many of those who oppose have made fair points but on balance the candidate is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) Support - I've "known" Mandsford a long time due to his long-time dedication to AfD. At various times I've judged him to be an inclusionist, and at other times he seemed to be a deletionist, but that shows that he's neither, which is a good thing. With his extensive experience at AfD, I believe he has a good understanding of relevant Wikipedia policy, and I expect that he will use good judgment in closing AfD discussions. Most of the "oppose" votes seem to be due to the shaky understanding of speedy-deletion criteria that he reveals in his response to Q7; I submit that this is not a relevant concern -- because he little history of working on speedy deletion (this lack of experience could help explain his shaky understanding) and he does not indicate an interest in working in that arena. I do wish he'd provide more edit summaries, but I suppose summaries aren't real important when most of your edits are in AfD discussions... --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you I appreciate the compliments, and the criticisms as well. However, I'm clearly failing in the answers to the questions that have been posed.  This has been an interesting experience,  to be sure.  I think, however, that I'm accomplishing what I want to accomplish as a participant in AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Support per Fastily. --John (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. Excellent user, great contributions in admin-related areas. Mandsford and I disagree, and have done repeatedly, but the one constant is that he can always justify his argument. The only occasion of incivility I've run into with him was me acting like a dick and him persuading me to calm down. Some of the opposers are exactly who I expected; the hemp-and-sandal wearing, pot-smoking hippie brigade identifiable by the smell of patchouli drifting after them and the way they keep chaining themselves to forlorn Amazonian articles at risk of being chopped down. They'd be more persuasive if they weren't going "OMG HE CHANGES HIS MIND, HOW AWFUL IS THAT!". You're right, keeping an open mind is a horrible, horrible thing to do. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it.  <font color="#25900D">Snotty <font color="#25900D">Wong  chatter 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of the opposers are "the usual suspects" from an AfD point of view. Seeing people like Colonel Warden, a man who (for example) accused me of virulent personal attacks, forum shopping and double standards - because I discussed an article with the writer before sending it to AfD - oppose somebody for having odd standards and changing their mind (incidentally, Warden completely failed to either provide evidence or even address my queries for evidence) has no impact. If there was no reason for the usual suspects to complain about someone's AfD contributions, we would have to create one. I think that's what Nietzsche said, anyway. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that those that hang around AfD and DrV are generally in the best position to evaluate him in the area he's most interested in working. I honestly don't consider Mandsford a deletionist and I certainly wouldn't oppose him for that even if I thought he was.  Hobit (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My criticisms weren't levelled at you, and I wasn't suggesting Mandsford is a deletionist, simply that he's not orientated far enough away from it (which is a consequence of holding a position based on evidence rather than ideology). My problem is that if altering your approach because you listen to the arguments of others and consider evidence brought to you is a problem, we're all goddamned doomed. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. <font color=#87F717> IShadowed  ✰  13:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) No hay problema. -Atmoz (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I waffled on this, my first reading of your answer to Q7 left me almost voting oppose, but on rereading it, I believe that I read the question differently than I did.  I read it as asking "as an admin you find this article already tagged A7, what do you do?" and it appears that you read it as "was the tagging defensible (even if not correct) in the first place?", which are enormously different questions. While you and I will probably disagree on a few subjective calls (based on at least one of your other answers), your answers were within policy and reason. I would ask that you consider the advice given elsewhere to think a little bit in AfD debates early on, but that is advice that I need to take myself as well, and I suspect you will be a NETPOS. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Trusted user who will not abuse the tools. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - net positive. I don't consider being indecisive a good enough reason to oppose, and while the speedy delete concerns are more valid, in all honesty, I don't believe he'll abuse the tools. PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Mandsford is an outstanding contributor to deletion discussions, and the fact that he managed to take the time to give such detailed answers and explain his reasoning so well gives me great confidence in his abilities as an administrator to be able to reason with people over his decisions. Full support. Nomader (Talk) 19:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support We're all weak in certain areas, and Mandsford's weaknesses are pretty minuscule compared to a lot out there. Give them the mop and a couple weeks at most, and they will be working like a veteran around here.  Good user, going to be a good admin.  Jmlk  1  7  20:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support on the basis of ridiculous opposes and the plain and simple fact that this user has demonstrated competency in the working of the project. He is unlikely to abuse the tools. Adminship isn't a badge of honor, it's really no big deal. Period. Full stop. Trusilver  22:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support User has been around since May 2007 with over 16000 edits and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, largely from Nomader's points raised. Connormah (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support All things considered, a net positive. Courcelles 13:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Jonathunder (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I do not always agree with Mandford's opinions in AfD, but his opinions are well-thought out and he is not afraid to work on "controversial" AfD discussions, to actually look at sources and look for new sources, and to make his own assessments. Not enough of us put in that needed level of effort.  He is also level-headed.  These are all attributes of someone who would be a good admin.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  18:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose - Sorry to be the first, but as soon as I went to your talk page to start looking at your contributions, I found several instances of what I would call very abrupt, bordering on uncivil comments. By the time I reached this comment: I'm afraid I had reached the conclusion that you will have to demonstrate a much higher level of collegiality and civility before I am able to support.  <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon <font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  16:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In his defense, that was from almost 2 years ago....--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Nobody said it was easy 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair call - I didn't go any further after reading that - I'll review some later contributions. I didn't realise it was quite that old as it was not yet archived. <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon <font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  16:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - candidate owes me a dollar. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * After lengthy deliberation I've decided to forgive Mandsford and move to support. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose I've seen Mandsford at AFD many times and it has often struck me that he seems only to give his personal opinion of the matter, without reference to any independent evidence such as sources. To confirm this impression, I started sampling his contributions from Oct 2009 and immediately found Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates.  In this discussion, he flounders because he's not looking to see what external sources have to say about the matter.  So, it seems that he views AFD as a place where people vent their personal opinion of topics, contrary to all our core policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because he flip-floped in one AFD it doesn't mean that he just looks at the article without sourcing. You need more proof than that. Secret account 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Colonel Warden will easily find more proof of cases where I have changed my initial opinion and struck through it; I view it as keeping an open mind rather than being wishy-washy. One could call it floundering or flip-flopping, I suppose, but I look at it as taking subsequent developments into consideration.  Sometimes, the initial objections to an article are cured by subsequent edits, and original research gives way to statements cited to sources.   And, sometimes, the arguments of others persuade me that I should reconsider my initial stand.  If I'm arguing, I believe that it's crucial to make points sooner rather than later; on the other hand, I think that an administrator shouldn't even begin reading an argument until the customary waiting period has passed, nor form an opinion until considering what everyone has had to say.  There has to be a difference between being a "lawyer" and being a "judge", but in either instance, I'd rather hear what others have to say.  Mandsford 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've often changed my mind at AfD too, based on development of the article and on other people's opinions - it is, after all, supposed to be a discussion rather than an argument, and I think having an open mind in the face of such discussion is a strength, not a weakness. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems easy to find more examples. I go back to October and immediately find another case: Articles for deletion/List of band theme songs.  In this case, he changes his mind because "My initial objection was, in retrospect, over nothing more than the name of the article, which is not a very good reason for deleting it."   I'm fine with him changing his mind - I'd much rather have that than someone who digs in and refuses to budge.  What I don't like is his apparent willingness to make snap-judgments on little evidence.  This may be ok in a contributor to AFD, where he gets plenty of opportunity to react to the evidence that other editors bring to the discussion.  But I don't want this shoot-from-the-hip style in an admin who may be resolving lots of speedy deletions and proposed deletions. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd rather have and admin who can't be swayed by reasonable argument or can't admit they made a mistake? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have an admin like Michig. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Michig too, I'm glad to see that RfA going well (currently unopposed). I assume what you're referring to is his great answer to the 10th question in that RfA where he broke down how he'd close a bunch of sample RfAs. Maybe as SnottyWong suggests below, someone can propose a set of AfDs and/or CSDs to get an idea on how Mandsford would close them? --  At am a  頭 16:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I hate to admit it, but the Colonel might have a point. In Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple, Mandsford starts with a (rather inexplicable) Speedy Delete !vote, and then three hours later switches it to a Keep !vote.  Looking at it again, I see that Mandsford likely meant A7 and not G7 as the speedy criteria, but either way it shows both a lack of thought being put into his !votes (followed by backtracking once he's proven wrong) as well as a gross misunderstanding of speedy deletion criteria.  It's great that he's capable of admitting that he's wrong (which is a rare character trait), but it would be nice if he was wrong less.   <font color="#25900D">Snotty <font color="#225DC8">Wong  chat 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen some users have speedy deletion "tests" set up on their subpages. If someone administered such a test to Mandsford and he passed with flying colors, I might be swayed to change to neutral or support, in light of Mandsford's other good contributions.  I'm just hesitant to support someone who primarily wants to work in XfD's when they don't show a clear understanding of deletion policies.   <font color="#00AA00">Snotty <font color="#25900D">Wong  speak 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's somewhat concerning that this user has never once nominated an article for deletion (according to this tool). The only article created in the Wikipedia namespace was an essay titled WP:Kittens.  Again, I don't want to knock Mandsford's other copious contributions to AfD's, but since this is the area that he wants to focus on, it deserves more scrutiny.  I'll reserve final judgement until I see the response to Salvio's tests above.   <font color="#225DC8">Snotty <font color="#225DC8">Wong  soliloquize 22:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Q7 didn't sway my vote.  <font color="#648113">Snotty <font color="#648113">Wong  confer 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm sorry, but, in my opinion, you whiffed question #7. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 00:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I do not always agree with him at AfD, but I would not  oppose on that basis. I might oppose on the basis of my  concern that  he may show a tendency to decide on the basis of his own opinions rather than those of the community as expressed at the AfD, though that's obviously hard to demonstrate in advance.  But I unfortunately must oppose on his apparently total lack of understanding of the basic speedy criteria. I'll be glad to support when he gets some good experience nominating speedys, so we can evaluate the results.    DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose due to Q7 and Q10. Hobit (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, on Q10 his original argument in that AfD had really nothing to do with our deletion policy (Looks like someone was trying to promote this non-notable play within an article about a party game, although that could have simply been edited out.). His second argument (made in his answer to Q10) is pretty darn questionable (those 4 sources are too "local" including the NYT, and New York Post), that's a very high bar and I don't see a part of WP:N or any other relevant guideline where the local nature of sources is mentioned though I could easily be missing something. I just don't get the sense he understands our inclusion guidelines well enough to work in AfD as a closing admin at this time. I have asked for clarifications on Q10 as Q12. Hobit (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Answers to 12 and 12a didn't really answer the question. Still opposed but believe that in 3-4 months I'd likely support if gets more familiar with our deletion policies. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Whilst not always directly uncivil, the tendency of Mandsford to personalise matters and/or to allow too much unnecessary colouring in his comments, can inflame matters or irritate people - something unwelcome in any user, and very problematic in an admin. His talkpage archive two versions indicates that this is a long standing habit, and this listing of a user's edits was made within the past month. That in conjunction with a block for incivility a year ago lead me not to support.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose I'm concerned at the answer to the first example in q8, an unsourced article saying that two people "killed many innocent people" is an attack page not an A7 candidate - but such "good faith" attack pages need a tailored explanation to the author as the addition of a reliable source could turn that into a legit article. Some of the other CSD related answers were also weak, and informing an author of a speedy deletion tag is not giving them an opportunity to contest the deletion, usually it is telling them why their article has been deleted. Prods and AFDs give the author 7 or 10 days to contest a deletion, correct speedy deletion tags can result in deletion by the first admin to see them - that's why speedy deletion is for clear and uncontentious cases. If turning out for a team can in your dialect of English mean having a trial rather than playing for a team then I can understand the tag of a Harlequins player - but I'd suggest a quick Google check can't hurt in such situations, nor does it hurt to prod such articles with a rationale that includes "Doesn't appear to have actually played for the team". Weak because these were not in his core competency area.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to be an admin and I would have deleted the article as an A7, after looking if there is any sources. He has the right answers in my opinion for the A7. It's clearly not an attack page. Secret account 18:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * under just what part of the A7 criterion?   DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Db-group there's nothing on google (I even checked spanish language sources), and it doesn't really claim notability other than being conviced of a crime. Secret account 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An unsourced allegation of a real person being convicted of a crime is easily enough to justify a G10 deletion.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose - I've held off for awhile because I wasn't sure whether or not to support. Mandsford seems to be very thoughtful and certainly has the right kind of activity and contributions I'd look for in a candidate. My concern is that the main area of interest as an administrator is in closing deletion debates, and I think that the answers to questions above miss the mark. Another problem I have is that I see a little too much IAR; the common sense arguments in deletion discussions are refreshing, and I admit that I dislike the usual AfD !votes along the lines of "fails WP:N" but in this case there's too little appeal to policy and guidelines. I dislike opposing someone who has a good head on his shoulders and has experience but my gut feeling is that I wouldn't trust this person to close deletion debates so I have to oppose. --  At am a  頭 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you I appreciate the comments from everyone, whether as support, oppose or neutral, and I sincerely mean that. I've known many of the people in this discussion for a long time, and I consider all of you to be my friends.  Some good questions have been posed, and it's clear that my answers to those questions aren't satisfactory, and I don't have any plans to change.  Although I do try to be fair, I am, and always will be, an advocate rather than a neutral party.  So, thanks for considering me.  It's been an interesting experience.  Mandsford 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per Snottywong, Hobit, and DGG. Reading the examples above and your answers, I see someone who wants to be a great judge and issue grand opinions... but who doesn't understand the law--in this case, Wikipedia's various policies, guidelines, and precedents. Nothing personal, go learn them better and come back in three months after increasing your policy knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) With deep regret. Sorry, I think you have the potential to be a fine admin and I held onto my support despite multiple issues being raised. However, the answers to Q7 and 8 are, frankly, just plain wrong. A claim to have won a notable prize is more than enough to escape A7 deletion, even if it's total bollocks (in which case, G3 applies). That pushed me into neutral, but I'm afraid Q8 compelled me to oppose. It's vital that you be able to distinguish things like G10 and G12 from A7. Don't just go by the tag the patroller has placed. I just don't think you are thorough enough in your checking to be safe with a mop right now. Worst case scenario, not doing your due diligence could lead to a gross BLP violation or a blatant copyvio slipping through the net, which could potentially be extremely damaging. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your oppose, but he's not going to do speedy deletions, it's a much different system than AFDs, I agree his answers are wrong, (with the exception of the gang article that's a valid A7) but there's no point in opposing if he's not going to do CSD work. I'm sure he's learning about this now. I'll train him if anything and you know before my desyropping my specialty is AFDs and CSDs. Secret account 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - While a good editor, this user frequently imposes his own analysis and opinion counter to community consensus in decision making processes. I just don't feel comfortable advocating more power to this editor.--Oakshade (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, regretfully. I have run into Mandsford many a time at AfD and always value their opinion, whether I agree or not, and will continue to do so. I hope that, should this RfA fail, they try again in the future. But the answers to Q7 puzzle me, frankly. That Medicis award, even if typing it straight into WP delivers not the right article, could be traced using Google, and even if that doesn't work, at the very least the article claims notability. The Maritime Safety Information article--A7 is obviously the wrong category, the information in the article certainly suggests encyclopedic relevance, and this search immediately indicates that we are dealing with a notable topic (though how that info is to be turned into a decent article, given that Maritime safety information still looks terrible, is for the experts to figure out). So Mandsford, I am sorry. I disagree with you a bit on Q10 and that's a question of individual weighing, but Q7, that's policy. If the RfA passes, good luck, cause you will have your homework cut out for you. All the best. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The AFD participation cited by the nominator as examples of sound, policy-based participation in that arena are neither policy based nor very sound. The attitude is actually hostile in some of them and I see basic errors like confusing "needs cleanup" with "merits deletion". I expect someone with the candidate's level of experience to have better judgement at something that is supposed to be their forte. In short, I wouldn't be very comfortable with Mandsford closing deletion debates.  Steven Walling  21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Q8, Q10, and especially Q7, I really can't trust your judgment in closing AFD debates. Vodello (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, I'll have to oppose too. I could be swayed to support, I think. This editor has potential. I'm sure Mandsford would be a great administrator in six months or so. I am just not getting a warm feeling that now is the time. I find answers to some of the questions (particularly Q7) rather lacking, and I see a tendency to personalize discussions. Regarding the argument "he won't work in CSD": An admin has access to all the admin tools; I see no reason to believe that new admins would necessarily restrict themselves to one area; the sysop procedures are all unfamiliar in all areas, at first (in my case, for example, RFD was never mentioned in my RFA, I never worked there before, but it turned out to be one of the first backlogs I tackled). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indented my opposition. Upon further reflection, I don't think the vague impression I formed is a reason to oppose; I am now neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Just looking through the user's talk page and I really do not like what I have seen. Frequently accused of being incivil and making personal attacks by other users User was also once blocked for incivility. Truthsort (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the time stamps. --<font color='#66dd44'>j &#9883; e deckertalk 16:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree check the time stamps that was from two years ago, and a year ago, he admitted that the block was the best thing that happened to him. Secret account 18:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Agree with Truthsort--Gian (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Although I never thought I would say this I have to agree with Colonel Warden. I have gone through three or four of Mandsford's more heavily edited AfDs at random and find Mandsford to be very wishy washy. I don't see this as a good basis for an admin running on his ability to deal with AfDs. However, I reserve my right to be wishy washy and sit on the fence for now, I cannot fully oppose based on this concern at present. Polargeo (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One could make the point that an admin who does not have strong feelings one way or the other is exactly the right person to be closing AFDs. Closing admins are supposed to make their decision based on the strength of the arguments offered, their own opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted is not relevant as far as closing is concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * lack of strong feelingss is one thing; erratic is another--his closinga might depend on the way he happens to feel at the moment rather than a judicious consideration.   DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Just so  that  we  are quite sure:to  me  neutral  is neutral-  it's not  a 'weak  oppose'.  My  first  thought  was: all  one needs to do  to become a sysop  is to  choose a single domain  of maintenance and stick  with  it  until  one has accumulated enough  edits to  run for office. That  might  be true, but  I  find the candidate's AfD comments a tad too  inconsistent - but  that  may  be due to  a lack  of my own   experience at  AfD. A very  one-sided pie chart. I  can't  honestly  see how the tools would be an enormous advantage to  him except  for occasional  admin  closures. He certainly  probably knows all  about  deletion  policy - but  what  does he know about  the rest  of the areas where admins are expected to  use the tools once  they've been given them? I  don't  see a great  model  of civiity  on  his talk  page, but  perhaps I just hit  the wrong  archives.  I  see no  reasons  strong  enough to  oppose whatsoever, but  I  see no  special  reasons  to  support either.--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you As per above. Mandsford 03:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral AfD-related answers are reasonable, but I can't overlook the CSD-related answers. The candidates stated an interest in the deletion process means that he is expected to have a good grasp of it. While CSD and AFD are different and perfect knowledge of CSD isn't expected for someone dealing with AFD, an insufficient knowledge of CSD is a cause for concern. If the candidate had expressed an interest in CSD, I would oppose.  Rami  R  14:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, essentially the same as Rami R above. I would like to support - it looks like Mandsford knows AFD well, and would do a good job of closing discussions there. However, even though he hasn't said he'll deal with CSD, his poor understanding of the criteria gives me cause for concern. I won't stand in the way of him becoming an admin, but I'm reluctant to support him for that reason. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2010 (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.