Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mdann52 2


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

Mdann52
Final (21/25/5); ended 08:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC) - withdrawn -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination
– I first met Mdann52 at AfC, when he beat me to reviewing submissions back when there wasn't a backlog. Other than AfC, he's a prolific vandal fighter, and also a huge help at OTRS. Currently, there are only 7 "team leaders" at OTRS (better known as OTRS admins). Mdann would be the perfect 8th leader. Even if you just look quickly at his talk page and contributions, you can see that this guy knows what he's doing, and does it real well. He has really listened to the opposes of his last RfA, and has fixed the concerns brought up. I'm certain that Mdann will be a net positive. buffbills7701 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am grateful for the nomination. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: One is to keep the "Permission" queue down on OTRS, which often needs files undeleted, which would be quicker to do it personally, rather than waiting for someone else to do so would help massively in improving the response times. I also lurk on IRC, where requests for admin help often are met with silence, as not many lurk on there. In addition, I would also be interested in helping out more at requested moves, requests for closure and edit requests, for which having admins helps a lot (if not makes possible!)
 * Followup question: Please see WP:REFUND that you recently created, and my reply. Had you had administrator rights today, it appears that you would have used those rights to undelete the file yourself in your desire to keep the OTRS permission queue down, without realizing the problems identified in that OTRS ticket. What do you understand about the Wikimedia Foundation's liability exposure with respect to copyrights, particularly in combination with the responsibilities of an OTRS volunteer who also happens to be an administrator? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I feel my best contributions have come from helping at AfC. Through this, I have helped a lot of users create articles, both through accepting them to mainspace, and improving them personally. In addition, I have helped to get a good article promoted (Oblivion (roller coaster)), and am working on a few draft articles at the moment I intend to submit through did you know? in a short time.


 * 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: Overall, I generally am able to keep calm, even in the face of the slightly clueless. Through helping on IRC, I have gained knowledge on how some people need help on Wikipedia, and what I need to do to help them understand our rules and policies. I am generally good at avoiding edit warring, as I am able to take a step back and try and discuss the issues. I have also helped out at the dispute resolution noticeboard, so I am familiar with how to react to disputes to diffuse them.


 * Additional question from Nsk92
 * 4. As a follow-up to your answer to Q1, could you explain in more detail what kind of requests for admin help are made on RfC IRC that often go unanswered?
 * A: Some Wikipedians prefer admins to close RfC, especially if they are contentious, as they feel the community has given them additional trust. Also, in some cases, it is useful for the admin who closes it to remove any temporary measures, such as page protection, in place until the discussion is over. (I am assuming you mean WP:RfC and not WP:IRC...) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!
 * Sorry, actually I did mean IRC. Nsk92 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Nsk92
 * 5. Could you comment on what changed in terms of your contributions and experience since your last RfA in November 2013? Are there any specific ways in which you feel that you have addressed concerns raised in that RfA?
 * A: Since November, I have focused on dispute resolution and content building for a bit (eg. Moby which I tried to get to GA), but I have also started making edits to pages related to OTRS and requests sent in. I have focused less on anti-vandalism, and tried to become a more rounded editor. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!


 * Additional question from Spartaz
 * 6. You state that you wish to work at RM, ANRFC and Esperanza (was that wiki link a mistake) please can you highlight your best recent contribution to each of these areas and also take a recent controversial request/discussion from each area and explain how you would close it. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of RFC's, I have closed 2 of the paid editing proposals. I felt this was fairly controversial, judging by the comments made throughout. I closed both with a decision not to promote, as both had a lot of different views on the matter, despite what a direct count may do.
 * In terms of RM's, I have not recently closed any, as I have found few I can close per the NAC guidelines. One I have just found, Talk:Bistër, I would close as not to move, considering both the sources and arguements presented, and the historical context of this area of Wikipedia.

The final one I meant was edit requests. These are generally uncontroversial, as they require discussion beforehand. I have not helped with these before, for odious reasons, but have helped out with semi-protection requests before. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!
 * Follow up. Thank you for your answer but could you link the RFcs you closed so we can examine them. Contributions doesn't necesserily mean closing. Have you been active at RM? Can you link some comments/votes you think are decent so we can see how you think/approach these. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly - I have listed the most recent examples of each I have closed here. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  16:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Spartaz
 * 7. According to this diff you joined OTRS on 5 February 2014. Please can you explain (without breaching the foundations privacy policy) what you have learned in your brief experience as an OTRS agent and what kind of edits you have made in response to OTRS requests. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a few edits on en-wiki in response to vandalism reports. Without revealing details, I have also made a few edits removing unsourced material on request from both subjects and independent readers, and have also resolved some issues with file copyright. Overall, I have gained the perspective of the subjects and readers - you get a wider view of the general readership on OTRS than the help desk, for example. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!


 * Additional question from Kraxler
 * 8. Could you explain why this version of Big Narstie was "ok for mainspace" but was moved by another user 2 minutes later to a talk page for further improving? Could you explain why Big Narstie is notable, citing the pertaining guidelines? Could you evaluate the Comments by MusikAnimal and Kvng (listed at the top of the abovementioned version, below the big "tag section"? Could you point out what is still wrong with the article (in its current state) in relation to the WP: Manual of Style and/or other guidelines? Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The user reverted it because it was a "bodged move" . I felt they were notable as they clearly met WP:GNG. In terms of the MoS, My knowledge of it not to good, but I will return back later and reformat it (I lack the time to do it immediately, and I had to go AFK for a bit. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  16:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - You say your "best contributions have come from helping at AfC" Nevertheless, today you did a botched move there. You say "In terms of the MoS, My knowledge of it not to good" but that is something basic to admin tasks, and it's essential when working at AfC. You don't say anything about the comments I asked you to evaluate. And, I didn't ask you to improve the article in question (feel free to do so at any time), but to point out what was wrong with it. Kraxler (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that is my specific knowledge of every induvidual components is not 100% - I know the general ideas of it, and what an article should look like, but do not have perfect knowledge of every part. The issue I have spotted are: brackets in the first line containing place of birth, linking of countries, and inconsistent date formats. I felt the comments had been addressed; The article looked like most (if not all) of the promotion had been removed, and COI editing is allowed under or current rules. -- Mdann  52   talk to me!  18:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Acather96
 * 9. Thanks for volunteering to serve the community in this way, a quick question from me about copyright. I believe a lot of copyright work goes through OTRS, and you say above that you have resolved file copyright issues in the past, so what would you do in this situation: a user account which has long lay dormant suddenly springs back to life to post a message to your user talk-page, simply stating with no evidence that a locally-hosted file which is used for decorative purposes in a gallery is actually a copyright violation and he demands you delete it. When you go to look at the file, you find it is tagged as PD-self and is a user-uploaded photograph of a piece of Parisian street art. The user who uploaded the photograph was the one who took it, and the reporting user does not offer any reason why he believes it is a copyright violation. What administrative action, if any, do you take? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:15, 20 March 2014
 * Strictly, the file is a copyright violation, as it is derived from a non-free piece of street art. If the uploaded can prove that they had permission from the artist, then it would be OK, however otherwise it is a fairly clear-cut violation, so I would list at WP:PUF, to allow others to also take a look into it and double-check the actions I would take. Unfortunately, we often have little wiggle room in these situations, because from all we know, the other account could be the artist/copyright holder. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Anupmehra
 * 10 (a) Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
 * A: When it benefits the project as a whole, or reduces damage to it from various material. For example, if a userpage had possible BLP implications, but didn't quite fall under G10, an admin could apply IAR and delete the page. However, due to the nature of going against the rules, this can be controversial, so should be avoided during disputes, or articles under close scrutiny. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  09:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 10 (b) What is your opinion on rogue admins?
 * A: I feel that in the end, every admin takes actions that can be classed as rogue. However, venues like WP:ANI and other "drama boards" help reduce rogue actions, so very few happen in the scheme on things. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 10 (c) Are there any of your contributions, you are not proud of? If yes, why?
 * A: I have accidently got involved in a few edit wars in the past, mainly due to me misunderstanding policies and/or misreading the edits. However, since then, I have slowed down and spent more time looking at edits before I repeatedly revert. In addition, I am not proud of some of my first few contribution looking back (as they are action I would clearly not take again today!) -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech
 * 11. You are approached by an editor who tells you they are discouraged and are considering leaving Wikipedia. They say they feel they are being targeted by other editors. How do you proceed?
 * A: This is something I have had to deal with, both on-wiki or over email. I generally either advise the editor to take a short Wikibreak, relax, then come back and reconsider; or edit in a different area. If there is a genuine problem, I would advise them to take it to the relevant venue (WP:DR or WP:ANI, depending on the issue). Often, such conplaints are to do with a single topic area, so moving away from it can diffuse the situation. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Question from SilkTork
 * 12. When working on OTRS and responding to requests, how much do you judge the balance between following Wikipedia guidelines and acknowledging the desires of the people who write in. I am curious, for example, behind the decision regarding this edit (adding unsourced yet curious material), and this edit (removing material which appears to be true), and this edit (in which you remove an image from an article, but leave the image on Commons). I'm also unsure of the meaning behind this edit.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A: The first one was a user asking for an edit to be made, with a scan of a local article for verification (this is unsutable to be used per WP:COPYVIO). The second and third I can not discuss on-wiki, and the last one related to the code etc. on it - as it has no source online, there is no suitable template to use (I have clarified the comment). I apologise not being to fully explain these edits. WP:BURDEN is often important; If the information is unsourced, or poorly sourced, it can normally be safely removed. WP:UNDUE is also important; If something is not worth keeping in the overall context, it can be safely removed.


 * Overall, it is important to respect the relevant policies and guidelines, but sometimes WP:IAR and/or common sense need to be used. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for Mdann52:
 * Edit summary usage for Mdann52 can be found here.
 * The nomination contains the sentence, "Currently, there are only 7 "team leaders" at OTRS (better known as OTRS admins). Mdann would be the perfect 8th leader." While I'm aware that the nominee did not write that, I would hope that the nominee has a clear enough picture (being an OTRS agent) to inform the nominator that this sentence makes no sense. OTRS + ADMIN ≠ OTRS admin. OTRS administration is completely unrelated to the English Wikipedia RfA process. Keegan (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware - I suspect that BuffBill may have made a mistake there. I assume he may have been saying either 1) an admin with OTRS access, or 2) doing that as a future role. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) Support deleted contributions look good with many successful speedy delete nominations. Also has done work with non free images, new page patrol, and feedback review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - As nom. buffbills7701 11:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support &mdash; per what I said last time. Kurtis (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming my support after reviewing the opposing arguments. While the concerns outlined there are perfectly valid, they do not convince me that Mdann52 wouldn't do a good job overall. Kurtis (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Has done a lot of good work on Wikipedia. CrossTempleJay  →  talk 12:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – even though it's not been six months yet since your last RfA, I think you'll gain support this time. Good luck! Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Yes, he's good. Ned1230|Whine |Stalk  15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support would have easily nominated him. One of the smartest non-admins around. OTRS is a net positive and his work on the help IRC channel, an area ridden with incompetence, has been exceptional. Secret account 15:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I wasn't aware of how "soon" the previous RFA was, but opposing for being in OTRS and wanting to tackle OTRS image backlogs is pathetic, and I don't agree with Hahc oppose vote as it was a trick question so my support stays. Secret account 14:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure now after James concerns with the edit warring below, along with Sven's concerns and the short time between RFAs, I redundantly remove my support. Let me think about this further. Secret account 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh supporting again. Secret account 18:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no feelings about this candidate but I want to oppose Spartaz's oppose. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124;  My Talk  15:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - The single oppose at this time is pretty ridiculous. The candidate looks like a net positive too. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) No hesitation. OTRS really needs a greater level of trust than adminship — otherwise WMF would require identification for admins as it does for OTRS agents.  It's clearly inconvenient to be an OTRS agent without admin tools, judging by the frequent requests I see (whether WP:REFUND or elsewhere) from OTRS agents saying "Please take this admin action on this image, because of this ticket".  Meanwhile, it's thoroughly unfair to oppose Mdann because of the French FOP thing.  Hahc21, please check the table at Commons:COM:FOP.  France's legal position is among the most restrictive worldwide, and whether "street art" be 2D or 3D, the image is a copyvio unless PD-old or artist's permission be proven.  WP:PUF is ideal, since it prepares the image for deletion while leaving a little time for someone to demonstrate permission or PD-old.  This is what should be done upon discovering the image, regardless of how it's discovered.  Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See my followup to question 1. A great level of trust is required for both OTRS agents and administrators, although OTRS volunteers are not subject to community review prior to acceptance. For the two to be combined requires an even greater level of trust. That isn't a strike against Mdann52, but I know from experience that an OTRS+admin runs into more delicate situations because of access to administrator tools. I think he'd be a good administrator, but I also believe he needs more than his 1.5 months on OTRS. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - The tools are a mop to get the job done, it's not a status badge/power trip. The only question that should matter here is would the candidate abuse the tools?  The answer in my mind is a pretty clear no. -- Tawker (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I don't see any real problems. SQL Query me!  06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I supported last time, I see no reason to change my mind. GiantSnowman 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Support A bit soon after their first RFA, but I still feel that the candidate is a net positive.  Mini  apolis  20:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Gone through opposing arguments quite comprehensively Fremantle99 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I supported in his previous RFA. I believe Mdann has addressed the concerns brought up in his previous RFA. Good luck! Jianhui67 T ★  C 05:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Seems generally to be good and trustworthy.  Rcsprinter123    (gas)  @ 12:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Support as I've seen this editor lead the charge at AfC being the host for backlog drives (which I've done once as co-hosts with him).  He's very helpful on many fronts from OTRS to AFC and even at THQ.  Mdann would make a fine admin and AfC honestly could use a few more admins for dealing with "admin" only issues that we constantly have to deal with (like salted pages and csd issues). — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per the OTRS note, though I understand the concerns of the other opposers. Wizardman  19:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Moral support at this point, but I don't see why you would be anything other than a good admin. INeverCry  18:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, per Technical 13, however I think the this RfA has already flopped. Mdann contributes in many areas and the work in AfC is valuable to the project.  The edit wars mentioned in opposes come from a while ago, seemingly mostly from last June or July.  The opposes based on clarification issues don't bother me much because of my previous interactions with the user and just seeing them around WP all have given me a good impression.   —Mysterytrey 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Firmly opposed to anyone using  participation in OTRS as an excuse to get the tools. I also don't feel that this is a good reason anyway. There is more than enough OTRS work that doesn't need the toolset to be getting on with. Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OTRS is not an "excuse to get the tools" - I intend, as I made clear in my opening statement, to use them elsewhere as well - OTRS is just an example of where I will use them to help out. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That your answer to question 1 concentrates on OTRS rather contradicts this statement. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I admit I may have overstated the point - I have slightly reworded it. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, this is the diff of your change. I'm curious why, if you intended to work on RMs you didn't say so from the outset? To be honest, this does rather smack of a change to get the tools rather than a change to reflect your actual intentions. I'm really not getting a good vibe about this. Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did..... (Second paragraph...). -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read my comment properly. I'll rephrase it for you.  I asked why you didn't mention these additional reasons first time around and whether the change was to help you get the tools rather than a genuine omission. I left you an additional question up top too. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Spartaz: I also don't understand what you mean. is his first edit to the RfA, and RM was mentioned in it. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 14:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Colour me embarrassed. You would think after all these years I would be able to read a diff better. I have struck the relevant comments. thanks for correcting me KoH. Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose - Last October, at this candidate's previous RfA, I wrote "The candidate gives very weak answers to the questions above (showing that he doesn't grasp what they are about) has no knowledge of policy and guidelines, makes numerous spelling mistakes (blamed on the tablet, yawn...) and just stumbles about Wikipedia without a clue." The "answer" to Q 8 shows clearly that the candidate has not improved much in the meantime. Kraxler (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose A multitude of small concerns combine to leave me here. Chief among the concerns is the sense that the candidate is not an effective communicator. The answers to several of the questions have been sub-par, and a consistent theme I saw in his talk page was that he provides short, generally undetailed answers to questions. The answer to question 1 in and of itself is also a concern. While the reason he provided isn't invalid, it does not strike me as a good argument for having the tools. I'm fine with single-area admins, but the single area has to be more substantial than that. I can't get too upset with minor grammatical errors or a few bad reverts, as everyone does them, but the candidate does come across as a little bit careless, considering how many of the comments on his talk page are about mistakes he made. Finally, while this is a very minor issue, I am puzzled by the candidate's decision to mention in his introduction blurb that he is IP block exempt. It's not meaningful information to anyone else, so it strikes me (in the context of his answer to Q1 especially) as a warning sign of a possible hat collector.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I not sure why I put that there... I have removed it. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - per Spartaz & Sven Manguard, IMHO you're using the OTRS as a way of getting the bit (I could be wrong but that's what I believe!) and in general the answers here could've been expanded as well as you're comments on your talkpage, Good luck tho!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose since the granting of administrator privileges is hard to reverse, it's important to be completely sure. I'm afraid my answer in this case is no. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have considered "opting in" at WP:RECALL for that very reason - at the end of the day, I would like to make it easy for the community to hold me to account if they ever felt I failed in the role. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  21:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I personally don't consider Recall to be sufficient. Northern Antarctica (₵) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  19:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Sven and Spartaz. --Rschen7754 21:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose The first RFA was not too long ago and some fairly key things to work for this editor on should have been taken away from it. Specifically in regards to their communication skills and clarity. While I too suffer from sometimes rushing responses and skim things over, it is something I constantly work on. The answers were slightly better this time around, but in looking at your talk page contributions, I don't see a large enough improvement from the previous RFA. I also share many of the concerns of Sven Manguard. Slow down. Take some extra care in editing and replying to inquiries. Read over things to make sure you understand what is being asked and ensure you're read up on the policies and guidelines being referenced. Will see you in 6 months and hopefully in the support column. Mkdw talk 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Mkdw puts it well. You're on the right path, but I think this request is a little premature. By way of example, you've barely been an OTRS agent for two months and here you are telling us that you need admin tools to fulfil that role properly, but dozens of non-admins manage to be perfectly good OTRS agents; you also cite the permissions backlog as something you'd use admin tools for, but that mostly affects Commons. All this and the nominator's confusion wrt OTRS admins make me wonder if you actually know what you're applying for. Maybe in a year's time... HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per several comments above. I see many positive aspects too, but mostly I have to wonder what's the rush. Widr (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I'm sorry but I have to (regretfully) oppose your candidacy by now. I think you don't yet have the diligence enough to carefully evaluate and study all the possible nuances of a situation before taking any action, which can be extremely problematic. An administrator needs to stop and think about all possible reasons and solutions, and needs to be convinced that they fully understand what's happening before being able to properly take any action. I have the impression that you act before you give yourself time enough to think. For example, you answered question #9 40 minutes after Acanther outlined it, and it was a question that needed a considerable amount of time to think, and to do some research. Rushing things is not a good thing (unless you need to stop vandalism), and certainly not a thing I want to see in an administrator. I hope you will take this and the opposers' advice above, improve as much as you can, and run again in a year or so.  → Call me  Hahc  21  22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Enteded discussion moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too early. 12 months after the initial RfA would be a minimum, given the concerns raised only 4 and half months ago. Promise of recall measures is rhetoric, "Ad captandum vulgaris" and would not help the candidate's cause. Leaky  Caldron  23:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per the concerns above about OTRS and the length of time since the last RFA. Also, I was the user who moved the article back to the AFC space, as it was a botched move. It happens sometimes when you close the window too quickly and it half-moves it without doing everything properly. That being said, you didn't use the AFC Helper Script, and I didn't want to contradict you in that move, but I don't even feel that he is notable. We all make mistakes over at AFC, but we need competent people who know how to fix their mistakes once they have created a move. You have at least 134 article moves on that namespace, so I fail to see why you did that in the first place. Finally, you should have discussed with your nominator the language of the nomination, as it is essential that common language is discussed before anyone is nominated, otherwise it looks rushed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of the AFC, I was in the process of fixing it (You actually stopped the edit I made that was categorizing it and adding persondata), but thank you for going to the effort of fixing it. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  08:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but the whole point about discussion with your nominator and the first issues still stand. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the concerns above. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose on the grounds of the statements of the comments made by fellow editors above. This RfA is, yes, not so far from the last one and I don't see any proper use of administrative tools should action be taken. As per Sven Manguard, the answers to the questions here shows us how the candidate may misuse the tools in certain situations related to the fields he's in. You may need more experience and more understanding of the key policies and actions related to your field, as this may help you answer questions related here with more accuracy and perfection. This will also help us see if you really deserve the wet mop. Wait for the end of this year to do another RfA and we should see you Wikifit to hold the wet mop. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Not enough improvement for me since the last RfA. Recall is meaningless in actuality, so with no viable removal mechanism I have to say no until there's clear improvement. Sorry. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Clearly a committed editor. However, there is too much evidence of their being overhasty, from too rapidly re-filing an RFA to not-thought out edits and responses (both here and in regular editing). An overhasty admin is a recipe for drama. As others have said, slow down, there's no deadline and come back in a year from now and you'll probably breeze through. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Not the most convincing reasons for adminship. I could excuse the "bodged move" described in question 8 as a simple mistake, but Mdann52 failed to address Kraxler's further questions seeking clarification.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I have seen a number of issues in the candidate's editing history and in this RfA that cause me to be unable to support. I will mention just a few of them. At   the candidate edit warred, in the face of disagreement from other editors, and when the matter was raised on his/her talk page, rather than addressing the legitimate concerns raised, he/she simply dismissed them, and totally misrepresented what BRD is about. That is not acceptable behaviour from a potential administrator. At User talk:Mdann52/Archive 10, a legitimate plea for help from a new editor was simply ignored, rather than answered. Again, not appropriate behaviour for a potential admin. I have seen other cases, too, where the candidate simply ignored legitimate queries or comments. (Perhaps that explains why the answer to question 3 indicates that the candidate thinks he/she has never been in any conflicts over editing: if you simply ignore people questioning what you do, then you don't get into conflict with them. However, that is not an acceptable way for an administrator to deal with potentially controversial issues.) In answer to question 8, the candidate said "I felt they were notable as they clearly met WP:GNG", but that did not answer the points raised in the question, which was not about whether the subject was notable, but about whether the page was "suitable for mainspace". The question had explicitly asked him/her to "evaluate the Comments by MusikAnimal and Kvng", one of which specifically stated that "notability is there", but went on to give other reasons why the page was not yet suitable for mainspace; the candidate simply ignored that, and answered a question which had not been asked, instead of the one which had been asked. If the candidate can show such an ability to completely miss the point when he/she knows that the eyes of editors assessing his/her RfA are on him, and might therefore be expected to read everything extra carefully, how can we rely on his/her judgement in normal admin work? Also, as in the cases I mentioned above, we get another example of the candidate avoiding any controversy about his/her editing by simply ignoring anything that he is disinclined to deal with. Any administrator who behaved like that would not be a good administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of the unanswered query, I am fairly sure the reason I did not reply on-wiki was because I explained it to them over IRC. I felt as I answered their queries, replying on-wiki as well would have had no additional benefit, although maybe incorrectly with hindsight. I have also answered the question above - it seemed to be a bit ambiguous whether it was a question or a comment when i looked at it earlier. Also, with all due respects, dragging up diffs from 9 odd months ago does not really sure current issues etc. with editing - I feel that i have a better understanding of dispute resolution nowadays, after getting involved with the processes myself to some degree. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  19:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference, the user talk page discussion regarding the edit war can be found here. Kurtis (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I still have the same concerns as I had in the user's last RFA. There is still a lack of competence when it comes to understanding basic spelling and grammar (which can lead to ambiguities and being hard to understand--things that are not helpful to the project coming from an admin) and understanding policies.  I, again, have also been unimpressed by the answers given to the questions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - well meaning, but appears to have an insecure grasp of policies and procedures. I would advise more careful study of guidelines, and seeking of advise, when working in unfamiliar areas.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per SilkTork and others. Sorry but I agree that it seems that the candidate has a few things to take away from this RfA before rushing into the next one, at which I'd like to offer support. Please keep up the good work in the mean time! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not enough focus on the main space (35.30% of edits as of now), of which many are minor. Some communication issues. Both can be fixed in the longer term. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 08:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Being honest, there are some valid concerns raised above and in the neutral section, need to be fixed. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I had supported the last time and expected to do so again, but I can't accept the reply to Q10. Mdann52 should be well aware that print sources are entirely acceptable; if he had a scanned copy of a newspaper article that verified the content he added, he should have added a citation to that newspaper article so our readers can check the source in a library archive. Also, there is no valid reason whatsoever why an edit without copyright issues to the biography of someone dead 24 years cannot be discussed on-wiki. Huon (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue with that was it did not contain any information - title of the article etc., and the user has not replied to an email I sent them asking for clarification. In addition, WP:LINKVIO prevented me from uploading the source myself. As far as the other issue went, it was done on courtesy grounds, and WP:UNDUE; It was something that IMO meant little to the article. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So that other issue can be discussed on-wiki. I'm sorry, but to be blunt, the attempt to evade discussion to me is a severe lapse of judgement; I expect admins to be accountable for their actions and willing to discuss them if at all possible, and an inappropriate claim that certain edits cannot be discussed raises all kinds of red flags. Huon (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Ironically, it was a statement I read in the support section that caused me to arrive at this judgement: I take the view that an administrator should have had six months free of anything which would indicate reason not to support, and I consider that a failed RfA qualifies under that definition.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral I did not participate in your previous RfA because the oppose votes brought valid concerns, and I couldn't support. But I couldn't oppose either. I still think that this second attempt came too fast (I would have waited more than just barely five months) but looks like most concerns are addressed. However, I will sit here for a while before offering my support.  → Call me  Hahc  21  16:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)  Moved to oppose, sadly.  → Call me   Hahc  21  22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'll also sit here for a while. I supported during the previous round, but would like to see some tangible evidence that previous concerns have been addressed, before supporting again. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral Reviewing your contributions but the fact that some questions have required multiple attempts at being answered is a little concerning. Not necessarily that the answers themselves are bad, but communication and consideration is an important part in dealing with others, and rushing things is never a good sign. Mkdw talk 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)  Moved to oppose  Mkdw talk 21:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Waiting for more questions and answers as well as other !votes. ///Euro Car  GT  20:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral until/unless I have time to give this RfA the attention it deserves. I do have one comment regarding OTRS:  OTRS team members are trusted with private information (e.g. that editor so-and-so is really Mr. such-and-such, the known copyright owner of such-and-such a work, possibly along with real-life addresses and phone numbers).  Being trustworthy with private information is ONE of the criteria we require of administrators.  As others have noted, there are things that are part of an administrator's job that are not part of an OTRS team member's job.  The reverse is also true:  Wielding "the mop" responsibly does not mean you meet all of the criteria to gain community support to be an OTRS team member.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  20:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Update Officially remaining neutral but if forced to decide I might have to oppose per the reasoned arguments above.  For the same reasons, I strongly encourage him to wait a long time - at least 6 months after he has a solid grasp of all policies/guidelines/etc and at least 12 months from now - before re-applying.  I join the "would like to support" and "love what Mdann52 does around here"-type comments from other editors and I strongly believe that he is an asset to the Wikipedia.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral My instinct is that this comes rather too shortly since the previous nomination, although I appreciate that the candidate apparently didn't initiate things. I'll have a further look when I can, and would like to feel able to offer support. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to oppose. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I'd like to support, but the answers to questions, especially Q8, are poor.  Konveyor   Belt  02:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I love what the Mdann52 does around here, and there are many areas that would benefit if he had the tools, but the communication issues raised in the opposes above are keeping me from the support column.  Develop a history that demonstrates these are a thing of the more-distant past, and I look forward to supporting the next candidacy.   78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral While I believe Mdann52 would be a good administrator, the fact that he's been with OTRS for just over 1 month prevents me from supporting just yet. As I wrote to Nyttend in his support above, for the two to be combined requires a greater level of trust. See my followup to question 1, which indicates that Mdann's inexperience with OTRS might have had copyvio consequences for the Wikimedia Foundation. I'd like to see Mdann52 in another RFA in six months or so, after he has more experience with OTRS. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (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.