Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2


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

Milk's Favorite Cookie
Final (77/52/12); Ended 20:31, July 23, 2008 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

- Milk's Favorite Cookie - a.k.a. MFC/Oreo has been editing Wikipedia since late 2006, actively since late 2007, and has made nearly 30,000 edits. He mostly works on articles, something that was particularly noted as a lack of experience on his last RFA - he has 19 featured lists, 13 expanded/created Did You Know articles and 28 nominated, plus a featured article (J.R. Richard) and a few good articles contributed to. Additionally, he has nominated several featured images.

In the past, MFC was mostly a vandafighter, and although he doesn't do so much of it anymore, he does some occasionally and has the necessary experience in that area. He also contributes to AfD discussions and featured candidate nominations.

Overall, I can see MFC is well experienced in most areas of the project, and that experience combined with his good attitude and friendly demeanor makes me feel very confident he'll make an excellent admin.  Al Tally  talk  17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks Al tally for the nomination. «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The candidate has requested this RfA to close here on my talkpage. Can someone please close this appropriately? Keeper   76  20:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I worked in various administrative areas in my time here, but I would mostly concentrate on just two main areas at first which I have or have had experience with. The first would be AIV, where I have had a lot of experience reporting vandals. I would also work at WP:RFPP, taking care of requests on the page. Further, I also have some experience in DYK, and if I see it's late for an update, I will work there as well. As more months pass, I will slowly move on to other administrative areas. «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: When I had my last RFA, I had a lack of contributions to articles. Since then, I have helped 19 lists get up to featured list standard. Of those 19, I have created  5 featured lists. I have also helped get J.R. Richard up to featured article status. I have also successfully expanded/created 12 DYK's. Of those 12, 7 of the creations/expansions are  featured content. «  Milk's Favorite   Cøøkie  18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Yes. I've gotten into an edit conflict in List of Boston Celtics head coaches. and I had both expanded the list and had nominated it FLC. In the FLC,  commented saying that the page was orphaned I should add a link from the main article (Boston Celtics). I soon added the link, which was then removed by . 8-Hype then made some major edits to the list, greatly changing it's format. I then reverted his edits with some explanation and took more information to his talk page. He then reverted mine. After a discussion, and replies from him, I then changed it back to it's original version. He then reverted me again saying that the list "was not an FLC…" It was then reverted by another user. Other than that, I have been in only minor edit conflicts. «  Milk's Favorite   Cøøkie  18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xeno cidic
 * 4. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined and describe how you would respond.
 * A:

Optional question from Cameron
 * 5. Should we be worried about your "cookie obsession"?
 * A:Yes, yes you should. «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Q from Avruch
 * 6.: Can you identify what the major issues were that caused your prior three requests to fail, and explain how you have addressed them since the most recent request in March?
 * A: I'll start off my saying my first two RFA's were disastrous. I didn't even want to be a wikipedian. After finding out what Wikipedia really was, I became an "official" editor. I actually took it seriously. My most recent one in March had several issues that caused it to fail. First thing was odd DYK suggestions. I must admit that I had several during (and before) my last RFA. Since then, before each DYK submission I would read the rules, check if the article complies all of them, then submit it. For that matter, the first opposer for that reason, actually left a quick and small note on my talk page telling me that by DYK suggestions have improved. Another concern was how much I edited a day and how fast. Since then, I have definitely slowed down. I went from 8,000 edits in the month of February, to 4,000 in March and even less after that. Several voters also thought that I was little too focused on the counter-vandalism aspects of administratorship, which (again) I must admit was true during that time. I had very little article space contributions, and nearly all I did was reverting. Since then, I don't recall using Huggle, and would only revert vandalism if I caught it on my watchlist. I also had some issues with images lacking rationales, and fair use images in my userspace. I did learn (admin). Finally, lack of mainspace contributions. During my last RFA, I had 1 good article. I guess I found my interests in topics and started enjoying article writing. Thanks, «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Gwynand
 * 7.: Since your last RfA, did you consciously change your editing style/practices to make it more likely that you would have a succesful RfA this time around?
 * A: No. While I must admit I did want to stop vandalism reverting (one of the main concerns, see above), I found an interest in article writing. I guess you can say I got "addicted" and continued making more and more lists. I can't say I consciously changed though.

Totally Optional Questions from KojiDude
 * 8.: Do you think it was fair (to you) to be denied adminship in your last RfA because you weren't an "article writer"?
 * A:Yes. I believe I was (as several said in my previous RFA) too focused on the counter-vandalism aspects of administratorship. Besides, we are here to build an encyclopedia. «  Milk's Favorite   Cøøkie  20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 9.: Do you feel that the article work you've done since your last RfA has made you more qualified to use the tools?
 * A:No. As I said with the other questions, article writing is something I started to enjoy, not something I did so I would be more qualified for the tools. Thanks for the questions, «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Tim Vickers
 * 10.: Are your contributions over the past few months, particularly your stub creations, consistent with the verifiability policy? If not, why is this?
 * A:

Optional question from George The Dragon
 * 11.: What is your age?
 * A:

Question from Sandstein
 * 12.: I started reviewing this RfA by looking at the first few entries in User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/dyk, which is displayed in a box on your user page. Could you please explain why that page contains, as of this writing, boxes implying that you yourself have "created or substantially expanded" the articles and, even though you are not recorded in the edit history of the first article and your contributions to the second article appears to have been marginal?
 * A:


 * Hello. I'm not the candidate, I'd just like to point out that MFC nominated F. Whitten Peter. I'm unsure as to the other one; I'm just noting this after this discussion. Cheers, —Giggy 06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A 2: I can tell you about the other one. I wrote that biography six months ago.  I added my DYK self-nom
 * " ... that Dorothy Canning Miller was the first professionally trained curator of the Museum of Modern Art? "
 * at 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC) and edited it one minute later because I had inadvertently saved a day-old timestamp from my working copy. Bookworm857158367 notified me at 22:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) that my article was a Did you know item (Bookworm's UpdatedDYK notice is now preserved in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 0).


 * This was one of the items which MFC included at 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC) in the first MFC/dyk subpage edit.  Of the four MFC edits to the bio (which MFC neither created nor substantially expanded), two linked years (1942 and 1930), one added the word museums, and one added an unformatted link to a source which was a fully formatted cite web reference in my original, as noted in my edit summary when I subsequently  corrected it.  — Athaenara  ✉  10:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Seven of fifteen user pages which link the article are in MFC's userspace.) — Athaenara ✉  10:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)    [was 7 of 15, now 0 of 8 — Athaenara  ✉  23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)]


 * Further followup: This diff of a post from MFC ("But regarding Dorothy Canning Miller, which I expanded - and which was featured on DYK - do I get one for that?") was cited elsewhere.  The template MFC asked for was posted (MFC's thanks).  — Athaenara  ✉  11:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Milk's Favorite Cookie's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Milk's Favorite Cookie:

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

Discussion

 * Are all the previous RfAs going to be linked? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've added the links. Thanks, «  Milk's Favorite  Cøøkie  18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment MFC's last RfA was over 4 months ago, where he was given constructive feedback on "what to fix" and "what he needs to work on", and "come back in a couple of months". MFC did that, and is now getting opposes for that?  How arbitrary can we get?  Too much article work, no admin area experience. Come back when you're balanced. Too much vandalfighting/meta space, talk space, wikispace edits, not enough article work.  Come back when you're "balanced".  But please expect us to still oppose you, because now you are "gaming the system" and only doing what you "need to do" to pass RFA.  Un-fucking-believable how mean we are being to each other.  Keeper    76  22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that this statement reveals the folly of treating RfA as if it were a single entity of some sort. To rephrase: "MFC's last RfA was over 4 months ago. Editors A, B, and C gave him constructive feedback on 'what to fix' and 'what he needs to work on', and they told him to 'come back in a couple of months'. MFC did that, and now editors X, Y, and Z are opposing him for that?". Well, evidently they are! The point is, RfA is not a singular being. It is a process that many individuals participate in. Some of these individuals happen to think one way, some think another way. Being a process, and not an entity of its own, there is no official word (well, beyond the very simple, cut-and-dried "succeed" / "fail" at the end). The advice given is advice given by individual Wikipedians, operating in an individual capacity - nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps, if an onus is to be placed somewhere (and I'm not altogether sure it should be placed anywhere), it should be placed at the feet of editors A, B, and C, for the lack of global perspective in their advice - after all, "power hunger"-styled opposes are hardly a startling new phenomenon. I dunno. --Badger Drink (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A general observation I've made with regards to the whole MFC-treats-Wikipedia-like-MySpace issue: most people are coming to his talk page with questions/requests/comments, not the other way around. I'm pretty sure it's bad etiquette to totally ignore someone just because you don't want to judged as an editor who spends far too much time socializing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point - I don't speak for anyone else, but I certainly am not opposed to him because he gets asked for help. —Giggy 08:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I echo Keeper's comments completely. It really is asinine if you think about it. This isn't directed at the opposition, or really anybody for that matter, but this is a recurring theme. We tell candidates to prepare by taking care of x, y and z, come back in a few months and you'll have my support (paraphrased) and, yet when they do just that, they are opposed. And what's worse is that we call them on viewing adminship as a "trophy" for coming back again.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 08:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't prevent someone from opposing because of what someone else happened to say four months earlier. You can't always please everyone with your actions, and any reasonable candidate should expect and accept it. This thing's only a problem if one person opposes a candidate for doing what that same person asked the candidate to do, which I haven't seen happening (although I haven't paid much attention to it). - Bobet 09:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question eleven is ridiculous and should be redacted. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've removed it, but I'm sure I'll be reverted later.-- Koji Dude  (C) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the removal, because I am interested in the response. The candidate may choose, of course, not to answer it, but the question as such is not a taboo under any standards that I am aware of.  Sandstein   17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. While questioning age is certainly a big issue in RfAs, there is no consensus that bars the community from discussing age or !voting based on it, despite the fact that many wish others wouldn't consider it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I would never answer a question like that exactly (privacy concerns), though I would be amenable to answering a similar one ("what age range"). – xeno  ( talk ) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he'd be entirely justified in either refusing to answer or giving the most vague answer imaginable. I'm not a fan of such personal questions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is optional and has been asked on at least one other current RFA. George The Dragon (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is safe to assume that he is between 1 and 101 is that range detailed enough?76.195.207.238 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A person's age is personal information unrelated to being an admin. They have the same contribution history regardless. I urge you not to answer such a rude question. Chillum  14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to answer the following question posed to me on my talk page here, as I feel it is more relevant to the RFA than just tittle-tattle between two editors:
 * You asked him his age. Are you planning also to ask his race, his religion, and his political affiliation? Edison (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting the worrying connotations of the question to one side, I fail to see how his race, religion or political affiliation would cause any problems in terms of legal accountability. His age could. And, given it would appear he lied about the copyright status of an image, as noted in the opposes below, I think that has to be considered. How anyone can continue to support after Anetode's oppose is completely beyond me. If Anetode's oppose is accurate, the candidate should not only be kept away from the mop, but arguably the project as a whole George The Dragon (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm sorry, but I fail to understand these Myspace-based opposes. I have seen nothing that suggests Milk's Favorite Cookie is here only to socialise (his 19 FLs speak on the contrary), so I'd like someone to provide some evidence of this Myspace thing, as I have yet to see any evidence of it, and believe its unfair to make such opposes without evidence of his over-socialising. Qst (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Al Tally  talk  18:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for work at DYK. Admin bit means he'll be able to participate even more by updating the template. Rudget   ( logs ) 18:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - No worries with this one. I actually thought you already were an admin. = ) Best of luck! --Cameron* 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support. I rarely give a "strong support" (see User:Useight/RFA Participation), but MFC deserves one. Tons of article work (football-related, too, bonus points), 293 reports to AIV, good communication skills, very civil, knowledgeable in the ways of policies and procedures. Has my trust with the tools. Useight (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongest Humanly Possible Support Great editor. Shapiros10  contact meMy work 18:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Extremely Strong Support. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 19:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Weak Support - Strong candidate. Experienced in AIV, AfD, and article writing (!!!) No question here. Okiefromokla questions? 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed to "weak" support after seeing some editors point out some of the candidate's questionable behavior during FLCs. I also somewhat agree with Balloonman's view that the user may be a little "quick to make a decision" and fickle with certain situations (ex: the FLCs). I'm going to keep this in the support category for now, as I think the user has made great strides since his last RfA and I like some of his answers, but I'd also like to see the candidate attempt to address some of the concerns raised below. Okiefromokla questions? 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support He works hard to improve the project in many ways. I have seen his work at DYK, FLC/FL as well as FAC. My assessement is thus based on editorial contributions, but this is sufficient for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Looks good.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Worked with user before. Would make a fine admin.-- LAA Fan  19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support Definitely trustworthy. Alexfusco5 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Change of heart. Why not? Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Definitely deserves the tools. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely. I've worked with MFC a few times, including in a place where he could actually use his tools (account creation - BTW these are his logs there), and, this user's always been great to work with, and, seems to have a great grasp on policy.  SQL Query me!  19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Everywhere I've seen you, I've been impressed with your clue, civility, and know-how.  You are willing and able to try new things, ask questions when you need answers, and show a good level of patience.  Admirable traits in any editor, and additionally good traits in an admin.  No hesitation from me.   Keeper    76  20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstaining in light of a specific unresolved issue brought to light in this RfA, specifically by Anetode, as well as the "disappearance" of the editor to explain this and other previous issues brought here. I'm not opposing just yet because I don't know why he did/didn't do anything that he is accused of doing/not doing.  If I hear from MFC (I asked him a question on his talk page), I may well still support or oppose based on the answers that are hopefully forthcoming.  Keeper    76  17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support. Even though this is his fourth (!) RfA, I believe that MFC continues to mature, gaining from his errors and grasping criticism with zeal. I believe, due to his vandalism fighting experience, that the tools will only aid him and subsequently the project as a whole. Also, we don't need any more American football FLs. =P (ec)  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to strong support following Keeper's and Nishkid's comments in the discussion section.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden  17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) No problems here, gets better each time... edit-conflict support. BencherliteTalk 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support - Undoubtedly will make a great admin.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Shows a willingness to contribute, he's a great vandalism fighter, and he has my trust. Good luck MFC. ;) Thanks, RyRy  ( talk ) 20:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support - Are you Jimbo Wales? --JeWay (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I was definitely in the oppose camp last time around, and I've been impressed with how much progress MFC has made since then. The maturity and clue level in the last few months have been impressive; I'm not worried about the mop anymore.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Don't see anything worth worrying about.-- Koji Dude  (C) 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, good user. Wizardman  20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I love milk, and clearly milk endorses this cookie, so I'm totally in. Oh, and here's a cliché for you- I thought MFC was already an admin. [[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px|grin]]  L'Aquatique   [  review  ] 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I've-been-waiting-for-this-one support Great editor. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support – I have every confidence that MFC will address issues that are brought to him on his talk page per a quick scan of it. However, due to the concerns raised in the oppose section, I advise the candidate that he watchlist pages or check them regularly to respond to queries, just to err on the side of caution. —Animum (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think he'll do okay. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support Even the first oppose makes clear that this user is actively looking for ways to improve the encyclopedia at all times. That's the sort of person who usually makes a good admin. Mr. IP (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I think its time.  Syn  ergy 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) very weak support bordering on neutral per my reasons in the neutral section.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - A great user, would be an asset to the project.  Soxred  93  22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per WBOSITG's comments. After looking his contributions, I think that MFC will do great use of the tools. doña macy [talk] 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Four RfAs in a year would normally be cause for an alarm (See also: Giggy) and tempt me away from supporting, but I believe MFC has continued to work on the issues raised at previous RfAs and the project would benefit from him having the mop. In supporting this RfA, I would like to echo Animum's comment above about responsiveness. This has been raised in the oppose section, especially in regards to ignoring some users when discussing an article/list/whatever. If he bears this in mind, MFC will become a good admin and (even more of) a beneficial resource to the project. Chaotic  Reality  00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Some of the diffs mentioned in the oppose section are troubling, but imho they do not negatively reflect on MFC's ability to use the tools wisely. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Those diffs in the oppose section are slightly concerning. I'm sure I could find plenty of things that happened in recent months to base an oppose or a neutral off of, but I've seen this user do way too much good work for the encyclopedia to do so. IMO, while it would be good if MFC would follow up with his FLCs and do more work on his FACs, that's no indicator that he would abuse the tools. He has written and significantly contributed to several FLs, nominated numerous FPs, and made quite a few edits to J.R. Richard. He is also an excellent and devoted vandal fighter. Everybody has flaws, but Milk is certainly an asset to the project, and will do just fine with the mop. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I trust this user, the evidence presented in the Oppose section is not overly concerning, and I agree with Keeper76 and Balloonman. Very little reservation. Good luck,  Enigma  message 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support &mdash; scetoaux (T | C)  01:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Some valid concerns raised in the oppose section, but nobody's perfect, and this user seems to be aware of that - I don't think he's going to rush to judgement with the tools. Good luck, CCG (T-C) 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Supported the last one, I see no reason to do any different this time around. Tan      39  01:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Yee-Hah! Because saying "Support" 42 times gets a little monotonous. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support - I trust this user and am convinced they will use the tools well. The number of RfAs simply shows me that he wants to help out; I say let him. -- jonny - m  t  04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Obvious support - Tons of edits, seems to have strong technical and policy knowledge, and good demeanor. He has also shown a strong ability to communicate with lots of talk edits. What more do we want from our admins?  I also find the oppose rationales to be weak and unconvincing (previous RfAs don't bother me, and I don't care if an admin wants to "socialize" a little if it doesn't compromise his ability to use the mop).  So, to summarize, hope you make it through and best of luck either way! Oren0 (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. You should already be an administrator. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 05:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT!! Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * indented per this  Enigma  message 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) per the above arguments With all due respect, the opposers did not convince me that this would not be a net positive. They have not demonstrated a lack of knowledge/judgment. Rather, the oppose rationales seem more more based in cookie cutter abstractions than in an in depth assessment of the candidate. cheers, 05:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Support. I trust your use of the tools will be considered and appropriate.  The opposes below, while sincere, do not seem to indicate a lack of responsibility or judgment.  Break a leg.    user:j    (aka justen)   06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Can be trusted with tools, and per everything else that has been said above.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont  06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as per keen DISCUSSION section observations by Nishkid64, Keeper76, and Wisdom89.  — Athaenara  ✉  09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing my support.  The nominee, by misrepresenting his alleged accomplishments and inflating them by taking credit for the work of others (as noted in Question 12 and elsewhere) has demonstrated a disturbing lack of honesty.  — Athaenara  ✉  22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your support may perhaps have deserved a little more weight had you taken the trouble to check your facts before offering your opinion, instead of sheepishly following your heroes around, repeating what you think they think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what you meant but your message was clearly not civil. — Athaenara  ✉  00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support : 4 nominations in 7 months is of a concern, but I think his 27,000+ edits justifies how useful the tools will be to this candidate.I have seen him all around: FLCs, DYK, BRFAs etc. WTHN??. I dont think anybody has any concerns of possible misuse of powers as admin. OMG, What is the problem having a beautiful userpage ? It doesnt violate any rules of WP:NOTMYSPACE. He has only wikipedia relavent information on his page... Considering his participation in various areas of WP, this is not an oppose reason at all...Q7 answer was brave and honest! Appreciated ! User:Newsletterbot is very useful. I see no reasons to oppose. Best wishes -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: Seen him around, looks like a good addition to admin ranks,  Plus, the opposes seem a bit shallow.-- Bedford  <sup style="color:pink;">Pray  10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Certainly. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose due to inability to spell second word in username correctly :-D Stifle (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd assume you're talking about Milk's Favourite Cookie, right? –BuickCenturyDriver 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I have no doubt he will use the admin tools well.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Good temperament, and meets my criteria for supporting an RfA. S. Dean Jameson 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) - Switch to oppose
 * 1) Strong support - I think MFC does just fine with what he does. In fact, he's fantastic at vandal fighting and would use the block button well. I've read the opposes, and I just don't agree. Last time people said come back in a few months when you've corrected the minor problems, so he does just that, and he's getting opposed for it? It's a little disapointing that expected standards can change so much in such a short period of time. MFC wouldn't misuse the tools - they would help him do a better job at what he already does. It's not big deal, just a couple of extra buttons. I trust MFC, that's all that matters.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm supporting, as the opposes don't bother me: they're relatively minor issues, and he'll definitely be a helpful admin. · AndonicO  Engage. 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks like a great editor to me. I've read the reasons for opposition, and I find myself unconvinced. In the past MFC was opposed for doing too much vandal-fighting, so he's not doing as much of that, and has done a lot of (very good) article-writing. Several people cite immaturity and lack of communication as reasons to oppose; well, I have yet to see any evidence of immaturity, and as for communication, MFC has been good at that from what I've seen. Regarding "MySpacey tendencies"...I'm trying to work that one out: Nishkid64 mentions above about people coming to MFC for help, hence a lot of user talk edits. That again, doesn't make sense: people go to him for help, and if he responds and helps, he ends up increasing his user talk count, getting opposed for "socializing too much", and if he ignores people, he would gets opposed for "not being communicative enough". Finally, with the "too many RfAs" issue, I note that MFC has been nominated, and hasn't self-nominated; in addition, I have complete confidence in the nominator. I can support this. Acalamari 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. He's waited four months, done pretty much everything that was asked of him in the last RfA very well, and seems a generally well-disposed and friendly individual. I see no problems at all.~ mazca  t 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support Wonderful contributions, and the opposition has done nothing to convince me otherwise. Leonard(Bloom) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Very good user, well-improved. --  American Eagle ( talk ) 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as adoptee. Just to add to the list of admin-worthy attributes; MFC has never failed to be helpful as my adopter. Helping n00bs is an important trait for a potential admin. Fribbler (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I think it's a geat shame when editors strong in some areas are opposed at RfA for a perceived weakness in others, particularly when comparing what might be called "technical" candidates and content-builders. Vandal fighters are advised to go away and write a couple of GAs, content-builders are advised to go away and whack some vandals. In other words, both are advised to do something they have no interest in and perhaps even no aptitude for. I'm pleased to see that MFC has begun to enjoy article writing, but that ought not to have been necessary, and I'm disappointed to see that in some cases his efforts have led to a new raft of opposition. C'est la la vie. RfA sucks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - no problems here, and I don't care how many RFAs he's had this year. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I am confident that the user would make a good admin -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Supportaccording to his contributions and answers to questions, I see no problem in giving him the mop. Good luck!--Islaammaged126 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Sceptre (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think you'd be a fine admin. Bstone (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Teens who "Myspace" make great admins. I don't care about his age, and I don't care about his socialising ability. I just know he won't abuse the tools. Scarian  Call me Pat!  23:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Great editor, knows what is right and wrong, and most importantly he will be a net positive to Wikipedia.  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs) @   00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, never had any problems with this editor and it would be good for him to have the tools and help out at DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I am very surprised that you are not an administrator already! You're contributions are very valuable. --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I don't care how many times he applies for adminship in a year. He is a hard working editor and qualified to become an admin. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - would be a good administrator. That he lists his extensive work on articles on his main page as a reason to oppose is completely beyond my comprehension (disclaimer: I maintain this page to list my article contributions). Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong support - Great work in the mainspace, extensively experienced in the Wikipedia-space, and stellar interaction with other users. I see this user all over the place, everywhere I turn to, he seems to be helping out. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 14:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) SupportThe candidate's energy and ability, if applied to vandal fighting, can improve the quality and accuracy of the encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - per record, answers, and my previous support. Age is not a consideration for me. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support due to list of good and featured articles on his main page. And yes, I too enjoy oreos... -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I have no concerns. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support I didn't check the candidate very well, but he seems fine. We don't need all admins to be the same. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose&mdash;I have strong concerns about MFC's ability to be a responsible admin. I have noticed that MFC has some what of habit of abandoning FLCs. Let's take this one for an example. I added a comment here. After I get no response for a few days, I changed to oppose. During the time between my initial comment and oppose, MFC was very actively editing. Half an hour after I opposed, MFC addressed the concerns.
 * This is not an isolated case. In Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Boston_Bruins_head_coaches/archive1, MFC ignored CrzyCheetah's comments and the FLC failed four days after those comments. Also note that MFC responded to another to another user who posted after CrzyCheetah. In Featured_list_candidates/List_of_New_York_Islanders_head_coaches/archive1, MFC seems evasive about justifying whether a source is reliable or not. Eventually, Nishkid64 helped him out. MFC then proceeded to seemingly ignore comments from Scorpion on 11 June and my oppose on 14 June; the FLC was closed as a fail on 19 June. It looks like MFC's FLCs fail the first time much more often than not; I have never seen any other with such a chronic problems of failing to address concerns. From Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2008, we have these fails: Featured list candidates/List of 2006 Major League Baseball all-stars/archive1, Featured list candidates/List of 2007 Major League Baseball all-stars/archive1. While scrolling up, I noticed MFC addressing concerns on Featured list candidates/Linkin Park discography/archive1; wouldn't his time be better spent worrying after his own nominations which, too often, fail on their first attempt because of lack of responsiveness to concerns? MFC has had three FLCs fail this month, and two pass, of which one was a WP:TSQUAD collaboration.
 * I think this may translate into disaster if MFC starts doing admin chores. Every admin makes mistakes, and if the admin does not address the problem, users will be upset, and worst, the mistake will still stand. Failure to address concerns usually leads to a desysoping. If I comment on MFC's FLCs, I'm never too confident that MFC will address it without a big strong oppose next to my comment. Addressing concerns as admin is exteremely important, and if I don't trust him to look after an FLC, I certainly don't trust him to make timely responses to people questioning his admin actions. Promoting MFC to admin will not be a net benefit if can not respond to concerns in a timely fashion.
 * Another concern I have, albeit a bit lesser, is MFC's WP:BRFAs. In Bots/Requests for approval/Milk's Favorite Bot 2, MFC proposes, in my opinion, a useless bot to tag article talk pages that meet CSD G8. He repeatedly asks for a trial; eventually, I deny it. Currently, MFC is attempting to get another bot approved, which also seems useless. At Bots/Requests_for_approval, he is trying to get an image-checking bot clone approved. If that gets denied, that would be two failed BRfAs in a month. It seems like MFC is trying to help out with a somewhat "exotic" way&mdash;"Oh COOL!! A bot flag" type of attitude. Not everyone has access to a bot flag, and if MFC becomes an admin, will he be attempting things with admin tools that will prove very controversial? I don't see the evidence of sound judgment with one BRfA denied and another one going downhill, all in one month. Don't forget the three failed FLCs I mentioned.
 * To resume, MFC doesn't seem to display overly sound judgement and lacks attention to details. Mix those two things together with the sysop bit, and we've got an unresponsive admin with the ability to serious damage, even in good faith. I don't trust MFC yet to not go on that route. Xeno notes below in the neutral section that MFC's bot went awry today he needs to rather urgently clean up after it. MFC seems to be going on that route already. -- Maxim (talk)  21:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose After the many and varied concerns raised in previous RfA not enough time has passed to change my opinion.  Jon513 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Maxim's points. Also I just find you too obsessed with becoming an admin, you've devoted far too much time to your User page and I get a strong MySpacey vibe from you. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I do see what you're getting at with your comment about spending too much time on userspace, that isn't really a very good reason to include in your oppose. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the candidate did not design the most recent version of his userpage. - Diligent  Terrier  (and friends) 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be off base here, but I took RHMED's comments as a reference to WP:NOTMYSPACE. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose &mdash; Fourth RFA in less than a year, too bubbly, too young. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per the first part of Kurt's oppose. Your desire for the admin bit just seems, well, all too .... desperate. Weak however, because my interactions have been wholly positive and this does make me feel like I'm throwing those interactions in your face and wish it were otherwise. However changes of user name, repeated RFA's and the diffs above fuel my disquiet. Apologies,. Pedro : Chat  21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that he just seems like a guy who is very eager to find new ways to help out. I mean, look at the account of his persistence for a bot flag - the man is just interested in trying new ways of building the encyclopedia.  He has done a wide range of work as a non-admin, and he just wants to add to it.  To me, it almost looks like a desire for self-improvement rather than any kind of hunger for power.  Given that your interactions with MFC have been wholly positive, the benefit of the doubt might be justified here, or a switch to neutral.  Mr. IP (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wholly positive interaction does not mean that I support an RFA. It might well bias me to do so, and indeed has done, and I have explained to the community when this situation has occured. In this situation I am nervous and choose not to follow my bias. My apologies to the candidate for this. I'd also seek clarification on your "hunger for power" line - perhaps you can provide a diff where I have mentioned this? Pedro : Chat  23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't meant to be an accusation of assuming bad faith. I was just carelessly rephrasing what I understood the implication to be.  If that wasn't the implication, I withdraw the phrasing.  Anyway, I'm not saying "support the guy because of positive interactions", I'm just giving up my view of what this "desperate" thing really is.  I think it's eagerness to help in as many ways as possible. Mr. IP (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to abstain . On reading the persuasive rationales in support and within the discussion section, I'm actually less convinced that this oppose argument holds weight. We (by which I mean the community) have perhaps sent mixed messages to the candidate in th epast, who has simply tried to address concerns raised. A desire to help should be taken in good faith. I still have concerns, but opposing is not something I can do in good conscience after reading this RFA in depth. Pedro : Chat  19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Back to oppose per fibbing in an IFD debate. No way did an Aston Martin bearing number plates that are from England, Soctoland or Wales turn up in Rhode Island (see Anetod and WJB's opposes below). Pedro : Chat  15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose Kurt has hit this one on the head. Social-networker who, with four RFA attempts in a year, appears to see the mop as a "badge of honour" rather than a way of serving the community. However, this user seems to be improving - just a shame they didn't wait a little longer to give us doubters that little bit more evidence needed. I don't like to oppose a Majorly/Al Tally nom as I normally see his point of "if the user won't do damage, why not support" - but that feeling is just overriden by my worry of fluffy, huggley-puggly MySpace-ness George The Dragon (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Oppose per DarkFalls and Anetode. To be blunt, somebody capable of such actions should not be allowed to edit, let alone administrate the project George The Dragon (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  Weak Oppose. On one hand, the user has a demonstrable history of positive contributions to the 'pedia and generally seems aware of policy and procedure.  On the other hand, the 4 RfA's all since the beginning of this year kind of makes me leery.  A check of the user's last 500 edits shows a relatively disproportionate amount (fully 1 in 3) to the user_talk namespace, which also fuels the concerns above re: socializing.  Granted, the majority that I personally reviewed did seem to be concerned with Wikipedia, it is an inordinate amount of time talking about things compared to actually getting something done.  As mentioned above, this user does seem to be improving as time moves along but it might have been worth waiting just a little longer.  It's not that I distrust MFC, just feel uneasy about it at this time. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 23:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum - I failed to mentioned that I was unimpressed with the candidate's "wikipedia" space contributions as well. There is certainly some useful stuff there, but it does seem to be largely concerned with FLC and DYK and other "fluff" areas of meta-involvement with the project.  Working in these areas is fantastic but isn't very indicative of familiarity with the kinds of policies and guidelines an admin must be familiar with.  Again, it seems to be a lot of involvement with "shiny awards to stick on an article/userpage" type areas, which is, again, worrisome in relation to the heavy amount of myspace-ish behavior. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the qualification to my oppose based on the IfD issue brought up below. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongly, per Maxim and George. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Daniel. —Giggy 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose - Editor has a clear problem responding as seen above, I have also noticed this trait in Milk's personality. — Realist 2  ( Speak ) 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I do not trust that this user will use the administrator tools responsibly. SashaNein (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I get the same MySpacey vibe as mentioned above, and am also concerned by his four RfAs in seven months. Sorry, but no. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per Kurt, basically: concerns re maturity, repeated RfA attempts and per answer to Q7 weighed against the FLC and DYK concerns above. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Maxim. I have an impression that he wants a "title" so badly per his DYK nominations --Caspian blue (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Addendum) Changed to Strong Oppose since his revealed dishonesty is not only confined in his WP:DYK nomination that I have been bothered and euphemistically commented like "I have an impression that..." Not only that, due to the disruptive and inquisitive accusations by his nominator, Al tally, I'm presenting some diffs and things here. After MFC nominated History of San Diego Chargers head coaches to DYK on May 3, User:Bobet catch the allegedly new article by MFC is actually filled with copy-and-pastes from each article of mentioned coaches to which MFC did not contribute any single thing. MFC did not mention the fact in any place, so it looked like he wanted to take the whole credit for himself. The new article is indeed almost all from Sid Gillman, Don Coryell, Al Saunders, Marty Schottenheimer, San Diego Chargers. All he did on the article is minor changes like "Don Coryell did" -> "he did".. something like that. Besides, I have seen that he nominated a lot of articles there without carefully checking them if the articles have inline-sourced or meet the DYK guidelines. Once an editor spuriously accumulates his/her awards and DYK titles, people don't doubt the credibility based on our WP:AGF, so sometimes, Wikipedia undergoes this kind of misfortunate incident. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What DYK nomination? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the names (several article regarding some sport coach and association) but I thought he just tried to get his nom to be listed on DYK page as not following the quideline.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically... "I have this vague feeling... I have no evidence to back it up... it may have had something to do with sport, but I'm not really sure... I thought he did whatever he did maliciously, but he could have easily done in good faith, but I'll oppose anyway, because I can." Does that sum it up?  Al Tally  talk  16:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't think I have "this vague feeling". You have no evident reason to oppose to my opposition. You just don't like my opposing to the candidate whom you nominate. Please respect other people's opinion.--Caspian blue (talk)
 * Well, I nominated the guy, so obviously I want it to pass. Of course when I see weak baseless opposes such as this one, I will be unhappy with them. Please respect my opinion that your oppose is baseless without any diffs.  Al Tally  talk  16:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to do so to please you. Really that is not necessary for myself and even you and others. Even if I would present such diffs, you would find other strings per your activities on past RFAs. I cast my vote by my impression on him which you did not see. Unlike your thin hope, your false accusation make yourself too far from good persuasion, Good luck for your poor effort.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It rarely ever helps when the nominator resorts to frustrated teasing. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I think Al Tally summed that up pretty nicely. I'm also extremely impressed with the restraint that the nominator is showing (a lesson I need to learn).  This is Al's first post in rebuttal to anything in this RfA, and it's spot on.  Good show.  Keeper    76  16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus with my frankness, I don't trust the Al tally's nomination. (I've seen too many disruptive comments by him on others' RFAs)--Caspian blue (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What I do is irrelevant to the candidate. However, with that comment, you've hopefully made your oppose rationale poorer than it was, so thank you for that. Hopefully the closing bureaucrat will have an ounce of sense and ignore any opposes without any kind of evidence, such as this one.  Al Tally  talk  16:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, nominator's credibility matters to RFAs a lot. I am pretty sure that any sensible crats would ignore the Al tally's childish attacks.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter in the slightest, contrary to what you think. I am pretty sure any sensible crats would ignore the Caspian blue's childish oppose.  Al Tally  talk  18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of childishness, you has been just proveing yourself as such. That kind of attitude does not earn your favor or support. Crats are regarded "sensible admins" with good judgment, so I don't worry that they could not perceive your failed attempt.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without siding with anyone here, would it really be that hard for CaspianBlue to take 5 minutes or so and find diffs to the DYK nominations that he is opposing on? He doesn't have to, but it would really calm things down here. So, CaspianBlue, would you mind doing that? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to spend my precious time vainly responding to Al tally's rude accusation. I stand by my point of view and "per Maxim" is also sufficient rationale too as do others.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you comments. Please make an effort to review this relevant essay when casting "votes" in the future.  Al Tally  talk  18:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that essay looks like aiming at you per your history. The editors of it wrote a useful one for you. So you want to share your experience being a dick with me? Ney, please don't.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Caspian, I also ask you to find this DYK nomination diff. It may be helpful for other editors (example, me) to have some evidence that could help influence their decision. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I filtered down the list of diffs on DYK. I noticed that you have no interaction with the candidate on DYK noms. Would appreciate that you take a minute and point out which are the ones you are referring to. - Mailer Diablo 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had one interaction with him. Aside from the one encounter, he nominated a seemingly new article to DYK as saying that it is his creation. However the article was actually scrambled from here and there written by other several editors. I really mind digging up past May and June DYK suggested nom. That is not worthy.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC) (Addendum)) Unworthy but I added the diffs anyway.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. - Mailer Diablo 10:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as before - I don't see evidence that he has improved his maturity or communication skills, and he seems too focused on the MySpacey aspects.  krimpet ✽  03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume therefore you have evidence of his "MySpacey aspects"?  Al Tally  talk  16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * His self-appointed oppose-patrol deputy could be seen to point in that direction. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cease trolling, "Badger Drink".  Al Tally  talk  18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that if a troll is to be found here, it would be the dweeb badgering all the opposes in the hopes his bff could get a mop and bucket. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Badger Drink, that comment was a personal attack and was very unnecessary. Even your initial comment to Majorly was indeed trolling, and in no way helped the situation. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can any discussion that has even the most minimally pseudo-offensive content pass without mention of the ridiculously overcited and misinterpreted civility and NPA policies? Does no one realise that citing the policies (which are descriptive and not prescriptive, by the way) very rarely remedies the situation? I'm not necessarily disagreeing that Badger Drink's comment was a "personal attack" (whatever that's supposed to be; it's extremely poorly and vaguely defined in the relevant policy), but Julian's comment was extremely unhelpful - someone, please make Ignore personal attacks policy. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand where your coming from, however I was just trying to instruct Badger Drink&mdash;who appears to be a fairly new and inexperienced user&mdash;to not go around calling people a "dweeb badgering all the opposes in the hopes his bff could get a mop and bucket". Would you, both as an administrator and a normal user, tolerate offensive comments such as that towards yourself or other editors? I didn't expect my comment to change the world, but I thought it would at least discourage unnecessary attacks without being told my comment was useless. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  23:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Fairly new and inexperienced user"? Yeah, you've got the sterling judgement and carefully trained eye that I'd expect of a supporter of this RfA. Since I'm sure you wouldn't actually support an administrator who you felt was "fairly new and inexperienced", and you clearly supported an editor who started editing right around the same time I did, I am unfortunately left with no choice but to consider your statement an egregious personal attack upon my character, and would advise you to familiarize yourself with the policies outlined in WP:NPA. Please remain WP:CIVIL the next time you feel compelled to cluelessly spew forth some sanctimonious garbage. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please pardon my inaccurate accusing you of being inexperienced; I now know otherwise. However, that was certainly not a personal attack. If you thoroughly and honestly believe I was intentionally attacking you, than I suggest you read up on WP:NPA as well. I would also appreciate if you would understand that my comment about your level of experience was an honest mistake, and would not assume I am simply "spewing forth some sanctimonious garbage". Cheers, Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Kurt. Four RFAs in seven months? Yikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunt Entropy (talk • contribs)
 * 2) Oppose - Sorry, but I can't support. While you've done some good editing since your last RFA, the diffs that have been pointed out by some of the opposers are rather concerning, and I generally feel that four RFA's in this year alone so far is oversaturation. Sorry. Steve Crossin   (contact)  03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - adminship is not a trophy. I never thought I would say this, but oppose per Kurt. --B (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (struck for now, reconsidering in the face of what I feel is an unjustified pile-on) Reluctantly oppose per Maxim and Kurt. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 05:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctantly oppose per Giggy per (all of the above). You seem like a nice guy and all. Significantly, no one has raised meaningful red flags about any misbehavior etc. Why don't you.. just.. wait a while? Work on more articles? Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 08:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Significantly, no one has raised meaningful red flags about any misbehavior etc." I don't understand why you are opposing, if that's the case.  Al Tally  talk  16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Is there a record for the number of RfAs in less than 12 months? (Noting in fairness that my second RfA followed close to my first.) That aside, while there are definitely positives with this user, my assessment of the user's contribs leans me towards opposing per my criteria. I'd say let me know for next time if this doesn't succeed, but I have a feeling it won't be long off... - jc37 08:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. From what I've seen of him, he's too immature to be an admin and lacks the common sense needed to deal with more complex issues. The rate of learning he's demonstrated in the other places I've seen him in would indicate that he'd make too many mistakes before figuring out the correct way to handle the simpler tasks, which is especially important at places like aiv and rfpp, where he says he'd work. An admin won't be of much help if he needs someone to look over his shoulder at all times to make sure he's not breaking anything. Pending the answer to the 11th question (by George the Dragon), you should probably try again in a few years. - Bobet 09:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Maxim's concerns. &mdash;Dark talk 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a further note, I feel Milk has completely ignored my previous oppose in his last RfA. Under no circumstances can a cropped or derivative photo of a non-free image be licensed under Creative Commons... Milk has shown that the photo was not originally his "Printed out photograph, of Parcells with the Cowboys, in Game 6? of last year. Cut it out scanned it. (Pretty bad - yeah - I know)", yet he still uploads it to Wikipedia. His comments speaks volumes about his understanding of fair use and copyright. &mdash;Dark talk 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Comparatively few substantive edits to main encyclopedia.  What there are are heavily focussed on a few particular articles.  I suspect this is an attempt to gain featured article or list status for personal plaudits. This fits in with the appearance of being desperate to gain adminship - is this just another trophy for your Wikipedia account?  Much has been said about the previous 'come back in x months' experiences, but I think this should be 'go away and forget about it for now'.  If at some point in the future a pattern of substantive edits in established and adminship seems a natural progression for MFC then by all means go for it again, but establishing some kind of history solely in an attempt to gain adminship seems a bad idea from the start. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinions, but most wikipedians are heavily focussed to articles of their interest and knowledge , unless people who are interested in article 'fixing' or 'wikifying' jobs. You cannot be an expert in all kinds of articles in Wikipedia. I edit articles related to Computing, Christianity , India etc...I am totally clueless if you ask me to edit articles in Medicine , Aviation etc. Having an good expertise and work in articles of particular area is better than having no contributions...Just my personal opinion -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weakest oppose of all. There is a little thing that I dislike. As what others have said, I dislike your deperate attempts to be an admin. Your personality is fit to be an admin I suppose. My apologies, ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with wanting to help out more? Especially as you believe he's suitable.  Al Tally  talk  16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: per Kurt (god in heaven, I never thought I would see the day I'd say that) and Maxim. Four freaking RfAs in seven months?  I wouldn't want to see another one for at least a YEAR with that hyperaggression.  I have nothing against narrow focus of interest (I doubt more than 10% of my edits are outside hockey articles, AfDs and generic NPP), and I applaud nom's sensible decision to cut back from an insane 8000 edits in a single month, but what is the freaking hurry?  It seems like nom's out to take any criticism of inexperience, apply a tornado of edits to that area for a few weeks, proclaim himself as having rectified it, and holds out his hands once more for approval.  This is one of the signal weaknesses of the RfA/admin coaching culture, in that people get the (unfortunately accurate) notion that voters judge you on whether you've hit certain thresholds, so all you need to do is get X edits on ANI, Y edits in mainspace and Z edits on Talk pages and you're golden. Man, they shot me down because I didn't have enough article-building props?  Well, here ya go, look at all these DYKs I just went out and did!    RGTraynor  14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Discounting the Myspacer aspect, I see many other serious concerns with editing and overeagerness.  MBisanz  talk 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Overeagerness? I'm confused how overeagerness could be a contention for the opposition, when it's eagerness that makes admins good admins. If you aren't eager to help the project... then what are you doing here? Leonard(Bloom) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eagerness is good, to work on this project you need to be eager. Too much of a good thing can be bad.  MFC has had four RFAs this year, rushed through the featured process, and rushed a great deal at bots, I am not confident he has the temperment to be an admin at this time and would urge him to slow down a bit.  There is no deadline and having the bit is not a big thing.   MBisanz  talk 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. without that explanation, the original comment seems to imply at those who are too social or eager to help are detrimental. (As for the social part, I do understand that too much socializing could be detrimental to the project in one way or another. But it looks like MFC is just being nice.) Leonard(Bloom) 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Fifth RfA in the same year, should you not wait a bit longer than that and per Maxim.   Antonio Lopez  (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose - Ya know that kid in school who always raised his hand because he just had to answer the question and get the brownie points from the teacher? Yeah.  4 RfA's in 7 months is a little too much.  Your interactions with the "myspacey" aspects of wiki also make me cringe.   Qb  | your 2 cents  20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If somebody did not want to be an admin, why on earth would we make them one? People have to want to do the job, otherwise giving them the tools is pointless. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Due to the concerns raised above about depth of editing experience and the focus of the nominee's interactions with the community. TigerShark (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose after having previously supported (between #48 and #49 in that section) .  — Athaenara  ✉  22:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I'm sorry to do this, but I get a disquieting feeling about the candidacy. It seems too much like a campaign. He received dozens of barnstars in March, from other users who similarly focus too much on their userpages. I want admins to be encyclopedia writers. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Long-winded oppose: I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. Something's not quite right here. The Featured List and DYK brag sheet weakens a bit under scrutiny - I'm very interested in the answer to Sandstein's question above. MFC does good work vandal-fighting, and I even think the tools might help him do that job more effectively. If there was some way to guarantee that he would only use the tools to block vandals and handle DYK's, that might fly. But we can't un-bundle the tools, and I'm not at all confident in his ability to fulfill other administrative roles based on the presentation here. I don't really need to see more evidence of vandal fighting, or even more DYK's or featured lists. I'd like to see some concrete, positive evidence of good judgement - a conflict where this editor has behaved maturely, or a thorny situation they've untangled, or even a case where they've cogently disagreed with an admin's actions. I can't subscribe to the idea that adminship is no big deal anymore when it's obviously untrue. We have enough vandal-fighters and RFPP patrollers. We need more admins with demonstrated good judgement, maturity, and a willingness and skill at resolving conflicts. MFC may very well have that skill set, but it's just not coming through here. You're a good editor. You do good work. Adminship isn't a trophy or a validation, and if this doesn't pass you shouldn't take it as a rejection. Adminship is just a particular niche; someone could be a great editor, vandal-fighter, and encyclopedist, and not be right for this particular niche.  Incidentally, MFC, this RfA came to my attention through the behavior of your nominator. Fairly or not, his actions here reflect on you and influence this proceeding, and he's not doing you any favors. MastCell Talk 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Being eager is one thing, starting the 5th RFA in 7 months is another. I don't expect admins to be all-round contributors (nobody is good at everything), but I do expect them to be patient. This looks like trophy hunting. I strongly suggest MFC that should this RFA fail not to try again before 2009. Channel &reg;    00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fourth RfA, to be precise.  Enigma  message 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I hate to be the one to say this, but adminship is no longer "no big deal" and as such allowing users who treat Wikipedia like myspace would clearly not be in the communities best interest. Adminship is not a trophy or a status symbol, so please stop treating it like one. Tiptoety  talk 00:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicely said. ĤéĺĺвοЎ (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bigger deal because people make a bigger deal out of it than it should be. That has some good points and some bad points. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Regretful oppose, essentially per Kurt. The enthusiasm is much appreciated, but from looking at your contributions and answers above I just feel it is too much, too fast, too soon. I just don't sense the overall maturity I think we need from Admins. I have no idea of your age, and as others have said, in and of itself it is irrelevant. However, assuming that you are among our younger cohort, I think there is nothing specific you need to do except just let life in general and Wikipedia in particular soak in for another year or so. Martinp (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose Immature, willing to lie to support copyright infringement (see Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Anetode. I am sorry, but I simply do not believe that Milk took Image:Aston_mertin_lake.jpg himself. A user willing to pass off the work of others as their own is a worrying trait in a Wikipedian, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence in someone wishing extra responsibility on the project. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Kurt et al. I'd have liked to have seen questions 4 and 10 answered, also. Minkythecat (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I was originally going to support, as your contributions are overall, a clear net benefit to Wikipedia. Your age and the amount of previous RfAs does not concern me, nor does your willingness to help out editors in the user talk space and keep a nice userpage. However, I simply cannot ignore the Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8 issue. The evidence suggests you uploaded the photo on a incorrect licence, and did not tell the truth when questioned about the photo. I have looked at the photo myself and I also think it is unlikely that you made it yourself. I also do not know how you managed to find a car with what appears to be a United Kingdom licence plate in Rhode Island. This quite a series issue as administrators are expected to respect Wikipedia's copyright policies and tell the truth. I have checked your user talk page archives and it appears nothing else happened after Anetode questioned your explanation except that you requested the image be deleted under WP:CSD. I will reconsider my position on this if you will offer a clarification on what was the copyright status of the image, and if the answer is that it was not free, a confirmation that something like this will not happen again if you become an administrator. On a lesser issue, I agree with some concerns already given you are a little too quick with things, and how this will translate to your use of the admin tools might be of a concern - it is important that admins carefully review things before taking actions in complex situations, and I am not 100% convinced yet that you will do that. An example from personal experience that you were part of a sudden drive to get SimCity (series) to GA, the article went from Start to GA class so quickly (less than 24 hours) that those that had previously edited the article were left behind in the proceedings, and the article within a few weeks failed GA review. It would have been better to go at things more slowly here, and the same applies with use of the admin tools. So overall I must regretfully oppose. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... I'm starting to wonder about the Support voters who are airily typing "I know he won't abuse the tools." Based upon what, precisely, I'm wondering back?  We're seeing evidence of playing fast and loose with claiming work not his own.  We're seeing evidence of bot errors that are being ignored.  We're seeing that evidence that he cuts and runs on FACs if they aren't paying off in terms of promotion fast enough.  We're seeing slapdash rushes over everything from cascading RfAs to zero to GA in 20 hours to piling on FAC credits, and I'm not only not reassured that he won't pull the trigger on admin duties without patient, careful examination, I've plenty of reason to believe that patient, careful painstaking isn't his cup of tea.  I'm not really concerned about his age (I would have certainly answered that optional question, but probably with a variant of "That's a personal, unwarranted and indeed offensive question"), but while tireless and energetic are good traits, we don't need a Tasmanian Devil-clone with admin powers.    RGTraynor  17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose A few things immediately jumped out from reading this. A) You've tried to become an administrator too many times. Wait six months next time. B) You have greatly exaggerated your contributions to the site. Let us judge you on what you've actually done, not what you have claimed to have done. NuclearWarfare (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose &mdash; I've seen MFC around a lot and while I really wanted to be able to support, in taking a closer look at all of the above (and my own concerns) I'm afraid I cannot. Spending his time working on his RFA when he knew he had a whole host of bot errors to clean up after was irresponsible and displayed poor judgment. Had he resolved them prior to working on and transcluding this RFA (rather than making a partial rushed effort only after I filed a neutral because of that), it would not have been an issue - mistakes are inevitably made, and I won't fault someone for them as long as they fix them. But we're nearly 48 hours since MFC went offline, and some of those mistakes still aren't rolled back. The nature of his last edit shows what he is most focused on, and I'm afraid that's troubling for me when our number one priority should be ensuring the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. My advice would be to stop trying to do everything, you've got a wide breadth of contributions now, just focus on making sure each individual contribution is spot on. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Maxim and RGTraynor. I have seen many of the things they mention from this user and that could be cause of some great concern if he were to have the tools. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I've never switched from support to oppose before, but the disturbing lack of honesty displayed in the interaction with Anetode is enough for me to do so. S. Dean Jameson 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Despite the troublesome WP:MYSPACE aura permeating this "candidacy" (for lack of a better term), I held off on actually establishing my position here. However, the diffs provided by Anetode are a bit too troublesome to ignore (seemingly consistent with the dishonesty "non-honesty" expressed in Q12, as well). In addition, Mastcell (oppose #32 at the time of this writing) offers a well-reasoned viewpoint that far surpasses anything I could hope to muster. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Several serious concerns, notably Anetode's and MastCell's. Axl (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. While I have previously had a favorable personal impression of this candidate, I am highly concerned about the potentially poor ethics displayed here, as widely discussed above, and his failure to follow through with demonstrating, if he was able, that the photograph was his. If it was not--as it seems likely--then his defense was a deliberate lie, which has to draw into question his integrity and whether or not he would, actually, do significant harm to the project. I am also concerned with issues raised in question #12 above. Given the potential deliberate lie about creation of the photograph, it is a little harder to AGF with regard to his requesting a DYK credit for his contribution to Dorothy Canning Miller for this. The candidate seems to have understood at the time that substantial contribution was necessary; when he made the request for recognition here, he had two sections above used the words "a good amount" (here). His only contribution to that article was a reference and the wikilinking of two years. None of these added anything substantial to the article, as the reference did not clarify the sentence further than the one already used. It is worrisome that the edits were made to an article already nominated for DYK, as it does seem potentially to justify the concerns expressed by some that this editor may have been trophy gathering. Additionally the (only just) deleted Image:Bill_parcells.png (referenced in the oppose of User:DarkFalls, currently #22) was a blatant infringement of an AP photo. Given these concerns, I would be very uncomfortable supporting the granting of tools. The question of deliberate deception is far more worrisome than the other issues and, lacking a very good explanation, would not be easily overcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong oppose per Anetode. --Kbdank71 20:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Change to opppose per copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Changed to oppose because of the concerns voiced about copyright violations. Also, I would have liked the answers for questions 4 and 11.  So # Why  20:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. The concerns raised by Moonriddengirl are serious enough for me to oppose this RFA. Shovon (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. per honesty concerns that have been raised. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Strong Oppose per Anetode. The image is a copyright violation - it's on the internet at http://www.rbok.com/blog/ dated May 5, 2005 and it's an oldish photo even then. The car in question is a UK spec Aston Martin Vanquish wearing UK plates, as issued to Aston Martin (quite a few demonstrators and press cars wore Y8xxMWL plates during early 2001 same car same car again different shot different press car. Typing random bullshit into Wikipedia to convince others the image you've lifted from God knows what search engine simply shows you're a liar who can't really be trusted to edit, let alone be trusted to adminster the project. The decent thing to do know would be to confess you're a liar, apologise for wasting our time, withdraw and return with a decent nomination by a sensible and less argumentative, less childish, more mature nominator a year from now. Oh, are there any other image copyvios you want to confess to whilst we're at it, btw ? Nick (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral for now, leaning to oppose.  I believe a good deal of the article work at J. R. Richard was done by Nishkid64, and I have concerns about this editor's maturity and FAC participation, including a premature nom of Ty Cobb a few months ago (a poorly written article in need of reliable sources, and that MFC had barely edited).  The number of previous RfAs combined with the premature FAC nom suggest checklist-style admin coaching.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was one of the main reviewers at J. R. Richard and it would not have passed without his contributions. Nishkid64 did most of the research, but grammatical and other editorial corrections were necessary for the article to pass on its second attempt.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I also add that I've been mentoring MFC with regards to his FA/FL work since you requested me to do so a few months ago. He's made a great deal of progress in understanding featured criteria and relevant policies, such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. I think your current rationale would be a valid reason to oppose if the RfA was a few months ago, but I don't think the issue still applies. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am neutral because of your watchful eye, Nish; concerned nonetheless about possible maturity issues and what appears as an overly keen desire to get the tools. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SG has a good point actually. I saw that he had J.R. Richard listed as an FA and did a double take myself. I mean, if you copyedit a bunch are you going to say you made all those FAs? That's a little odd to me. Granted, that doesn't take away from his ability to administrate, but I understand your netural and support the findings. Wizardman  21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Wiz; seeing that article listed there did have me checking the articlehistory again. His work in the FAC, which Tony has pointed out, was useful, so he certainly did help, to his credit. —Giggy 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems like an overwhelmingly minor issue to me - different people have different standards on what to list or whether to list at all; it doesn't really have much to do with anything. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  Seems like a keen user, who grew better with every RfA and I like the way he did start articles. But I am concerned that some articles (like and ) show a lack of MoS-knowledge and editing habits that artificially inflate the edit count (12 edits within 3 minutes for example) which make the edit count unreliable. Also, while I think translating other languages' articles is a good idea, it may not be advisable to 1:1 translate them so that they look like they were put through Babelfish. So, while I think this user might be a good admin, I feel there are some problems I think he has to address before he can be made an admin.  So # Why  19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Switch to oppose
 * Might I point out that those two diffs were six months ago, and prior to the last Rfa? (Which may or may not make a difference to you) -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were only some examples I found. I have to remark, that although those were before the last RFA, they did not seem to hinder the majority to support him in that RFA as well. I found other examples, like this one which funny enough is only 10 days old but was left at that. It had the wrong birth date although he clearly had a source and I did add whatever I could find from that source today, took me 10 minutes tops. So I wonder why he starts such stubs without working on them further...also, when I posted this, he had not answered most of the questions and he still has not answered xeno's. I will wait for that answer and then maybe reconsider.  So # Why  21:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending answer to Q4. I'm also concerned that you haven't cleaned up after your bot yet, there's still errors that haven't been rolled back. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC) switched to oppose
 * 1) Neutral pending answers to question 10. Although this editor's first article Dense Fibrillar Component (DFC) leaves a great deal to be desired, his more recent additions are much better. However even now the history of some of the stubs he's created, such as Louis Bazin, John Henry Johnson (baseball) and Dominic Olejniczak indicate that he is still starting articles but not including references. I'd usually oppose for this, but his other contributions are pretty good. Will reconsider if there is a good reason for this. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral for now. I think the answers above show some infelicity a lack of facility with the language, which is a problem in any admin but not a dealbreaker. More importantly, though, it looks like the answers are a bit careless and not well thought out - serious problems in an administrator, or an RfA candidate. I'd actually suggest that MFC reread the questions posed, his answers, and consider rephrasing what he has written (for instance, to a question of "Do you think it was fair you failed your last RfA" he replies "No" but seems to explain why it was, in fact, fair). <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 20:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would I be showing infelicity by admitting that I needed to look up the word "infelicity" just now? — CharlotteWebb 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats better, isn't it? Infelicity applies, but I think the rewritten version is more accurate. Also, I've noted that MFC has refactored the answer I noted above to make a bit more sense. <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Just not sure what to do in this case. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral lean support. While I definitely share some of the concerns of the opposes, particularly the first one---nominators at FLC/FACs should baby sit their candidates... not abandon them... MFC's biggest flaw is his desire/enthusiasm to help. I'm just worried that he might be overly eager... not necessarily for the tools, but quick to make a decision.  My concern is that he might rush the process, which is indicative of his participation at FLC.  It also strikes me as a little peculiar that ANYBODY could push 20+ pieces of featured content through in a few months and give any of them sufficeint attention to detail.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured lists are relatively easy, at least compared to featured articles anyway. Just a shame that MFC felt pressured into going down that road in response to his previous RfA in my opinion. Although it's obviously a plus that he seems to have enjoyed spreading his wings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning toward Support I am very impressed with how much article writing you have been doing lately, and I remember your anti-vandal work before your first (third?) RFA was good as well. I will probably end up supporting, but I am interested to see how you answer Xeno's question. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to just Neutral per the example that Anetode brought up. That is very a dangerous thing to be doing. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Pending more Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral You claim that you have substantially edited 19 featured lists, but many of those lists have only been edited by you a couple of times. I think you are a good user, but that this Rfa is premature.  You should've waited a longer time working to perfect all your areas of Wikipedia.  I understand that not everyone can edit all topics, because if you ask me a question about science, history, books, geography, or certain people, I can answer you almost immediately.  But not the rest, except Sports.  I also think you edit to become an admin, not to just be a normal editor.  Try to make your edits more subtle and do some underground work, and I might change to support. -- Meldshal   (§peak to me)  13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Fixed formatting.) <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000">Avruch <strong style="color:#000;background:#fff;border:0px solid #000"> T 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral leaning towards Weak Support I think this candidate has done some fine work, and Keeper's points in the Discussion section are spot on for most of the opposes. I'm glad that MFC has found enjoyment in article work, and it's extremely disappointing to see people still opposing for that, even though it's what was recommended for him in his last RfA. His edit count and contributions are impressive; however, I get the feeling that adminship just may not be the thing quite yet. As I said, most of the opposes are rather ridiculous; however, I found Maxim's arguments to be fairly persuasive. I'm just not positive that MFC has the proper temperament for the mop. Update: Switching to just neutral per Anetode. Depending on candidate's responses to Q12 and Anetode's concerns, I may end up opposing. Glass  Cobra  21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case he would fit in quite well with the overwhelming majority of the current administrators, who also don't "have the temperament for the mop". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. :) Though I must say that the decorum around here has been quite poor of late. Glass  Cobra  22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Cookie has definitely improved from his previous RfAs, but I'm undecided on how he'd handle the tools. IceUnshattered[ t 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Originally, I was going to support. But after reading the arguments and evidences presented by both sides, I'm on neutral territory <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I don't think this user would misuse the tools, and the several Rfas are not a major problem to me. They just show the user wants to help Wikipedia, unless a major tool misuse is planned. However, I can't support because of Possibly_unfree_images/2008_February_8, unless a reasonable explanation exists. --Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Neutral - to avoid pile-on at this point. I've been talking about this RfA extensively, and felt I wanted to weigh in. Reason I can't support is due to both maturity issues and specific photo copyright issues discussed above. The reason I'm not logging in a long oppose is because I've felt that MFC has been deceived by the community as to what constitutes a prepared admin. No one individual did it deliberately or with maliciousness, but collectively it appears MFC was led to believe that adminship can be aquired through x edits in y areas, and the whole concept of deep maturity along with the ability to handle tough situations was left to the wayside. He did was he was told, but was never told that maturity can't automatically be gained by spending a couple months doing featured lists and reporting some people to AIV. MFC - if you ever get around to reading this whole RfA, please do not set your next goal as passing RfA 5 (6?). I wont say wait 3 months, or 6 months, or a year, because I don't know when you will be ready, and frankly it's unfair to keep telling candidates to wait x amount of time when frankly we don't know when they will be ready. All I'll say is wait, stop worrying about being an admin to the extent that's possible, and in due time you'll be ready, whether thats 3 months or 3 years. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.