Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123


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

Rcsprinter123
'''Final (5/24/8); ended 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC) per WP:SNOW Steven Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Finally putting myself forward for the mop, because it's a janitorial job anyway and should be no big deal.

Here I am, and I think you'll agree I've been to rather lot of places around this wiki. I've been active in bots, AfC, AfD, adoption, the Signpost, DYK, the Teahouse, plus some choice WikiProjects, where my main interest is editing about buses. Regularly I visit IRC to monitor feeds and help struggling newbies in #wikipedia-en-help. I run a bot, which unfortunately I can't support running very often. Edit count-wise, 25500 since mid-2010 I would hope is sufficient to consider a candidate for adminship. In total (as of 31 Aug), I have created 17 articles not including lists of bus routes. I know this isn't a huge amount but I sure did I put a lot of effort into them, and collected six DYKs now.

Now, I know that my block log isn't exactly clean and I accept that. But out of my four blocks I have received, which were no fun I can tell you, only the first two were properly deserved, no3 was because I had mistakenly written WikiMedia on a survey I had delivered, and the last was a rather hasty block on a repeated change regarding bots which I had consensus for. I still accept responsibility for them, realise that I have made some mistakes in the past and hope you don't hold it against me. But I'm only trying to help.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  08:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: A bit of anything, really. I suppose CSD and protection to begin with, and protected edit requests, then moving on to blocking vandals and other stuff. I aspire to help out with the administrative backlog too; at current I already hack away at some backlogs.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Everything I've done through writing articles, because it is an encyclopaedia. Best article is Preston Passion. Also my "public service" efforts helping out other people and the joy I get of editing.


 * 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: Just a few. They're over and I guess the solution is just to work out your differences and try to get along.


 * Additional question from Worm That Turned
 * 4. Hi Rcsprinter. Can you give an example of a situation this year where you believe you've demonstrated good judgement? Could you also give an example of a situation this year where you believe you could have demonstrated better judgement, and explain how you would have done things differently?
 * A:


 * Additional questions from Dennis Brown
 * 5. As an admin, you stumble across a heated but generally on topic discussion on an article talk page between 4 editors, but the conversation is degrading into personal observations about the motives of their fellow editors. What would you do or say to bring the drama level down a notch? Or is it better to stay out of it?
 * A: In most cases I would move on unless is was an article I already had something to do with. I might decide to comment, or interfere, if it was getting very violent with language or I can see an easy solution to suggest. I would impartially tell them to cool down a little, suggest my idea and wait to see their responses. Upon this I would act further and take the necessary actions to solve the dispute.
 * 6. If you did get involved, let's say one editor tells you to "Mind your own fucking business." and another says "No one asked you to come here, you don't know shit about the subject matter. Go away." How do you respond?
 * A: If I saw this from anybody at all, my first instinct would be to point them to WP:NPA and say it's a wiki anyone can join in. I would try to join in the discussion productively and get a positive outcome. Even if I didn't know the anything about the subject matter as the rude editor said, I can try to work out agreements and perhaps learn about the subject. If the harassment continued, I would give the worst offender a short sharp block to remind them to keep a civil tongue (or keyboard) when talking to other editors. After that I would try and leave it there and not get involved again.


 * Additional question from IRWolfie-
 * 7. Can you provide some more details on the bot related block and the copyvio related block? (I know the copyvio block was some time ago, but I think it might help to elaborate on what happened, and how you changed etc)
 * A: On the bot related block (discussion), I went through the list of inactive bots that was maintained regularly, and marked them inactive on the bot header on each one's userpage, using AWB as an aid. I made the mistake of marking 7SeriesBot inactive because that hadn't been editing for some years - it had been deleting instead. So then its operator BWilkins (who's using a sockpuppet to oppose) blocked me and a huge hullabaloo occurred on my talk page with many editors and I was swiftly unblocked by Earwig on the condition I didn't make any more of those edits. I did not, and was recommended to ask at the Bot Owners' Noticeboard for more permission. This was eventually given, and I finished the edits off quite recently. I don't really want to go through the whole argument of the post-block again.


 * As for the copyvio block, that was just a minor thing from my early days as an editor before I knew all the policies guidelines properly; same with image licences, but now I'm savvy with that too.


 * Additional question from Electriccatfish2
 * 8. A user has tagged an article about an elementary school for deletion as an A7. What do you do?
 * A:I would realise that A7 does not apply to schools and instead assess its notability and current state. Then I would either remove the tag if I thought it should be kept, or delete it under a different criteria or put that tag there. To be sure it wouldn't happen again, I would leave the original tagger a brief note explaining about CSD A7.


 * Additional question from LuK3
 * 9. When should an article be indefinitely semi-protected?
 * A:When it is being either repeatedly vandalised or spammed, there is an edit war, or as a precaution to a high viewing risk or current event to prevent vandals. I would generally only consider protection if it is requested on WP:RFPP. Of course, I may protect in passing but very rarely.


 * Additional questions from Hahc21
 * 10. This is an inevitalbe situation you may live as an admin: blocking users. One way or the other you may live this in your future admin career. So, please give me a summary of how you interpret blocks from a blocked user perspective, from your personal perspective, and how it may have (from your perspective) permanent consequences on users when performed slightly.
 * A:
 * 11. If a a user gets mad at you because of some admin-related action you have made and starts vandalizing your userpage at the point on which they receive a level 4 warning, would you directly block the user? Or will you prefer to protect your page and wait until another unrelated admin makes the final decision?
 * A:To be honest, I would have my user page protected in the first place, but in that scenario it would probably be better to leave any blocking to somebody else in case of a conflict of interest on my part.


 * Additional question from Mabdul
 * 12. What did you learn from your two BAG' approval requests this year? (Can be accessed here and here)
 * A: People don't seem to like admitting me to positions of power, and I don't seem to answer questions properly. I do try my best, and I think I would be good at making decisions if I had those authorities. Because I am experienced in the bot area, and participate regularly in BRFAs, thought I would be good at commissioning trials and things. Alas, the community there didn't seem to think so and the wider community isn't supporting this request either. I never seem to get anything I apply for, like OTRS or BAG membership. What I learn on these are "work on these things, and try again next time." Seems to be the attitude here too.

General comments

 * Links for Rcsprinter123:
 * Edit summary usage for Rcsprinter123 can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs)

Support

 * 1) Support I am going to support because this is the first entry, we need something positive, and I have positive memories of my interactions with rcsprinter. Lookinbg at logs I can see that around 2011 Rcsprinter123 figured out that images needed sources and licenses. But Moves and subsequent upload are OK. Patrol log shows activity. Area of inactivity that Rcsprinter123 could participate in is the article feedback activity log. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Per Graeme Bartlett, mutatis mutandis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support: There are some concerns that need work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Support before the snow falls. Hope to see RCS back here when the problems have been attended to. What I've seen at CSD has mostly been OK so far as I can remember (I don't make little lists). Not a name I dread seeing on a nomination, at least... Peridon (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral Support You're a good guy, don't get discouraged. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong Oppose Although I have appreciated a lot of RCS's work, there's an attitude issue that IMHO make them wholly unfit, at least until they're able to show massive improvement. They ended up on my watchlist ages ago for an issue, and they eventually dropped off.  They then came to the forefront again on a bot-tagging issue in May of this year (which he falsely claims to have had approval for above).  Their attitude was one of "meh, I was only sorta wrong, so whatever" - that dismissive response led to a block (which, by the way, had mixed reviews).  They then eventually badgered the bot-owners board to try and get permission to continue the task, and were eventually limited to exactly the recommendation I had given them months before.  I have no doubt the RCS has the best interests of the project in mind, but they hold grudges, and refuse genuine attempts at assistance.  This is not the attitude we're looking for in admins dangerous panda  10:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I have amended my !vote to be "strong" oppose. If the editor does not know the difference between a WP:SOCK and valid alternate accounts by now, then they are most certainly not ready to be an admin.  Indeed, their response to the Bot question shows a) they are willing to continue to make false statements, and b) they do indeed hold grudges.  This is unfortunate in both counts dangerous panda  14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your rationale for opposing (indeed, I myself am against granting this editor the admin toolset at this time, unfortunately) and disagree with Rcsprinter's characterization of yourself using a sock to participate here, but I have to be completely and 100% honest with you &mdash; it does irritate me that you had not disclosed the fact that you were the one who blocked him back in May (for anyone else's reference, see this exchange on Rcsprinter's talkpage). Kurtis (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As Dangerouspanda has said, Rcsprinter has some attitude issues and as written below, his edits are mainly automatic. There also isn't much content creation, so that could provide problems with Rcsprinter not being able to judge several things well for example AfDs. The blocks Rcsprinter has had in the past also suggest future issues.  Adam Mugliston Talk  12:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant oppose. I was hoping to support this, as Rcsprinter looks like a decent editor and a nice bloke, and I've seen him around the place doing good things. It would also be a great help to have another editor answering protected edit requests. I had a look at Rcsprinter's CSD tagging, though, and I'm a bit concerned. (Note: I didn't look at any of the file tagging, only article tagging, as files aren't my strong point.) The A7 tagging was fine, but Rcsprinter has a tendency to tag articles for A3 when they have been created but then blanked by their creator. This happened with Tor henrik larsen and Tor hagalid, both on May 22, and again on August 1 with Shram Laboratories. (Shram Laboratories is a borderline case depending on what you count as "chat-like comments" per CSD A3, however - the content was one sentence in the first person starting with "My name is ...".) Every revision of an article has to qualify for a CSD criterion for the article to be deletable under that criterion, and this isn't the case for the three articles here, particularly the two tagged on May 22. They were all acceptable G7 candidates, however, and have been deleted as such.  More concerning than those is a tag on July 27 of How to eat a coconut, a short recipe for making coconut. This was PRODded by another editor, and after that Rcsprinter tagged it with, a technical deletion, with Twinkle's standard edit summary and no extra explanation. This page falls under WP:NOTHOWTO, but being a how-to is not a speedy deletion criterion. I don't think this page qualifies under any of the speedy deletion criteria, and I would have declined the speedy altogether. (In the end it was deleted under A10.) It certainly didn't fall under G6, which is only supposed to be for completely uncontroversial deletions. After seeing these tags, and seeing that Rcsprinter wants to work in CSD, unfortunately I must oppose. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now. Candidate is clearly eager to get involved, and that enthusiasm is to be supported; however after reading through a recent talkpage archive, combined with the incidents which led to the blocks, my feeling is that Rcsprinter is making too many mistakes at the moment. There's an indication also of snappy attitude in the response to Hugo999 who made a neutral comment regarding article tagging: "Alright, whatever. It was nothing personal to the article. (You might want to read WP:OWN)." I'd like to see a period of calm and helpful responses to other users, and a period of not making mistakes. On the whole I feel that Rcsprinter has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and might one day make a decent admin - just not now. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Close paraphrasing concerns. In Christmas in Hawaii, one of the DYKs listed on his userpage, everything sourced to source one is a fairly close paraphrase.
 * Article:
 * Source:
 * Article:
 * Source:
 * Article:
 * Source:
 * I'm sorry, but per this I cannot support at this time. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch. dangerous panda 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The last one there is debatable, but otherwise yeah... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Woah, I would've never expected that from an experienced editor. <font style="color:#000;background:#ADFF2F;"> Adam Mugliston Talk  18:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm blown away by it - 110% surprised. I would hope that they "return" the DYK award for that one, and any others remotely like it.  Hopefully they embark on their own CCI initiative <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda  18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Mr. Stradivarius. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Regretful oppose I have too many concerns. This user does great work but his block log does indicate he still needs to improve.  He is a bit hasty in his work and will at times presume things that aren't true.  The bot markings for one should be carefully done as not all the bots operate in a manner that don't show up in logs.  His attitude is another concern.  I expect administrators to be courteous even when being spat at.  The still ongoing BRFA for Cyberbot II is one example of where he could mildly improve.  He expressed his disagreement with the bot but expressed it in a manner where I felt useless.  Finally, anyone who states that they intend to work with CSD must have a 95% accuracy in CSD tagging in the latest year.  90% is too low for me.  There are only 62 entries this year which is also a bit low for anyone who intends to work in speedy deletions.  I am open to another RfA in 6 months though.—<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower  <font color=olive face=arnprior>Chat<sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex"><font color=olive face=arnprior>Online 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Your answers to my questions 5 and 6 are likely fine for an editor, but not an admin. Getting involved in the content portion is always wrong when you stumble across a page that simply needs a little mediation and a calm, rationale voice.  Ignoring it isn't a good option either.  Q6 in particular was bothersome since those comments weren't personal attacks, just incivility, which it is best to ignore the incivility and simply tell them you aren't getting involved in the content of the discussion, just the tone.  Getting defensive isn't helpful when you are coming in as an admin.  And no, if they ramped it up and it did became personal attacks against you, you shouldn't block them but instead ping another admin to review, to insure you aren't taking it too personally.  There is no doubt you do some good things for Wikipedia and I appreciate and respect that, but being an admin requires a little more objectivity and tolerance than I think you are prepared for.  Admins have to overlook a great deal of incivility directed towards themselves, and doing so requires a certain demeanor that many people don't have.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, mostly per close paraphrasing concerns. Copyright and original text are important for any editor — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Copyvio issues are a definite no for me, costs me any free time I have fixing them. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose Contrary to Graeme Bartlett RCSprinter's knowledge of copyright has been more recently scrutinised both in his upload of File:Old_trafford_stadium.jpeg and subsequently in his application for OTRS permissions . This also led to a demonstration of a short temper and demonstration of an inability to take constructive criticism. Since they joined Wikipedia the user has sought to achieve higher levels of User Permissions including a previously aborted attempt at an RfA, this looks like it's more about gaining the badge/kudos than doing the actual work needed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose After the discussion of learning from the copyright block, I looked over the candidate's commons uploads, and found a couple of obvious copyvios from 27 December 2011 (well after the blocks). e.g. commons:File:Hawaii Christmas Tree.jpg claimed as CC-0, but not licensed like that at the source.  So I think the candidate still needs more experience.  (Sorry to pile on - enjoy contributing to Wikipedia as you have been!)--99of9 (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per above, particularly Reaper Eternal. AutomaticStrikeout 16:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - I thank the candidate for the offer of service and the good work on this project but the copyvio issues and blocks are concerns. Suggest this Rfa be closed asap per WP:SNOW to avoid a pile-on effect. Jus  da  fax   18:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Opppse. Try again in 6 months and keep improving. The good work that you do is its own reward. <font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">Kiefer <font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz 23:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose "uses a sockpuppet to oppose" is not true (and let's be honest: holding what seems to be a grudge and revealing it like that in an RfA is just a bad idea), and the close paraphrasing pushes me over the edge. Learn from this experience, Rcsprinter, and you'll do fine in the future. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Some Oppose this is per Ed, Wizardman, <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;">dangerous <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">panda , <font color=green face=Neuropol>cyberpower and Reaper Eternal. Plus, he didn't answer Q#4 and his answer in Q#9 isn't what is supposed to be ONLY. TruPepitoM talk to us 05:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose The knowledge (and theory demonstration of that knowledge) I think an admin requires just hasn't been demonstrated through Rcsprinter123's history and answers to questions. That Rcsprinter123 didn't know about WP:INVOLVED, didn't know what the role of a third opinion is in a debate, didn't know that page protection isn't applied preemptively and current events don't need to indef protected, and to top it off the very close paraphrasing. I can't support with all of these concerns, the Administrators' reading list might be worth working through. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - too many concerns, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 14:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Oppose You're a good guy and you've written and edited a lot of great articles but you shouldn't focus on one topic and one topic only. Be more open minded and try writing about new things. Go for a day in the city and find something else that interests you and write about that. Don't stop helping those newbies. That's great. Try again in a month or two. Keelan717 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify this for me? He is active in many areas and because of his active IRC and AfC work he isn't active only "on one topic". <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 17:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet vote stricken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Copyright concern--Morning Sunshine (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - The block log contains some blocks that are too recent for my comfort. Although I'm glad that you take full responsibility for them, I'm not too strong on your judgement; you made an RfA nomination offer that I could not at all accept, and probably will not be able to accept for a long time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per multiple concerns detailed above. Michael (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm concerned with the answer to 2 and 3. It seems the nominee mostly makes automatic edits, so it's very difficult to get a good grasp of what Rcsprinter is like as an editor when not using the tools. If questions 2 and 3 are filled in with examples this might help to give a better idea. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've moved to oppose mainly because of a very clear copyright violation only 5 months ago. The one example of an article he gave which he contributed to, he made a copyright violation in his version: : "The three documentaries culminated in a live extravaganza which was set to include thousands of residents. The production was directed by Mark Murphy, who also worked on Liverpool's 2008 Capital of Culture opening ceremony. There were also contemporary dance pieces and traditional local brass band music." has been copied and pasted from, probably so was the rest of the article. Also, per Dennis' question, I don't think any editor should just move on if they see incivility; let alone an admin. I'm concerned by the responses to the blocks, specifically a lack of acceptance of any culpability. I'm still concerned with the large number of auto-edits and lack of signs that the editor engages with other editors often. Some of the questions also appear to have been left unanswered for a long period of time. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I filed a Contributor copyright investigations investigation on this user at Contributor copyright investigations. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd really like to support Rcsprinter, truly I would. He seems very enthusiastic and I doubt too much harm would come of his use of the tools in the areas he's expressed an interest toward helping out at. But there are a number of concerns that convince me he's not quite ready for the bit, at least not at the moment. First, and most prominent in my mind, is this archived discussion on his talk page, where Nyttend confronted him about his improper tagging of images for CSD. Now I myself am not an expert when it comes to licensing (it's part of the reason my recent RfA failed just a little over a month ago), but the concern isn't just the misunderstanding of policy where Rcsprinter is concerned, it's the lack of discretion he demonstrated in not familiarizing himself with the relevant policies before acting &mdash; and, futher, his subsequent response (see the link above) which shows that he is unwilling to acknowledge his mistakes when he makes them. This trait is not compatible with the role given to administrators, who have enough influence through their technical privileges and perceived status within the community to drive of potentially valuable editors. Bwilkins, Mr. Stradivarius, and Reaper Eternal have also brought up some past incidents which serve to solidify my opinion that this user is just not ready at this time. My advice to you, Rcsprinter, is to take this RfA as a learning experience and come back sometime within the next year (I'd recommend March 2013) after re-evaluating your approach to administrative areas and building a track record of responsible contributions. Once I feel confident that the concerns which were raised today have been alleviated, I would have absolutely no problem supporting you for adminship, as you are unquestionably a force for good on Wikipedia and I think you'd eventually do great work with the tools. Kurtis (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Moral Support, Realistic Oppose - When Rcsprinter123 was blocked for the second time, I offered to adopt him. He was an exceptional student and has improved vastly over the past year or so. The amount of good work he's done for the encyclopedia is immeasurable. However, I believe this request for adminship is ill-advised. At the moment, I worry about a few things in his demeanor, including the fact that he does appear to hold grudges as Bwilkins suggests below. Labelling EatsShootsAndLeaves as a sockpuppet is inaccurate, as sock puppet specifically refers to abusive use of alternate account, yet above it's clear who Bwilkins is. I also worry the blasé approach to the RfA - there were multiple mistakes in the nomination, some of which are still there despite my suggestions to proof-read. He did not transclude correctly, an error I fixed for him. Similarly, his answers to questions are insufficient, and he's made no effort to check over his older articles despite knowing he had an issue with close paraphrasing. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'><font color='#000'>Worm TT(<font color='#060'>talk ) 14:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support I've seen Rcsprinter123 around and ISTR forming the opinion that he was probably already an admin. I was going to do some research around his edits with a view to supporting his candidature. However, a number of points raised above now make me think that he should return here in a few months, after taking on board some suggestions and advice. I'm sure he's very well intentioned and has clearly made numerous valuable edits to the project. Keep it up! -- Trevj (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support, mostly per Worm That Turned. I find myself in agreement with most of the opposers (in particular, Dennis Brown's observations ring true for me), but the candidate does do helpful work and I don't want to pile on. It's never fun getting an "oppose", but the opposes here offer a lot of helpful guidance that should give the candidate a path towards an eventually successful request. 28bytes (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I'm a bit concerned about the lengthy block log, as well as labeling ESAL as a sockpuppet, as BMW pointed out. Also, the close paraphrasing concerns are also problematic. However, as 28bytes pointed out, the candidate does good work here and I have seen this user helping out newbies at the Teahouse. Additionally, the candidate says that he wants to work in CSD, but their CSD log only shows a CSD success rate of 87%, which is a bit too low. Electric Catfish 17:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Good edits and stuff, but the stuff listed above is sort of turning me off voting in favor. -- Lemon Twinkle  01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Avoiding pile-on oppose This user is far from ready and has a propensity to jump before they can walk. Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral - avoiding a pile on in the other section. Like many enthusiastic new and/or younger editors Sprinter seems to believe that the path to recognition is by joining the project and jumping straight into maintenance areas with  both  feet.  With only 3 edits to  Wikipedia space he was transcluding his first RfA and he's been on my watchlist ever since.  Just  over a year ago  he was asked to  act with  more maturity, after which  he was indef banned from  the GA process (although this was later modified). I  was concerned over his unauthorised survey only 9 months ago, followed by the issues with his blocked alternative account. Problems with his use of AWB only 5 months ago followed by an application to be part of the RfBAG group gave me concern and only  3 months ago  he gets blocked for messing  about with bot business and appears to  blame the tools for his errors.  His 50 most recent AfD !votes match the closures only 33.3% of the time, and his NAC just 24 days ago, reverted by  an admin  and closed by  another with  a different  conclusion,  was far too  complex for any NAC.  Having  !voted on  45  RfAs (matched the end result only 54.5% of the time) and reading all  the advice pages, he should have been aware that this call  for office is very  much too soon. Although tutored by our most patient mentor I am  convinced that there is still a significant maturity issue that only time rather than Wikipedia experience can address, and I can't see myself supporting  another run for at  least another 12 months.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Moral support I know you have truly good intentions (which makes me place this in Neutral) and it's brilliant that you're considering yourself for a position I feel I'm unfit for, but unfortunately the opposes are rather worrying. I would certainly support you if the issues are dealt with and you run again. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  16:27, 1 September 2012 (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.