Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Milk's Favorite Cookie 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:30, 22 July 2008 editPedro (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators22,741 editsm →Oppose: oops - sig← Previous edit Revision as of 19:30, 22 July 2008 edit undoBadger Drink (talk | contribs)3,868 edits →Oppose: resNext edit →
Line 207: Line 207:
#::His self-appointed oppose-patrol deputy could be seen to point in that direction. --] (]) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC) #::His self-appointed oppose-patrol deputy could be seen to point in that direction. --] (]) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
#:::Please cease trolling, "Badger Drink". ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC) #:::Please cease trolling, "Badger Drink". ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 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. --] (]) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per Kurt. Four RFAs in seven months? Yikes. {{unsigned|Aunt Entropy}} #'''Oppose''' per Kurt. Four RFAs in seven months? Yikes. {{unsigned|Aunt Entropy}}
#'''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. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">] ]</font> 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC) #'''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. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">] ]</font> 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:30, 22 July 2008

Milk's Favorite Cookie

Voice your opinion (talk page) (63/26/9); Scheduled to end 18:29, July 28, 2008 (UTC).

Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs) - Milk's Favorite Cookie - a.k.a. MFC/Oreo has been editing Misplaced Pages 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 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)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: When I had my last RFA, I had a lack of contributions to articles. Since then, I have helped Template:FA 19 lists get up to featured list standard. Of those 19, I have created Template:FA 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 Template:FA 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. Gman124 (talk · contribs) and I had both expanded the list and had nominated it FLC. In the FLC, Crzycheetah (talk · contribs) 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 (talk · contribs). 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 xenocidic

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 at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 F. Whitten Peters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dorothy Canning Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 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:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

  • 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 ǀ 76 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A general observation I've made with regards to the whole MFC-treats-Misplaced Pages-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 / ) 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.--KojiDude 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)
Support
  1. Al Tally 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 My 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 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 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. Strong Support Looks good.--Xp54321 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong Support Worked with user before. Would make a fine admin.--LAAFan 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support Definitely trustworthy. Alexfusco 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Change of heart. Why not? Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Definitely deserves the tools. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  15. 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 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  16. 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 ǀ 76 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  17. 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)
  18. No problems here, gets better each time... edit-conflict support. Bencherlite 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strong support - Undoubtedly will make a great admin. Wisdom89 (T / ) 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  20. 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)
  21. Strong Support - Are you Jimbo Wales? --JeWay (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. 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)
  23. Support Don't see anything worth worrying about.--KojiDude 20:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support, good user. Wizardman 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. 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. grin L'Aquatique 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. I've-been-waiting-for-this-one support Great editor. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  27. 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)
  28. Support I think he'll do okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. Support. I think its time. Synergy 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  31. very weak support bordering on neutral per my reasons in the neutral section.---Balloonman 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - A great user, would be an asset to the project. Soxred 93 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support per WBOSITG's comments. After looking his contributions, I think that MFC will do great use of the tools. doña macy 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  35. 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. ChaoticReality 00:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  36. 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 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  37. 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 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  38. 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 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  40. 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)
  41. Supported the last one, I see no reason to do any different this time around. Tan ǀ 39 01:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  42. Yee-Hah! Because saying "Support" 42 times gets a little monotonous. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  43. 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-mt 04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  44. 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)
  45. Support. You should already be an administrator. —Mizu onna sango15/ 05:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    SUPPORT!! Dumpster muffin (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    indented per this Enigma 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  46. 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)
  47. 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)
  48. Support Can be trusted with tools, and per everything else that has been said above. ·Add§hore· /Cont 06:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support as per keen DISCUSSION section observations by Nishkid64, Keeper76, and Wisdom89. — Athaenara ✉ 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  50. 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 -- Tinu Cherian - 09:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support: Seen him around, looks like a good addition to admin ranks, Plus, the opposes seem a bit shallow.--Bedford 10:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  52. Certainly. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  53. Oppose due to inability to spell second word in username correctly :-D Stifle (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support I have no doubt he will use the admin tools well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support. Good temperament, and meets my criteria for supporting an RfA. S. Dean Jameson 13:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  56. 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  57. I'm supporting, as the opposes don't bother me: they're relatively minor issues, and he'll definitely be a helpful admin. · AndonicO 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  58. 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)
  59. 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 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  60. Strong Support Wonderful contributions, and the opposition has done nothing to convince me otherwise. Leonard 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support - Very good user, well-improved. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  62. 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)
  63. 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)
  64. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support - no problems here, and I don't care how many RFAs he's had this year. Jauerback/dude. 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose—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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2008, we have these fails: Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of 2006 Major League Baseball all-stars/archive1, Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of 2007 Major League Baseball all-stars/archive1. While scrolling up, I noticed MFC addressing concerns on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Milk.27s_Favorite_Bot_III, 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—"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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. Oppose — Fourth RFA in less than a year, too bubbly, too young. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    Weak 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Shereth 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. Shereth 23:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Strongly, per Maxim and George. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Daniel. —Giggy 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. Weak oppose - Editor has a clear problem responding as seen above, I have also noticed this trait in Milk's personality. — Realist (Speak) 01:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I do not trust that this user will use the administrator tools responsibly. SashaNein (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
    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 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 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. 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 ǀ 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 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 18:08, 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 18:08, 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)
  14. 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 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 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)
  15. Oppose per Kurt. Four RFAs in seven months? Yikes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunt Entropy (talk • contribs)
  16. 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)
  17. 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. user:Everyme 05:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  18. 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 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 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. Per Maxim's concerns. —Dark 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  22. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 -- Tinu Cherian - 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  23. 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 16:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  24. 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.  RGTraynor  14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Discounting the Myspacer aspect, I see many other serious concerns with editing and overeagerness. MBisanz 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 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Fifth RfA in the same year, should you not wait a bit longer than that and per Maxim. Antonio Lopez 19:09, 22 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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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)
  2. 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)
    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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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). Avruch 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. Avruch 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. 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 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. 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.delanoyadds 02:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  8. Pending more Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  9. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.) Avruch 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)