Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mvjs

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

Mvjs

Final (29/18/10); Closed by Rlevse at 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mvjs (talk · contribs) - I love Wikipedia. I think I could go as far as calling myself a Wikipedia adherent. My aim is to make Wikipedia the best it can possibly be and I believe that adminship is the next step in my Wikipedia journey. I hereby present a self nomination of Mvjs. I've been an editor since August 2006 but my active involvement in Wikipedia really didn't start till March this year. My primary contributions are (and probably always will be) in the mainspace with the vast majority of my edits being there. I believe thoroughly in consensus and consensus is what makes Wikipedia what it is and I utterly respect that. I've noticed a lack of administrators in the Australia-field and I think I can back up the hundreds of WP:AUSTRALIA members. I no doubt, as any user would, have had some learning at the beginning but I strongly believe that my Wikipedia skills, knowledge and ability have matured to the point of adminship.

I've been an active Twinklier and revert any vandalism I come across. I occasionally patrol new pages and recent changes. The admin tools would allow me to more effectively patrol these facilities. I intend to help out any new or established editors with anything, and utilise the administrator tools in anyway I can. I've been approached by numerous new editors and have attempted to help them wholeheartedly.

I would like to thank all the people who have guided me through the Wikipedia process and have taught me the ropes, particularly Bidgee and Michellecrisp whom I look up to immensely. I would be glad to take any advice on board and any suggestions are much appreciated. Cheers and thanks for considering me. Mvjs (talk) 06:57, 11 October 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I plan to initially focus on four main areas. I intend to partake in the blocking of users that are obvious vandals at WP:AIV. Initially, I intend to focus on straight, simple and non-controversial vandalism only accounts. As my skills grow, I will branch out to the more complex cases. After some initial teething, I've become quite acquainted with the WP:CSD process and would like to help out there, particularly with blatent image copyvios. I take Wikipedia's copyright policy extremely seriously. I have plenty of experience in this field. It would be my aim to keep WP:PER under control, as there's quite a backlog developing there. In fact, it was my recent frustration with the edit protected action timeframe that has provoked me to look at adminship. I intend to help out at WP:RM as it seems to be usually underserved by admins. I've started and participated in a few requested moves, notably this one. Initially, I hope to close and move simple runaway moves (or close runaway opposes) that are non-controversial. As my skills grow, I will tackle the more complex cases. It seems that these simple, mundane administrator tasks are developing large backlogs. Hopefully, I can work to clear these areas. Finally, down the track, as my administrator abilities grow and mature, I hope to participate in WP:RPP to ensure this fantastic project is not tarnished.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My proudest contribution so far has been the promotion of Melbourne Airport to good article status (additionally, it recently narrowly missed featured article promotion and is currently having an A-class review). I've also created around a dozen start and stub articles, lists and templates on more niche topics. These are listed on my user page. I undertook a significant cleanup of Xavier College which I am proud of. I intend to continue my mainspace contributions after adminship more than ever. The articles of Wikipedia are after all what makes this encyclopaedia what it is.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had several encounters with users and have dealt with them extremely successfully. I received a heated comment from someone and I responded calmly and the other editor calmed down and apologised. I've had some other minor encounters with editors in which I kept my cool and the situation has been resolved every time. I see no reason why this can't continue after adminship.

Optional question from Blooded Edge

4:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?

A: In almost all situations, I would not apply a cool down block. If a user is in the frame of mind to blatantly vandalise Wikipedia and is in need of a cool down, they are in most cases going to be rash, hasty and injudicious. In this state, blocking the user is just going to inflame the situation and cause the user to be even more disgruntled. I am certain that if in the above conflict the user had been blocked, he would get even more enraged that there was a conspiracy against the Government. I would much prefer to template the user with successive warnings about the edits he is making and eventually she/he will take a nap and regret the edits he/she had made. As happened with the above documented conflict, the user came back in apology asking how his edits can be better. This is a much better course of action. Mvjs (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

5.:This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account.

A: Without going into the precise details of my password, my password is a randomly generated 25 character string combining letters, numbers and symbols. It was generated using the 1Password application.

Optional questions from LAAFan

6:: In your own words, why do you deserve the mop?

A: This is a really difficult one as I'm not the narcissistic kind of guy. First and foremost, I've made some fantastic contributions to the WP:AUSTRALIA and to a much lesser extent WP:MAC. Melbourne Airport is one of the best airport articles on Wikipedia. I think my contributions to what is the heart of this project is very important. I've done a heck of a lot of speedies, particularly with copyright violations. I'm not sure if there's any record of this, but I've successfully identified and speedied dozens of copyvios. I'm certain I'm ready to participate in those at an admin level. As I've written in my lead, I take Wikipedia's copyright policy very seriously. Despite what may come across in my edit counts of particular areas of the site, I'm well aware and knowledgeable on the admin areas I intend to work in. As has come up in a recent RfA, I don't believe there is a correlation between the number of edits project namespace and knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guideline. I have a good understanding and participation of WP:RM and WP:PER and have a decent understanding of how WP:RPP works. I have a aspiration and desire to learn and refine any aspect of Wikipedia that I am not immediately familiar with - possibly participating in a new admin mentoring programme.

7:: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?

A: I would never template an established user. I would first make a polite note on his/her talk page asking why he/she is making these unconstructive edits. There is a possibility that it was not the established users we are thinking of but rather his computer or account being compromised. It could be something as simple as his brother was drunk and thought it'd be a good joke to do some damage. If it was a compromisation, I would converse with him about how we can make this not happen again. If it was not, I'd work with the editor to ensure he is aware of what this project is about and discuss with him Wikipedia's vandalism policies. I think any rational user who had made the effort to positively contribute to Wikipedia in the past will cease his/her vandalism at this point.

8:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?

A: I would definitely not protect the page. I would give the user the successive warnings to the user about his/her vandalism and an eventual final warning. If his/her vandalism continues after the final warning, I would dish out a block. Protecting the page would do nothing but discourage constructive editors.

General comments

• See Mvjs's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Mvjs: Mvjs (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• To all that have brought up concerns about my experience in administrator related tasks. I fully understand your concern. I would most definitely not want to jump straight into complex, difficult and potentially controversial cases at AIV. I don't think it requires too much know-how to see that an account is a blatant vandalism only account and to dish out to appropriate block. Nor does it require to much know-how to close and move a runaway RM or a specific, non-controversial and sensible PER request. It seems that these simple, seemingly mundane administrator tasks are being neglected. It took seven days for my simple referenced destination change at PER in regards to LAX get actioned. One for that page sits there now. I would like to change that. MvjsTalking 22:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been making a concerted effort to participate in admin related tasks more to hopefully bring some confidence to those who are concerned about my admin-related tasks experience. MvjsTalking 06:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support per WP:WTHN. This candidate is clearly eager and trying their best to improve the project and a quick look through the contribs reveal no major flaws. I do suggest using edit summaries all the time (Best to check the box in your preferences to force you to) though and to be a little bit more careful with {{uw-vand4im}}, for example in this case it was simple test-vandalism, nothing so grave it required to assume the bad faith needed for 4im warnings. But with some guidance, maybe by a senior admin (there was a proposal for something called WP:ADMENT some time ago, maybe we should put it to use?), I think this candidate can grow to be a good admin. SoWhy 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks very much for your comment and support. I attempt to use edit summaries all the time and have now, under your suggestion, enabled the blank edit summary prompt. Thanks for your guidance in regards to {{uw-vand4im}} template. I used it today on two users editing Talk:Australia in which content that was not a simple editing test was added. [1] [2] It seems that exactly which of the three vandalisers (WP:SOCK?) was adding that content became unclear. I shall be more careful in exactly who I {{uw-vand4im}} in the future. Mvjs (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Strong support, excellent encyclopedia contributor. Giggy (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Australian Cabal support. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. He seems mature enough to warrant the tools, so why not? Blooded Edge (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   Weak support - Good contributor, not seeing that leaps out at me as being something to make me oppose. That said, if someone opposes with some new evidence, I will most likely change my stance. — neuro^(talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   Neutralling, due to valid opposes. — neuro^(talk) 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

5. Support Why the hell not? Good candidate, looks like a net positive. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
6. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak Support I know that you want to help Wikipedia and that is why I am supporting, but you also say you want to work in AIV, but as pointed out, you have zero edits there. You may want to consider gaining some experience there. Anyway though, Good Luck! America69 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
8. As if AIV needs more than two brain cells. naerii 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I trust him with the tools.   jj137 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Support I do note the opposes, but I'm sure before diving in the deep end you'll start with the blatant vandals first, then work your way up to more "complex" cases. Per Naerii, it's not rocket science, and certainly not worthy of a strong oppose. Otherwise, a good editor with a lot of experience. -- how do you turn this on 18:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
11. Support Jj137 said it all. Sure, I would feel more comfortable if the user had more contributions in admin-related articles, but I trust the user with the tools. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Good mainspace contributor and virtually no experience in admin areas, now that is a plus point. RMHED (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

    How on earth does that constitute a valid rationale? Whilst a !voter may !vote for any reason, and per any rationale, this doesn't even make sense. — neuro^(talk) 22:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

    It makes about as much sense as opposing for the same reason IMO. RMHED (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

    This should be stricken as a WP:POINT violation. Comment on the opposes themselves, don't support for a fake reason to spite them. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

    I've added an extra rationale Erik, I do so hope it meets with your approval. RMHED (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

    Much better :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

14. Support Per nom. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
15. Support WTHN; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Oh come on! This applicant's application is really well written, the applicant clearly wants to improve Wikipedia and has the ability to do so. They have stated that they aren't going to jump in at the deep end, I think benefit of the doubt and why the hell not is called for here. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Support per Mizu onna sango15. LittleMountain5 ^review! 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
18. Support: A bit inexperienced, but I really see no indication that this is a reckless or rash individual. Contributions are sound enough to give him a chance. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
19. Strong Support - I have been working with Mvjs for about a month now and I can tell you this user is ready for adminship. He always uses WP:CIVIL, and is one of the nicest users on here. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Why the hell not, it's no big deal.--intraining ^{Jack In} 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
21. Hello, I'm Wonder Woman and my invisible airplane is having its engine overhauled, so I'll need to get one first class ticket on the 7:35 flight to Schenectady, N.Y., please...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a perfectly fine candidate who has made impressive contributions to the project. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong Support - Brilliant editor, no doubt in my mind that this guy will make a fine admin. --Flewis^(talk) 08:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Mvjs was the first editor who welcomed me into Wikipedia. He has since continued to assist me whenever I requested help, not afraid to get into articles to do hard work. He has been very capable in his Anti-Vandal efforts, and Wikipedia would be better with him as an admin. \ / (⁂) 10:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
24. Weak Support I am a little concerned about the AIV based opposes especially as that is the first thing you list as an area you'd work in; But you've been here long enough and done a diverse enough set of contributions to show sense and commitment, and a clean block record is a positive thing. Close to the minimum level for experience and if you don't succeed this time I hope you return, but I think you are ready now. ϢereSpielChequers 16:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
25. Support I trust this user.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. I've read the nominee's presentation, and I've read all Oppose-s up to the present. I think the nominee has a plausible plan to iterate towards a good adminship, in addition to the encyclopedist that he/she already is. (The only potential trouble is that the nominee may be a promotor of British English. Never mind.) -- Iterator12n ^Talk 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
27. Excellent answers to the questions. — CharlotteWebb 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
28. Support, competent and friendly editor. I do not see any valid reason to oppose. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
29. Support, I'm comfortable that you know what you're doing in the areas you wish to work in, and are intelligent enough not to wade crazily into things you don't understand properly. Certainly there are experience concerns, but not major ones. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose (and I hate to be the first). Not enough experience. You want to participate in WP:AIV, but you have no edits to that page whatsoever. 81 edits to the project space in total (12 of which are to this page) just isn't really enough. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for your thoughts. I have attempted several times to list a user there - so I'm perfectly aware of the process but I find that the user has already been listed in the time it's taken me to submit the nomination. I would most certainly want to deepen my familiarisation with AIV before I jump head first into it. I have made several participations in WP:PER and WP:RM and dozens of participations in WP:CSD. I understand your concern but I wish to reassure you of my desire to learn and familiarise myself in any procedures that I am not currently fully acquainted with and I feel that my current experience is adequate to begin my adminship journey. I would be very enthusiastic in participating in the new admin mentoring programme or equivalent. Mvjs (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   It isn't adequate enough - you cannot demonstrate any experience at all. I'm not negating the understanding of AIV you may have yourself, but it would be completely inappropriate to grant adminship and the block button on an essentially completely preemptive basis. WilliamH (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   I've taken a more proactive stance at submitting users to AIV and have submitted several through thus far. I shall continue and hopefully will be able to prove to you my trustworthiness and ability to perform AIVs. MvjsTalking 10:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Not enough work in admin-related areas. AdjustShift (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong OpposeAlmost no edits to admin related areas. Sorry.--LAAFan^sign _review 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Needs more experience with the admin areas, as stated above. --Banime (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Little to no experience in admin related areas candidate plans to work on. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 19:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose You want to participate in AIV, but you've never reported anyone or dealt with a report. You've got no experience in AIV, AN3, ANI, and haven't done anything with your Wikipedia-space edits (that I've reviewed) to make me think you've proved yourself trustworthy and knowledgable.--KojiDude ^(C) 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose learning on the job is okay, but learning everything on the job is not. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

   I am uncertain what you mean by everything, but I certainly have decent experience in the admin areas I intend to work. For examples of my CSD work, just today I tagged a good half dozen images as blatant copyright violations are they have been/are in the process of being deleted. Records of that are here. In my deleted contributions, you should be able to find my extensive CSD work. As I wrote above, as this was a concern raised, I've taken a more proactive stance at AIV and I've got a good handful of nominations there confirming my experience. I've submitted numerous articles to AfD and participated in even more debates, as with requested moves. I don't have as much experience at PER but will attain that before getting into the complex cases. As I have indicated in my Q1, I have little experience at PER, so will not be partaking in that admin area till later in my admincy. I hope I have alleviated some of your concerns of my experience. MvjsTalking 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge, and deleted contributions indicates a lack of recent work on new page patrol, speedy deletions, etc. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Changing to strong oppose due to haranguing of opposers. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

   Despite what may come across in my edit counts on particular areas of the site, I'm well aware and knowledgeable on the admin areas I intend to work in. As has come up in a recent RfA, I don't believe there is a correlation between the number of edits project namespace and knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guideline. Recently, my focus has diverged from new page patrolling because of my work in the Melbourne Airport featured article candidacy. However, prior to that, I did a lot of work in the new pages patrol as you'd be able to see in my deleted contributions. MvjsTalking 00:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

   Mvjs, just letting you know, Stifle will always oppose for this reason if your Wikipedia: space edits are low (see his userpage). -- how do you turn this on 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose - Does not meet my criteria. Vacant experience in the project space - nearly all areas that candidate wishes to work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose - With only 3500+ edits, I see few that are outside of vandalism reverts. While I understand that anti-vandalism is a much needed service, I just personally feel that it alone does not give you enough needed experience to be successful as an administrator. Another concern was the lack of CSD tagging, though the few that Mvjs's has done appear fine. Personally the only button I may feel comfortable giving you at this time would be block, seeing as you have little experience in any other areas related to the other tools. Tiptoety ^talk 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

    I am utterly gobsmacked to hear you say that I have few edits outside vandalism reverts. Sure, this morning I was conducting a vandalism blitz but the vast majority of my edits have not been a mechanical vandalism revert. I suggest you review my contributions more thoroughly. If you confer with any of the editors that I come across daily in the Australian-field, they will more than assure you that I am not just a vandalism fighter. My experience is your judgement but I feel I have to experience to begin my adminship journey. MvjsTalking 03:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

11. Oppose Per low edit count and only 93% edit summary usage on major edits. I could possibly ignore 93% for minor edits, but not for major edits. Also, lack of experience. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

    For reference, the edits without edit summaries in the last ~300 edits appear to be a few very minor messages on usertalk pages, two edits while initially formatting this RfA, and a couple of edits to his userspace. I don't think most of them even lent themselves to any kind of useful edit summary. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

    I am aware that in the past I have not used my edit summary religiously but that has certainly changed. I intend to use my edit summary for all edits going forward and have enabled the edit summary prompt as per 1. Support. MvjsTalking 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose. WP:NOTNOW for the reasons argued by Erik the Red and Tiptoety. VG ☎ 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

    He has become quite active at AfD, so I'm switching to neutral as encouragement. VG ☎ 10:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose I think you need more experience in admin related work.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose No harm no foul in nominating, but you're just not quite ready. If this is something want, try to be as active the next 6-8 months like you were in the late spring/summer, and try to spend 1/4 of your time on Wikipedia space, admin type stuff. AFD, AIV, RC, etc etc. At the same time, write articles. That's most important. rootology (C)(T) 13:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose; Inadequate experience in admin related areas. RockManQ ^(talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

    Changing to Weak Oppose, may be persuaded to move to neutral. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose per lack of Wikipedia-space edits. --Smashville^talk 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Strong oppose - as WilliamH said, user wants to work in AIV but 12 edits are not enough. macy 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you might have misunderstood my comment, so if I may disambiguate: of the 81 edits the candidate had made to the project space at the time of me writing, 12 of them were to this page (i.e. admin candidacy) and thus bear no relation to the amount (or lack thereof) of edits made to WP:AIV made by the candidate at the time. Best, WilliamH (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose Charles Edward 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    RFA is not a vote. Please consider elaborating with a rationale so that the candidate can at least take away constructive pointers that will help them identify areas they need to work on. Sarah 05:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose I'm concerned that the candidate lacks experience in admin-related areas. Also, the bulk of the candidate's mainspace and main talk contributions are in a fairly narrow and specialist field of Australian aviation, particularly Melbourne airport, and I would like to see how the candidate does branching out into other areas. Given the user has the borderline number of necessary edits generally expected in admin candidates, I really think they need much more broader experience, particularly in more controversial areas so the community can get a better idea how the candidate would handle themselves dealing with controversies as an administrator. Also, this hasn't really got anything to do with my oppose, but since the candidate is running at least on the partial platform of a perceived lack of administrators in the Australian community I just want to note that I don't think the Australian Wikiproject is especially lacking in administrators. In fact, I think on a per user ratio we're probably rather highly represented in the Administrator community compared to other projects. There is always plenty of work, though, and I imagine that we would never consider we have "enough" administrators, and there are lots of Australian users I would support at RfA but given we have quite a few Australian administrators I don't find it a very convincing rationale for a premature RfA. Certainly, there are many other users in the Australian community much better qualified. Sarah 05:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

#Strong Oppose - just doesn't cut it for me--Avoid panic (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeffed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 09:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Good contributions. However Mvjs doesn't really show activity in the areas where he intends to use admin powers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Sorry, you seem like a good, mature contributor that could potentially make a good admin in the future, but some of the opposes (Erik especially) make a valid point. — neuro^(talk) 20:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Please try again after a few months after taking into consideration the points raised.You have shown great commitment towards Wikipedia.Do not foresee a misuse of tools from you.Did not want a pileup but really it is only WP:NOTNOW Good luck.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral: A sound contributor, but little experience in administrative tasks. seicer | talk | contribs 14:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral. After a few months of contributing in the projectspace, you'll be ready for adminship (take a look at WP:ARL for ideas for administrative tasks). Can't support now however. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - looking over your history here and reading the above, I see no reason to oppose, but feel that a support would be forthcoming in a few months hence fr33kman -s- 13:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral per Axl (neutral #1). Garden. 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral Great job so far, but the opposes bring up valid points - as do the supports - so I must remain neutral. iMatthew (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral: Keep up the good work. But I wish you had a more than 3 edits to the admin areas you want to work for, atleast to show them in the count tool... But definitely not like all of them after the start of this RFA (the only 3 AIV was on 12th Oct2008  :) ) -- Tinu Cherian - 13:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Your responses to the questions & comments above clearly indicate that you are a responsible editor, but there is the fact that you don't have enough experience in the areas you plan to work in. Otherwise I'd definitely be supporting. Chamal ^talk _work 04:19, 18 October 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.