Mdann52

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (21/20/6); Scheduled to end 08:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Mdann52 (talk · contribs) – I am proud to present Mdann52 before you today as a candidate for adminship. Compared to many of the editors here, Mdann has only been around for 3.5 years, but in that time, he has made over 25,000 edits and has taken on a significant amount of gnome and admin-like work. He has experience in mass message delivery, which is where I first ran across him; the Mediation Committee, where he has been part of since November 2014; OTRS; requested moves, including the contentious Hillary Clinton case; the help desk; has helped at Articles for creation, and has addressed backlogs at the Administrator's noticeboard. These gnoming anecdotes are bolstered up by the numbers: 211 edits to the help desk, 177 to AfC, 135 to AIV, 99 to FFU, 78 to UAA, 69 to DRN, and 65 to RfPP. All of those, along with his namespace editing percentages, are comparable or more than I had when I became an administrator.

While Mdann's previous two requests for adminship suffered from running too early and close together, I firmly believe that the concerns raised in the second RfA—which was nearly a year and a half ago—have been addressed. For example, several editors wrote that he is not an effective communicator, a trait I believe Mdann's edit history and talk page archives shows he has devoted much time to addressing. Given his stellar gnoming track record, demonstrated willingness to work on concerns, and dedication to the project, I cannot be happier to give Mdann my full and unqualified endorsement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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: I mainly intend to continue with many of the fields I am already participating in, for example RM (where a lot of closes are blocked by existing redirects/pages, so I have to skip them), CfD/RfD (which I believe are both running massive backlogs, and I will start slowly due to my relative inexperience in this area), and probably handling some tickets sent in by the OTRS queue regarding files deleted for no permission (which runs at around a months backlog), where being able to view the deleted files is useful, even if I restore them to Commons instead of here. I also intend to handle more general requests for help posted on IRC (eg. vandal blocks or userfication). As I go on, I will probably branch out into other areas, but it is always good to start slow and develop as I get more confident.

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

A: I think many of my best contributions are in areas that deal with with helping other users – mainly in the fields of AfC, where I review articles and support submitters both on-wiki and IRC (my submission reviews are often not posted on-wiki, merely communicated to the submitter so they can correct the issues without recieving an ugly red box on the page). While I am aware I haven’t created many articles, I try to rewrite existing articles when problems are brought to me; I know I am occasionally overzealous when there are demonstratedcontent or other issues, but I try and get the balance right. This also includes borderline BLP issues, so I'm unfortunately unable to link any examples.

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 do occasionally get into disputes, as happens to all of us; when thsi happens, I try and discuss the problem with the user, give my point of view, and work towards a resolution. I feel this is one of the areas I’ve worked most on since my last RfA, supported by my work at MedCom (my most recent case being Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lift (force)) and at the DRN. My recent Wikibreak is an example of when I was going through too many RL issues to be able to continue here. Once those issues were resolved, I looked over the situation again, and felt I had recovered enough to continue editing. While I hope not to do this again, I am quite happy to take a short break if I do get over stressed.

Additional question from Tony1

4. To what extent are you interested in mediating disputes between editors—particularly getting to the heart of why editors are in conflict in a particular situation—to forestall admin action?

A: Meditating disputes is one of the areas I have most interest going forwards in, as I find it genuinely rewarding to be able to solve issues between editors before they spiral out of control. Often, the heart of a dispute is covered over by layers of other issues, making catching them early more important. Admin action should be a last resort – if two warring editors are raised to my attention, I would rather address the issues then block them, and potentially lose two or more good editors. Of course, there is always a line when there are too many issues to resolve, or the user in question is unwilling to solve them, but I'm willing to continue to use my dispute resolution skills as an admin, both in terms of conduct and content disputes.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

5. What is your view of Process is important?

A: Personally, I believe this depends on the context. In most situations, processes are there for a reason – to allow fairness, scrutiny and to make sure all are treated as equals (for example, counter vandalism warnings/reporting and speedy deletion). However, we should always recognise acting outside of process at times is not only desirable but needed.

6. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A: As often only 2 or 3 people edit these pages, the criteria should be applied fairly strictly due to the lack of oversight. However, there will always be cases, such as BLP issues or accidental creations, that while they may fall outside the letter of CSD, speedy deletion is still within the spirit of the policy.

7. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A: IAR is useful generally when there is an issue outside the strict letter of policy, but it is still within the spirit of it. While the policies we have are fairly comprehensive, we always need to be able to deal with unexpected situations that crop up quickly. IAR is a good way to allow users to be able to do this in a timely manner. On the flip side, IAR is not a "do all and end all" - it should not be used in order to further a position or to blatantly go against community expectations and norms.

8. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A:I have significant experience, on and off wiki, with helping both new and existing users. In my time, I have been involved deeply with a few DR venues, mainly with DRN and MedCom. I feel that I can use these skills gained to try and resolve both existing and new disputes, as well as knowing where to signpost if I cannot handle it for any reason. (also, see Q4 above)

Additional question from Dennis Brown

9. I've read through many of your AFDs in detail. It isn't the only thing I consider, but it is a key area as it is fundamental to building an encyclopedia. Much of it is sloppy work and your recent ratios are way below expectations. Simple mistakes and WP:BEFORE concerns. What can you do or say that will reassure us that you will avoid deletions of any articles until you shore up your familiarity in this critical area?

A: I'm aware of issues with my AfD ratios. Mostly, this is because I prefer to nominate articles for deletion if I'm unsure, as opposed to just tag them and leave them to rot forever without any attention being paid to them. While not the best venue for this, AfD allows the wheat to be sorted from the chaff a lot more easily. Additionally, this is part of the reason why I'm not intending to help out at CSD (apart from maybe G13 if the backlog gets too long) - often, closing AfD's is being able to consider and weigh up conflicting policies/guidelines and positions, something I find I am much better at than being able to find sources to convince me that GNG or whichever notability guidelines are being met - if anyone has any advice on how to find sources for specific areas, of course I would be happy to learn.

Additional question from Miniapolis

10. Thanks for requesting the mop. Are you an admin on Commons?

A: No, and in some ways I don't intend to run any time soon. While there are some parallels between en and commons, the communities are different enough for me to feel that I'm not ready to be able to hold the mop on both and be able to juggle each sites expectations. While I'm aware the majority of permission OTRS tickets relate to Commons, a significant number relate to en, which can allow us to undelete the files and move them over (if appropriate).

Additional questions from User:GregJackP

11.What is the most significant featured article that you have worked on?

A: I haven't done any major work on Featured Articles, mainly because there is little I feel I can add to them. While I have done various gnoming tasks before on them, content building is not my cup of tea, mainly because I can find little to write about that genuinely interests me that hasn't been covered before

12.What is the most significant good article that you have worked on?

A: This answer comes along a similar line to the above question. I did some work on Oblivion (roller coaster) in order to bring it up to GA standard, but I haven't done much work on good articles either.

Additional questions from User:Rhumidian

13. Would there be any circumstance where you could justify disobeying the wiki rules?

A: See answer to Q7 above.

Additional question from Spartaz

14. I vaguelly recall some drama about your edits around an OTRS issue and IIRC it was to do with trying to insist that OTRS can override the existing consensus system. If I am not mistaken about this, can you explain what happened from your side and what changes (if any) you made to your OTRS behaviour afterwards?

A: Yes - the ANI is here. The issue here is bad training and advice from other agents and policy (this change was made after I'd made the actions, which was what I went off in part). Nowadays, I tend to either pass on an edit request, or direct the person to the talk page.

Additional question from Burninthruthesky

15. What outcome do you hope to achieve when a disruptive editor comes to formal mediation, and how do you help towards that?

A:

General comments

• Links for Mdann52: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mdann52 can be found here.

• Comment For those of you questioning some of Mdann52's AFD nominations, please see this discussion in the OTRS noticeboard. What I would have liked to see is the candidate making it clear where some of those AFDs were coming from, and I'm sure they will do that in the future when an AFD is needed to get someone off our backs. Although they are often a last resort, it is truly amazing how a difficult situation on OTRS can be defused at the cost of a simple 7-day AFD. I'm sure some editors won't like this, but it is unfortunately what it is. And Mdann52 does indeed handle some of the more difficult tickets. Just something to consider for those opposing on those grounds. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support

1. As nom. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. As voter. Jianhui67 ^T★C 08:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support precious "happy to help" and "I will also learn from criticism" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - I have seen Mdann52 around and I trust him. He has been net positive and he shall be fine with the extra tools. The low AfD voting stats don't bother me as long as the editor understands consensus and the policies well - which I think he does. Differing from others is actually productive and a very important factor in any kind of process. — Yash! ^(Y) 10:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Seen around with no problems. As to nominating things that get kept, that doesn't worry me. There are things that need discussion with regard to their future. I take things to AfD myself that then get kept - because the discussion gives a form of imprimatur that merely detagging wouldn't, or because the issue isn't clear enough cut for CSD. So long as he keeps on doing this, I'll be happy. Peridon (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - I am glad to see this. I was kinda surprised that you weren't already an admin. --B (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - much improved clarity in communication since your last RfA, level headed in addressing controversial issues. Ritchie333 makes a good point, but I trust you to base your closes on a reading of consensus, not on a supervote. Promising. --Stfg (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Mdann52 does good work in areas with big backlogs, and adminship will help him do more. I'm not put off by the oppose rationales. This user seems like someone who can be trusted with the tools. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. 'Support, as a non-admin, has stepped up to close several contentious RfCs lately. Being an admin will take a bit of backbone, which appears to be present. The AfD thing is a non-issue; it's ok to not win everytime...Lord/Buddha/FSM knows there are plenty of things I want to get deleted but fell short...as long as the initial nomination was made in good faith. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support per Peridon. Deb (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support unless I see anything particularly troubling in Mdann52's answers to the questions that have yet to be answered. We need more admins who are willing to do the tough work of mediating disputes instead of pretending to be above it all and just saying "both sides are wrong, here are some sanctions". I am not at all troubled by the nominations for AFD. Sometimes you have a different opinion from the community, or the article is improved as a result of the AFD process, or sometimes you're just wrong, and that's okay. This is why we decide issues through discussion, because no one person will have all the right answers. I would be bothered if there was a track record of inappropriate speedy deletion calls, but I don't see anything wrong with properly submitting matters for community discussion and decision. Gamaliel (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. This editor has shown enough strength in mediating disputes fairly that I have no doubt that they'd be able to judge proper consensus at AfD despite their nomination record (edited to add: especially since many of the nominations are simply proxy nominations acting on OTRS tickets). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support The opposes don't make a convincing that a systemic problem exists, and I have been consistently impressed with the candidates handling of issues through OTRS, which more often than not require a gentle but firm touch and copious knowledge of policy (just what admins need to be admins). I have no reason to believe the tools will be abused in any way, on the contrary. This will be a net positive for the project. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Solid answers to questions with the demonstrated ability to use good judgement in somewhat controversial debates. While the AfD ratio isn't to some peoples expectations, I think that the ability to open a discussion when you aren't sure of the outcome shows courage and is a positive quality. Wikipedia needs more people like Mdann52 as admins who is very likely to be a net positive to the project. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Per the close of the Hillary Clinton move discussion mentioned earlier. He was part of the panel that finally weighed the will of the community as a whole and not the will of a vocal minority opposing the move for specious reasons. Calidum T|C 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - nothing too concerning, as I have said the last two times. GiantSnowman 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support As above.--Grind24 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18. I'm inclined to support based on what I've seen from my path crossings with MDann. I'll admit right up front that I don't follow XfD stuff very closely at all, so I can't speak to that. But on Review stuff, etc. I've found MDann's contributions a clear positive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support—can I say that I'm surprised people are still judging admin requests on edit counts and whether they've got a featured article through the system. Neither has much to do at all with the admin skills we need; it's a mistake to assume that such experience is necessary for balanced judgment (I can even imagine circumstances in which it inhibits balanced judgment). Tony (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. I am impressed with the handling of the Hillary Clinton move discussion. The failure of proxy nominations at AfD and some testing of borderline articles is not enough for me to withhold support. FreeRangeFrog's endorsement and reasons also contribute to my conclusion of net positive despite some concerns from respected editors in the oppose column. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support- Per Donner60. Mostly, the "concerns" of the opposers do not actually cause me one bit of concern. Reyk _YO! 07:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose with regret I'm really sorry to start this RfA off on a sour note, but your AFD stats still aren't at a level I'm comfortable with. Some of the results reported by the tool are understandable, such as impartial reporting from OTRS tickets, but others, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hästpojken, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Bruno, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen R. Lawhead, just leave me uncomfortable. If you want to work in XfDs, you have to have a better track record of working with policy - I can accept that people aren't perfect and sometimes you can disagree with consensus, but there are just too many AfDs you opened that closed as "Keep". For what it's worth, I was thinking about suggesting you ran for an RfA myself, but decided against it when looking at these stats. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Ritchie333: I respect you, and you bring up a very good point—so I hope you don't take this as badgering. Nominating articles for deletion is an easy area to improve in and isn't a necessary skill to be an effective administrator. On the other hand, reading consensus is needed, and I'm happy to say that he has a track record in doing so (e.g. requested moves). Given that, his temperament, and his work at Medcom and OTRS, I think Mdann's ready. I'll be happy to discuss this at length on the talk page, if you'd like. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I hear what you're saying, and you make a fair comment. I don't really want to go over old ground, but in the very specific case of Mdann52, I've seen him do enough work at AfC and OTRS over several years that this stuff really ought to be second nature by now, and his track record of sending articles to AfD that really ought to be kept (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Michigan Men's Glee Club) goes back years. He's got the project's best interests at heart and I am convinced he will never delete an article out of malice or arrogance, but I think I need to see about 6 - 9 months more of a track record of catching things like biographies that meet WP:PROF before I'd be truly comfortable supporting. Anyway, let's see what other people have to say, and perhaps I'll be proved wrong on this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose The candidate evidently lacks the level of clue expected of a Wikipedia administrator.[1][2][3][4][5] Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Can I check what you mean by 4 and 5 please? Number 4 just seems to be a reminder that I should use the standard db tags, and leave a note on the talk page (which I will do in the future), and number 5 a reminder that maybe the nomination wasn't as clear as it could be (which I corrected and tagged as soon as was practical and the bot approvals group authorised the taggings). Mdann52 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Strong oppose I feel the candidate lacks the prerequisite skills to continue through to mod positions. This has been observed through reckless manner in which some edits have been made such as sending articles to AFD.+other cases: lacks the CLUE to edit on behalf of wiki mods.Rhumidian (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose As above - too reckless with nominating for deletion, and an admin needs to have a sound grasp of those policies. KieranTribe (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose This has a contentious presence at AFD as indicated on their AFD stats as well as the few interactions I've had with them there as both a participant and closer. I do not believe this editor has enough understanding of the process and the policies being applied at AFD to be granted custodianship of closes along with the other tools bundled in. In looking back through their talk page archives, there are numerous closes they have performed that have been appealed citing procedural issues and impropriety. Mkdw^talk 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Dennis Brown's question above got me interested about the AfD track record here. Wow. For the period I ran, starting earlier this year, 5 Keep votes and 100 Delete votes. And for those delete votes, a "win-loss record" of just 46-36 with 6 of the Keep results being Speedy Keeps. This indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of notability rules that is absolutely unacceptable for an administrator with the power to perform speedies... Sorry. (Additionally Iaritmioawp's third link above, which I just looked at, reminded me of a really bad PROD that the candidate ran recently... Yikes. Give it another year participating at AfD every day, please!!!) Carrite (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - Sorry, Mdann, you are doing some good work, and certainly improved a little since your last RfA, but you're not quite ready yet. Poor knowledge of policy and guidelines, and a terrible AfD record have beeen mentioned by others already. Today you moved New York Shipbuilding Strike, 1934 from draft to main space, and thus show that you're still not familiar with content work. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Just to pick up on that article, it needs a thorough copyedit (I've made a start), additional sources (ditto) and I'm not entirely sure the article clears WP:NOTNEWS as sources don't give it much more than regional prominence, but if I took the article to AfD now, I'm not sure I could predict the result. What's your issue with it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   +1. I'm sure I could go and find navy-related sources on it as well, similar to the 1937 strike at the Federal yard in New Jersey. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Shouldn't the copy-edit having been done, by the draft creator, before the article was moved to main space? Mdann could have mentored the creator, explaining some basics of wiki text, or he could have done the copy edit himself. Or means AfC just accepting/refusing and turning one's back? Also, the sources for the company history are rather questionable. Kraxler (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   AfC reviewers are supposed to accept articles that would have a greater than 50% chance of surviving at AfD. While mentoring each article submitter would be nice, the ~1500 page AfC backlog doesn't really allow for it. The article as accepted by Mdann52 was in much better condition than most of the articles here on Wikipedia, so I don't fault his triage of what needed to be done after acceptance. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 18:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the explanation; it actually means that to work at AfC doesn't require content experience. AFAIK this candidate has never created an article yet, was criticized in previous RfAs for it, and was asked to create at least a minimum of content to show basic understanding of the pertaining guidelines. He didn't take the advice. I think that some users presume that AfC scrutineers look at the content, but apparently they don't, they just ponder whether the subject per se would survive AfD. And the candidate's AfD accuracy is just above 50% ... Kraxler (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. Reluctant oppose - There is no doubt that Mdann52 has the interests of the project at heart and has done plenty of good work. I don't want to oppose, but the above is difficult to overlook. The candidate acknowledges that with the Q2 statement, "I know I am occasionally overzealous when there are demonstrated issues". Q3 is a bit of a misfire. I need to see better perspective. Glrx (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Glrx: I've clarified Q2 - I meant to address the issue I do occasionally remove a bit too much (ie. if an article is blatently self-promotional, I have in the past removed complete history sections, for example, which I judge are too promotional to save). I respect your opinion, and thank you for picking up this error. Mdann52 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose - Deletions are the grunt work of adminship so that's where I look first and foremost for competence for the use of the tools. I made an almost TL;DR speech about it on the candidate's RfA #1 and I'm afraid most of it is still relevant today. Dennis makes no bones about it in Q9 - although rather more boldly than I would have ventured, but admins do need to demonstrate a fairly keen sense of judgement and AfD is one of the places where it can be measured. The low score at AfD is for me the main deal breaker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose I see some growth in maturaty since previous RfAs, but the imprudence at AfD alone is concerning enough for me to oppose. Talk page threads suggest the candidate may also be clicking buttons too quickly. Finally, I apologize as it's perhaps unethical to cite this, but as I've said at previous RfAs, the candidate's activity on thetestwiki.org suggests an overeagerness to attain administrative rights. Mdann52 is otherwise an excellent contributor and no doubt a valuable asset to the project, just falls short of admin material by my standards — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose with regret. I'm sure that he is a good guy, but anyone desiring to become an admin should have worked on quality content. GregJackP Boomer! 17:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - I still have largely the same concerns I had in the past two RFAs. I think there are issues with the user getting across in typed words the message that he intends to convey when he thinks it in his head, and this is an issue that can have disastrous consequences when the person with the problem is an admin. Additionally, the AFD stats are concerning, and some of the links provided by Iaritmioawp increased my concern. Lastly, the answer to Question 6 is troubling. I do not really understand how there is a lack of oversight when it comes to speedy deletion, but I agree that the criteria should be applied strictly; what I take issue with is the statement that there may be exceptions for BLP issues and accidental creations. If there is a BLP issue, we have WP:BLPPROD; speedy deletion should not be a substitute for BLP issues. As for accidental creations, potentially WP:G2 or WP:G7 would apply, and if none of the CSDs apply, the article can always be PRODed. If a page was accidentally created, the easiest way to resolve the situation would be to talk to the author and figure out what happened, not misapply the speedy deletion criteria to fit "the spirit of the policy." Inks.LWC (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose for several reasons. (1) Poor record at AFD/PROD as demonstrated by many commentators above; (2) Misunderstanding/misuse of OTRS "authority" as seen in this edit, which was accompanied by the edit-summary DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission. Please see my reply on my talk.; see resultant ANI thread; (3) penchant for off-wiki communication, which while necessary sometimes when dealing with BLP, privacy and other related issues, should not IMO be the preferred means for purposes the candidate has indicated in answer to the second question. The third reason would not, by itself, be sufficient for me to oppose but when such private communications are used to suggest that others ask the candidates permission to edit wikipedia articles, that makes me very wary. Sorry but while I trust the candidates dedication and intention, I cannot yet trust their understanding of wikipedia policies and that they they will not (mistakenly) use the admin mop as a cudgel. Abecedare (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Medical stuff needs to be correct, and while this was several months ago I'm uncomfortable with having an OTRS editor who did that, let alone making them an admin. As for the deletion record, deletion and block are two of the most important buttons we give admins, you have indicated that you would specialise in deletion, but as numerous examples above show you are still using AFD to clean up articles that a qualified admin candidate would be quietly fixing themselves without all the fuss of an AFD. I'm not worried that an admin doesn't have featured content, but I do expect to see evidence that they've mastered reliable sourcing, others at the AFDs you started have demonstrated that themselves, hopefully you can learn from them. Happy to reconsider in future if you switch from trying to get others to source articles to actually sourcing them yourself and of course there are no more Med RS breaches. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. Sorry, but the AfD track record in itself kills it for me.  Philg88 ^♦talk 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose The AfD stats raise judgement questions, and I cannot support someone whose judgement I couldn't trust. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
17. Very Weak Oppose Sorry I do not think you are ready yet. Come back when you have 30 000 edits at least. Anyway keep up the great work EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just curious, why 30K edits? GregJackP Boomer! 02:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly 25,500 just isn't enough. —Soap— 02:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Good grief, no wonder we don't have enough admins nowadays. 30K edits puts you in the top 2000 (all time) Wikipedians. There are 1,348 (total) administrators. 30K is an absurdly high threshold. --B (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I mean this admin only has 12,000 edits, but it would be a bold person to suggest desysopping him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't agree with this oppose in the slightest, but the reasoning used was actually that EurovisionNim "[does] not think [Mdann52] is ready yet", not that they had less than 30,000 edits. Someone with 300,000 edits can still be inexperienced [in admin-related areas], while I think 3000 could theoretically be enough if the candidate showed extraordinarily good judgement and knowledge of policy. Nevertheless, I think EurovisionNim would do better to explain their exact reasoning in more detail, rather than using the vague concept of Mdann52 not being ready. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose The edit count is way beyond adequate, so that is a non-issue. My issues are two: The first of my issues is the OTRS fiasco last September. I have yet to hear an in-depth explanation from the nominee, though they seem to be blaming poor training and shortcomings in documentation. But the vast majority of OTRS volunteers have not encountered such problems here on English Wikipedia, the biggest of the Wikimedia projects. My second issue is participation at AfD. I do not believe that, in general, an editor should nominate any article for deletion unless that editor truly believes that the topic is non-notable, and unworthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. The only exception is when an experienced editor assists a new editor with a nomination, because the new editor lacks the technical skills to complete the nomination. That can be explained easily in the nominating statement. With the exception of such "technical" nominations, I expect nominators to complete a basic online search for evidence of notability, and to proceed with a nomination for deletion if and only if they believe that the topic is not notable by our standards. Mdann52 does not seem to accept my basic standards at AfD, and therefore, I cannot support this nomination at this time.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose The OTRS thing is concerning enough, blaming advice and training rather then accepting responsibility - and its pretty concerning to be the outlier that can't work out for themselves that using OTRS as a bludgen to win an argument is so unacceptable its untrue. Also, I feel strongly that Q3 should have reflected this incident and I want admins that admit mistakes when they happen and are open about it - not admins who blame someone else and try to cover up. This is the third go and the user is still miles away from being ready. Makes you wonder if they have the temperament at all for advanced permissions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose. I am not concerned by the user's lack of FA/GA work; their AfD record concerns me slightly, but if that was my only issue I would have supported (weighing consensus is different to trying to find sources and !voting, although knowledge of policy is needed for both). Unfortunately, the OTRS mess with Generation Rescue is a big issue in my eyes: I'm slightly concerned Mdann52 might use administrative tools as a way to impose authority or bypass consensus. Their idea of what NPOV looked like also shows (IMO) very bad judgement. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning support I've seen Mdann52 do a lot of good work, both on wiki and on IRC where he has helped a huge number of editors, and the nomination statement makes a compelling case. Though my initial reaction to Ritchie's oppose was to argue that AfD shouldn't matter given that Mdann hasn't stated an interest in closing them, I am somewhat concerned after looking through the AfDs they've nominated and voted in. Recent nominations that stand out to me are this one, where Mdann appears to have nominated the page for deletion after an OTRS request, despite a very quick google search showing multitudes of sources available. At nearly 40% of votes not matching the result, it does make me somewhat concerned that Mdann either misunderstands WP:N or doesn't carry out sufficient notability checks before starting AfDs. Sorry for writing so much about this, but it's the one thing that's giving me pause. Sam Walton (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @Samwalton9: The issue is here that getting the balance right between allowing users to nominate articles for deletion, and not feel completely alienated from the community. In cases such as this, often the initial contact is "please delete my article", usually with less polite language. By taking it to AfD, it allows them the opportunity to follow our processes, while meaning we are not just deleting articles on request. In this case you linked, I did point out this had no chance of succeeding, but sometimes the easiest way to show that is to let it run so they see how it works. Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is actually a very, very tough decision. There's a lot to like about Mdann52, not least of which are his attitude, approachability, and dedication. I do however disagree with the deletionist tendencies he has occasionally displayed, and I think it is important for an administrator to come from a mindset of "how can this article be kept" rather than "how can I get this article deleted". In another 6-9 months, with a bit more experience in AfD and other deletion-based venues, this will be an extremely easy support. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - Mdann52 seems like a good sort, and admittedly, he is willing to withdraw an AFD as soon as someone shows the nomination is a mistake, but his performance at AFD is just below what it should be to become admin. Deletion is central to what admin do and it is easy for deletions to go unnoticed so I just can't support at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   If my question seems a bit harsh, I'm sorry, but that is part of being (and asking for) adminship. If not for the AFD issues, I would certainly been in the support column as I think you have a lot to offer, and hopefully, you will in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral Dedicated editor whom I supported in their first two RfAs as a net positive. However, the OTRS ANI report from several months back (using OTRS, apparently, for POV-pushing) and recently ignoring WP:BEFORE put me here. Although admins have points of view, they need to uphold NPOV. Miniapolis 22:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not sure. Well, you're definitely a positive to the community, Mdann. However, I still gotta think about it before making my final decision. Epic Genius (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. The way the tide seems to be going, my view is that the nominee should (perhaps after withdrawing) ask, perhaps on his talk page, "How can I best prepare for and show competence for adminship?" and follow the resulting advice. Might want to also consult Kudpung, who is a neutral advisor to admin hopefuls. I think Mdann has done some good work; the faith placed in him to be one of three closers of the difficult and contentious recent Hillary Clinton RM appears to show confidence in his work by the community. I am a little worried that three RfAs in a couple of years may show too great a zeal for adminship rather than for building an encyclopedia. That said, I do understand his frustrations at the restrictions of helping out at RMs without having the admin bit. However, having the admin bit needs to have community trust on more than RM closings. Again, I think Kudpung may be able to advise this candidate. Softlavender (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The fact that Mdann has used OTRS as a unilateral secret weapon to maintain his POV edits on two different articles (Daniel Amen and Generation Rescue), and has continued to edit on one of those articles as late as January 2015, and when queried about the ANI on this subject dismissed it as a misunderstanding due to lack of training or lack of clarity in OTRS guidelines [6], is indeed very worrying and seems to indicate that he has little clue about content, COI, DR, etc. As messy as DR may be, it cannot and should not ever be usurped by an OTRS clerk; in fact, I would think that kind of editing would be grounds for removal from OTRS. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that making the edit in the first place was the wrong call, reverting back as an OTRS action was, at the time, policy. "Where an action is marked as CheckUser, Oversight, OTRS or Arbitration Committee, that action should not be reverted without checking beforehand." Sam Walton (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]