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

Final (11/21/10); ended 09:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate (diff) (non-admin closure)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs) – I've been a member of the English Wikipedia since March 2008. I am an active member of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and WikiProject Historic Sites, and I have also had a bit of interaction with WikiProject Mississippi and Wikiproject Infoboxes. I am mainly a backdoor editor, working with templates, talk pages, and other behind the scenes aspects of Wikipedia. After finishing up a few behind the scenes items on my to-do list, though, I plan on developing several articles in my main geographical area of focus, Meridian, Mississippi. Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: As I said in the opening statement above, I am involved in the upkeep of several high-profile templates, many of which I helped create. In their infancy, these templates were editable by anyone, and I could make small improvements and updates easily. As time has gone on, and the templates have been more and more heavily used, they have been protected due to the possible damage that a single edit could do to the encyclopedia, especially to the job queue. The main reason I am filing this RfA is to receive the privilege of editing these fully protected articles. At present, I have to work in sandboxes (and sometimes sandboxes of sandboxes because of the tiered nature of the program) and then go through the {{editprotected}} process to get even a minor change approved. Many of the responders to the editprotected requests have little knowledge of template code, and thus occasionally either get the edit wrong or need very explicit instructions of how to edit the template. Some administrators–particularly a few that are involved with the NRHP WikiProject–do know the ins and outs of these templates, but they are not always online, and it may take several days for one to respond. I would like to bypass all of this and be able to make minor but needed updates to these templates instantly.

As far as other administrative actions go, I haven't been that active in those areas. I could envision attending to other editprotected requests, possibly confirming speedy deletion requests (several of which I have made), and making uncontroversial moves.

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

A: The majority of my mainspace work consists of researching the history and progression of the Meridian and Lauderdale County area in Mississippi. I have contributed a lot to the city's article, bringing it up to GA status so far, and I have started/developed several articles related to the city – the most prevalent of which are listed on my user page. I also do a lot of work with heritage registers, having been a key contributor to the List of Mississippi Landmarks, List of Michigan State Historic Sites, List of City of Pittsburgh historic designations, and List of National Monuments of Ireland.

A majority of my work, though, is not in mainspace. I am very involved in several high-profile templates. I helped create and help to maintain {{Infobox NRHP}}, {{Infobox historic site}}, Template:Designation, and Template:ConvertAbbrev. For the past six months or so, I have also been one of the main contributors in a Talk space drive to assess the importance of all articles under the scope of WikiProject NRHP. Not having access to any automated editing tools (largely because WP:AWB has not been released for the Mac), I have manually edited thousands of talk pages, making improvements to many articles along the way.

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 admit that I have had a few unruly run-ins with a rather prolific editor in the WP:NRHP world. That user is User:Doncram, who I believe is currently blocked from editing for edit warring or something like that. The block may be up by now, though. Doncram has been involved in many disputes about minimal stubs, redlinks, and other content, and I admit that sometimes I have jumped on the bandwagon of criticizing him. While he and I have butted heads several times, even he has suggested that I become an admin to make editing the templates I mentioned above more streamlined (evidenced here).

Even though I've had these run-ins with him, they have only been on talk pages or project pages–never an editing war or direct, unilateral action on my part. I by no means intend to use administrative actions against Doncram (or any other editor for that matter) unless a strong consensus supports it. I imagine I will spend very little time in dispute resolution and a majority of my time in the same behind the scenes improvement that I have been engaged in thus far.

Additional questions from Monty845

4. Suppose once your an admin you come across an article tagged CSD A7, the text of the article is: "Something Enterprises is a well know producer of widgets. Analysts have recognized it as a company to watch in the widget industry." The only material in the history is the article creator and the editor who tagged the article A7. How would you respond?

A: Before confirming or denying the CSD tag, I would do a quick Google search of the company, try to find out who the analysts were, and basically just see if there is any information out there. If I could find at least three or four third party, reliable sources detailing the company's history and why analysts apparently say it is a company to watch, I would remove the tag because of the potential for a decent article. I would then post a message on the author's talk page alerting him or her of these sources–and the possibility for more–and let the author know about citing material to these sources. I would also direct the author to WP:N to assure that in the future he or she makes sure to assert notability of a topic before creating the article. As for the already created article, I would at the very least tag the article as unreferenced and leave a note on the talk page with the references I had found. Depending on how much time I had, I would be more likely to actually insert at least one reference or external link or something and clarify what the original author had said. If I had found sources before and someone still disagreed with the notability of the company, the article should be taken through AfD instead of CSD. If I couldn't find any sources, or just one or two that have no more content than is in the present article, I would confirm the CSD and again, alert the user on his or her talk page.

5. Could you discuss what, if anything, was wrong with this CSD tagging [1]?

A: That CSD tagging was a bit of a foggy case. I had been working in my userspace on a list of Michigan State Historic Sites for several months, slowly developing the list. User:Doncram, mentioned above, was working on disambiguating building names for listings on the NRHP. There was apparently a St. Bernard Church listed on the NRHP, and it was also linked from the list in my userspace, so he found it fit to create a small stub with absolutely no references to turn a link blue on the St. Bernard's Church disambiguation page. He had actually been to my userspace and knew that the article had potential but instead of linking to Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as was the precedent on other dab pages (now all changed to point to the list), he created this small article. Knowing that the article would eventually be deleted or moved when my userspace draft was finished, and also knowing that my userspace draft would not be finished for some time (it took a few more months to finally list them all), I thought it would be better for a reader to be directed to the SHPO article than this small stub with only one listing and no context.

The better option would probably have been for me to have redirected the new stub to the SHPO article and continued working in my userspace. Thinking ahead, though, I tagged the article CSD (although I probably should have used a better tag, as pointed out on the talk page, along with one of those "unruly run-ins" I mentioned above) to get it deleted and make way for the move of the userspace draft.

Additional question from LadyofShalott

6. You mention that you might confirm some speedy deletion requests. Would you decline any as well?

A. As I said in answering Q4 above, if I can find at least a few third party, reliable sources, I would decline the CSD and alert the relevant editors. If at all possible, I would help to assert the subject's notability.

• Links for Dudemanfellabra: Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dudemanfellabra can be found here.
• Stats on Talk Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Support. You seem to show wide distribution of edits since joining and continuous stability of editing along with a high edit count. I can trust you to hold the mop. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or} / _mine 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   User:Crazymonkey1123 has retired and is now blocked.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Support I have no indication that the user would abuse the tools, and he has given a real indication that he has a need for them. (note: though I have not met this user before today, I was involved a bit in helping him work some kinks out of his nomination). --Jayron32 22:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) vote struck pending an explantion of the new information provided at the talk page. --Jayron32 23:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Support User demonstrates a clear need to use the admin tools in template work. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Have you considered the plagiarism issue raised on this talk page? Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. I give moral support, but you've got more work to do. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. moral support the issues raised on the talk page A) seem to be at least 6 months old B) Aren't copyright violations and C) aren't related per se to the admin bit. You seem to have a solid (if narrow) need for the tools, though I'd like to see a bit more deletion and other admin-related experience than I'm seeing in a quick perusal of your contributions. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The two cases raised by Moodriddengirl are problematic but fixable. I've struck "B" because of those 2. Hobit (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. tentative support close paraphrasing issues seem to have been addressed. Looking forward to seeing how the rest of the questions are answered. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moral support. You're on the right track, but you're not quite there yet. Don't take any of the issues stated here too personally; rather, take care of the problems stated, and come back in six months to a year. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. moral suport, primarily to express my position that the inadequate paraphrasing here is not serious copyvio, but correctable editing error. Although the rewriting cited on the talk p. is not as complete as I would have done, Moonriddengirl was able to find only two which were really inadequate and verged on copyvio. Otherwise, I agree you need more experience in process-related activities. In my opinion AfD is a good place to start, since the comments you make there will demonstrate the degree of your understanding of policy. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. per DGG. Amalthea 17:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. also per DGG. Be seen in other areas, and talk to people who work in them regularly. Don't be put off from trying again - - just be careful in between now and then (and afterwards, of course....) Peridon (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Moral Support I applaud your work recognizing and correcting your close paraphrasing issues as I have done that as well without knowing it. We all make mistakes, and it is how we deal with them as well as how they change us for the better that makes us a better user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. weak support Per DGG.-Breawycker (talk to me!) 23:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - You made multiple mistakes a while ago. I think everyone deserves a chance at whatever they may like. If you are passionate about this, and you want it so badly, you have time to change your old ways. Barring that, you've been with the project for just over three years, 13,800 edits +. For what it's worth, you have my vote, reguardless if this is successful or not. Oh and don't take the Opposes comments personally, use them as helpful critism for the future. Good Luck! -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. I would be very happy to allow the candidate to edit templates. I too have been frustrated by being unable to do so in the past, but that "right" can't be given without all the other admin rights, for which the candidate has demonstrated no aptitude. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   We give someone the block-button, we need to evaluate them as a moderator.TCO (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you change your mind often? Look at this comment on Jimp's RFA Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) "Support. It's ridiculous that the admin tool set is bundled in the way that it is, but that's not the fault of the candidate. As Pedro says in his comment in the oppose section, it's either all the tools or none of them, but clearly Jimp has a legitimate need to edit through page protection, so ... Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)}}"[reply]

   Hmmm... at first glance, it does look inconsistent, but maybe he's just putting different weights on the relative needs for the tools for the two candidates. LadyofShalott 22:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I certainly am. The two cases seem very different to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The only difference I see is that Jimp stated that he would occasionally use his admin tools in other areas. Both of them stated that they only applied so they could edit protected templates. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Badger away, it won't change my vote. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh, I was commenting more on the difference between your votes than the vote itself. I just checked some stats. Only one, I might change my vote. It depends on his responses to some of the questions asked. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Sorry, but I've had a look at your contributions and I've found several instances where you have plagiarized sources and created copyright violations. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Dudemanfellabra#Examples_of_plagiarism_and_copyright_violations for some examples. In my opinion an admin should know better than to do that. I'd like to hear your opinion on this matter. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd ask that you strike "plagiarized". He cited the sources and paraphrased the material. I'd argue he did a decent job at that, but if you disagree it's "close paraphrasing with citation" not plagiarism. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I have to disagree. If you copy sentences directly (see Moonriddengirl's examples plus the bolded part in my examples) then it is not paraphrased and you need to show that it is not your own words (using quotation marks or something else) otherwise it counts as plagiarism. But yes, not all of the examples are plagiarism, that's why I wrote "Examples of plagiarism and copyright violations". Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll admit I missed those and withdraw my request. I don't find most of them to be problematic, but those very minor changes are. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. What Theleftorium has found and put on the talk page is quite problematic and needs addressing. LadyofShalott 23:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose – I cannot support in light of the plagiarism highlighted on this RfA's talk page. —mc10 (t/c) 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It's only plagiarism if you try taking credit for it. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Well he is taking credit for it since he isn't using quotation marks. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   He is not taking credit for it. You need to do more research on plagiarism if you think he is. You only need to use quotation marks if it is a direct quote. If something is paraphrased, which the edits you found were, you must only reference them, not use quotation marks. In addition, the quotes you have provided are taken out of context. You did not include any references he used with your quotes. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, if you paraphrase you don't need to use quotation marks. But the problem is that he hasn't paraphrased the text in the examples. He has just changed some words. And what do you mean with "You did not include any references he used with your quotes"? The sources are linked at the end of every example. Theleftorium ^(talk) 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It appears that he did not include references because you did not use them when you copied his text. I have pointed out on the talk page that in addition to changing words he restructured the sentences. There is also a difference between "changing a couple words" and adding or subtracting words and phrases which he did. It may be a poor job of paraphrasing, but it is paraphrasing nonetheless. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose because of plagiarism. I respectfully suggest that the candidate withdraw the nomination.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I disagree that the candidate should withdraw the nomination. The copyvio issues are relatively small and have issues with their validity/relevancy. The candidate should address these issues, and if he can satisfactorily do so the nomination should stand. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think you're doing the candidate any favours right now Ryan; best to back off and see what he has to say for himself. Malleus Fatuorum

   More broadly, Ryan, at some other RfAs also you have chattered obstreperously (link to definition added by GF editor helping/annoyiig KW, and reformatted by KW, 17:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)).

   Serving in The Marines, the first to hit the beaches and most likely to die, doesn't suit you. Consider joining the cavalry, where with a fresh charger your entrance can turn the battle's course, but only if you save your efforts for the decisive moment! ;) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I looked at the candidate's Meridian race riot of 1871. The good news is that I haven't detected plagiarism, at least not from the oft-cited book on the murders of three CORE volunteers in Mississippi. The bad news is that the use of sources seems sloppy. The main source is an undergraduate honors thesis, whose publisher and year were erroneously listed. Its first footnote (#2) seems to have no basis on the page referenced (p. 1). Others should examine this article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)][reply]

   If you look at the history of that page, you will see that a User:Parkwells has extensively copy edited the page since I originally pulled it from the sources. Any deviations from sources may be attributed to his or her copy editing.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That's not the whole truth. I cited exactly one footnote, which is not based on the source cited: You wrote

   "This takeover was resented by white Democrats in the South. The resentment was heightened with the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1867, which allowed African Americans to vote and hold official positions in government. (McGehee, p. 1)"

   The cited source mentions neither the voting rights act (of 1867) nor the Democratic Party. Perhaps later additional errors were introduced by other editors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Your passage "One night when Kennard was sleeping, Price and a band of about six freedmen in disguise took him from the house, carried him outside the city limits, and beat him. Kennard managed to get away and pressed charges against Price the next day" is another close paraphrase of the cited source. I am not asking that you be branded with the red "P" of plagiarist (no more than I should be branded with the red "M" of meanie): I ask that you withdraw your nomination, now, write/revise a couples article without plagiarism problems, and then come back in say 6 months. I would be delighted to lend you support if you do that! :) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. The close paraphrasing issue is very concerning, and short of a valid explanation and a clean up of the examples raised and a promise to not introduce further such copyvio, I don't think this RFA is going to pass. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose, some serious concerns raised above. I cannot support a candidate who is involved in plagiarism of other people's work. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose due to the paraphrasing concerns raised; the candidate efforts to sort it out are laudable but, to me, it'll take some time to demonstrate full understanding of the nuances of close-paraphrasing before I could support. See also talk page. Other concerns include the CSD-tagging in Q5, and the answer to Q3 concerns me because it sound like using WP:NOTTHEM as a defence; your idea that "I imagine I will spend very little time in dispute resolution" ... well, as an admin, you'll have to (a bit). Sorry...but I don't think you're ready yet. I hope this RfA has been constructive, and that you'll work to improve in the areas mentioned, and be back in some time.  Chzz  ►  05:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Although we occasionally make concessions for candidates who are highly specialised in narrow fields, having examined the candidate's template work, I don't believe it to be a sufficiently compelling reason to accord the tools. Probably the major part of admin work concerns deletion/non-deletion and helping to maintain the quality of articles by tagging new pages for improvement, and making some improvement on the fly - and this includes looking out for copyvio. I do not see any significant activity in these areas and would not be comfortable in according syop rights to a candidate that has not demonstrated some measurable activity in page patrolling. With regards to the issue on the talk page here, I look for clean, or cleaned-up, articles prior to nomination. I would possibly support a new RfA in six months time if these issues are addressed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose I just feel that I have to oppose on this one, do some anti-vandalism work and I'll support next time - TBloemink (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose, concerns about copyvio and plagiarism as noted by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) on the talk page. — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'd like to see more involvement in projectspace discussions (esp. policy, etc.). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose I was on the fence, completely neutral until I saw A4. That was the deal breaker for me. As I learned the hard way myself, A7 is NOT about notability, nor finding reliable sources. A5 also seems to be completely off base, as was the tagging. Based on that lack of CSD policy knowledge, along with the lack of Wikispace experience in general, has given me the unpleasure of opposing this candidate at this time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose Personally, I do not believe the copyvio issues are enough for an oppose on my part. The editor recognized the issues and made improvements to the pages. In addition, the issues were not directly related to the use of admin tools. That being said, I cannot currently support the editor because I do not think he has a full understanding of Speedy deletion criteria. The article in question four stated that the company was "well known" and a "company to watch". A7 can only be used when the article makes no claim to importance. If a claim to importance is made, even if it is unsupported, it cannot be deleted under A7. Unless you are 100% sure on the policy for speedy deletion, you should not delete the page. I would probably have supported if the editor had stated that he would not delete the page and his sole intent was to use the tools for editing protected pages, but he has shown that he would use the tools in other areas and he is not experienced enough for that. Correct these issues and you will have my support next time. Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - Per Chzz's advise here and on the talk page. Mlpearc powwow 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Weak Oppose Requesting adminship with a reason to edit protected pages usually has my support, but with all those plagiarism issues provided on this RfA's talk page makes me reluctant to support at this moment. Minima© (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose both because of the close paraphrasing and because of answer A5 which shows little or no understanding of what was actually wrong with the CSD tag (the tagged article clearly deserved at least a prod but the chosen tag was a poor fit; CSD tagging should only be used in certain circumscribed cases not just as an expedient way of getting rid of problem articles). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose The answers to Q4 and Q5 were handed to you on a platter and you missed them both because you apparently didn't read the relevant documents. You were linked to both of them. Key phrases you needed to catch were "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines" for Q4 and "consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history" for Q5. This isn't a good sign. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose per plagiarism. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose due to close paraphrasing and speedy deletion concerns. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose Concerns with policy knowledge, breadth of exposure, and judgement. -FASTILY^>Fireworks!< 23:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Based on the information at the RFA talk page, the user does not appear to have a clear understanding of the problems with plagiarism and close paraphrase, and I am waiting a good explanation of the problems therein. Leaning towards oppose, unless some really good explanations come through. --Jayron32 23:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Also a neutral leaning oppose. I am awaiting responses to questions 4 and 5 and would like to see his explanations for the problems on the talk page. In addition, I would like to see some diffs to prove that he has corrected the copyvio issues that were brought up on the talk page. These are not the most serious copyvio issues I have seen, but they do need to be addressed and improved. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved to oppose Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral leaning oppose per copyvio concerns. --John (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral I do not characterize the close paraphrasing as plagiarism which is a bit more malicious. It is however a copyvio of significant sufficient magnitude, and ones RfA is not the place where these policies should be learned. Therefor I can not support this bid at this time. My76Strat ^talk 02:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I would undoubtedly support were it not for the copyvio issue, which I consider an absolute dealbreaker among admin candidates. You have a very legitimate use for the tools and I think you should have them at some point, but for the time being, there are more crucial issues about your editing history that need to be resolved. Trusilver 02:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Moral neutral. I don't support copyvio, but I think the acts were innocent. Also, usually a real plagiarizer will have some big sections and the like, not a few bad sentences. Too tired to do the work to investigate it more and the candidate was kind of "eh" with me as well. Hope he will just take this blow, learn his lesson, up his game, write some more articles (really write them), and then come back in the future. Have to admit, I feel a little sorry for him, so I'm in moral neutral land, since he is not passing anyway.TCO (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral First, I don't think the paraphrasing issue should be decisive here; for me what is really important is that a candidate for admin have competency in the area(s) they want to work in, and that they seem unlikely to misuse the tools in the case of a conflict. The desire to work on protected templates is a good reason to request admin, and on that alone I would support. However, in light of the candidate's stated intention to work with speedy deletions and lack of history in the area, I felt it was necessary to ask questions designed to probe the candidate's knowledge of deletion process. While the answers to the questions have shown a positive content creation outlook and a desire to work constructively with others, they have not demonstrated an understanding of speedy deletion process. Deleting the article under A7 if you can't improve it could be argued to be a correct outcome, but the candidate has not identified the relevant issues to consider or explained why they result in deletion(note I personally think the article passes A7 and that if it is to be deleted it should be deleted under an alternative process). Because of the lack of review or discussion that occurs in most CSD applications, I cannot support a candidate who intends to work in the field but has not demonstrated a clear understanding of process. Monty₈₄₅ 16:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. It's impossible for me to support due to the copyvio issue above, but otherwise I think you're a great editor. Noticed some of your edits last week at NRHP and was impressed, so hopefully you'll continue doing that and won't be taken aback by the result here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. neutral the candidate seems to have a broad enough experience, but first needs to prove knowledge of the A7 speedy delete criteria as compared to notability criteria. This proof could be achieved by looking that the speedy delete candidates and identifying those that don't qualify because they make a claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral per many above comments, the candidate has broad knowledge over policies and experience, and has been in Wikipedia for some time. I still doubt this would be the right time, looking at a few negative points, such as those copyvios linked above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 23:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral -(Moving to oppose) - After seeing issues on the talk page, it made me refuse to go neutral (moving to oppose).--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 04:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You've just gone neutral. Perhaps you meant nuclear? Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoops. Changed my mind. I am now moving to oppose. My bad.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 04:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.