Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mkdw

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

Mkdw

Final: 104/1/2. Closed as successful by WilliamH (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Mkdw (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to be able to offer up Mkdw for your consideration as an administrator. Whilst I'd seen him around, I only really became aware of him when he asked me if I'd consider adopting him - I declined to do so "officially", since he was already more a more-than-competent editor, but I kept a casual eye on his editing after that and liked what I saw. Recently he suggested he might think about running for adminship at some point in the future, so I took a closer look to see which areas he would need to improve in before filing an RFA. My verdict was that he's perfectly ready for the bit right now, and so I'm putting him forward.

Mkdw has been here since 2006, generally editing gnomishly but still managing to get Vancouver, History of Solidarity and Portal:Vancouver to Featured status, and getting James Gwyn to GA pretty much single-handed. He's worked in a wide range of areas, from CSD (his Twinkle CSDs have only been logged since December, but there's still enough red there to paint a London bus) to AFC to ANI to numerous other three-letter acronyms, generally pitching in wherever a helping hand is needed. In his interactions with other editors, I've found him to be courteous, thoughtful and thorough in his explanations, willing to defend his position but also capable of re-assessing it and learning from new information. In short, I can think of few people who would be better suited to the tools; he's got bags of CLUE and I have no qualms about recommending him to the community as a sysop. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. Mkdw^talk 17:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I have spent most of my time involved in the cleanup and maintenance of the Wikipedia article space. In particular the deletion process; CSD, PROD, and AFD. I would also be interested in the undeletion process at WP:REFUND. I tend to explore new areas cautiously and would stick to those places for now. I do like to help out in areas where there are backlogs and if I could be of use there I would consider it.

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

A: I have always valued article writing. In 2006/2007 I was heavily involved in the WikiProject Vancouver and we were able to get Vancouver and the Portal: Vancouver to featured status. I had to take a significant hiatus from editing due to school. I did my best to maintain a small presence with spikes around the winter break. Now that I am ‘back’, I have committed myself to some writing and was able to save a new article, James Gwyn, and bring it to GA. I have created, expanded, and improved several DYKs, one of which I created reached over 5,000 views. I have also been helping out around WP:AFC and #wikipedia-en-help ^connect IRC channel.

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 think invariably when you work with people closely on collaborative projects conflict is bound to rise. I have done my best to stay calm and make a genuine effort to make things ‘right’ when conflict emerges. The only somewhat immediate example I can think of a heightened disagreement was my NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat in late Feb early March. I was reported at ANI over the closure and no action was taken. I certainly could have handled the ANI better and learned a lot about the controversies of NAC. I've subsequently sought to seek advice from other admins and respected editors over issues that may be considered controversial and it's worked out pretty well thus far.

Additional question from AutomaticStrikeout

4. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A: Thank you for asking. I consider myself to be a 'below average' writer which is why I'm very proud of the few articles I have written. Where some people are natural born writers, I often struggle in doing so. If anything, I am a reader, and Wikipedia has always had a special place in my heart. As such, I've always wanted to give back to the Wikipedia community through my gnomish edits and involvement in the custodial maintenance. I feel comfortable in the tasks I've been doing so far, and have identified a few areas, where if I had the tools, could do more to help out.

Additional question from TParis

5. Between April 2008 and Dec 2012, you had only a handful of months where your total edits reached over 100. As you know, long breaks are perfectly acceptable. However, exactly six months after your activity picked up you've posted an RFA. Were you waiting for any sort of magic number with an RFA in mind?

A: Not particularly. I definitely considered what would be an appropriate amount of time between my return and asking for the tools when I accepted this RFA. For me, this felt like the right time. I wanted to have a good foundation and feel confident in my contributions. It has taken me up until now to find that sense and to truly own 'stand behind' my contributions. I would not have accepted this RFA if 8 or 10 months had gone by and I had not written a substantial article, or been involved in what I consider a decent amount of AFDs. Fortunately I've found what seems to be my routine and I'm still thoroughly enjoying my time here so now seemed like as good a time as any.

6. I see you've listed a number of religious articles for deletion ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) and voted keep on one ([13]). I'm not opposed to deleting articles simply because they are religious, but half of these nominations did not succeed. What is your position on religious topics? Should they be presented as folk lore, as truth, strictly according to the reliable sources, or something in the middle?

A: I nominated those articles out of a pro-guideline position. I had recently been looking into the larger scope of WP:CORP and WP:ORG and came across WP:BRANCH. The other criteria I looked at was WP:LOCAL and WP:NGEO. Because Wikipedia fundamentally does not have a solid guideline regarding buildings I differed deferred to BRANCH. So to answer your question about the nominations, I actually nominated because they were buildings and purposely did not focus on the religious institutions in which they belonged. In terms of presenting religious topics, I can't say I've had a great deal of experience, especially from the philosophical side. If the subject, no matter which religion, has been covered by reliable and independent publications, then whatever information is citable can be included in the article. I would hesitate to start with an opinion and build an article off that position. I did notice that you included some examples where I hadn't nominated the article for deletion, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of Leather in Relation to the Jewish Tradition where I !voted keep because the Jewish Encyclopedia covered the topic making its assertion to SIGCOV very strong.

7. Do you believe that theology scholars are reliable sources as was discussed here?

A: Because I am unfamiliar with how theology scholars are generally regarded, I would feel uncomfortable formulating an opinion. That linked conversation jumps around a bit from accuracy, to synthesis, to criticism over the consensus process, and also to the matter of whether the technical wording of the source is reliable and suitable for the balance of the article. Upon that discussion alone I could not make a reasonable assessment. If had I to, I would likely seek to research the matter from reliable sources on how theology scholars are viewed by both the academic and religious institutions that surround them, as opposed to the opinions of editors in a heated discussion. If I were asked to make a comment or mediate that discussion, I would openly state my lack of knowledge over the subject matter, recommend they seek mediation from another who does have experience on the issue, or in the very least, to continue their discussion (as long as they remained civilized and on topic). Sorry to give you a bit of a non-answer, but I feel like a fish out of water on that subject matter.

Additional question from Go Phightins!

8. What do you think the role of administrator is within the community, and how would you, if given the tools, seek to embody whatever role you feel admins should play?

A: Having the adminship tools means something different for everyone. Much like how being an editor can be a varying experience for each and every person. When I think of the difference between a rollbacker and a confirmed editor, the differences are not that distant in my mind. One has simply asked to have a certain set of tool which aids them in the way they interact with Wikipedia. I think any editor who asks for them should already be performing 'administrative' duties, or routinely be in need of the extra tools, and that by having them, could do more, as opposed to editors who do not perform / require these duties / tools already, and then seek them (mostly because it sometimes indicates a desire to collect privileges or power). That said, I fully understand that in gaining the tools, editors will come to you with various needs. Because I spend a portion of my time helping others at the help IRC, AFC, or really anyone who asks me, that I would continue along the same role and respond to requests that were in need of someone with or without the tools. I further recognize that those with the tools are often looked upon as 'role models' (regardless of the fact that being a role model is more than simply having tools). Either way, they are people whom the community has trusted with tools that if abused can cause serious damage. Maintaining that trust in the community and with outsiders is an important obligation to all Wikipedia editors.

8. A Thanks for the response, but you didn't address what your personal opinion of the role of administrators is and how you would seek to embody whatever your personal opinion of what role admins should play within the community. Or, if you would prefer, how do you see administrators (without naming names, of course) either performing or not performing whatever you feel the role of admins is. If this doesn't make sense, I can try to rephrase, or perhaps I am just delusional . Thanks.

A: That's okay, I actually think I wrote that answer on my iPad at the photocopier. Sorry, to clarify above, I do not believe editors with the administrator tools should think differently of themselves from other respectable and productive editors. They have simply been granted tools that they presumably need and can use responsibly for the benefit of themselves and those around them. In order to maintain the trust of the community and from outsiders, I agree with the sentiment that those with the tools should be held accountable to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct. I do not think that there is a singular 'role' that should be to fulfill outside of responsibility and trust. Having the freedom to work in more technical areas, or 'public service', or mediation, is a choice on the type of editor a person wants to be, and not a requirement. For me, because I am seeking a more public service application to the tools such as responding to requests, AFD, CSD, etc. that I would want other sysop in that field to commit to being open and available to all editors. Newcomers are a large portion of the people we would be dealing with and those interacting with them have a responsibility to encourage and welcome the next generation of Wikipedians. Hope this answers your question.

Additional questions from Carrite

9. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, what name or names did you edit under?

A: Technically, yes. I reserved the username User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF way back when I first started editing Wikipedia. Both were registered on 1 November 2006‎ and never used again. I was considering using them for automated edits such as AWB and a bot that would check an article against it's its references for plagiarism but never got around to it. They are officially listed as accounts linked to me (someone at ArbCom added them for me to some list) as well as stated so on their user page. I had almost forgotten, that was 7 years ago, but remembered seeing them on my subpage list as well.

10. Your failed AfD nominations for Lorenzon Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi seem to have hinged on the fact that the content creator of both, User:Pingpong123q, was blocked for "disruptive editing" (See: User_talk:Pingpong123q). Do you feel that going after this new editor's contributions was appropriate, particularly given the fact that the work of this new editor deemed "disruptive" was deleted on the sometimes subjective grounds of "A7-No Indication of Importance"? What is the backstory here? It certainly appears as though these nominations were driven by the name of the creator rather than the content of the piece, yes? Am I missing something? This strikes me as a rather flagrant example of biting the newcomers, at a minimum. /// Addenda: a couple A7s, other new starts deleted as an orphan, a couple as very short articles... Suggestion and query about biting still very much stands. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A Part 1: I would like to answer this question in two answers if I may. The first part a addressing User:Pingpong123q and the second looking at the AFDs Lorenzo Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi. In terms of biting, I would say that I generally work the opposite and do my best to always answer questions and be helpful. I spend a lot of time in the help IRC answering newcomer questions, answering {{help-me}} requests, and assisting editors build their articles at WP:AFC. In fairness, I think Pingpong123q was given a lot of rope. I would have been happy to have assisted them in any way, but after the 7th or 8th CSD tag and warning, and the edit warring at Colombo City despite attempts to explain, a threshold was passed. At that point TParis' block was warranted. I may have opted for a 24-48 hour block to allow the editor to take a breath and read through their talk page, but it was a very persistent pattern where an indef block for mass promotion, edit warring, and disruption was understandable.

A Part 2: Regarding Lorenzo Sebastiani and Baldini & Castoldi, I don't see their keep outcome as a 'failure'. In fact quite the opposite and a success. As you know I rarely nominate AFDs, and when I do, it's usually because the article (if it has sources) fits in between a CSD and a notability tag. I usually err on the side of notability tags but there are of course times where I feel an AFD may be more suitable. I also don't nominate clear delete articles for AFD. A CSD tag does fine in the world of new page patrol. I think AFDs are a great way of giving an article a fighting chance. I am always cautious with my opinions in CSD, AFD, and AFC as my record shows, and my nominations are no different. I have always taken the position that being cautious and having a shining record is not the same. I am okay with having keep outcomes on my AFDs if it means avoiding from being deleted that should have been kept. I admittedly don't know everything and when I need the opinions of others, and want to give an article 7 or more days if the consensus is not clear, and a chance for the article to be improved, then I'm all for it.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

11. First let me say in advance thanks for answer the questions above and the questions that I will be asking. I see that since Mkdw has registered on Wikipedia, that there were different periods of heavy editing, and less heavy editing, with heavy edit periods being especially Sep 2006-Mar 2007, Nov 2009, and Dec 2012 until the present. What occurred to reduce your editing, and what brought you back each time?

A: You are basically looking at my entire undergraduate. I had spikes during holidays, reading breaks, and lulls in the semesters, along with a light practicum in 2010. I've used many methods to describe my time at school, but my favourite thus far has been my editing history, shortly followed by interpretive dance (joke). I've always kept a presence at Wikipedia, but during school, it was severely limited to reading and occasionally reverting vandalism off my watchlist. Not coming back was something I never considered.

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

12. I see that of the 18 thousand plus edits, of which less than 5500 edits were done in the main articlespace, that only six having over 100 edits from you. They being Vancouver (FFA), Flash mob (start), James Gwyn (GA), Hollywood North (B), Break a leg (C), and Sheng nu (B). What lead you to work on these articles? Did you have any hand in improving the quality of these articles? If so, how?

A: I'm from Vancouver (nicknamed Hollywood North) so a natural local interest. I made editorial edits to Vancouver and worked heavily on improving the references. For Hollywood North, I did both writing and referencing. Flash mobs are really a curious social phenomenon and as the trend was emerging, I thought it was exactly the type of thing Wikipedia should have as a fully written article. I was determined, along with others, to write a very accurate and detailed article about the subject. I am proud to say that when flash mobbing hit the mainstream, the Wikipedia article and its content was regularly cited in news sources such as CNN, CBC, and even a mention in the New York Times. Break a leg was sort of by accident in that I came to the internet to find out what it meant and found an incomplete article. I decided to improve it, writing and researching much of the content, and then had it on my watchlist. Because the saying exists in nearly every language, the maintenance and cleanup was constant. Over the years the tally added up. Sheng nu was the subject of a series of articles I was following in the BBC and New York Times. Again, I found that Wikipedia had no article on it. I initially had no idea it was such a large and widespread topic having been covered by some of the most reputable sources in the Anglophone and Chinese world, and over such a lengthy period of time. I created the article and wrote and referenced all the content. I believe a few other editors helped to fix the odd typo and spelling mistake during the DYK nomination. Lastly, James Gwyn was an article I came across new page patrolling. The editor had more or less abandoned it. I thought it would be an extremely good test for me to get back into writing having taken such a long hiatus. Eventually it turned into a labour of love. As I said above, I consider myself a below average writer, so I struggled with it, but after awhile got it to GA, and I couldn't be more proud of myself because while I did have help from the occasional editor and the GA reviewer, it was as Yunshui described, many weeks of solo work. Hopefully my low quantity of article space edits has been made up by quality. I know other gnomish editors patrol vandalism and subsequently have higher article space edits but I ended up in other areas.

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

13. I see that the next largest group of edits are on User Talk pages, with the largest edit count being on User:Mkdw/CSD log. What brought about this interest in CSD? With activity at CSD, please provide us an example which you believe best shows us a reason why the Admin tools would be used properly and judicially in your care

A: To continue from my last answer, I started in anti-vandalism tasks but eventually gravitated towards areas where there was a more significant backlog. Around the same time I started doing CSD. I eventually ended up doing more in CSD in the end. Also, my interest in AFD helped drive my interest in CSD since the two are somewhat related. I'm not sure if I have a specific example of an article where I placed a CSD that would additionally illustrate my ability to use the tools more effectively. I would say in general that I have been both careful and precise in my tagging. I err on the side of caution to reduce any mistakes but have certainly been willing to 'pull the trigger' in cases where the tag was warranted. Because I can't see the deleted articles, it's difficult for me to remember or go back and look at some of the ones that were perhaps a tough decision but ultimately a good tag.

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

14. I am of the belief that all people, are naturally imperfect and thus prone to fault. Therefore, Mkdw, what are your faults? Due to these faults how may the effect your usage of the Admin tools? Why, even though you have the faults that you will list in response to this question, do you believe that the community should trust you with the Admin tools?

A: I have plenty of faults. Maybe too many to list. I would say my largest fault is forgetting to slow down and take a deep breath. I will get caught up or read things too quickly which can lead to misunderstandings or actions where I did not considered all the possibilities. Most importantly, I am self aware of most of faults -- though some may disagree. Things like slowing down is something I continuously work on and learn from the times where I have made a mistake. Being both diplomatic and professional has served me well in resolving differences and misunderstandings, both in life and here on Wikipedia. I think I've also shown the ability to take care in tasks that require a high level of trust. If I were given the tools, I know I would feel an even stronger sense of commitment and responsibility to use them appropriately and correctly. This would mean not making decisions lightly or carelessly. Lastly, I'm someone who does not have a problem asking for help when I am uncertain of how to proceed and I know what I do not.

Additional question from RightCowLeftCoast

15. Although the content on Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, are there articles on Wikipedia that are not neutral? If so, please provide examples, and why you believe they are not neutral. Although Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, editors opinions are not; as such, what is your opinion of the communities political balance at this time? Are there political ideologies that have greater representatives than others? If so, which ideologies? How does this effect the community? How would this effect your role as an Admin?

A: Indirectly to answer the first part of the question, there are 6784 articles on Wikipedia that have their neutrality disputed via {{NPOV}}. Using that alone as my basis, I would definitely say there are non-neutral articles on Wikipedia. To directly answer your question, I have not heavily been involved nor have closely followed much of the politics around the community. I think the most controversial article where neutrality was disputed, and I was involved, was back in 2007 regarding Hollywood North and whether the term applied to Vancouver, Toronto, or all of Canada. Even then that was not really a major controversy. I'm not very political regarding issues on Wikipedia and don't closely follow the various spheres of influence affecting the community. Sorry to again have a bit of a non-answer on this one, but I'm really not very knowledgeable about this subject matter. Having been away for such a long period of time and having not been active in any of those types of discussions because my time has been mostly focused in other areas is the main reason for that. The closest I could come to commenting at all would be to say that I read a Sign Post Signpost (I even italicized it) article a few weeks ago that said 91% of Wikipedian editors are male which presumably would represent both a gender neutrality and balance issue. I thought it was an interesting fact, but I don't think it would affect my use of the tools. I've always supported the uninvolved method of resolving issues and if I were in a situation where my personal bias or neutrality was in question, I would remove myself from the situation, and hopefully by my own recognition which I think I could in most cases.

Additional question from Apteva

16. AfD makes things go away, and RfCs deal mostly with content. WP:RM deals with how articles are named, and has a significant backlog, even though it is designed to have all discussions closed or relisted before they reach the backlog. Picking two of them, a) Red Sorghum Clan → Red Sorghum,[14] and b) Thomas Ring Petersen → Thomas Ring[15] how would you close these or would you relist one or both?

A: I do not have any experience at WP:RM and would refrain from commenting, relisting, or closing the discussions. I would be interested to learn in the future more about WP:RM and how closes are done, and what the corresponding policies, guidelines, and procedures are since there is a backlog there. It has taken me nearly 1,000 AFDs to gain a reasonable sense of the current Wikipedia status quo and the typical process at AFD alone. Even now, I still come across new topics, policies, and procedures that I was not aware. So to comment on a RM with no experience I think would ill advised for myself, or anyone.

Additional question from Minimac

17. This is an optional question, so you don't have to answer this if you don't want to. I know that you don't intend to work in UFAA, but I thought I would ask someone some basic question on usernames. Are any of these three acceptable, even if they intend to edit constructively?

• AdamsParkSecurity
• Pleasesuckme
• BOBotto

A: AdamsParkSecurity appears to be promotional in nature if the username has been named after a company called 'Adam Park Security'. I would inquire with the editor if they were identifying themselves as Adam Park. If the answer was no, then I would inform them of WP:CORPNAME that deals with promotional names and WP:NOSHARE. If the answer was yes, I may be inclined to seek advice at WP:RFC/NAME due to WP:REALNAME as well as inform the user (I would also offer WP:CHU as an option). I largely feel that talking to this person would reveal quite a bit and lead to the appropriate response off that conversation. Pleasesuckme would be a name I'd inform the user about Wikipedia's WP:USERNAME policy and would report it at UFAA. I believe offensive names are not eligible for name change requests. As far as I know, BOBotto does not conflict with any existing Wikipedia policies. If it does, then I would leave it to another who knew specifically to handle it.

General comments

• Links for Mkdw: Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mkdw can be found here.
• Edit stats added on talk page by TParis. --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Do you really want to say that you feel like you "own" your contributions? I think I know what you meant, but that could be easily misconstrued. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I meant to stand behind and take responsibility for ones actions opposed to WP:OWN. Mkdw^talk 00:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per nom. INeverCry 18:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
2. Support, obviously (dammit, got beaten to the punch on the first vote!). Yunshui 雲‍水 18:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
3. (edit conflict × 2) Support - I've reviewed his contributions, which largely seem fine. His CSD nominations are on par with the accuracy that one should expect of an administrator. His AFC reviews also looked fine. James Gwyn is an example of a well-done good article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
4. Support in general. I see good work at CSD and some very good content work, at James Gwyn and elsewhere. I'm a little concerned about some of the AFD activity in early-to-mid March of this year - and I see now that the candidate addressed that while I was supporting, here. Good luck! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - looks okay to me.Deb (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
6. Support under the principle of "I thought he was already an admin". Mkdw has already demonstrated his ability to work in the back office realm to help keep the machinery running smoothly. - MrX 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
7. I saw this RfA coming a mile away. It's finally a reality. Outstanding candidate. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
8. Support excellent candidate. Answer to my question was good too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
9. Support. You mean you're not an admin already? Someguy1221 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
10. Support per clean block log, willingness to engage in discussion (such as at Talk:Iron Man in film), sensible comments at film-related AfDs, and clueful contributions on articles like sheng nu. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
11. Strong Support I spent a long time reading back contributions for Mkdw. I was actually glad to find some minor flaws and times when he got a little hot under the collar, since his recent history of flawless admin-grooming type edits didn't impress me much. I believe Mkdw will be a fine admin, one willing to go beyond groupthink, with a nuanced understanding of policy and its application. Some may like to see thousands of flawless bot-type edits for many months, but I think such edits indicate little about someone's character. In any case, his recent history has plenty of that too, if it floats your boat. Gigs (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
12. Support I'm not worried about the vague non-answer to Q7. My Q6 was a concern that the user was too focused in removing religion topics. No matter a person's position on the subject, which I wouldn't judge someone on, an all out vendetta against religion would've been concerning. Obviously that's not the case at all which renders Q7 moot. Happy to support.--v/r - TP 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
13. Support some good answering to questions.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
14. Support (ec) Nice demeanour. Q1 and Q7 suggest that he'll stay in areas of competence. --Stfg (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
15. Support - Great editor and great answers to questions. No concerns at all. Tolly4bolly 20:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
16. Support Weird coincidence, I was looking through some of this editor's (and that of some other editors) AfC work last night, and was left with a good impression, one that confirms my previous observations of this editor over the years. I also quite liked the answer to TP's Q7, there are many places one encounters as an admin where a respect for just how much one may not know about a problem is essential. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
17. Support per above supporters. Seems like a mature editor.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
18. Support. Another good editor. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 20:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
19. Support Seen around with no problems. Good answers - it's important to know what you don't know about, and not think you do. (I know what I mean. It's been a very hard day...) Peridon (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
20. Support Great contributions. Seems very humble to me, especially after reading the answer to Q4. TCN7JM 21:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
21. Support --Rschen7754 21:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
22. Support Good contributions. Good answers to the questions, and good work in the areas where he wants to do admin work. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
23. Support The activity and contributions and the counts (he has nearly 20,000 live edits) are really hopeful. Good luck with the adminship. Cheers! World Traveller101 21:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
24. Support per nom, an overall net positive for the project. — -dainomite   22:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
25. Support Per nom, and 93.7% is unusually high even for for most current admins. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 02:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah, but less than 50-50 as a nominator for deletion in that same period, which is un-good. Whoops, miscounted. But 17-6-2 as a nominator in the same period, which is far less impressive. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

26. Support Decent answers to good questions, and I appreciate the candidate's willingness to admit (and learn from) mistakes. Miniapolis 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
27. Support, sure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
28. Support I've seen Mkdw around and I know that he is very accurate in CSD, but i'm also impressed with his other contributions on here as well. I think he'll make a great admin. Webclient101^talk 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
29. Support. Most definitely! A competent, level-headed editor. A real asset to the project. I also liked his answer to question #4. -- œ^™ 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
30. Support - another person on my "what, they're not admins already?" list. A great helper on the IRC help channel, and the AfD ratio is truly impressive. Huon (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
31. Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Impressive CSD log, nice content work, good answers to questions. Good luck. — sparklism ^hey! 06:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
32. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 08:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
33. Support. Great candidate. I don't have anything to add to the supports above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
34. Absolutely. I offered to nominate about 6 years ago, so I definitely think he's ready now :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

    Kind of surreal to think about, isn't it? Kurtis ^(talk) 19:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

    2007 was six years ago?!? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

    It gets crazier — 2003 was ten years ago. It feels like yesterday that I was going to the local Imax theatre to watch The Return of the King on its opening night. Had to get front row seats, but I actually didn't mind much. It was a long movie, yet it felt like an hour and a half at most. Spoiler alert: It freaked me out when (3... 2... 1...) Gollum bit Frodo's finger off. And now the trilogy is over ten years old... Kurtis ^(talk) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

35. Support. --Michig (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
36. Support - Seen them around plenty, not likely to abuse the tools, reasonable and calm in their demeanor, good all around experience. Unquestionably a net positive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
37. Support 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
38. Support Per nom. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
39. Support No concerns. Widr (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
40. Strong support LlamaAl (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
41. Support - per Q8 and 8A. Go Phightins! 23:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
42. Support - A clear asset to the project. Manning (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
43. Support No concerns with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
44. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
45. I just deleted something he nommed for CSD, stop wasting my time and do it yourself already There are some answers here that strike me as a tad odd, which is why I've held off until now, but diversity in opinion is a valuable thing and I don't need to agree with something to think s/he would make a good sysop. I think Mkdw will overwhelmingly continue to do good work for the project and am happy to see him with more ways to do that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
46. Support - a good candidate for adminship. — Scott • talk 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
47. Support - Answers to the questions look great to me Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
48. Support No problem. Arctic Kangaroo 08:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
49. Support ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
50. Support .. I was under the impression that s/he is already admin.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 09:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
51. Support well-thought out answers to questions, no concerns, will be a benefit to the Project. GiantSnowman 09:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
52. Full on support! I'm a little too late to co-nominate him, but Mkdw is someone I feel will be an outstanding admin and will contribute much to the project. Like the others, I just assumed that he was already admin- he takes up a lot of the slack and does a lot of the work that admins should do! (BTW, I also think that you deserve a shirt!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
53. Support. Mop'n'bucket are not a big deal, and it seems reasonable to assume Mkdw will use them responsibly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
54. Another thunk-he-was. Admirable candor in responding to an excessive degree of questioning. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
55. Support — The candidate seems well-rounded in various admin-related tasks. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 15:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
56. Oppose We cannot have admins who confuse "differ" with "defer" or "it's" with "its". Standards must be upheld. --John (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

    As oppose to admin's who don't know where to place their !votes ? Mlpearc (powwow) 20:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

    That would also include "Signpost" versus "Sign Post" (question 15). :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

    Oh no, that's so embarrassing. Now I have to go back over the whole thing. Mkdw^talk 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

    No worries. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

57. Support - Thanks so much for answering my questions, the answers appear to show that the subject of this RfA is trustworthy of the tools of the Admin. I look forward to good things from this future admin, and hope that the trust we place upon Mkdw is not misplaced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
58. Support without hesitation - lots of great experience, and a very positive attitude to the project and to its contributors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
59. Support - Definite net positive. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
60. Support - I continue to be surprised by the excellent candidates who I've never heard of, no offense intended (of course). Also, the answer to question 15 is very interesting. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
61. Support - I like what I see, another mop to be given out.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
62. Support - Never interacted with the user before but no reason to oppose. Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
63. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
64. Support Seems to walk the walk. Warden (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
65. Support !!! Mediran (t • c) 12:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
66. Support Vancouver represent! But srsly, I've seen Mkdw's work, and there's no red flags. Has the best interests of the project at heart. The Interior (Talk) 16:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
67. Support: Great candidate and clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
68. Support. I only know Mkdw from a handful of encounters in talk page discussions, and was unfamiliar with the vast majority of his contributions. Before !voting in this RfA, I wanted to have the opportunity to review his contributions. While I personally believe that 5,300 or so article space edits is on the light side for an administrator candidate, I also respect his hard work and 13,000+ edits in other administrative aspects of the project. Based on his candid answers and track record, I am supporting Mkdw and wish him well in his future efforts as an admin. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
69. Support. I've seen them around, and I think that this is a very strong candidate, no significant problems. I think that the answers to questions were thoughtful and intelligent. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
70. Support. As someone who has worked with Mkdw in the past, I can safely say that he is one of the most solid potential administrators on Wikipedia. Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
71. Support - Seen their work on the Project, now and then, and I'm very satisified. Good luck Mkdw! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
72. Support. Looks like good admin material to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 05:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
73. Support sure! Legoktm (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
74. Support Very trusted indeed, and deserves the mop and bucket in every respect. I've added an optional question just in-case he does decide to work at UFAA during his admin career, but still, this is likely to pass, whether he/she gets my optional question wrong or not. Minima© (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
75. Support - Looks good. Michael (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
76. Support Good answers to questions. I haven't found any problems. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
77. Support. No problems here. The two allegedly poor AfD noms are fine; both were improved while at AfD, but the sources used to do so were largely foreign-language and their potential improvement should not have been a given. Chick Bowen 18:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
78. Support. --Rzuwig^► 20:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
79. Support - Reading the contributions, definitely deserving of the mop. Hakuna matata! ZappaOMati 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
80. Support - fully qualified candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
81. Support - I've worked with this editor before and interacted with him on IRC. I feel confidant saying that he is fully qualified for the admin tools and will continue to positively contribute to the project. - tucoxn\^talk 01:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
82. Support - well-rounded candidate. No concerns. Stalwart111 14:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
83. Support - No problems here Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
84. Support Obvious support is obvious.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
85. Prodego ^talk 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
86. Support: looks like he has more than enough clue to avoid breaking the encyclopedia. An easy support - more of these, please. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
87. Support As a hell-bound atheist Sodomite admin, I have to say the opposes are rather unconvincing thus far. But, seriously, I've seen Mkdw around and they seem reasonable and sensible. Give 'em a mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
88. Yes.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
89. Support I was waiting for someone to oppose in the hope that there would be some reason to think deeply about this. But, now that we do have an oppose, I see no reason to strain my brain over this. Slam dunk excellent admin addition. --regentspark (comment) 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
90. Support - I haven't seen anything too unbecoming yet. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
91. Support - Not to jinx ya, but it appears the only question now is if you will hit WP:100. To be more serious, there are an awful lot of editors I respect supporting you. My congrats, and condolences, at being an admin for life. Jusdafax 06:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
92. Support Seems like a good egg who'll respect the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
93. Candidate is clearly trustworthy and competent. AGK [•] 14:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
94. Support Good candidate to become admin. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
95. Support Sadly not going to be the WP:100 !vote, but I would swear I had !voted in support of this candidate years ago (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
96. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
97. Support Good answers to questions. Why not? Robot or no robot I see a trustworthy administrator here. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
98. Support I reviewed this editor according to my own guideline and this user meets my expectations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
99. Support per WP:99. Wizardman 04:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
100. Support. Hadn't ever noticed him before, but he seems a perfectly fine candidate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
101. Support per what I've been observing on this whole RfA. smtchahal^(talk) 07:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
102. Support per MONGO. Article edit ratio is perhaps a little low, but i'm not really infected with editcountitis, so no worries. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
103. I'm impressed, Mkdw. Your demeanor is commendable and fitting for an administrator, as is your cordiality in interactions with other editors and your willingness to take advice and learn from your own mistakes (as you illustrate in Q3). I also like your answers to Q4, Q7, and Q8, in which you show that you take the role of a sysop seriously (but not too seriously so as to let it go to your head), express a desire to delve into the facts before formulating an opinion and display a degree thoughtfulness. By the way, based on your answers themselves, you seem to be very well-spoken and an above average writer in my humble opinion. But, at any rate, I'm confident you'll do very well as a sysop and I'm happy to support. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
104. Support per pretty much everyone, above, as well as my criterion for adminship. Excellent candidate, great contributions. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. While I disagree that spelling is part of any "standard", it is important to tell the difference between it's and its. Worse though, is for that same admin who also opposed to spend time reverting good edits. I was hoping for a better answer to 16, and 17 fell in to the normal trap of not reading the question. The question was are any of these three acceptable, and instead of just saying yes, or possibly, (BOBotto), an explanation of what they would do with each was given. 16 b) has now been correctly closed as "moved", something that I would hope anyone going to WP:RM and finding and reading WP:RMCI would be able to determine, without just saying, "to comment on a RM with no experience I think would [be] ill advised for myself, or anyone". That has not stopped countless others, nor should it be a reason in itself. There are no degrees in editing needed to participate in RM discussions, but there is a degree of experience needed to be an admin, which, of course, is a foregone conclusion. Apteva (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

   Thank you for your concerns. I read WP:RMCI and it specifically states in the instructions, "the participants in any given discussion represent only a tiny fraction of the Wikipedia community whose consensus is reflected in the policy, guidelines and conventions to which all titles are to adhere. Thus, closers are expected to be familiar with such matters, so that they have the ability to make these assessments. I determined that the instructions were very clear and aligned with my views about only experienced sysops and editors (WP:RMNAC) who are familiar with the relavent guidelines and policies should be moderating RMs. I would feel differently about simply participating in the discussions, but that was not the question. Regarding question 17, not everything has a "yes" and "no" answer as was the case in that question. The question lacked some essential information that would have been required for a "yes" or "no" answer. I decided to mention the missing criteria and give my response as to how I obtain and respond with the understanding that my response would be my answer. I appreciate your concerns and fortunately I won't be working in those areas unless I did some more reading into them. I hope you don't take my reluctance as a sign of incompetence, since in the areas I do work I have shown a good and prolific track record. If you do feel that my timidness to explore new areas will fundamentally cause me to misuse or abuse the sysop tools then I understand your objection but it if it's merely a matter of personal preference on how to jump in then I hope you will reconsider. I made the its and it's mistake once or twice but I do know the difference. Please forgive my typos -- admittedly I have been answering some of these questions late at night when I come home from work. Mkdw^talk 02:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

   16 a) has now been correctly relisted (1 oppose, 2 support is not a whole lot of participation, and is well worth relisting in the hope that others will participate). Honestly the most difficult part of closing Rm's is not the decision, but the mechanics of cleaning up after a move, which can be rather complex. There is a particularly complex decision coming up, though, in the 2013 Cleveland article. Apteva (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

   Criticizes punctuation and then immediately writes the sentence: "Worse though, is for that same admin who also opposed to spend time reverting good edits." <shrug>. --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Leaning towards support. Mkdw stated way back in 2007: I'm not an admin. I would like to be one day, but at the moment I am not. Sorry., and then he started acting a bit funny, to my eyes. It seems to me that he was almost acting as if to show that he was worthy of being an admin — he even started citing policies to those who already knew them, which can be annoying. Another incident that caught my eye was when two different users complained that he had been editing their User page, and when they asked him to stop, in both cases, Mkdw cited WP:CIVIL, but as a trick (as in "I know policy and you don't"), to somehow make their complaints seem less valid.[16][17] Granted, that is all very ancient history, and now Mkdw's more recent answers on his Talk page inspire me much more confidence. I do not actually think it has all been an "act" by him to get adminship, but I thought I should express my concerns here anyway. Now, I do see his good interactions with other users, and his very thoughtful replies, which is exactly what I want from an admin. Alas, even though Mkdw characterizes himself as a "below average' writer", his low percentage of edits to articles (only 33%) is still not so good. In any case, Mkdw is obviously a very nice guy, I suspect he will make a fine admin, and I wish him the best, but, for the above reasons, I stay neutral for now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

   DanielTom, I believe that citation to policies and guidelines is helpful and serves an "educational" purpose. While I recognize that many better informed editors will already know the relevant policies and guidelines, many others will not, including those who read talk page discussions but do not comment. In general discussions such as XfDs, too often participants seem to believe that consensus and outcome decisions are based on a tally of opinions--opinions which are based on the editors' personal feelings rather the relevant policies and guidelines. If we are going to have policies and guidelines, and we are going to try to enforce them in a consistent manner, then the relevant policies and guidelines should be cited, linked and quoted in talk page discussions, as appropriate. Frankly, it speaks well of any editor who does so on a regular basis, regardless of whether he is an admin candidate or not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

   The problem is when people cite policies not to shed light, but to "score points" in an argument. Citing the WP:CIVIL policy when someone makes a complaint about you is usually just a trick, a hidden way of accusing the other person of being uncivil, and it should be used in very extreme cases only. But again, those are all very old examples. I would like to know how Mkdw handles criticism now, but looking at his more recent contributions, I could find no clues. His edits are practically "perfect". How can that be? How could he not upset anyone after all these years? I think the answer may be that he has been aiming at adminship all along, even if subconsciously. That is why old diffs are important, not to show that a 14 year-old (or whatever the age) said some silly things, but to show what his original motivation/direction was — much like the "decision" of a child to become a chess champion, except that in this case the goal is to become an admin. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, and my interpretation may well be wrong, but given that once he does become an admin he won't have to impress anyone anymore, I have absolutely no idea how he is going to deal with all the drama admins have to put up with. I hope he will manage it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

   I would suggest that, if Mkdw has managed to behave like he was worthy of being an admin for six years, it's either effortless and we should give him the tools or we should nominate him for a couple of Olivier Awards. Ironholds (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

   I don't remember ever saying he was acting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

   I can't speak directly for Ironholds, but I think it's fairly evident that you allude to the possibility that I have been representing myself as something other than my true self. Your concerns that once I have the tools, some other negative side of me will emerge, that I have been suppressing. You actually do mention "acting" or "to be an act" three times above. Over the past 7 years I have been offered an RFA nomination on more than one occasion. If the sysop tools were really my overall objective (consciously or subconsciously), I would have accepted one of those offers opposed to waiting 6 years. I think what you are more likely seeing is a person who in their twenties started recognizing the value of professionalism and diplomacy as I went into my university education and career. I certainly appreciate your sense of long term strategy, you are after all the Portuguese Go Champion, but for what it's worth, I will say directly from me to you, that I believe having the tools puts those who have them under even more scrutiny than ever. I think my positive contributions show hard evidence that I care deeply for this project and that an abuse of power would be an unlikely and damaging endeavour. I thank you for your comments and look forward to you checking in on me now and then so that I may stand behind my statement here today with complete confidence. Mkdw^talk 17:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Neutral leaning oppose owing to two sets of very concerning AfD nominations. My AfD concerns have been basically satisfied although I do advise the (pretty much inevitable) new administrator to always err on the side of caution when pursuing deletion and to be careful not to squish the baby ducks when driving the tractor... I'll just sit this one out without further comment. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

   Hmmm...odd...often when I decline a CSD for an article that might be borderline and I cannot readily fix, I will AFD it right away. Some of those end up being kept, some end up being fixed and kept, and some get deleted. I think doing that is a good thing, not a bad thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 15 May 2013 (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.