Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MLauba

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

MLauba

Final (70/1/1); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

MLauba (talk · contribs) — MLauba has been registered since January of 2009, and I have been familiar with his work since May of 2009, when he began joining in heavily on copyright cleanup. I have been consistently impressed by his demeanor and dedication, and I believe that he would do well with the tools.

MLauba brings to the table an understanding of copyright and license as well as considerable commitment to keeping Wikipedia copyright-compliant. He already puts many hours into this task at the perpetually backlogged Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations and could do so far more efficiently with access to the tools. While he is able to remove CorenSearchBot tags that have in one method or another been fully addressed, there is redundancy of effort in those articles where copyrighted text remains, since after he tags them for WP:CSD#G12, an admin must also review the article and source before deleting.

He has the knowledge of which such text should be deleted, and even more importantly I believe he has the temperament necessary to deal with those who've placed the text. Many good faith contributors run afoul of copyright policies because they do not understand them, and clear, patient dealing with such individuals can prevent future infringement while at the same time not alienating the contributors. MLauba has good communication skills with them and with others. A look at his contributions to user talk will show that he follows up with other SCV taggers as well as persons whose contributions wind up at SCV, including those questioning Coren about CorenSearchBot tags. He is generally calm, patient and concise. Furthermore, he seems to be open to admitting when he's overlooked something (another, imo, very important admin quality). He is reasonable and open-minded, great qualities in an admin. I believe he clearly knows how to focus on issues in a way that avoids escalating tensions while at the same time getting the job done. Given this, I believe that he will also be prudent when it comes to administering blocks as may be occasionally necessary to prevent infringement from contributors who will not stop.

I have every confidence in his suitability to serve as an administrator. Given the combined factors of knowledge and temperament, he seems an excellent candidate for the tools, and there's no doubt that there is need for them in this area. I believe giving him access will be a great benefit to Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

co-nomination by SoWhy

Fellow editors, I will try to make this a short nomination. MLauba, who I want to present here, is one of those people who work in an important but unfortunately not-well-visited niché of our project: Wikipedia:Copyright problems and Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. As such, his deleted contributions show of course a dominance of G12 taggings, the majority of which correct (and I am convinced that he will learn from those few which were not).

In his 10 months with this project, MLauba has done an important job behind the scenes but has also been an helpful editor in various other areas and has shown civility and calmness when dealing with other users. He is, one has to admit, not an article creator but rather a WikiGnome but I have always felt it necessary to point out that we need such users as admins as well. Especially if they work, like MLauba, in an area where the tools can be of much benefit for dealing with content which could lead to serious problems for the project. I think he has demonstrated with his many great edits that he can be trusted with the mop and as such I want to ask the community to grant this candidate the tools which would allow him to work more effectively. Regards SoWhy 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your trust, I will strive to live up to it no matter the outcome. MLauba (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: If the community trusts me with the mop, I will use it first and foremost to continue and extend what has become the core of my activity in the past couple of months, to work on (text) copyright issues, mostly at WP:SCV and to a lesser extent, at least at first, at WP:CP. The parts of the toolset I see myself using most are selective revision deletion in order to remove copyvio from article histories wherever possible and practical (and I'm looking forward to the implementation of WP:REVDEL for a better way to do that), history merges in relationship to c&p moves that end up on WP:SCV, and possibly temporary page protection for the otherwise extremely rare cases where copyrighted material gets added over and over, in order to stem the flow where discussion was previously not possible.

In terms of governing philosophy, I intend to follow the lead of those admins I respect most and consider role models in their activities, User:Moonriddengirl, User:SoWhy, User:Dank first and foremost, in the sense that they seek communication, do so on neutral or even friendly tones, but also aren't afraid to submit their actions to wider review whenever there is contention - something I have been trying to do in similar situations in the past.

I do believe, in general, in the four-eyes principle, and intend to limit unreviewed actions to zones I am comfortable with, otherwise seek feedback where appropriate, or defer to the judgment of more experienced editors.

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

A: As SoWhy has pointed out, I'm very much a wikignome. English being my third language, I don't have the skills to write good prose or copyedit and bring an article to good status by myself. That being said, I believe my work at WP:SCV, out of all the different things I've done at some point since January (gnoming a bit, I did some NPP and RCP early on as well), is what benefits the encyclopedia most. Not just because of the immediate legal risk, but also because having a Wikipedia devoid of copyright and plagiarism issues is an environment where the work of every contributor is recognized for its quality and originality, without being tainted by the results of a few usually well-meant but mistaken copy / paste efforts.

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 haven't really had any conflicts so far, what comes closest is the argument that happened at Talk:Society for Mathematical Biology, much of it stemming from the fact that I only understood very late that the other user was actually believing that NPOV would also apply to talk pages. I handled that one quite poorly, but due to the way it developped, disengaging and leaving it up to the wikiproject to deal with the content issues was probably the only choice left in the matter. Since then, I have started seeking third party input early to avoid needless escalation in situations that could end up there, I've also found that factual and neutral communication tends to produce better results.

Beyond that, the only other circumstance was very early on where I had a minor exchange with User:Roux in an AfD, that was caused by me failing to AGF on his part. Nothing of similar scope has happened since.

Last, sometimes copyvio work generates arguments, and I have made some mistakes from time to time. In such cases, I found that remaining calm but also owning my mistakes and apologizing where I screwed up was the best way to act to defuse the situation and get everyone back to work.

4. A new user vandalizes an article you're working on. The user does not respond for requests to stop on their user talk page. Would you recommend a ban or a block for the user? Smallman12q

A: A block is the correct method provided the user continues to disrupt, and it may be an indef block if the account is a vandalism-only account, and the prefered venue would be a simple report at AIV. A ban would be completely inappropriate at that stage unless there's a lot more going on with that account than your scenario describes. That being said, if the actions are confined to one single article, requesting temporary protection is also a measure I would (and did in the past) consider to generate a pause and try to open a dialogue. MLauba (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

5. Can you please explain why material published in other wikis under GFDL, or images from a GPL program are unacceptable on Wikipedia?

A: For text material, if the source material was published under GFDL-only on a non-wikimedia foundation wiki after November 1st, 2008, the material cannot be added as a result of us moving to dual licensing on June 16th this year because there are some compatibility issues between the GFDL and CC-BY-SA that cannot be overcome. This limitation stems directly from the terms of the GFDL 1.3, which also set the cutoff date on November 1st, 2008. For the images part of the question, I am completely and utterly clueless on the workings of image licensing beyond the most basic parts and cannot answer, I would defer to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Guesswork in that area is something I cannot afford. MLauba (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Abce2

6. What do you know about editor to editor conflicts and how to handle them?

A: Not all that much, in reality. Just like in the rest of life, conflicts happen, and they can be caused by many different reasons - failing to assume good faith, failing to be willing to listen and consider other points of view but also simple misunderstandings are just some of the reasons which do cause conflicts. Assuming we're not talking about a conflict that has become directly detrimental to article space (in which case we're probably in specific POV, 3RR or otherwise editwarring situations that require specific action), trying to defuse and encourage dialogue, before the normal dispute resultion process and possibly mediation are usually the best way forward. If this isn't possible or the situation has devolved into grudge matches or stalking, the editors in conflict should be encouraged to stay away from each others, and if this doesn't happen, the community will start becoming involved.

In practice, once two editors are no longer able to simply agree to disagree, we're often in a situation where the fallout spills over beyond them and starts causing disruption in an ever growing circle. There is currently an unfortunate trend that makes ANI the first and often only resort where these disputes are being brought up, and ANI serves several purposes, but certainly not dispute resolution.

In any case, dialogue, appeals to cool off and depersonalising disputes coming from an uninvolved third party are among the first and possibly best ways to defuse tricky situations - the on-wikipedia equivalent to recommending people to go and have a beer together. When that is not possible, securing the assistance of one the many editors who do have a true knack for mediation is the best way I see to avoid ending up in the downward spiral that involves ANI, RFCU and end up straight at ArbCom. MLauba (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

7. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: Yes, and for the record, aside from, possibly, a very small number of edits performed without being logged on, I have only ever owned, and edited from, this account. MLauba (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Lankiveil

8. Should editors who are contributing in good faith, but for whatever reason are not making useful contributions and creating a lot of cleanup work for other editors be blocked? Why/why not?

A. In general, no, they should be talked through and adopted / mentored. Enthusiasm is a good quality, and finding ways to guide that energy through the relatively steep learning curve is always going to be a net benefit for wikipedia. There is however nuance in this statement. If we're dealing with addition of trivia, generally non-encyclopedic material, even OR based on the "anyone knows" approach, cleanup is just part of what "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means. It becomes slightly more problematic when we're dealing with BLP, or more generally POV pushing.

That being said, much of my cleanup work on copyright matters is related to exactly what you describe: good faith contributors who believe a press release, someone's official CV posted on their website, otherwise promotional material is something that you can copy / paste without copyright worries (since "it benefits the subject"). I'm probably around 800 articles I checked for copyright issues so far, and only once have I ever thought a block might be appropriate.

So to summarize, as long as we're not in a vandalism scenario, blocking isn't even remotely appropriate. MLauba (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

9. Can you set out your approach to Recall?

A: Recall is a crutch because we currently lack a robust desysop mechanism that doesn't involve Arbcom. That being said, admins are accountable for their actions, and they obtain the tools with the trust of the community - if they later lose that trust, the tools shouldn't remain in their hands. There has to be a way for the community to determine when this has become the case, and this process is currently hindered by the fact that ArbCom needs to take a case and then form a majority (assuming an admin doesn't do the honourable thing and step down after an RFC).

Despite being aware that this will lead some people to oppose, I would be open to recall, under the exact terms laid out at WP:RFDA per this revision, with the addition of one more criterion, "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator", until WP:RFDA or an equivalent proposal is adopted.MLauba (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

10. What do you view as the greatest threat to Wikipedia's long-term future and why? What, if anything, can be done to address this issue?

A:In my view, the biggest threat is community in-fighting and distrust, and it is a threat because it drives people away, but also because it causes stagnation. To me, what happened to the WP:ACPD is perhaps the most telling example of that. We have editors who have been on unfriendly terms with each other for several years now, and there are many people who have an "us" vs "them" view regarding admins and non-admins, and all of these elements cause, it seems, increasing mounds of drama that feeds on itself and even when resolved adds resentment and bitterness that just waits for the next round to surface again, with a vengeance.

ANI is an issue in that context, in the sense that it has become, too often, the first and only resort in lieu of dispute resolution, and too often situations reported there end up worse off than before, where mediation may have worked better.

What can be done here? I frankly don't know but inaction becomes less and less of an option. Perhaps simply periods like the drama-out where we can measurably demonstrate that our core mission, to build the encyclopedia, is better served without the drama, is one of the simplest and most efficient ways to show, by example, what we can achieve as a community when we slow down on all these other things that, in the end, distract us from our purpose. MLauba (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

11. You do not appear to be currently interested in working in deletion (beyond copyright related work & routine cleanup). There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but as I'm sure you are aware you will gain access to those tools if approved. If your desires change in the future, what steps will you take before diving into closing AfDs and accessing speedy candidates?

A:Study :) For CSD, I keep myself appraised on what the community considers acceptable applications of speedy deletion, lurking (if rarely participating) at WT:CSD. Beyond that, the essays written by Balloonman and User:SoWhy provide some invaluable guidance into conservative CSD deletion. Once I would have reviewed those, I'd try and secure an informal mentorship from admins like SoWhy, Dank, decltype or WereSpielCheckers to ensure I do it right.

For AfD, I'd take a similar approach, working with some regulars at WP:DRV to understand better what kind of decisions are overturned and what the pitfalls are before actually delving into that area. MLauba (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

12. Since you do a lot of work in copyright, I am sure you are aware that most editors (including experienced ones) are unaware of the proper merging procedures and/or believe content can be freely copied from one Wikipedia article to another without taking any special measures. Any ideas on how this problem can be reduced?

A:Part of the problem is that our guidelines don't really spell it out clearly. Fortunately, this has been recognized and we have some guidelines being drafted as we speak to at least lay out the reasons in much clearer language, under the drive of Flatscan and Moonriddengirl.

Beyond that, I've had it in the back of my mind for a couple of weeks that all the ancillary guidelines around copyright management are not really well organized and sometimes difficult to find. Rearranging all documentation, guidelines and relevant essays under a more comprehensive roof that helps users to quickly find what they need is something I would like to bring up later this year. From there, information and communication should become easier.

That being said, most of the information efforts will ever remain purely reactive, find one instance where in-wiki information has been copied and attribution has been left out, fix it, and then explain to the contributor how he can do it right next time is still what works best. The most positive talkbacks I get on copyright work are usually of the "thanks, I didn't know that" variety when I inform of requested histmerges, for instance. MLauba (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - MLauba is a friendly user who does great work at WP:SCV. Good luck! Theleftorium 11:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Seen him once or twice... not completely sure but noms convinced me. ceranthor 12:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as co-nom. :-) Regards SoWhy 12:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support not a moment too soon. MLauba's invaluable work at the ever-undermanned WP:SCV would be helped enormously by access to the tools. I have no doubt he can be trusted to wield responsibly.– Toon 12:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per my criteria, MLauba looks like he'll make a great admin. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Good luck, no issues I see. America69 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm familiar with his work, he's an outstanding candidate, and we need more admins who are this dedicated and clueful about copyvio in preparation for WP:FPPR. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - I have been impressed by MLauba's efforts for several months. This editor is a workhorse on investigating copyright violation reports -- an area which requires knowledge of complicated (often esoteric) policy as well as the willingness to discuss solutions with both new and experienced editors. I find MLauba to be diligent, responsible and communicative -- fundamental qualities I expect of WP admins. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, why not? Excellent work in their area. Beneficial to the project to promote. --Taelus (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I applaud your work regarding copyright matters. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
12. I'll bypass my usual one-year-time-commitment rule this time, considering that Lauba has been around for 10 months anyway. Lauba understands the workings of Wikipedia and would use administrative tools well. @harej 15:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per User:A Nobody/RfA in that candidate made a compelling argument here, has received The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar and The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar as verified on his userpage, and has never been blocked, i.e. no glaring negatives, but several positives. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, per no-reason-not-to. --Aqwis (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Yes please - I see nothing that obstructs and we could do with a copyright maven wielding the tools. Crafty (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - No major issues, really. Has the diligence and dedication to solve countless copyright issues, and we need more administrators working on that kind of stuff. At least I think we do, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. I see nothing which concerns me, and nothing which indicates the tools would be abused. The concerns raised by those opposing do not appear substantial to me, either. There will be much more than a net positive on this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Clear understanding of policy, calm demeanor, and strong desire to use the tools toward a very, very excellent goal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support deleted contribs show accurate nominations, explanation of problems, although I am still in the dark about the question I asked, at least an admission of something not known rather than a mistake. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Graeme alleviated my concerns. ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support – No significant issues AFAICT. RegentsPark's concerns are valid, but I think the candidate is trustworthy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support more admins who are willing to follow through with G12s would be a definite plus. Has Moonriddengirl's endorsement to work in the area. Guest9999 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support I understand the comment below about accepting relatively new editors as admins but I am going to WP:AGF and assume that you are not Pastor Theo Number Two--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Support I am impressed with his WP:SCV work, and I feel he could be valuable as an administrator. Vincent Valentine 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, looks like an excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Support I see no reason to oppose. I only see this as a positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Strong support – Very knowledgeable and clueful. A spot-check on some of his articles tagged for CSD also look very well. Very dedicated to protecting Wikipedia from copyright troubles. MuZemike 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Candidate will be a fine administrator. Dream Focus 04:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
30.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, MLauba. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - Per nom. We need more admins dealing with copyright violations. There are not that many who do, and some sort of get burned out from it. Looks in mirror.. Garion96 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Support. Great and convincing support from the nominators, great answers to the questions, will put the tools to good use in his work. This editor as an admin will be a net positive to the project. -- œ^™ 18:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Convinced by the noms, and I see no problems. Tim Song (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Good contributions in an area that is understaffed, and makes for thankless work. Also impressed with MLauba's civility, temperament, and helpfulness. Aside: I think you undersell yourself when you say, "English being my third language, I don't have the skills to write good prose ..." If that is an honest self-assessment, I dread to hear your French or German. :-) Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Samir 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Looks good! Airplaneman ^talk 21:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Support - I love people who love copyright problems. [wait, that didn't come out right... ;-)] - KrakatoaKatie 23:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. Bwrs (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
39. More sysops needed. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. good chance of being a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - Great answers to questions, good awareness of CSD, reasonable amount of article work (WikiGnomes do important if not always noticeable article space work), and the copyright expertise is a real bonus in an admin. I also see someone who is reasonable and civil. -- Atama頭 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - Fantastic editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per Moonriddengirl's nomination statement and candidate's careful work. Keeper | 76 01:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Support seems ok to me. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, smart and dedicated user who could make good use of the tools in an often-backlogged area. No issues here, best of luck. ~ mazca ^talk 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Dedicated and hard-working user. User:RegentsPark's comment resonated with me. However, MLauba self-identifies as a speaker of French, English and German (his French is excellent from what I can tell). Very few users have this kind of proficiency. I am therefore fully confident in my support. decltype (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support This took a little work for me: MLauba is not an editor that I believe that I have ever run into before, so I had no knowledge of "attitude". From what I have seen, I can say this is a net positive. This editor has been around for almost a year - long enough (I think) to not be someone else's sock - they meet my 9-month criteria. Edit count is around what I had when I went through my first RfA :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Per Bwilkins, they said all I had to say. :) AtheWeatherman 15:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - After analyzing the edits of the candidate, I would say, he/she will be a net positive as an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
50. Support per questions and generally good impression of candidate from the past---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
51. Support awesome, dedicated editor. I love people who love copyright problems. JamieS93 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Gazimoff 19:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Support per noms. Short time on Wikipedia is not a strong oppose.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong Support: Not nearly experienced enough, and fails my criteria. He has been active for less than a year, but has great understanding of copyright issues, and that alone is enough. He is a constructive editor who will be a great asset to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
55. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Meets the criteria. Razorflame 01:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Great work in dealing with copyvios and all-round good editor, no harm in giving them the tools. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Length on the project and number of edits are just indicators for competence and maturity, which can also be demonstrated otherwise. Such is the case here. Kablammo (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. Prettttttttay Pretttttttay good. Valley2city^‽ 15:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Another strong candidate, with copyright experience. Relative newness is not a concern for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Just the sort of new admin we need.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong Support - Have just come across this editor while looking at CSD's, and was instantly impressed by the civility used when talking to editors with copyright issues. Having looked through their contributions I see an extremely dedicated editor who would be an asset to the project. Also per the nominators statements and intelligent response to the questions. All the best ^Khukri 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
63. Wizardman 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - sufficient WP edits, ncie User page, and Barnstars. We really can use another Admin to work on copyvio issues. My only concern is some history of overenthusiastic tagging articles for deletion. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
65. Weak Support, I'm not overly impressed by the answer to Q8, but I don't see any great potential for deliberate misuse of the tools, either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 20:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
66. Support. Your experience is definitely sufficient. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Good candidate all round but I thought the answer to question 8 particularly good. Dean B (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Good work with SCV, and enough experience with AfD for me to support. No reason to oppose. Looks like a good admin. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
69. Support I've run across MLauba from time to time when patrolling Category:Copyright violations for speedy deletion; he/she is a valuable, constructive user who would make a great admin! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
70. support Mlauba has shown a dedication to Wikipedia through consistent editing over a sufficient time period, generally helpful behavior, and most importantly a strong CLUE level as evidenced by thoughtful answers to the provided questions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose not nearly experienced enough to be an admin, and fails my criteria. Has less than 5000 edits, with just over 1500 in the article space, over 33% in user space/talk, and has been active for less than a year. Only started becoming active in March, and barely does any editing at all. In the last month, what little editing is done appears to show a sharp decline. Not enough history to be able to really evaluate actual understanding of the core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, nor ability to handle real conflict and issues. Great understanding of copyright issues, but that alone isn't really enough and while they do good work in SCV, it doesn't require the tools. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, candidate has 5600 edits - 786 of them were "deleted", probably CSD nom's. ArcAngel (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, if I may say so, SCV and CP work requires admin tools more than other areas since copyrighted material has to be deleted asap. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   If he has done valuable work without them, I see no reason to give them to him now before he has a full and appropriate amount of experience. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose I don't see enough work in the admin-related areas to judge if you have the policy knowledge required of the position. Moved to support per Graeme. ArcAngel (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   The deleted contribs show otherwise, there are plenty of requests for history purges, CSD G12 G8 markings, also R3 and prod, and marking for copyright investigation. There are also explanations of problems on the talk pages that eventually get deleted along with problematic articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks ArcAngel for reminding us of the deleted edits - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC) PS A great ConstEdit!

Neutral

1. I've seen the user around and am generally favorable to granting adminship. However, after the recent two fiascos with short-term users being made admins and then found to be socks of formerly problematic editors, I've decided on a personal 'one year waiting policy' (hopefully long enough!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Whilst I do not by any means attempt to force my view upon anyone, this approach alarms me slightly. Assuming that new users could potentially be sock puppets seems to not assume good faith to me. I don't think it is fair on anyone to demand they are tested by time to prove they don't have a hidden agenda or secret... --Taelus (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   It's a valid concern though, and RegentsPark's solution might possibly work. ƒ(Δ)² 15:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well, RfA is not a vote, and I am sure RegentsPark's general support but slight reservation will be picked up by the closing bureaucrat :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

   Casmith_789 has accurately phrased how I would prefer my !vote viewed.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:43, 10 October 2009 (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.