Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mabdul

Mabdul

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (76/26/9); Scheduled to end 03:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Mabdul (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to offer Mabdul for your consideration. I first encountered mabdul in #wikipedia-en-help, where he is a dedicated helper and a great ambassador for Wikipedia, always keeping his demeanour and showing considerable WP:CLUE. He's been with us since March 2008 and has over 24,000 edits to his name, and is a rollbacker, file mover and account creator. In terms of content, he's got 4 DYK credits and a Good Article to his name. Additional positives include OTRS access, enabled e-mail, a clean block log, and a pageful of praise for what he does.

There are several reasons why Mabdul's work on wiki is limited by not having the tools and I shan't tread on his toes in writing them all out, but an example is not being able to view deleted contributions, which obviously rules him out from helping someone with a query about a deleted page and makes more work for other admins.

Mabdul is entirely suited to being a sysop here, and his contributions in an administrative role would absolutely be a net positive for Wikipedia - I recommend him unreservedly. WilliamH (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I proudly accept. Many thanks to WilliamH for this nomination. mabdul 03:15, 26 March 2012 (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: As WilliamH already pointed out I'm a regular helper in the IRC help channel and thus the viewdel/restore option would be a great improvement for answering requests. Moreover I'm a reviewer in the articles for creation (AFC) project and I regular find articles which need a history merge (see my CSD log) or should be deleted because of a copyvio. I'm already helping with {{helpme}} requests and SPERs and would additional answer {{admin-help}} requests and WP:PERs. I'm also active at tfd and would help out there.

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

A: I have improved many web browser related articles and my GA-promoted article Arena (web browser) is likely the best article. Personyze was rescued by me in December, Teambox was completely reworked and "rescued", Jambo OpenOffice was expanded. There are many more articles which got an expansion or gnomish work on it. (like my ibid fixing I started last year)

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: There was a major problem at Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up violating BLP and other serious problems - the case was settled down by User:Chzz after finding that many sections were a copyright violation. The problems are listed at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up#Removal of content. With this exception I can't remember any problematic situations.

Question from Hipocrite

4. Please detail your understanding of the relationship between IRC (which you brought up in Q1) and Wikipedia. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A: IRC is a great additional tool for helping new/unexperienced users and emergiency cases. The help channel and others are linked rather often onwiki and it is sometimes easier and faster. But to be clear: I see the chat only as an additional tool and what happens in the chat has not that weight in comparison to the onwiki activities. A few weeks ago there was a big discussion/RFC at Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help if the channels should be reformed and if the responsibility of these (independent) channel should be moved to the WMF (which was refused before that RFC).

To the admin related help which is regular asked at #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-classroom and #wikipedia-en-help is moving pages to blacklisted pages (which can be done by me through the account creation flag), history merges (mostly not asked, but founded), deleting pages for uncontroversial moves, CSD deleting, checking deleted pages (why? Is the actual draft similar? etc.) and similar ones. mabdul 18:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Question from Glrx

5. You've had some involvement with SpiderGraph chart. You deleted the additional reading section. You are interested in AfC. What other problems do you see with that article? Glrx (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A: Yes, I was reviewing this pages multiple times and cleaned it up. My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango. I stopped checking and helping this user, but left the page on my watchlist. After removing the further reading section and having to explain again why I removed this section, I lost my faith and restored the section in the hope that another user will cleanup the page in future and removed it finally from my watchlist. mabdul 18:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Whenaxis

6. Can you explain these accusations by Logan?

A: please see my long answer at question Q8. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Question from Buster7

7. The most obvious role of an admin is conflict resolution. Many admins have very different tactics when dealing with the Drama of Conflict. What is your basic evaluation of conflict between editors? Will it be your job to discern attacker/victim and act on you discovery or to create collaboration regardless of whom did what to whom? How will you handle conflict between editors? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A: I generally don't want to handle controversial problems simply of my situation being a German/a non-native tongue and thus this is sometimes producing a problem of my understanding. Generally I'm trying to solve problems before they can't be solved any more (meaning banned/blocked) - trying to converter them and trying to find always a second/new solution to the problem. If there is really a blocking situation (I have to handle), I would always AGF and trying to solve the situation with a second chance (after showing the right manner of the person) / or trying to post a second solution. As I tried to explain: simply because of the my "language disability" I don't want to handle these situations and thus there might be cases which I simply left alone or request a second opinion. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Scottywong

8. Please briefly summarize the canvassing guideline, and discuss why a notification included in an IRC quit message does or does not violate the guideline.

A: In this case I would really see it is a borderline case - I was surprised that this simple link (without any comment; maybe see a log posted by anybody who was online at that time) would change the actual direction of this RFA;

I see now that this posting of this link was actually wrong, but I want leaving some comments to my motivations to this exit-message:

I see my freenode account (the relevant IRC account) combined to the onwiki SUL account. This account has a wikipedia cloak; easily accessible to information about my the gender, my languages I speak (wikipedia related channels I'm idling), and likely other information like my geolocation (by idling in wiki*pedia channels and getting these information; reading logs which were published by derp(an IRC/wikipedia troll) and oter informatzion I post on my related user page ). Similar as User:GiantSnowman tried to explained: this is similar to place the {{RfX-notice}} at the talkpage and user page (which is allowed) to an directly connected account and without any advice to !vote. To come back to your question: CANVAS is not always clear - I know many people who using IRC to discuss topics which need directly involvement (I know SPI cases edit conflicts, account questions [which should be handles as fast as needed], oversight cases (as described in the OS page, this is totally legit), and likely unblock/BAG requests which need simply clarification with the requester/within the group). As I tried to explain: I see the IRC as an improvement (of time) in relationship to the onwiki-discussions; but not as a replacement: only for an useful clarification/faster communication. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

9. Would you support the on-wiki publication of IRC chat logs from various wikipedia-related IRC channels? Why or why not?

A: I have no problems with a publication of an wikipedia relevant chat; Yes IRC/chat is more legere (I hope tis wiktonary link explains this enough), but it is still nothing have to fear nor I wouldn't say onwiki mostly. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Thehelpfulone

10. When a user is nominated for adminship, they typically post {{RfX-notice|a}} on their user page and their user talk page. Looking at my IRC logs, I can see that your quit message was simply a link to this RfA. To be clear, there was no "Vote for me", just the link. Therefore, would I be correct in saying that your reasoning for the IRC quit message was simply to let people know that you had an RfA in progress, to a similar effect that {{RfX-notice|a}} has, which is to let people know about it so they can vote out of their free will, as opposed to get people to support you? The Helpful One 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A: Please see Q9 - I combined my (enwp) account with the IRC account (/wikipedia/mabdul) - cloak. There are other accounts having other cloaks (which are totally legit and still getting (e.g.) +av in #wikipedia-en-help ) but still are consider to the "enwp" account because of the similar/identical name. mabdul 01:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the double i in the cloak. Just for clarification: +av is also described at Internet_Relay_Chat#Modes and means that I automatically get "voiced" which means in #wikipedia-en-help being a helper. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Question from 0pen$0urce

11.I have noticed a nearly equal amount of opposition as support. Much of the opposition seems to be related to accusations of canvasing. Some minor opposition in relation to questioning dispute resolution. Can you provide a short summary of how you would resolve a dispute between a couple of contributors and how you you would resolve a dispute between yourself in a admin role and a contributor?--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A: If I'm directly involved in the case(s), then I would ask some uninvolved experienced user (doesn't have to be an admin as long as the right isn't needed) to solve the issue or starting an RFC, open a new thread at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/MedCab or at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. A third (or fourth or fifth, etc.) opinion is needed (and should be welcomed). All in all, if there is no solution to settle the case down, and it is always OK and good if members of a community have different opinions (similar as User:Shoessss described in the #support section,), there is a time when somebody have simply to drop the stick. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Yasht101

12. What will you do in a case where a article is nominated for AfD and also has CSD tag on it and you are convinced that it can be deleted under CSD. So what would be your action towards the article?

A: Of course this depends on the situation: Is the CSD "contested", a contributor send the article to AfD and simply missed to remove the CSD tag? If so, simply removing the tag (there are some exceptions). Is the article tagged as blatant hoax (G3), recreation (G4), history merge (G6), request of the creator (G7), attack pages (G10), copyright violation (G12), and in some cases as spam (G11) then delete it. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Question from Leaky Caldron

13. When you answered Q6 - Q10 did you preview/spell check/read after saving the answers you provided? You made only a single edit, indicating that you did not review in situ. There are a number (excessive in my opinion) of grammatical errors and simple typos which when combined (a) make the answers not that easy to understand (b) demonstrate simple carelessness. For example "oter informatzion" is picked up by the default editor spell checker. One of your answers (Q7) indicates that English is not your native language and you go on to say "I generally don't want to handle controversial problems simply of my situation being a German/a non-native tongue and thus this is sometime producing a problem of my understanding. Generally I'm trying to solve problems before they can't be solved any more (meaning banned/blocked) - trying to converter them and trying to find always a second/new solution to the problem." Are you saying you will be avoiding talk page discussion and if so how is that compatible with the Administrator activities you intend to be involved with? As identified in #8Neutral, is there an issue with the attention to detail you show in your written work and, if so, how will you address it?

A: Sorry for my late response. I will try to explain my situation, although this shouldn't be considered as an excuse. Last weekend I started my vacation at my parents' home (and thus I thought I would have time), but sadly two of my father's employees got ill and thus I had to help him out. I was donating my sleep to answer questions/requests after midnight (here UTC+1). This and the combination of a computer/browser with no (English) spell checker and a keyboard which drove me crazy (my father will finally get a new one to easter) resulting in my many "typos". (As far as I remember the f, h, ctrl, and maybe other keys weren't working properly) As you already guessed I tried to use the preview function and yes I removed many typos, but I simply didn't caught them all.

You can see here that I made 27 edits which were nearly all accepted. I clicked on the wrong time period in twinkle in the linked diff, and I know that this case needs of course only a short protection (although the page was (semi) protected because of an IP and not for the edit war). Long/Indefinite protection are only useful at high visible templates (vandalizing one page, affecting many thousands+) and persistent vandalism; "normal" pages should editable by IPs simply because this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

No, I don't and won't avoid any talk page discussion. Discussion is good and I have no problem getting involved into long discussions, but for many problems you don't need admin privileges.

I made big steps learning English at Wikipedia since I'm involved in this project and I'm still learning every day! mabdul 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was puzzled by your answer in the 2nd paragraph above, but it appears that since I posted my question, the original #8 Neutral has been renumbered. This explains your answer about page protection. My question was intended to draw your attention to what is now numbered #7Neutral (stillnotelf - 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC) relating to proofreading. Do you wish to supplement your answer? Leaky Caldron 10:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh I missed to check the dates, of course. As I tried to explain, this week was full of (real life) stress and under "normal" circumstances I would simply stop editing at Wikipedia because my real life is getting a higher priority than my internet life. Not responding and doing nothing at RfA is stupid and I tried to answer here within a short time period. I checked the wiktionary page, and although I notice that page didn't explained the word, I don't know how common this word is in English. legere means something like "not so formal" or casual. I'm normally more carefully and doing proofreading my edits, checking the preview and using other tools before posting, even if I have a backlog/to do list, it will be solved. I learned a few months ago that I shouldn't stress myself about any backlogs, that we don't have a deadline and that my real life simply needs more attention than my internet life. Yes communication can be tricky and is even more problematic in written form. mabdul 17:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Mabdul: Mabdul (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mabdul can be found here.
• Stats on the talkpage. WilliamH (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• As Mabdul said he didn't mind posting of IRC logs of his departure message, here it is for anyone who hasn't seen it.--v/r - TP 02:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

mabdul has quit IRC: Quit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mabdul

While the IRC "canvassing" is a valid concern, some people are opposing for the fact that he uses IRC, which a crat should interrogate if they are considered a valid reason to oppose or not. Secret ^account 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since so many people have voiced their opinion that solely giving a link to a page is canvassing, I should hope that one of them nominates {{RfX-notice}} for deletion otherwise one might think a bit of hypocrisy is involved. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Very helpful and technically knowledgeable editor with good judgment. No concerns he would abuse the tools. wctaiwan (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Generally clueful user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2.  Confirmed....err wait, wrong button. Yep, obvious support as nominator. Helpful, trustworthy, knowledgeable, clueful editor who gives me no impression he would abuse the tools. WilliamH (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Support Useful, polite, no obvious reasons not to. Oh, and he helped me with my German homework once. He is indeed quite a Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 04:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Support. Lovely bloke, sensible, and helpful. Very good with new users, which is good, because he works with them a lot (which is good because they tend to need it). Oh, and he's sensible. Did I mention that? Understands what's going on and how things work, and as such how to deal with them, when to deal with them and when instead to simply step away. Sense is good. — Isarra (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   I would like to change my reason to something more clear: Because I think he would make a good admin. Though I disagreed with his linking this on IRC as a matter of style, I also entirely disagree with those using it as evidence that he would apparently abuse the tools or something, because that just doesn't make any sense to me. — Isarra (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Support -- Per this and WilliamH commented above. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Wait, you weren't one already? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
6. I trust the nominator, been helpful in #wikipedia-en-help and it's an area that needs more administrators. Secret ^account 05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Looking at the canvassing allegations, I don't see a violation of canvassing there. He wasn't trying to influence the discussion there saying to vote support or "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate is considered inappropriate". I don't see an mass posting, being biased, telling the RFA to an partisan audience, or secret transparency like it discusses. He probably wanted to let an editor to know that he was in RFA, he did not say vote in the quit message. There's nothing on WP:CANVASS that an candidate can't let the regular community know about an discussion isn't allowed at all. It is the exact equivalent of posting a userpage message discussing you are in RFA, which many administrators are guilty of. And contrary to popular belief, you could make enemies in IRC, not everyone is friends with each other, and I've seen a few RFAs (both passed and failed) because of the people you meet in IRC, and not because of your Wikipedia edits. It was a minor misjudgement at best. He should not get punished for an simple and policy-wise unclear mistake. Secret ^account 04:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

7. Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Support An immensely helpful Wikipedian, I trust Mabdul to be an effective and fair admin. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
9. What the fuck? Since when is Mabdul not an administrator? Master&Expert (Talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Of course. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
11. Duh, obviously. Mabdul knows his shit. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 09:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Have seen him at AFC doing great job. Certainly Mabdul has the temperament to deal with editors specially newbies and the knowledge of Wikipedia as well. --SMS ^Talk 09:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - What? Mabdul isn't an admin? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
14. Support – definitely! Mabdul is loaded with cluefulness, extraordinarily helpful, and I particularly like the way he will go the extra mile for newbies. Giving him the tools will be an excellent move. Pesky (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
15. Support, thanks for being willing to pick up the bit, and help out with mopping up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
16. I thought you were an admin already! (lol) Good work at WP:AFC. Bmusician 11:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
17. Support per WormTT . Strong sense of Clue, and in my dealings with him he's been everything we could want in an admin. Achowat (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
18. Support per all the above and I am sure the user will make a fine admin. Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
19. Support ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC) The IRC message isn't canvassing any more than an RfA notice on a userpage is, so I'm gladly restoring my original !vote. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
20. Support no questions, he deserves it -Nard 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    Withdrew Support because of canvassing on IRC. Admirably combines gnomish work and writing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

21. Support. Seen him around a lot, and have seen nothing at all that concerns me. Lynch7 13:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
22. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. I wish all RfA decisions were this easy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
24. Support I have mainly seen his contributions to the possibly unfree files and files for deletion discussions and he seems to be a competent user. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. The reasons for adminship (answer to question 1) initially looked a little weak. However I have looked through Mabdul's contributions, and he makes many good quality CSD tags. This is a more compelling reason than the "view deletion" argument. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    In the answer to question 8, Mabdul acknowledges that the IRC message was against the rules. This seems to be a genuine mistake; I am prepared to assume good faith. After the mistake was pointed out to him, Mabdul admitted it. I don't expect an RfA candidate to know every guideline, but I do expect them to acknowledge mistakes. Mabdul did this. Therefore I still believe that Mabdul will be a good admin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

26. Support - seems to be both willing and able. Good luck. GiantSnowman 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Had nothing but good interactions with Mabdul. Have no doubt he will use the tools appropriately. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    (Moving to Neutral till canvassing incident calms down)Support - obvious.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

28. Support No concerns. From my dealings with Mabdul, I have no doubt that he will be one of those admins that chips away at all the backlogs no one else wants to do. Pol430 talk to me 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
29. Like. Whenever I've seen Mabdul around they've been pleasant, competent, and helpful. Am confident that Mabdul-with-a-mop would be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
30. Support I don't know this user but, if WilliamH see's him fit, then so do I. I trust nominator.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
31. Support Candidate has done a lot of work and won't abuse the tools. Glrx (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
32. Support No reason to think candidate will abuse the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    Note: I was not canvassed, I saw this show up on RFA on my watchlist. And given the lack of information about the "irc quit message" in the opposes below, I see no reason to change my support. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

33. Support I've worked with Mabdul at the account creation interface and I can tell that he is a trustworthy editor. I have no doubt he will abuse the tools. -- Luke (Talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    You "have no doubt he will abuse the tools". Are you sure? ;) Leaky Caldron 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Support I thought he was an admin already. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Per the IRC canvasing --Guerillero | My Talk 13:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Support - Has done great work here, no obvious problems - looks like a good candidate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Moved to neutral.

34. Support - Seems to know what he's doing! - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
35. I've had many positive interactions with this user over the past year, and he's definitely trustworthy and qualified for the mop. There have been times when he's asked for admin help while accepting AfCs when there's a history conflict, so the need for the tools is clearly there as well. — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
36. Stephen 22:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
37. Absolutely...my goodness, there have been a pretty good crop of RfA candidates lately... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    The IRC quit message does give me pause, but...I don't think I'll change my !vote. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

38. Support - Never afraid to get his hands dirty if necessary to get the job done.  :- ) DCS 23:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

    Support - With minor reservation. Mabdul can be a bit abrasive and untactful at times, but so am I, so not a problem for me.  These qualities could be a hinderance as an administrator.  But, I know when I am in a position of authority, I tone myself down, and act the part. I hope that will be the case.  And, we all use whatever power we have sometime inappropriately, but hopefully for the greater good.  :- ) DCS 16:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

39. Support - Clean block log, 24K edits, no indication of assholery. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - Don't see why not, plenty experienced. A412 (Talk • C) 04:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
41. Support. Looks good! Lord Roem (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
42. No issues, helpful, whatever "irc canvassing" stands for, someone said irc != wikipedia, so I don't really care what happened there. On wiki actions are ok. Petrb (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
43. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
44. Support When I was new he helped me along even as I pestered him on IRC about various policies and editing actions. He is the reason why I started at AfC and STiki which have been my primary joys in editing wikipedia. He shows courtesy and patience when confronted with users who cannot figure out some of the more technical aspects of wikipedia. He has good judgement, it would be a shame to refuse him solely for his IRC quit message. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
45. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
46. Support — The editor has done useful work and I wouldn't reject him just because of the IRC message. I came here because I saw the list of open RfAs and I recognized his name due to his work with account creation. No concerns about his judgment in admin matters. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - We need more admins. No concerns about the IRC message; posting a single link to this page with no further commentary to open channels with wide audiences was at worst a very minor lapse. henrik•talk 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
48. Support great editor, does a lot at AfC, and what the hell is the big deal with having a link to your RfA in a signoff message? Were people who had "Flagged revisions now!" or the equivalent in their signatures a year ago somehow canvassing then? I don't remember that ever being a problem, and it shouldn't be now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
49. Support The drama raised at IRC with the use a link to RFA does not override the fact that there's no sign that Mabdul would abuse the tools, or have poor judgement in admin matters. Technically competent and pleasant interactions on several early internet articles.Smallman12q (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
50. Support My only concern was addressed. Happily support.--v/r - TP 02:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
51. Support There doesn't seem to be any real canvassing violation here, and it seems that this editor would make for a good administrator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
52. Érico ^msg 04:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
53. Support looks OK. GreyHood ^Talk 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
54. Support - The IRC message, while probably not wholly thought out, is really not much more canvassing than adding the "I'm undergoing an RFA!" banner to your userpage. Both have the effect of drawing your stalkers (both friends and enemies) to your RFA to vote. The main issue with the IRC notification is that not many people use IRC whereas everybody can see your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
55. Support The whole "canvassing" situation isn't a huge issue and you are a great editor. --J36miles (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
56. Soutenir. Exactement. Rcsprinteur (parler) 17:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
57. Support – I know that my thought process is influenced by my culture, yes, I live here in the United States of America, where Canvassing is done for any individual looking to move to a position that involves the community at large to assent the additional responsibilities that are provided by a Vote. Be it either a !vote or an actual counting of the individual votes. As of right now I see an editor with over 24,000 edits, Involved member of Wikipedia for just over 4 years, no blocks to their name, no civility complaints, that I can find, and has answered over 10 questions (counting subdivisions of the questions) with honesty, understanding, other than one complaint below, and clarity. Is there more we ask? Likewise, I looked at the Oppose votes and found that of the 18 Opposes only two (2) were for other reasons than Canvassing, To fully understand this majority of Opposes I first went to Canvassing to see what the policy may say and the first thing I read is; “…In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.” Have I misread the statement, or does it say; “well canvassing is OK except for RFA’s”, if it did I missed it. Also I reviewed the statements with regards to using the IRC as Canvassing sight that may only include individuals that would be sympathy to the candidate position and hence unfairly weight the outcome of an !vote and found this statement; “…Wikipedia IRC is not owned or controlled by Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a project run by volunteers of their own accord. The Wikipedia channels on freenode were designed by users of Wikipedia as places for Wikipedians to chat using IRC. They are casual and not logged publicly. As far as their influence on Wikipedia goes, IRC is equivalent to a conversation in a pub – the discussion may be conducted between a small numbers of people but may be overheard by hundreds, or more if the logs are published.” To my reading this is not a Cabal that may drastically change the outcome of any !Vote situation. So all in all Good Candidate that has experience, the time and the willingness to put up with this. Yes, they have my support (Yes long winded, but words a free to use :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Wikipedia policy on Canvassing for RfA is clear; RfA is not a popularity poll and it should not be done, either on or off Wiki. [1] Leaky Caldron 19:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Comment-That is an Essay, which you direct to, correct? (And not policy) or have I overlooked something? Unless I am mistaken, we follow Policy and Rules and not Essay’s and conjecture. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    You know as well as I do that it is an essay, one I suggest that candidates are ill-advised to disregard. WP:CAN is a behavioural guideline. Of course you and the candidate can choose to be selective. That is an option that you are fully entitled to follow. For my part canvassing is unacceptable, regardless whether it is documented as unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Fair enough. Differences of opinions are always acceptable and welcome. The only thing we require at Wikipedia is verification and citations of the Facts. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

58. Support I have no idea what IRC is really like (it's a series of tubes, right?) but after reading all the arguments for and against the notion that the quit message posted above is worse, better or the same than the other ways RFAs are posted, it's a wash, for me. I don't care. I'm just unmoved by the whole mini-drama. mabdul's a great editor, I'm sure he'll make a fine admin, and if we oppose him this time because of this quit-message-whatever-thing, we'll just have to pass him at the next RFA, when he hasn't posted the thing, so let's give him the tools now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    IRC is a very old group chat protocol similar to ICQ/MSN/Yahoo/AIM group chats (but has also the ability to do "one-on-one" chats). The chat rooms are always named beginning with an # ; So if the discussion is about a #wikipedia-XY then this is about a discussion related to the chat room #wikipedia-XY. mabdul 02:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

59. Support. Because I was canvassed in IRC. NOT. A quit message in IRC is the primary reason to oppose this editor being an admin? IRC is a place for people to become aware of things who don't stalk all the various overflowing incident/noticeboard around here. Any communication source can be abused, of course, but he didn't ask for people's support, and trust me, the quit message would notify any IRC enemies/opponents too. If that's the basis for the oppose votes, I add my support just to counter one of them. In addition, he appears to be a fine reasonable editor doing valuable work.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
60. Support in spite of my intention to oppose. The IRC opposes are misguided; #wikipedia-en-help is a long-established mechanism for talking users through the editing process and a great way of getting notification of {{helpme}} requests; the quit message was not canvassing in my opinion. I was going to oppose on the basis of the candidate's AFD "vote didn't match result" rate of 24.4%; but my hand was stayed with a CSD success rate of better than 95% (it might even be better than 97%) and the fact that the AFD failures are heavily weighted towards keeps - so we have an editor who's tendencies fall towards keeping articles, but isn't a rabid inclusionist. CSD success indicates extremely good judgement, better than mine. Edit summary usage is 100%, with meaningful edit summaries used - signs of a good communicator. A clean block log. 23k edits, four years of service. What's not to love? Josh Parris 04:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
61. Support Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
62. Support Mabdul is human and as humans, we all make mistakes. I genuinely don't feel that the IRC incident somehow proves that he'll do a poor job as an admin, like some other editors are indicating, for I don't feel it's an issue at all. Perhaps he shouldn't have linked to his RfA, but it's not as though he blatantly asked people to support him. ~dee^(talk?) 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
63. Support 100% support. So what if they have canvassed? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 12:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
64. Really, I could care less of what goes on in the IRC chatrooms, as what most of this editor's opponents RFA's opposers claim. I support based on what this editor brings to Wikipedia. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think it's really fair to call people who are listed in the oppose section as opponents, honestly. I don't think anybody here would consider himself as an opponent of Mabdul :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    Getting pickey with the terminology. In a proposal we have proponents (supporters) and opponenets (opposers)  ;) –BuickCenturyDriver 13:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

65. Support - Can't see any real problem. Deb (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
66. Support - Absolutely ridiculous to bring up this IRC "canvassing" issue - if you can even call it that, good luck. This editor has been on Wikipedia now for 4 years; has a crystal clear block log; 24k edits. A small bump along the way, does not need to be magnified into something it isn't, and should not be used as means of tarnishing this editors impeccable reputation towards the encyclopedia. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
67. Support. I think the message on IRC was a borderline call as far as canvassing goes. The problem with the make up of IRC is that it makes it (or at the very least makes it perceived to be) a non-neutral audience. I think Mabdul made the wrong call, but I note that he accepts this in his answer to question eight. I don't think we should recruit admins solely from users with "error free" histories on this project. Indeed, I think it's useful to see how prepared a candidate is to recognise a mistake and evaluate the decision making process that led to it. I am happy with the way Mabdul has done so and, on balance, believe him to be a good candidate for the extra tools. WJBscribe (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
68. Competent user, willing to correct mistakes, and who wants to help the English Wikipedia. Killiondude (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
69. Support (moved from neutral). I don't think the canvassing issue is really such a big deal. Mabdul is a good newbie helper, a somewhat thankless task at times, and I think given the admin bits he would only use them to do more good work in this area. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
70. Support The more admins in IRC the better. He seems like he has the temperment for the tools.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    Would you please explain why you consider IRC participation to be crucial? For what part(s) of the role is IRC essential? Would you oppose a candidate who was not, and had no intention of being, on IRC? Plutonium27 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    Are you just intentionally trying to stir up trouble? Am I a bad administrator because I never go to WP:PUF or WP:RFPP? We need a variety of admins in different roles. Few administrators do everything that needs to be done, and those that do either quickly wear themselves or go insane. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    I don't see that Fasttimes68's comment could be construed as "intentionally trying to stir up trouble". I hope such an accusation hasn't put him off expanding upon his views. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

71. Support - I have worked with Mabdul since he joined the ACC team. I have found him to be very helpful, professional and clue-full. I am having problems distinguishing the difference between having a mention of one's RfA in a quit message and having a link to "My editor review" in a signature. Yes I agree an RfA is more formal than an editor review but, canvassing does not distinguish between a question, editor review or RfA. It seems this issue is just being used as something of convenience rather a problem of issue. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
72. Support. Wikipedia will benefit greatly if he's given the tools. -- œ^™ 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
73. Support No problem if this user gets admin rights. Yasht101 :) 02:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
74. Support per incomprehension I haven't !voted already.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 12:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
75. Support purely to offset some of the idiocy in the oppose section. Note: I neither indicated that all opposes are pointless, nor did I indicate who I refer to, and I am leaving it at that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
76. Support I like the positive, helpful attitude displayed at AfC and edit requests. Warden (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I want to be an admin so I can help out on IRC? I am strongly concerned that this user isn't aware that IRC has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise per my question. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Opposing before you've even posted your question? GiantSnowman 15:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. As it stands now, I'm convinced thiswise. IRC is a festering sore on the suffering body of Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   I am unconvinced that this candidate understands the role of administrators on Wikipedia, and is instead seeking to improve his IRC standing. Hipocrite (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Strong oppose per blatant canvassing on IRC in the quit message (including the full link to the RfA). This is unacceptable to me. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   See my reponse above, it is not blatant canvassing, the policy page doesn't mention anything about his situation. Secret ^account 04:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Logan. Also, I've found this user to be abrasive at times in interactions I've had with him.~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Would you either send me/publish a chat log (if IRC related) or give me a diff? mabdul 02:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose regrettably per Logan. Unless Mabdul can provide valid justifications, I'm going to have to oppose at this time. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Logan. Personally, I don't think IRC is worth its trouble to me anymore, but I hold nothing against users who try to help users off the wiki. But being an admin requires a special kind of judgment that I think should ask, "Hm, could this be construed as canvassing?" and answer, "Maybe and maybe not, but it would be wise just not to modify my quit message". In this case, I'm disappointed that the candidate did not maneuver wisely. Sometimes, being an admin is about not taking risks and manipulating one's circumstances correctly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I think that a prospective admin should know better than to stick a link to his/her rfa in an irc quit message.--Rockfang (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose Not only blatant WP:CANVASS in the IRC messaging, but a have to seriously doubt the mindset of someone who even THINKS doing that was a good idea - clearly does not yet have the clear judgement required to be an admin (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Oi ... there's no humanly-possible way that the explanation can make anyone comfortable...now he's justifying spamming his RFA, not just canvassing. I have added the work "STRONG" in front of oppose - the IRC blunder was originally probably accidental/bad judgement, now it's escalated beyond (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose Per Logan. If you're good enough, you don't need to canvas for support. Mrlittleirish 09:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose due to the canvassing incident. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Is there any way to verify the canvassing incident? Suraj T 10:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Agreed - clarification would be very helpful, and will probably determine the direction this RFA takes. I am leaving my !vote as support for now however. GiantSnowman 11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Was the message a simple 'I am at RfA' one, or a 'Come vote for me at'? For those of us who never touch IRC, it could be interesting to know. Peridon (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   No, it was a link to this page. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Just a link to this page, without any comments on how the editors should !vote, on a forum that is accessible to all users (though not necessarily accessed by all users) doesn't seem to rise to the level of inappropriate disclosure of a binding discussion, per WP:CANVASS. Achowat (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Agreed - in fact, we are encouraged to advertise our RFA on our user and talk pages, a la {{RfX-notice}}. GiantSnowman 15:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   It is quite clearly factually untrue that IRC is a "forum that is accessible to all users." It is a private forum whose access can be granted or revoked at will by individuals unrelated to Wikipedia or the foundation. Long term accountability is prohibited by rule on the forum. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   While I agree that IRC has the potential to devolve into a cabal, I see a general opposition to IRC being a poor rationale to oppose, given that the content wasn't anything drastically different than {{RfX-notice}}. Is there reason to believe that either (a) IRC users are more likely to !vote support or (b) users who are denied access to IRC are more likely to !vote oppose? Absent those, I fail to see how this is an attempt to subvert the consensus-building process, as WP:CANVASS pre-supposes. Achowat (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   You don't think a member of the IRC Buddies Squad is more likley to be supported by the IRC buddies? You don't think he could tell who he was targeting with his log-out message, and timed it so that his IRC enemies wouldn't see it? I mean, I guess if someone kept logs in a public space, we could evaluate. Such a shame all attempts to make IRC accountable fail. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   I think that assuming an editor has timed his log-out so that his enemies won't see it is poor form. Achowat (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   @ Hipocrite: All attempts to make IRC accountable to you fail.--v/r - TP 22:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Nonsense. Permit logging. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Have faith in the existing system and don't cry foul when you instigate.--v/r - TP 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose.While I understand the desire to canvass, I understand canvassing subverts the process. The fact that it was hidden at IRC is troubling. I'd like more transparent out-in-the-open Admins. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    You realise this sounds like you're saying canvassing is okay but only if done so that everyone can see it? — foxj 15:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Please review WP:CANVASS. Doing canvassing in public is less problematic than doing it in an off-venue private group, like IRC. Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, Fox, I believe that canvassing, without instructions, is kinda, maybe, a little bit OK. In fact, if you ask Jimbo, he is not against canvassing...out in the open where all can see and monitor. But, I don't make the rules. I just break keep them as best I can. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

11. Oppose. I've had pleasant enough interactions with Mabdul, but canvassing in this manner is not only unacceptable, but also shows monumentally bad judgment, not only from the perspective of misunderstanding the feelings of many people about canvassing, but also from a self-serving point of view, his RfA was going to pass without any problems without this regrettable incident. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Also, for people wondering, I can confirm that basically a single http:// link to this page was what was linked in the quit message, and nothing but that. The quit message is sent to all channels the user is in when he quits. In the case of Mabdul, I think it's around half a dozen channels, including the high traffic #wikipedia-en. On the other hand, by sending it to such broad a channel, it's unlikely to particularly alter the composition of the vote, and is not like posting a link to a semi-private channel hoping to get more supports. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    So, you say: This is not acceptable in first message, and in second one, you say that it wasn't really big deal? Why did you oppose then. What is difference between posting this to public channel, and posting it to your userpage? Or telling to your friends, on a public place for example. If he said: Go support me it would be inacceptable, but saying please participate on my RFA isn't wrong. In fact, I see it quite correct and fair. Petrb (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

12. Oppose. I'm sorry, Mabdul. I don't believe your intent was to canvass, and I think you're a promising admin candidate, but the ability to think through actions and identify what might be contentious or damaging before taking the action is an important tool for an administrator, and your IRC quit message (though apparently neutral) was one of those things that ought to have been thought through, identified as "this will probably cause drama", and avoided. I think you need to work some more on internalizing that sense of how the community views actions of various types. If you can do that, I think you'll sail through a future RFA with few problems. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose Unfortunately, what Fluffernutter mentions holds quite true. It's not just about the intent (or lack of the same) to canvass, but about being able to judge good form from bad form. And Mabdul's quit-message publicizing the RfA is perhaps a momentary lack of judgment that should not have been committed, especially when the matter is about one's RfA. Twice this year, I've seen RfAs being troubled by issues of canvassing. In the previous incident, the canvasser was the nominator himself. This time, it's unfortunately Mabdul. I personally feel the community needs to adjudicate strongly on canvassing - either accept all kinds of canvassing or prohibit it completely... Apart from the canvassing issue, going through Arena (web browser), which Mabdul says is his best article, I perceive a preponderance of material based purely on primary sources, sps, questionable sources and some evidently unreliable sources (I think I also viewed somewhere within the article material based on 'Letters to the editor'; I may be wrong on this though). There are of course some definite reliable sources too; but my interest is waylaid by the emphasis on primary sources. As it stands currently overall, I have to oppose this candidacy. My apologies to Mabdul. Wifione ^Message 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah, the sources are not the best - and there are better examples I created/expanded. Since my involvement in the AFC project I have learned many more aspects of sourcing and I know that is the hardest barrier to create a good article. I always try to find independent and reliable sources, although this is not always possible. In January I started to expand Sendo, but this article is way not finished nor is it in any way good. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

14. Oppose The canvassing issue really makes me feel uncomfortable for a potential admin. I seldom get involved in RFAs, but I really don't like that kind of behaviour when applying for adminship. I think it was a poor decision and not reflective on the candidate as a whole but it is strong enough to make me oppose this request for adminship. Apologies.--Auger Martel (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

    To you and everybody else who voted oppose because of canvassing. It is merely apparent do not take their time analyzing the candidate and merely vote oppose based on other opposes if there are opposes. I find this absolutely ridiculous and absurd to vote in such a way. If you opposers were to have taken more care into researching the candidate you would have noticed that mabdul ONLY placed a link to this RfA on IRC. There were no discussions, no persuasions, no kind of talk that would try to persuade IRC viewers to vote for him or against him which is clearly not a violation of WP:CANVASS because what he did is the same as placing the {{RfX-notice}} tag on his page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    My particular issue with this is not the act itself, but the thought that went into the act. Neutral, perhaps, but who would have thought having any link at all would have been a good idea? To me, and others above that have stated so, this shows a lack of sound judgment in predicting the reaction to, and consequences of, a certain action. That judgment is crucial in adminship, I think. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Moreover, I would like to emphasize that placing {{RfX-notice}} is not the same as linking to this RfA on IRC. On Wikipedia, anyone can see the notice or find it in the history. On IRC, sharing logs is generally forbidden or at least discouraged, so transparency is decreased, and IRC has a more limited participant base than Wikipedia. For example, I would not have been aware of this incident had it not been raised here, because I do not use IRC much anymore. However, if any sort of questionable behavior had occurred on-wiki, a record of this would be preserved in the relevant page history. Therefore, I do not consider such an action on IRC akin to a similar action on Wikipedia. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Cyberpower, you're right in that Mabdul's IRC posting takes this RfA fathoms away from actual discussion on his on-wiki contributions. I suspect that's because IRC communication is specifically covered in our Inappropriate Notification guidelines, which mention that persuading [editors] to join discussions (and not necessarily soliciting support) is enough reason for IRC communications to qualify as Stealth Canvassing. A majority of our editors are not IRC users; many might not even be comfortable in using IRC and therefore would see IRC communication of topics of their interest as being deliberately one-sided. Thus, posting on IRC, where Mabdul is active, may be seen as extremely partisan and non-transparent. Some may see this as a form of votebanking, where it is expected that a majority of editors interacting with Mabdul on IRC might have a good opinion of the editor. I personally feel it's really honest and sincere of Mabdul in his answer above to accept that this IRC posting was wrong. Given his current active status on IRC, I'll be worried if in the future, admin decisions - which might require wider on-wiki discussions - are undertaken by Mabdul purely through discussions on IRC because he might perceive them to be faster. My suggestion to Mabdul would be that if this RfA succeeds, he should remember to use great discretion before using IRC on exceptional issues. If this RfA does not succeed, then he should reapply in a couple of months or three, which is not too long a time. I'll have no qualms in supporting him then. Wifione ^Message 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    I guess I can see everyone's point especially Wifione's. For this RfA I'll support because it was only a link but I will be stricter next about these things.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

15. Oppose The main complaint against IRC is that it tends to favour off-wiki coordination, thereby reducing transparency. Any editor who's been around as long as Mabdul should be well aware of this and act accordingly. Pichpich (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose the irc issues brings Mabdul's decision making skills into question. Sorry --Guerillero | My Talk 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I have some concerns with the level of English, for example the candidate does not appear to have understood question 10; as well as this the candidate has expressed a desire to avoid controversial situations as a result of the language barrier, and in my opinion it is essential that admins are able to deal with controversial situations with clarity. As well as this, per Logan. There is a big difference between placing an RfA notice on one's userpage (where one has to visit the candidate's userpage hence showing an interest in the candidate's wikipedia activites) and a public notice appearing to IRC users (a specific group of users are notified of the RfA regardless of whether they have actively sought information about the candidate). Mato (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose IRC? Canvassing? Either of those is enough for me. We are not desperate for new Admins, certainly not candidates so desperate to be one. Leaky Caldron 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    I have to concur that using the quit message was very very stupid. Even if it's as innocent as a userpage notice, which I believe it is; just linking to an RfA could be considered canvassing because of the audience it is shown at, even if it's not intended to draw that specific group to this RfA. However, citing 'IRC' as a reason for opposing, with all the amazing work mabdul has done there, helping newcomers out with their AFC proposals, is IMO misguided. I'm not sure what makes you think that mabdul is desperate to be an admin either: the quit message is a demonstration of poor judgement on how some things may be perceived, to an amount this RfA is clearly divided on, but not - dare I say it - prima facie evidence of power hunger. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    You might call my reasoning misguided. Fortunately for me, but unfortunately for the candidate, I am utterly opposed to IRC. I do lots of amazing work off-wiki, none of which qualifies me to be an Admin. here. Please let's not debate this any further. I have opposed the candidate and given my reasons. Leaky Caldron 16:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Opposing a user because he devotes time and efforts to helping users on IRC is the most ridiculous oppose reason I have ever seen on these pages. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    I oppose the candidate due to his canvassing on IRC. "I" am opposed to IRC, it follows that "I" am opposed to candidates who spend their time in that particular forum. Apologies if my initial brief opposition was unclear. On the subject of being unclear - and of far greater importance to the community - I would urge a careful reading on the candidate's rambling answer to Q8. It has some near incomprehensible explanations due to sloppy English. I expect a far higher standard from an Admin who will encounter situations where the requirement for crystal clear communication is essential. Leaky Caldron 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    "I" am opposed to IRC, it follows that "I" am opposed to candidates who spend their time in that particular forum. is the honestly extremely worrying part. I oppose lots of stuff, including smoking, but I will never think it any of my business to be opposed to smokers. If you want a wiki-related example, I strenuously oppose the current rename policy, but I'd never dream of going around opposing people who perform or request such renames. The idea that your private preference regarding a specific medium should be the basis for whether, in your opinion, one should be admin or not is honestly sad and misguided. But this is clearly a pointless argument. There's many good reason to oppose any candidate, including this one, and you've listed some reasons why you feel uncomfortable with this specific user and that's all good and fine. I genuinely hope you don't think it's acceptable to oppose a user because they use IRC, Facebook, Twitter or Emails, but *shrugs*. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose - I saw articles created by this user which were only 18. Out of which, most of them had notability and reference problem (excluding disambiguation pages). Though it does not affect their work as admin, I was expecting something better from an admin in the part of Articles. Yasht101 :) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    For clarification I created less than 18 (some were redirects which turned into articles) and I'm a person (as described above) who is writing about technical topics (computer/web related) but in these topics there are already (mostly) stubs which simply only need expansion. With the exception of a few topics, you will see more and more admin candidates which won't have created "so many" articles, but expanded stubs. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    Lately your work is focused on talk and templates. I m not saying that it is wrong. About the stub expansion, if you can expand other stubs, then why dont you do it in your own created articles. I dont mean that if the articles are created by you, then you are responsible for its maintainence, but I saw history of one article created by you with 'Notability' and 'Reference' issues, you havent edited the article since you created it. I dont find anything wrong in that but if you can expand stubs, then why cannot you make major issues such as 'Notability' and 'Reference' getting removed from your created articles. I have also seen admins with less created articles. Having less created articles is not the base of the oppose, but having issues in them is my concern. Yasht101 :) 02:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

    You are likely talking about my articles eSVG and Hina-Di. Yes, it would be nice to get the notability or other maintain tags resolved, but in the case of Hina-Di I'm simply don't know if it is really a notable file format! All information was translated by using google and these translations were bad. I created these articles in 2008/2009 when I had simply no experience. mabdul 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Reply was satisfactory and has resolved my concern. I don't have any doubts now. Moved to Support Yasht101 :) 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

19. Oppose Unfortunately the canvassing made me oppose. In particular it might be that they did not fully read the recommended material - "Advertising" your RfA They should note that it is placed between "edit wars" and "blocks" in order of severity. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

    Not wishing to change your !vote, but it should be pointed out that that list isn't presented in order of severity. For example, "elaborate signatures" and "long gaps in editing" are placed above "use of sockpuppet accounts". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 06:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

20. Oppose per Logan. Malleus Fatuorum 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose candidate has the tenure and experience, the IRC thing on its own wouldn't have put me in the oppose column, I might have even gone as far as a weak support - admins should know and comply with unwritten rules, but I can see that IRC could be considered a neutral audience, and there is an argument that a neutral message to a neutral audience isn't itself canvassing. I'm not bothered whether a candidate has created zero articles and only improves those started by others or has started hundreds validly. But having looked through some of the editors AFC comments I'm not sure I share the impression others have of such a helpful editor "submission lacks inline citations" as a decline reason at AFC? At GA or FA of course, but at AFC? By all means show someone how to make their refs inline, but I'd be uncomfortable giving the deletion button to someone who would reject a new article because the citations are not inline. ϢereSpielChequers 08:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    To be fair, it's a pretty common reason for declining AfC submissions. It's an option in the drop down menus when using the AfC tool. It's not akin to deleting an article for that reason. At AfC the option is either to decline the submission or accept it and move it to mainspace. It's better to get the user to add the inlines themselves while it's still in draft stage, rather than to move it to mainspace and either a) ask the creator to fix it up which isn't entirely likely as they often see an accepted submission as their work being completed or b) expecting someone else to do it. In AfC, the users are generally very eager to get their article accepted, so they are more willing to read the guides on inline referencing provided in the decline reason and actually learn how to do it. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 17:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    No, it is not because we have such a decline reason! WP:BLP says: Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. - I found (for instance) no birth date and not the date of the "tale" in the given source; at least one link was included and unrelated (or at least I didn't get it since his name isn't included). I also mentioned in an additional comment, that this person might not be notable! mabdul 02:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

22. Oppose per Logan and LC.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose Candidate's IRC activities are unacceptable. Wikipedia IRC is unacceptable. All Wikipedia-related communications should be on Wikipedia, accessible to all editors. IRC is the shadowy, clique-ridden, kiddychat-oriented antithesis of the essential need for openness and access. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    And how did you, having (I presume) never been on IRC, come to know what IRC is about? Do tell me, as I've long sought omnipotence. (I've only used IRC within the past few days, for one very specific purpose that will end within a couple weeks, so I claim no knowledge of what really goes on there). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    You presume that I presume about IRC? Got to admit, I do admire the nerve of such unabashed hypocritical snidery. Admins need all the tools they can get, these days. Presumably. So you see, I can't help you with your omnipotence problem personally, although I could fwd you heaps of these emails I keep getting... Plutonium27 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    1. IRC is not the shadowy clique-ridden tool that you claimed to be. There were a few users who did abuse it back in 2006, and they got desysopped eventually. But I don't understand the several anti-IRC tools, he needs it for #wikipedia-en-help which is usually as backlogged with new users trying to get help with AFC submissions all the time. CharlieEchoTango left the project, so we need another administrator or two in there. That's a big need for the tools Secret ^account 16:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    Regardless of how nice a place IRC is these days, he canvassed there which is deprecated here Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship and here Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates. Maybe he did not read or understand that advice, or simply disregarded it. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

    The "canvassing" there is the equal to adding an RFA notice in top of your userpage. There's no evidence that he ever said "vote in my RFA". Userpage posting is worse as most of the people who watchlist your userpage are Wiki friends. Secret ^account 18:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

24. Oppose, canvassing. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Logan.--В и к и T 16:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose. (Trying to avoid repeating what everyone else have said) Well, once again IRC is demonstrated to be the source of many wiki problems. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I really wish I could support, but I don't feel right supporting, per Logan. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral Ugh, I really truly hate to be here because I want to be in the support but I've seen the IRC quit message about this RFA and that gives me serious reservation. Hipocrite oppose is unconvincing. IRC is a tool and just because Hipocrite had a bad experience (because of his own fault), he shouldn't judge others who have had a more successful experience.--v/r - TP 00:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Issue addressed by Mabdul--v/r - TP 02:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Bah, came here to support but the incredible lack of judgement in advertising this page over IRC has forced me to go here. — foxj 05:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Neutral(Moved from Support till canvassing incident calms down) due to issues put in the Oppose section.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral Though I would recommend any closer review the ArbCom positions gathered at WP:False consensus. I would likely support this person otherwise. Collect (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm here and not in oppose because the link in the Mabdul's IRC quit message was just that - a link, and I believe that canvassing is basically okay as long as the tone or word choice is not designed to influence voting or discussion in any way, but Mabdul should be aware that a lot of users who don't use IRC see it as cabalistic and, in some cases, a bit evil. It wasn't very well thought through. I might change my vote when Mabdul addresses people's concerns however, and if not, would likely support in future. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 23:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC) moving to support. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yes it was a mistake. As described in answer 8 I thought this would be the same as placing the rfa notice template since my IRC account is a) connected to my wikipedia profil and b) I'm only in wikipedia relevant channels. mabdul 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

5. Neutral - The IRC incident probably didn't bring any voters here who wouldn't have already come, but to post off-wiki announcements of an RfA (no matter how neutrally worded) is a lapse of judgment. And yes, IRC is most definitely off-wiki, equivalent to posting an announcement on twitter. Also, I'm a stickler for enwiki admins having a near perfect grasp of the english language, and while I understand the candidate is not a native english speaker (and I'm willing to be somewhat more lenient for that), there are still a few too many spelling and grammatical issues for me. Admins need to be able to explain things in a crystal clear fashion in the native language of the wiki. However, both the temporary lapse of judgment and the spelling/grammar issues are too minor for me to oppose. If this RfA doesn't pass successfully, I have no doubt that trying again in a few months (and being more careful on IRC) will result in a successful RfA. —SW— ^comment 02:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Do you think Madbul will make a bad administrator? That he will abuse the admin tools? What I see here is an editor with an excellent command of WP policy, one that will make an excellent admin, one who made what at most could be described as a slight lapse of judgement. Well, guess what? We all do... Wikipedia needs new admins now and the increasing demands for perfection from adminship candidates will only serve to harm Wikipedia in the long run. Will smacking Madbul over the knuckles and making him wait for another six months before he starts helping out with the thankless task of clearing admin backlogs really help Wikipedia? Not a chance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   Note that I'm in the neutral section, not the oppose section. And I don't regard it as a smack over the knuckles, I see it as a wake-up call for the candidate that teaches him the level at which admins need to operate. I got a similar wake-up call 13 months ago, and it helped me. —SW— ^confer 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

   But your wake-up call was about actual stuff that one could discern was problematic from past precedent. Where's the rule that says one's IRC quit message can let friend and foe alike know the editor is currently up to RfA? Wouldn't one's friends already know when one is up at RFA?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I believe it's important for an admin who is active on IRC to understand the difference between their off-wiki actions and their on-wiki actions, and that's what the wake-up call is about. Just because you're in the #wikipedia channel on IRC doesn't mean that you're not off-wiki, and this incident implies that Mabdul may not fully understand that distinction. You wouldn't post a link to your RfA on twitter, nor on facebook, nor would you spam it to dozens of email addresses, or hire an army of human billboards to advertise it to the world; and if you fully understood the role of IRC on Wikipedia, you wouldn't post it there either. To be clear, I agree with you that the quit message most likely didn't bring anyone here who wouldn't have found their way here otherwise, but that's not the point. —SW— ^confess 05:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

6. Neutral - The IRC incident does affect my position, but I do not feel that I can oppose this user. I have not seen the incident myself, which is one reason I would not be comfortable opposing. Also, I gather that the quit message posted was just a link - if it is deemed canvassing, it must be on the weak end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, with on-wiki opinion of IRC as it is, I would have expected a potential admin to realise to the problems this would have caused. This is a lack of judgement rather than a malicious attempt to canvass; a lack of judgement is enough to prompt my withdrawal of support, if not enough for an oppose. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I have no concerns that this user will deliberately misuse the mop. However, the response to this IRC incident has been underwhelming. I don't think the user violated WP:CANVASS, or at least not knowingly or purposefully. That said, his response to Q9 (about the IRC thing) gives me pause: the response contains a broken link to what I think was supposed to be wiktionary:legere. I'm not objecting to the probably-a-misspelling of Wiktionary as Wictinoary - I can't spell it either - but the carelessness of leaving the mistake in the message instead of proofing it concerns me. Furthermore, the actual legere page doesn't do any of the explaining he hopes it will, so it seems likely it wasn't checked either. Proofreading personal messages like this, especially when under stress, is the MOST important time to take care with what you type - it's frowned upon to go changing your comments later. Errors in articles are correctable, but errors in communication - at which an admin must excel - are sometimes irreversible. I'd prefer that an admin take more care with their messages when under stress. I won't oppose over a single instance, but I hope Mabdul may find this advice useful if this (or a later) RFA passes. (Also, I'm aware that by drawing attention to a typo, I've almost guarunteed there's one somewhere in this post...) -- stillnotelf is invisible 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Neutral. I'm not concerned by the canvassing issue. I am, however, concerned with this recent request for indefinite full protection of an article over a short-term content dispute. I would expect an admin candidate to know when to apply indefinite full vs. temporary full protection. Keeping neutral since I cannot tell if this was an unfortunate blip or something more worrying. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
9. Neutral. I think that Fetchcomms, Fluffernutter, and Wifione in the oppose section, and SW here in the neutral section, have done a good job of articulating what gives me pause. At the same time, I really do recognize that the candidate is someone with good intentions, who wishes the best for the project, and who has a good track record. I guess I come down, on balance, towards feeling somewhat like "not ready yet". I'd like to see the candidate take a few more months to work on communication and on really having mature judgment about community expectations. Do that, and I would expect a future RfA to sail through. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)