Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MikeLynch

Support

1. Strong Support. A hard-working and trustworthy editor who deserves adminship. Being an admin (and bureaucrat) at the Sanskrit Wikipedia, he deserves the tools on en-wiki as well. Opposes are extremely unconvincing. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - seems a reliable choice. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Strong Support. Why not? — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. Ruslik_Zero 15:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support I can't see why not. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good to me. -- Luke (Talk) 17:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Strong Support – Very rare to see an editor like him. Truly deserves adminship. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 18:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Support - Looks like a very storng, trustworthy and dedicated editor; would be a great asset as an admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Most definitely! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Outstanding track and good knowledge of policy.Great commitment and total dedication to Wikipedia both onsite and also as Online Ambassador He is also a ORTS volunteer in addition to being a crat in Sanskrit Wikipedia .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Support Clearly good enough. upstateNYer 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
14. This is an easy one. I've seen him around, and never had reason to associate anything remotely negative to the name. Seems he's doing a sterling job in real life as well, and experience of outreach work has taught me that it's often handy to have an admin around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Support. Mike and I both participated in the Ambassador Steering Committee election. While I refrained from voting myself, my support was then and continues to be firmly in his corner. He presents extensive knowledge and balance in his interaction with others, as well as interpretation and application of policies and guidelines. I value his work. Bringing Mike on board as an administrator is value added to en.wiki. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Good understanding on policy, and willing to tackle the tougher areas of Wikipedia. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Support. Good, clueful user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Looked over a few edits and scanned trough the talk page history, and i cannot see anything that concerns me. Unless someone manages to dredge up something serious, i have no reason not to support. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Good to see a candidate doing something other than deletions ;). --Kangaroopowah 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Seems clueful and trusted. Stated uses for the tools tie in with what he already does, and I've seen no reason to think that he would be controversial if he ever acted as an admin outside of those areas. —WFC— 23:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. I see no problems. James500 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Clueful and trustworthy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Support. ResMar 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Competence is required, sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Lol. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Errr, there is an Oppose section below. --07:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Struck out and indented oppose !vote as it is skewing the counter. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    It would appear that User:Mkativerata is supporting this RfA, as can be seen by the following threads on his talk page: User talk:Mkativerata#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MikeLynch & User talk:Mkativerata#RfA. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

26. Support. Mike will be a huge asset to the corps of sysops, most especially on India related topics, projects, and education programmes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
28. Support Will definitely be a net positive in an administrative role here. WilliamH (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Support - I am aware of this candidates quality of contributions to the project and have observed his clue in actions and applications. I cast this !vote without awaiting answer to my question because I do not wish for an extrapolation that I first needed to see the answer. My76Strat (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
30. Looks to be a trustworthy user. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Support as Nominator. Let me know if I'm not supposed to. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

31. Support - Already contributes to Wikipedia in a number of ways, including as Administrator and Bureaucrat for Sanskrit Wikipedia. Richardpeterlyons148 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Intends to go in to some of the most helpful areas of adminship. Minima© (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Longterm user with a clean blocklog and a record of civil communication. Plus points for being highly trusted on one of our sister projects. Looking at the deleted edits I saw nothing that concerned me, the only CSD tag of another's article was a correct G10. Too small a sample if he was planning to be a CSD specialist, but as he isn't it is a reassurance that he show's clue when outside his main area of activity. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin here. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Reaffirming. I've read the thread about Twitter and canvassing. I don't hold the candidate responsible for someone else's mistake, I suspect that the main effect of the canvassing will be the reaction in the Oppose section and as I consider their disquiet mistargeted I remain in support. ϢereSpielChequers 12:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

34. Support Can't see any reason why not. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Support — Yes, why not? A knowledgeable user, has a lot of experience here, follows etiquette at all times, and most importantly, is confident of what he does. X.One ^SOS 12:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Support Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Support Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - Actions as an Admin on another project are a model of what we should be looking for Achowat (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Support thought he was already an admin. --Aude (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Support Congrats, will make a fine Admin. Stubbleboy 17:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
41. Support Failing to vote for landslides hurts the bean-counting at RfCs and ArbCom cases. I don't want to join Malleus in being gagged at RfA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
42. Strong Support The fact that he is already an admin and bureaucrat of another Wikipedia, I don't see a reason why this user would misuse the tools here. This is a no brainer.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
43. Support Looks good. As a tiny thing, you might want to be careful about calling admins (or anyone, really) 'he' by default, as it can be seen as a little old-fashioned. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

    Just a note, I've met User:MikeLynch before, and I know it's a HE. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    I think It Is Me Here was referring to me addressing others ;) . Will keep in mind, thanks! Lynch7 07:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

44. Stephen 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Per this, good candidate with good contribution. -- Wagino 20100516 (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - I trust MikeLynch with the mop, this is definitely a net + Mlpearc (powwow) 03:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
47. Support. Appears to be a fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
48. Support - Proficient editor, and a very responsible one at that. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ ^(Talk) 04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
49. Strong Support . Period -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
50. From my work on the Ambassador Steering Committee, I know that he is admin material --Guerillero | My Talk 05:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
51. Support - 13K edits, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - A polite, hardworking, level headed and knowledgeable editor. Giving him the mop will definitely be a great plus for the project.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    Seems like he will do absolutely fine here, however not happy with the answer to 5. Mrlittle::irish 09:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. --Mrlittleirish 09:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

53. I support granting this user a torch and pitchfork mop and bucket. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
54. Strong Support Give the man a mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
55. Support Seems like an excellent choice...Modernist (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
56. Confused support - I have some strong concerns about MikeLynch becoming an admin, but after checking his contributions for awhile, I can't find anything that substantiates my concerns. Maybe I was thinking of another user with a similar name. So I am supporting, unless further evidence turns up. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    Were you thinking of Mike Hunt?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

57. Support - Seems good. No vandalism, no troubles. Good luck!--Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 17:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
58. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
59. Strong Support - Found him very deserving personality. Best of Luck and Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Thanks for your work on India-related articles. It is always nice to see you around. I feel more comfortable supporting editors whose work I have already seen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
61. Secret ^account 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. User doesn't look like they're about to break anything with the tools, so I say hand them over. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
63. Risker (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
64. Support - A potentially fantastic admin, in my opinion. MikeLynch is proposing to work in areas that often need more attention than they get (like RM and RFPP), has impressive content creation (including a GA and 3 DYKs), has a lot of dispute resolution experience, is obviously well-versed in policy and communicates very well. -- Atama頭 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
65. Support. He will be a welcome addition.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
66. Support Saw him around AbRep and certainly should get the mop. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
67. Support -- Tawker (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
68. Definitely - 6 years with a clean block log, DYK, GA and OTRS activity.  7  02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

    Six years with a clean block log isn't any great recommendation as far as I'm concerned, demonstrates a lack of passion. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

    A Comment which could only made by you. ;) mabdul 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

    Your insult should have been phrased "This comment could have been made by only you", per WP:English. Many fine administrators have been blocked, of course; many fine editors have commented on the inevitability of conflicts (and forgivability of inexcusable blocks, justly imposed) ; thus, even phrased in grammatical English, your intended proposition is false. (C.f, the incivility of Jesus against the money lenders, lack of indignation as a slave morality unfitting of a free man in Aristotle, etc.)Sorry! I missed the wink!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

69. Support Seems a fine, experienced, clueful candidate. Lots of evidence of good, relevant work, and nothing I can see gives me cause for concern. Begoon ^talk 03:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
70. Support ~ Administrator and Bureaucrat at Sanskrit Wikipedia, says enough for me. Good Luck! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. mabdul 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
72. Support- Has promised to shut us all down and block Jimbo. Should be fun. Dru of Id (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
73. Easy Support for an editor who knows what he's doing and has contributed greatly to Wikimedia projects. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
74. Support - Can't find a reason to oppose. —SW— ^soliloquize 16:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
75. Support - 12 month history of ~500 edits/month is great, experience with ORTS and sysop bit on other projects is another major plus. Spot check shows good edits. Slightly robotic answers to RfA questions is probably to be expected—he'll learn flexibility as he grows as an admin. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
76. Support Trustworthy, clueful, experienced, credentials as a sysop and 'crat in other areas of Wikipedia bespeaks a well-qualified candidate.--Hokeman (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
77. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
78. Support No question. I've seen ML's interactions with fellow editors on various India pages and on the India noticeboard and he is a sensible, no-nonsense individual who well understands article writing. A dearth of sources, online as well as offline, make India related articles particularly prone to reliability and pov issues and ML navigates all that with care and competence. He will make an excellent admin. About some of the opposes below. It is a tad unfair to penalize the candidate for a mistake made by someone else and I'm surprised that one year of active editing is considered (with an average of over 500 edits a month even if you ignore the first two months as outliers) insufficient to make a judgement on the candidate. Just a thought, that. --regentspark (comment) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
79. Support I Like Mike! I've seen him around because of my sometimes fractious involvement with India-related material and the two things that he has clearly displayed in that sphere are level-headedness and knowledge of policy/guidelines. I do not always agree with him but, hey, that throws up another big plus, which is that in my experience he knows how to phrase things so as to keep things on a level even amongst disagreements. I am unsure how many are really aware of just how messy India-related stuff gets but, believe me, it is up there with a lot of subjects that are at or close to a 1RR community decision etc ... and he does a good job of bringing some of those hassles down to a more reasonable level. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
80. Support I think Mike is a hardworking, responsible editor who has participated sensibly in WikiProject India debates. Since aspersion has been cast on Indian voters due to a Twitter campaign mentioned, I would like to say I am here after reading this post on an email group which led to this userpage where his RFA is mentioned. AshLin (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

    No aspersions have been cast against Indian voters, only against the nominator who displayed such poor judgement. Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

81. Support...see no evidence the tools or position will be misused.--MONGO 03:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
82. Support, looks like a great candidate and see no reason to oppose. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
83. Support. He seems like a good candidate for the mop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
84. Support Being a crat/admin on other projects is very helpful. I reviewed some of Mike's edits and saw plenty of clue in several different areas that admins should understand plus ability to work well with others. Royalbroil 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
85. Support Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
86. Support - Lynch does too much for Wikipedia.--Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 06:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
87. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
88. Support No concerns on my end; I believe Mike will make a fine admin. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
89. Support. I don't think I've interacted much with the candidate, so I looked carefully at all of the reasons that have been raised for opposing. Ideally, I'd like to see more content experience, but that concern is very much outweighed by the combination of a GA, a history of working in contentious subjects, with editors I trust vouching for Mike's cluefullness and civility in those areas, and the commendable ambassador work. I see what Salvio means about "literalness" in the discussion section above, but I don't see it as getting in the way of being a successful admin in this case. As for the Twitter canvassing, trout the nominator and ask the crat to discount some !votes, but I see no reason to blame the candidate. In fact, I think the self-possessed way in which Mike has responded to the canvassing complaints is a good sign. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
90. Support. Looks like a net positive, and I don't have any convincing reason to oppose.--Slon02 (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
91. Support Baseball Watcher 01:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
92. Support Decent editor. One mistake does not make one an unreliable editor overnight. Oh yeah, let the spotless editors cast the first stone.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
93. Support -Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 03:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
94. Support. Full support from me -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
95. Support I do not consider the canvassing a problem, in view of the very high amount of support from regulars here. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
96. Support I've had some interaction with Mike Lynch on India related topics, generally found him to be a fairly good editor and a net positive. For the record, I'm Indian, but I found out about the canvassing only after coming to this page, and since it's the nominator who did that, unless there's something to show that Mike was involved, I don't think we should hold it against him. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
97. Very strong support I believe that this admin-to-be had done a lot for improving this wiki, so I believe it's time for him to be a sysop. Jedd Raynier (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
98. Strong Support – Adminship is no big deal and Mike is more than qualified. — madman 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
99. Support – Looks good to me. —mc10 (t/c) 20:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
100. Support - No reason not to, two adminships elsewhere shows that we can trust this editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

     Congrats on getting the 100! Mjroots (talk)

101. SupportCome on guys, he totally desrves it.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
102. Support A solid contributor who is likely to grow in the administrator role, and a valuable asset to the encyclopedia because of his expertise on matters related to India. The canvassing incident is unfortunate, but nowhere near significant enough for me to withhold my support. Best wishes to you, MikeLynch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
103. Support He seems to fit the bill of being able to handle Adminship. -Fumitol|talk|cont 05:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
104. Support for all the reasons above. Gonna be a fine admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
105. Support Why not? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Sorry 13.7K total edits and 6K (or half) of them in a 6-8 week period does not bestow confidence in experience. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   On the contrary, it's a very wise move. The more edits you make here, the more enemies you're bound to make. Between 5,000 and 10,000 edits seems to be just about right I'd say. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Do NOT forget the fact that MikeLynch is also an admin and bureaucrat on the Sanskrit Wikipedia, and an admin on the Sanskrit Wiktionary. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Hey, I haven't opposed, I've forgotten nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Wait, no, not you, Shoessss is who I'm directing my comment at. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Are you penalizing him for the 6k for all of the edits being in such a short period, or are you deducting those edits from his total edit count and you think he doesn't have enough experience? If the former: huggle is so fast and effective (and potentially addictive) that you can easily rack up thousands of edits per month with only a few late night vandal fighting sessions. If the latter then it's worth mentioning that his automated edit count is still <50% which is not at all unusual.  7  02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

2. The Twitter canvassing is unforgivable. I was slated for far less at my first RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   That was my fault, not the candidates. If needed, as I said, cancel this RfA, hold a new one after a month, [by which time I should've hopefully left Wikipedia completely], and have a look. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I have to state that I had no hand in the alleged canvassing incident, and didn't know about it till the IP posted about it. The tweet was online for around 2 hours, after which it was removed by Rsrikanth05, realizing the mistake. Of the people mentioned in the tweet, only 2 of them have !voted here, one of them being an enwiki sysop long enough not to be swayed by a tweet, and the other, who has stated on the talk page that he would have supported my candidacy regardless of the tweet. If anyone else is thought to have been swayed by the 2 hour long tweet, as I have stated on the talk page, I would not mind an impartial administrator look into this and strike out the doubtful !votes. Lynch7 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Mike, the tweets were the only "visible" material you were shown? And how can you again back the votes of two canvassed editors unabashheddly vvoting here? This is shameful that tinu Chherian and Sodabottle (I am not revealing his real name.. He's a decent guy so I'm sorry to you in advance) can simply give a reason and vote with you backing them. Tinu Chherian has voted in ten RFAs in the past year, right???? Zero. Andd Sodabottle? Zero. But no, here they come with their canvassed votes. Rsrikanth05 is more honorable by cutting out his vote and sticking by it and offering to cancel this rFA. Tinu and sodabottle's votes should also be cut down. If you really want a neutral checkuser to check, then I say take away the ip block exemt right of rsrikanth05 given as he has a "university ip". Then run a checkuser on how many editors are from the univ who are voting here. Sorry rsrikanth05. I respect your post canvvassing confession. But I am apalled at tinu and soda's vote. There are of course the indian votes too.93.186.31.82 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I am not closed to the idea of the 'crat discounting their !votes, that's left to the crat to do. As for a meatpuppetry check, I'd be glad if it was done. Lynch7 18:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I am talking about striking out of tinu and soda's votes. Go tell them please to strike out their votes as they claim to know you very well enough. I will leave it at that and not request a checkuser combined with toolserver ip view check by arbcom or alison or anybody else if the two strike out their votes.93.186.23.82 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I really don't mind a checkuser or ArbCom or anyone looking into this. Anyway, I'll try and let Tinu and Sodabottle know about this discussion, but I do not know what they will do. A bureaucrat, while closing this discussion, will look into their !votes anyway. Lynch7 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   93.186.. Let me reiterate my "unabashed support" to Mike's RfA. No i am not going to strike my vote. As i have mentioned in the talk page - the tweet made absolutely no difference to how i would have acted. And for your claim that i have voted in zero RfAs in the past year - i have voted in nine RfAs in 2011 and the last vote was only a month ago (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). I am not sure whats your problem with the nominator but resorting to outright lying (about my previous RfA behaviour) is completely ridiculous. Nice try trying to paint me as a meat/sockpuppet. The closing crat can see the votes and discussion for himself and strike my support if he deems it inappropriate--Sodabottle (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose I agree with Shoessss, He has a 6 years clean backlog yes, but he vanished for a little over a year. He then came back and started editing, because there was no real edits made before his period of absense. His edits seems to be getting fewer and fewer as he goes along. I am willing to discuss anything on my talk page. Mrlittleirish 09:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Of course, I am willing to explain any stretch of inactivity after my start of real editing in 2010. Also want to add that I am not editing any articles during the period of this RfA, concentrating on off-wiki outreach activities instead. Lynch7 11:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose Twitter canvasing. Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Is there a trivial issue you won't oppose?--v/r - TP 13:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Incivility. I won't oppose people for being incivil. How ironc, given your comment right here! Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Ironically, incivility is something I've picked up from others since obtaining the mop. I was very pleasant beforehand.--v/r - TP 17:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   You oppose everything but incivility? I hope you don't vote in my RfA. ;)—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 17:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   To be fair, Hipocrite has a valid point, and his reason is not 'Trivial' Mrlittleirish 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree. I think whether or not someone else canvassed for 2 hours on their twitter account shouldn't reflect on the candidate. At most, the possibly canvassed votes should be ignored by the 'crat. Townlake takes the strongest spin on the subject by suggesting the candidate should take accountability for accepting the nominator but I'm not even swayed by that.--v/r - TP 17:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I was suggesting that Hipocrite has a valid point, so he is not opposing for a trivial matter, like you suggested after his !vote. Mrlittleirish 11:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

   The nominator – not exactly a someone else – only canvassed for two hours because he was caught by the IP... And, honestly, this would not be the first RFA sunk by a nominator... Like it or not, the conduct of a nominator may (and, historically, has) influence the behaviour of the !voters. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   This RFA isn't about the nominator, it's about the candidate. And despite whether previous RFAs have been sunk before doesn't mean I don't consider this a trivial issue that could be handled by the 'crats. Supporting such an oppose would, in essence, create an opportunity for gaming the system. Say, if, someone I disliked were running for RFA. I post on my twitter to "support" the candidate. My goal of sinking the candidates RFA would be successful.--v/r - TP 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   IMHO, your analogy is flawed in that, in your example, you would not be the nominator of the candidate de quo. In this case we have a nominator who, clearly liking the candidate, has tried to compromise the normal consensus decision-making process: a very different case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Guilt by association can totally kill an RfA. It shouldn't, but it's known to happen. -- Atama頭 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Salvio - I knew it wasn't an exactly replica of this scenario, but my point is that if we accept the conditions now then it can become that. I just think we should judge a candidate on the candidate's behavior. Let the 'crats sort out any other issues.--v/r - TP 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   Candidate's wiki-lawyering response to Oppose #2. It's ok (though not ideal) for a candidate to not self-nominate... however, by taking another's recommendation, a candidate takes a risk that his nominator might behave inappropriately. The "2 hours" thing simply doesn't matter - it's attempted cheating, be it by candidate or his representative. Accountability. Townlake (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

   I beg to differ. While it's not likely to happen, if someone were to nominate me for such an important role, I would accept the nomination based on my own beliefs of whether I'd fit the role (not necessarily administrator here at Wikipedia, but any role in any part of my life). In doing so, I'd be putting myself out there for others to judge whether I am fitting for the role. That itself is a huge thing for anyone to do, especially somewhere like Wikipedia where a candidate's entire editing history beginning from his or her Day 1 is under a public microscope, and any single indiscretion can and will come to discussion. I do not believe the candidate knew the nominator was going to do something like this, and I believe it's more appropriate that any votes, yea or nay, that could - by community consensus here - result from the off-wiki activity be struck. I do not think a candidate would expect a nominator to cheat, and if a bad RfA process were to result, it might be best to cancel the request and eventually start a fresh one as a self-nom. In this case, the tainting appears minimal. CycloneGU (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose. The main reason I'm opposing this candidacy is the IAR thing I've already pointed out; however, the canvassing incident was the deciding factor which led me to land in this section. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose Several concerns just for the questions answered. Answer to #4, although a relatively good one, seems to be just a BLP argument, and not looking at the whole scope of WP:CSD#G10. Answer to #6 doesn't work in my line of duty, and it raises concerns about uses of IAR that Salvio mentions. Answer to #7 leads me to concern that escalation that happens way too fast. From what i'm reading I could have ended up at ANI or RCFU for a mistake I made recently when it was solved via talkpage. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose primarily because of the canvassing thing. That is no reflection on the candidate but the RfA process must be fair, transparent and seen to be as such. If there are any question marks regarding the process or appointment of an admin that is simply ammunition to disaffected parties in contentious disputes where admins really prove there worth. That undermines the authority of the new admin. I would rather see this candidate go away and come back in a few months rather than lack the complete confidence of the community. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose per Salvio --John (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose for moral grounds, lack of policy knowledge related to personal attacks. Rsrikanth05 left a message on the talk page of an article of which I am a major contributor. A few days later, another editor landed with whom I've never interacted. The editor tried ganging up with Rsrikanth05 on the talk page and accused me repeatedly of having a conflict of interest. The tone of his very first message to rsrikanth05 showed familiarity with the editor. And this is when I've not interacted with either of the editors even once. I warned the second editor to either take the issue to COIN or stop making accusations. Mike Lynch - with whom I've had no interaction - lands up at the page and leaves the following comments targeted at me.
   1. Keep civility before advising others
   2. Before doling out advice on civility, kindly make sure you are contributing to create a conducive editing environment so that other editors may practice civility.
   3. I asked Mike why he wasn't telling the other editor to stop making repeat accusations. I asked Mike if he thought making repeated COI accusations is a personal attack or not. Mike said no he did not consider it a personal attack. Mike's English is good but he has to learn policy better.Suraj845 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   I regularly follow discussions at the India noticeboard, and that is where I found this topic. Please finish the discussion in the relevant talk page and bring it to a logical conclusion. If you are in no mood to keep civility, it is farce to advise others to do so. WP:NPA#WHATIS clearly states that "Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense". I advised you so. You asked me about warning the other editor around a couple of hours back. Please allow people some time to reply to your concerns. Lynch7 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   The relevant discussion is at Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri. Lynch7 04:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   "If you are in no mood to keep civility, it is farce to advise others to do so." How can you say that to me Mike? What incivility have I done on an editor with whom I never interacted? Which line of mine is incivility?Suraj845 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

   I would love to discuss this, but I don't think this is the place to discuss content issues related to the article. Please feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. Lynch7 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose Twitter canvassing? What next? Candidate should withdraw as a mark of respect to those who absolutely despise off-wiki activity relating to Admin. applicants. Leaky Caldron 12:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral MikeLynch didn't substituted {{RfA/time}} template before transcluding his nomination to WP:RFA . This alone isn't enough to oppose, but it doesn't give me confidence to support. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your view. I will admit that I did not substitute the Template before transclusion, but the thing is that I guess the nominator tweaked the script at the top while creation , and I was not sure how to modify it exactly. Thank you for correcting it, and sorry for the inconvenience. Lynch7 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I might change my mind after more thorough inspection tomorrow. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The instructions arn't the simplist.--v/r - TP 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Neutral - Someone here six to eight weeks does not deserve adminship. But I can't see why I should vote oppose. --J (t) 02:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

   So he "does not deserve adminship"?? He is an admin and bureaucrat on the Sanskrit Wikipedia, and an admin on Sanskrit Wiktionary; don 't think en-wiki is the only wiki Lynch edited... --Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

   • Comment. Mike has been consistently editing on en.wp for well over a year. Is it possible you're thinking of someone else? Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

   I think Jeffwang might have been confused by the oppose from Shoessss above, which stated that half of MikeLynch's edits were from a 6-8 week period, and assumed that all of the edits were from that period. -- Atama頭 19:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

   Looking thoroughly through contributions before voting would have been better... --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (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.