Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hmwith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

hmwith[edit]

Closed without consensus by Cecropia 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC) at (38/15/14); Scheduled end time 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmwith (talk · contribs) - I regularly participate in WikiProjects, combat vandalism, make substantial edits as well as minor, tedious fixes, participate in AFD discussions, and upload free images. Plus, I always assume good faith. Also, note that I contributed for several years before creating an account, so I have no simply been participating here for 2.5 months. hmwithtalk 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend on doing a lot of routine maintenance, such as deleting legit speedy delete pages, editing protected pages when it is needed, blocking IP addresses that have gotten several recent "last warnings", and other tasks. I would love to help Wikipedia reach its fullest potential.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I create a great deal of needed templates, upload my own, free images, and fix grammar and such on articles. Everyday, I revert a great deal of vandalism on my watched articles as well as recent changes. I particularly enjoy fixing improperly cited references, as one can see in my edit summaries. I also regularly take part in AFD and other similar discussions, as well as provide third opinions.
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 have been one of two good faith users who didn't know Wikipedia policy. I tried to educate them, used a third opinion, and we reached a compromise. If no one will compromise, I simply take the page or template off of my watchlist, and let it go. In the future, I will always assume good faith, and try to reach a compromise.
Optional question by User:Sefringle
4 What articles have you made a lot of contributions to? Briefly describe your contributions to those articles. What exactly is your bias?
A: My most edited articles include Gesu School and Hayley, both of which I fully created, as well as completely rewriting St. Ursula Academy (Toledo, Ohio), Kings (drinking game), NERF, Beer pong, Asshole (game), and Drinking game to the highest quality with available resources/references, as well as adding a great deal of information to Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Roman Catholic Diocese of Toledo, and Toledo, Ohio. I've also created many templates, including my most edited Guster, Toledo, Spaniels, Mobile phones, and Toy dogs.
5 As you are still a new user, only two months old[1], do you think you fully understand Wikipedia policies? Explain. Do you think your lack of experience editing wikipedia may put you at a disadvantage when it comes to the work you would do if you were to become an admin?
A: I have taken in a lot during these months. I've edited Wikipedia for years, and I feel that I am completely ready to be an admin. I feel that I took in as much information in these months as most would over at least a year, as I've spent more hours on the site since I've been a member than most would in about that long.
5B Clarification question. You say you have edited wikipedia for years, however the log of your account (which I linked above), says you have only been a user for the last two months. Could you please explain?
A: I apologize for poorly wording my response. I edited under IP address for years before making an account, and that is to what I was referring.
Optional question from User:Anthony.bradbury
6 Would you be willing to indicate under which IP address(es) you edited befor getting an account?
A: Oh, geez. I have no idea. I wasn't a regular editor, but, rather, mostly made changes only when I saw errors, such as grammar, misspellings, typos, etc. when researching on here for schoolwork and such. I have no idea what the IPs are. No significant edits, just little things. I'm just saying that I've been on here, familiar with the process for a while.
Optional question from Anynobody
7. Let's assume you are granted sysop status, and you turn out to be wrong about question 5 above. Lets further assume you make many mistakes which cause others much disruption and work. Do you resign and try again later, keep going till you figure out what is lacking, or do something else? (I don't want to lock you into a two choice option hence the something else option)
A: First off, I wouldn't make any reckless changes, but since I'm obviously not faultless, as no one is, let's say, hypothetically, I accidentally, for any reason, caused others much disruption and work. In this situation, I would sincerely apologize and consider resigning out of embarrassment. However, I would opt to instead help with cleaning up my mess, possibly take a Wikibreak after that to clear my head, and press on after getting advice and help from others and learning from my mistakes, working my best to regain the trust of the community.
Optional question from Abu badali
8.: A question regarding your knowledge about the policies you'll be helping to enforce: Suppose you find a picture in some photographer's website that you believe can be useful for a given Wikipedia article. Describe the steps should you take to try have this image used in the article (from contacting the photographer to tagging the image). --Abu badali (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would rather go and take one myself, as I have done for several articles. However, if that was impossible, I would email the copyright owner and ask for their permission to release it under the GFDL adapting the permission requests, as I have done for several images used in the articles Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Ottawa River (Lake Erie), and Sculpture in the Park.
Optional question from Whstchy
9. If you had to clean up one category from here and one category from the admin backlog (link is on the normal backlog page, somehow it won't show), what would they be and why? Time is not a major issue here.
A: From the regular backlog, I would choose Catagory:All pages needing to be wikified, as that's something for which I have a niche, and many other editors seem to disregard. I actually enjoy doing this a great deal, as you can see from my frequent "wikified" edit summaries. From the admin backlog, I would choose Category:Replaceable fair use images, as I have had experience witnessing editors disagreeing and having minor disputes over whether or not an image is replaceable, and I would be of help to sort of these problems, and figure out if the image is truly replaceable at the time.
Optional questions from user:coelacan
10. You have taken images from http://www.ottawahills.org/ (for example http://www.ottawahills.org/SculptureGarden.htm ) and used them in Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Ottawa River (Lake Erie), and Sculpture in the Park. One of these images, Image:Ohsc4.gif, you have dual-licensed with {{GFDL}} and {{cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} under {{self}}, which asserts you as the copyright holder. The others you have marked as {{GFDL}}. You have said that the website gave permission, but the site itself has no obvious indication of permission (correct me if I'm wrong), and there are no OTRS tickets. Can you explain this apparent discrepancy? ··coelacan 16:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: As for Image:Ohsc4.gif, I didn't put on that tag. I put the same tag as the rest, which is peculiar. It must have been changed when it was moved to the commons. As for the others, I wasn't aware at the time that I had to forward the messages to WP. I have emailed the permissions address, and I assume that I will have a response shortly.
The page history says you did use the {{self}} tag. ··coelacan 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have accidentally clicked the wrong tag or something. What I do know is that I didn't put the image in the commons, so I couldn't have provided that exact tag. hmwithtalk 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Ohsc4.gif is a local (en.wiki) image; it's not on Commons. ··coelacan 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. In Q9 you say you'd like to work on replaceable fair use images. Can you make some judgments on Image:Chasemanhatt.jpg, Image:RB history.jpg, Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg, Image:Wycombeareas.jpg, and Image:Eppstein-UC03.jpg? ··coelacan 17:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:It would be different for each image:
  • Image:Chasemanhatt.jpg - Delete, as it’s unnecessary, and other similar images can be found. Plus, it’s not currently used in any articles.
  • Image:RB history.jpg - Hold my decision, as I’d ask the uploader to forward the permission email to Wikipedia, and get get an OTRS ticket to release the image under GFDL. My decision will be made after that has been done (or not done if there isn’t truly permission).
  • Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg - Delete image, as a copyrighted image shouldn’t be used to illustrate the subject, an image of a living person should reasonably be able to be found, and replace the image in the infobox with “no free image”. Plus, the image shouldn’t be used in the infobox in the first place.
hmwithtalk 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:
moved out of voting area
Oppose. Having witnessed Hmwith in action, I am strongly opposed to this applicant becoming an administrator. On the plus side, this applicant is eager and energetic, but I have major concerns. While lack of operational experience and managerial skills s/b a concern, more significant to me was the disturbing behavior I witnessed. General communication skills were lacking, but, more worrisome was the applicant’s combative, irrational, excitable demeanor, with an exaggerated sense of a “need” to “win” the discussion. Most disturbing of all, were the off the wall personal insults Hmwith directed at others. For these reasons, I’m concerned this applicant would become a disruptive influence at Wiki, even possibly engaging in personal vendettas. So much so, I’m not willing to use my account name for fear of retaliation. (Of note, applicant’s responses to questions #s 2, 3 & 7 are in conflict with applicant's actions I witnessed, which included ignoring obvious vandalism while addressing own agenda) For what it's worth, I hire/supervise/evaluate managers as part of my profession. I wouldn't consider this person for a supervisory role with my company. 4.137.196.6 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC) (I looked, but might have missed seeing a policy concerning opinions posted without being logged in. Hopefully, not being logged won't negate my expressed concerns.) — 4.137.196.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Actually, IPs are not counted in RFA. You will have to log in. I don't know where this is written down, but I know for a fact that the bureaucrats will not count your vote unless you log in. ··coelacan 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide proof of said actions? Also, no offense, but you smell like a sock. Whsitchy 14:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am distraught about this. I can't recall any action that I have done. I'm not sure why you're so upset with me as an editor, but I hope that we can come past our differences, whoever you are. I am completely willing to work everything out. If you still want to remain anonymous, then, I suppose not to much can be done. I'll post on your talk page, because I am upset by this situation... which seems very, very extreme from your comment and fear of showing you real name. I am upset that I missed some vandalism if some article, but I will be the first the admit that I'm not 100% faultless, as no one is, and I can't catch every piece of vandalism on every article, although I wish that I could. Please not that I will not personally attacks, so don't worry about that. Thanks for your opinion here, however, and I hope that these strong feelings can be somewhat relaxed in the near future. hmwithtalk 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is silly. She wants to get things done and she wants what is best for the project. She is not disruptive, rather, it is the comments made without any evidence, such as your own, that disrupt the nature of this process. --wpktsfs 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Whs and wpktsfs (who was recently nominated by Hmwith to become an administrator, but declined the nomination): I anticipated and understand such comments in response to my anonymous opinion. However, my fear of retaliation outweighed my concern for such a response. Giving specifics would be too identifying. Believe me, it was a tough decision to post such serious concerns, but I felt that strongly about what I witnessed. So, I spoke. I'll be very happy to be wrong about future disruptive influences by Hmwith. Hmwith, I sincerely wish you and this site well. If reading my concerns has a positive effect on how you deal with issues/people in the future, then my speaking out would have been worth it. I'd prefer that productive result, rather then you being "distraught". With that, I'll bow out since I'm not willing to identify myself. I understand my opinion will be moved elsewhere and not counted. 4.137.196.6 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, we can use a checkuser to ID you, so the "I don't want to ID myself" point is moot. Secondly, I have never been nominated to be an admin (never mind, I see that the anon was refering to wpktsfs). Why are you even saying this, do you have some vendetta against her? Whsitchy 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate from my talk page, no we probably can't do CheckUser. The IP does not appear to be involved in vote-stacking, nor is there any specific suspicion of it being a banned user. CheckUser would not allow simple fishing to find out who this is. ··coelacan 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the above out of the voting area since the IP is unwilling to identify themelf. ··coelacan 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/hmwith before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Cautious support, though I do have some concerns (unrelated to those already raised). — CharlotteWebb 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please enable an e-mail address. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am much more likely to respond to a talk page comment. If anyone has anything to let me know, my talk page should provide a sufficient place to say anything. If it's personal, and anyone really wanted an email address, I would provide one. Would you like one to send me a personal comment? hmwithtalk 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll almost definitely receive e-mail from people you've blocked/who articles you've deleted/etc, so you really should enable e-mail in preparation for that :) Riana ⁂ 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was planning to once I became an admin, but I will do it now. It's been done. Thanks! hmwithtalk 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vote" withdrawn. — CharlotteWebb 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask why please? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmwith has been a encuraging and helpful guide to my Wikipedia account. She is a very kind, top-quality person who has helped numerous users become great Wikipedians. Good luck hmwith! Meldshal42 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Moral support This looks like a lost cause because I (like other users) abide by a somewhat arbitrary standard of 3+ months experience for admin candidates. The distribution of edits is not a problem - every little bit helps. YechielMan 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, the experience thing doesn't bother me much. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Definitely looks good... shame about edit counters and people with arbitary cut off times. Someone doesn't magically become experienced on their three month anniversary. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Experience doesn't just have to be gained with time on the project, it can be gained with experience editing, looking over Hmwiths contribs, I think the user is more than capable to use the tools wisely - hence my Support. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. With respect, I have no idea what the opposers are talking about. 332 edits in the WP namespace is plenty, and 8000 edits is around twice as many as I had when I passed RfA. Even discounting the sandbox and userspace edits, this user has at least 6500-7000 edits. WaltonAssistance! 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per above. Tons of good contributions. Plus my previous interaction with this editor has been all positive. PeaceNT 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. As a fierce enemy of editcountitis and timecountitis, I can't help but to voice my sadness at the use of this criteria to reject a great candidate. I personally had just above 5,000 edits when my RfA passed, and I still have less edits than Hmwith. Seeing that this RfA is unlike to pass at this point, don't feel bad if that happens; your excellent work is much appreciated and valued, and you can count on my support as many times as you need. Love, Phaedriel - 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. You don't need to have written 27 featured articles to become an admin. --Mschel 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support-I never seen nobody with 5000 edits in 1 months and it looks like she is very active on wikipedia.Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. support support with a caveat From her edits, I see nothing to suggest that she would misuse the tools. - TwoOars (T | C) 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too did not like the tone of her comment on Clamster5's RfA which seemed a bit confrontational (whether she meant it that way or not). But of course, I don't think this alone is reason enough to oppose and certainly hope that she words her statements better in future. - TwoOars 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral. - TwoOars 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I am back to support from neutral. Though I still think she's a bit inexperienced, I am going to go with my original instincts here. I am sure she would learn fast and would hold up well under pressure, as she amply demonstrated in this RfA. Sorry for the flip flops :P. This was a particularly difficult RfA I think, as can be seen from the many neutrals and many shifting their stance. - TwoOars 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support The admins that concentrate on maintenance issues are precisely the ones we lack now. WooyiTalk to me? 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seeing how she has handled this RfA has made me change my mind. She is a very fine diplomat and has kept her head high throughout the process. She will make a fine admin. --wpktsfs 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Gutworth. —AldeBaer 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed, though. Gutworth 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons you give are reasons to support. Or maybe comment neutrally, but not enough to oppose. —AldeBaer 10:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Gutworth 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to abstention. Some of Hmwiths' replies are indeed suboptimal and some more experience won't hurt. Not opposing for now, though. —AldeBaer 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per above -Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I see we have several editors here suffering from editcountitis (among other things). Experience comes not with time but with contribution to Wikipedia. --Latish redone (formerly All in) 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Never mind my oppose, good article edits in addition anti-vandal work. --Whsitchy 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Ryan Postlethwaite. Contributions look good; I despise "time" arguments. --Spike Wilbury 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Terence 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - I don't honestly believe you are going to run into difficulties completing the tasks you mention in Q1 and the backlogs need clearing. Addhoc 10:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support. You seem like you will do a good job, but only 2.5 months is slightly unsettling. Abeg92contribs 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Why not? Not insane. Will not grow magical fairy wings on 3 month anniversary. Riana ⁂ 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no she won't... but wouldn't that be beautiful to see? ;) Phaedriel - 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support seems like a good user to me. Acalamari 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Brevity of time could be concerning except there are really no events that suggest she will do anything other than a good job. Absent such evidence I support. JodyB talk 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per above, Unless convinced otherwise. Good answers to my questions.--Sefringle 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Humility is a good quality. Jehochman Talk 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, Per the candidates increase in Wikipedia space edits. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Contribs look good, and the quality of someone's work far outweighs arbitrary metrics. User has shown good understanding in the short period of time and no reason to suspect they'd abuse the tools. Arkyan • (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support- I strongly support hmwith, as I am her first adoptee, and as her adoptee, I don't think anyone could have helped me better. - Groovydude777 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Though user has only been on Wikipedia for a few months, this user had 5000 edits in a single month. With that kind of editing, knowledge of Wikipedia will come very quickly. Captain panda 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Changed from neutral. I think she will do well if given the tools, and I like her answers, including the one to my optional question.--Anthony.bradbury 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Hey, I don't think the amount of time on Wikipedia should factor in all that much, and I believe her when she says she's been editing on ip addresses for a while. I did the same thing. Going on thsi assumption that she knows a thing or two about what's going on here, I'll support. Plus, I'm a nice guy. :) - Bagel7WU TANG! 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I honestly can't see why not. Insisting on "magic numbers" is a very bad idea. Hut 8.5 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: * Hmwith has been a encouraging and helpful guide to my Wikipedia account. She is a very kind, top-quality person who has helped numerous users become great Wikipedians. I think that since she had the work of an expert, Wpktsfs to guide her, she is well-prepared to become an admin. Good luck hmwith! Meldshal42 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, the way that this user has been responding to concerns, especially in the last few days, has indicated to me that this user will have no problem behaving in an acceptable way as an administrator, collaborating with others and asking for advice when necessary.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've seen this user around a lot (guess that says something about how much I've been on wikipedia lately). Very reasonable editor that I think will make an awesome admin. Its so funny to hear people argue about things like how long an editor has been here or how many edits they have logged. Of course these are important to some degree, but there are exceptions...—Gaff ταλκ 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Why the hell not? Ral315 » 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support with reckless abandon --Infrangible 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support despite that your a self-nom who has been active for one month longer than I (generally I wold oppose under those circumstances). you have made alot of edits in about ten weeks, and i loved the response where you said you just go and take picture yourself Black Harry 07:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I have read through the opposition discussions here on your RFA, as well as the support discussions, and looked through your contributions and I feel you could use the tools wisely. --Ozgod 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose for the moment. You only have 332 edits in the Project namespace, but otherwise you seem like a fine nomination. I urge you to try again later. Gutworth 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright I'll ask. I'm dying to know - what is the magic number that suddenly makes you experienced? What would you have said if the number was 333? Or what about 444? Please inform the community of this special number of project space edits that candidates must have before applying to be an admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, this oppose does seem somewhat arbitrary - a good case for the {{shrubbery}} template, I think. WaltonAssistance! 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This "magic number" question comes up a lot in RFAs and I'm sorry to say I have no magic number. I instead try to look at it in context. I could support a RFA with this many Project namespace edits, but most of this user's Project namespace edits have been in the sandbox. Gutworth 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Most of your contribs seem to be vandal reverts. But... there are some with actual content. But... personally, edit count doesn't matter, it's the quality. Most of your edits being vandal reverts, combined with your time here makes me say oppose for now. --Whsitchy 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Despite Creationlaw's comments, I still can't support...RfA's with less then 3 months experience never pass, you just can't prove your knowledge of policy in that time. Do more work in the Wikipedia space...more useful edits - word association makes up about half of your low number of project space edits, something that is NOT good...and come back in two months. You should breeze through then. G1ggy! 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose for now. Per Gutworth. Dfrg.msc 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - with only 2 months of experience (from March 29 to May 28), and only 8190 edits (of these, about 1000 in a sandbox), I don't think this user is really ready to be an admin. (If you had over 10,000 edits, then even with 2 months you may be worth considering; With around 7000 edits, I think you need at least half a year before applying.) Od Mishehu 08:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What? 8,000 edits isn't enough? I became an admin with 4,000 edits and around 4 months experience. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Please note that the only sandbox edits are games. hmwithtalk 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd - I had nearly 8000 edits when I was promoted, but only about 4 months experience. I'm an admin. Is it wrong that I became one without the arbitary cut off times? Majorly (talk | meet) 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Due to concerns above and amount of experience, except for that: Great! The Sunshine Man 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you are canvassing your RfA on your userpage, I suggest removing this. The Sunshine Man 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Canvassing would involve spamming users talk pages, this is simply stating on her userpage that she is running for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: [Copy/pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate]: "While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfAs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{Rfa-notice}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed." Thanks! hmwithtalk 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to say the same thing. Nick 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Insufficient experience in project-space -- this objection is not based on an arbitrary number, but a legitimate expectation that an admin candidate should have some seasoning in admin-related tasks before being given the mop. If the candidate knows of no other alternative, I suggest commenting regularly at XfDs for a few weeks -- that will demonstrate the sort of knowledge I'm looking for. Xoloz 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - well I believe experience is more important then edit counts and you have been here for just over 2 months which is still too low for my liking but you have 8000 plus edits which is very good but I believe if you had waited fro another 3 months before applying..I would have supported you no questions asked..--Cometstyles 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I respect your contributions, and the opinions of those who have supported, but I count myself among those who are uneasy with only 2 months on this account. Your answer to Q3 is very brief; either enticingly so or worryingly so. If you haven't yet been so damn frustrated with Wikipedia that you just want to scream, I'd like to wait until you have. ;-) 2 months is still the honeymoon. ··coelacan 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose at this time. There are some things that just take time to learn, and two months is much too short a time to become truly familiar with the arcane intricacies of Wikipedia. I do not distrust the user, but I do not yet trust them with the sysop tools. Please keep working and editing and learning, however, and I will be glad to support at a future time. -- nae'blis 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't managed to say why you don't trust her. What is your arbitary cut off time? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; my standards can be found here. I prefer six months experience (three bare minimum for an exceptional candidate), substantial edits as compared with me-too-ism and gnomish fixing of typos and redirects, and more experience with project space than this user has. In addition, this oppose seems overly confrontational, and I don't like the attitude expressed therein (plus itns not based in policy or encyclopedic consideration). -- nae'blis 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As there is no policy for your deadlines for opposing me, there is no policy for my opinion of who would make a good admin. It's all the vibe that one gets from the editor, and what those casting their opinions' personal standards are for admins. Everyone has different opinions. I also went back and completely reworded the statement, still with the same meaning, but less confrontational, I believe. After sleeping on it, I also decided to move my vote to neutral, as that would not as much be a reason to oppose, but, rather, a reason to not support. On a different note, those basic tasks that you claim that I do a great deal of proves that I could be a great admin, as I would take care of built up maintenance tasks, which is just the type of admin needed right now, in my opinion. Cheers. hmwithtalk 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and I could have worded that better. But I still see a world of difference between non-policy "I don't see enough evidence of experience from this user" and non-policy "I don't like that you asked another user to nominate you in this one process". Per your comment on my talk page, I see you've reworded to Neutral there, so everyone here should be aware of your willingness to accept criticism with aplomb, and act on it when you agree. -- nae'blis 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for now. While Hmwith has been very polite and friendly during our interactions and has handled constructive criticism well, I cannot in good faith support any editor's RfA when just last month they were moving articles via cut-and-paste or did not know how fair use rationale worked. Additionally, while Hmwith's 8100 edits are most impressive at first blush, I admit to being more than a little disquieted by the fact that over 3300 of them (or about 40%) are to her own userspace. Once Hmwith has had a few more months of experience with the nuances of Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and procedures (and a while lot fewer userspace edits), I look forward to casting a support vote in her next RfA. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Serious lack of experience, and concerns that user is a little too keen to get the mop. TigerShark 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you figure that I am too keen? I would only love the be an admin this summer, as I have a great deal more free time in the summer to edit Wikipedia, since I don't have classes. However, I haven't previously said that, so what did I do to make you feel this way? I'll be positive to fix anything that gives off that vibe! hmwithtalk 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Hmwith that this oppose seems rather unfair. Given the immense backlogs that build up at CAT:CSD and elsewhere, being "keen to get the mop" is hardly a bad thing. WaltonAssistance! 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but a lot of users apply for adminship when they have very little experience and are keen for the wrong reasons. The backlogs are not a big problem and one extra admin is not going to make a whole lot of difference. We need to be careful that users don't want to be admins because they feel that it gives them status, an ego boost etc and this leads to problems later. Not every one that applies has these reasons but it is common enought to raise a red flag. However, the fundamental problem here is lack of experience, backlogs are irrelevant. TigerShark 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet a lot of users do want it for status or ego boosts, and I suppose you do have to be careful. hmwithtalk 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose You say that you want to be involved in blocking users, but I see no history of AIV activity. You say that you are interested in deletion, but I see very little XFD activity. You do have a ton of edits, but it is hard to filter out what your project contribution really is because it appears that at least half of your edits are to your own user space or to Sandbox/Word Association, etc. I really don't see a strong need for the tools and I don't feel that you have been here long enough for me to have a true picture of how you will interact with other users. —comment added by After Midnight(t/c) 10:35, May 30, 2007
    I'm very involved in reverting vandalism and warning those users, and I've reported several who had gotten many "last warnings". I've nominated a bunch of articles for speedy delete and several for AfD. However, I could have made more edits to XfD discussions, and I have been. Please also note that most of the edits to my userspace are due to the fact that I use it to edit/create articles, templates, and tables. hmwithtalk 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Lack of experience in project-space. Experience with administrative tasks is an issue that I do not feel has been adequately addressed. Daniel 10:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Seems nice enough but barely 2 months experience is obscenely small. I mean. When I was given the mop, I had 6 months (and 10,000 or so edits) under my belt and I still had no clue what I was doing the first few months. Just needs more experience. I'd suggest going to AN and AN/I and spending as much time as possible there. Seems like a very nice user. And in 2-3 months, I'll support her. But right now it's too soon. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obscenely small"? With respect, this wording seems a little strong. And I have precisely 0 lifetime edits to either AN or AN/I, either before or after I became an admin. Nor have I ever seen it brought up as a requirement at RfA. WaltonAssistance! 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You misread my post. The obscenely small is about the 2 months of edits NOT the not posting to AN or AN/I. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose-Edit count: ok, but edit count isn't as important as experience, which has only been 2 months (on this account). You haven't told us any of the IP's you've contributed on, so I can only judge from these 2 months. Wait until at least 6 months to get familiar with policies and how to handle situations. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8000 edits isn't enough experience for you? I had 4 months experience when I became an admin - experience can come with editing rather than time on the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan, 3,000 of those edits are to the userspace. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's 5,000 that aren't to judge the candidate by. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to see a little more time. Also, as said above, until after someone mentioned it in her RFA, she didn't have a lot of WP space edits. It seems since then, she's been trying to build them up, which is good, but isn't going to help in the middle of an RFA. 2-3 months more. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but he's a her ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I'm not comfortable with the short amount of time you've been here. I don't think you've had enough experience of disputes on Wikipedia to judge how you would react to them. Your contributions to XfDs aren't enough to get much of a knowledge of policy (I agree with EVula's analysis below). You're doing great work and I hope you keep it up but I think you need to contribute a while longer before I'd be comfortable with supporting you. WjBscribe 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Wow, a fantastic body of contributions in just two months time. But... in just two months time. Personally, I'm extremely hesitant to promote someone so quickly after joining the project. I see very little involvement in project areas where I could see that you've got a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The few XfD discussions I've found and read don't really suggest that you're basing your opinions on policy (such as !voting to keep a template because "I like having these" [2]). I'd suggest coming back in a few months, and getting involved in XfD and the like in the meantime. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: Thanks for you constructive criticism. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to go through my edits. However, for the record, in that edit about a userbox for deletion, I later retracted my comment, rewording it, presenting that the edit count userboxes are positive to the community. hmwithtalk 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. That withstanding, I feel that my other concerns are valid, though. You're a great candidate, but it's just too soon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Good effort for two months of effort on the project. Get some more experience in the project space and reference the policies and guidelines in XfD/WikiTalk debates when you contribute and I will probably support in a few months' time. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Comment She's cute in real life. If that makes a difference Creationlaw 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be a young male, but hopefully my RfA standards aren't quite that shallow... :-) WaltonAssistance! 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Just too new to the project...otherwise, looks pretty decent. Try again in a few months. Jmlk17 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral This is hard for me to be neutral on, since I adopted her. However, I personally do not feel that she is fully ready to be an admin. I do not doubt her ability to be an admin, but I do feel that there are a few things that can be improved. Just as a child does not stop learning when he reaches adulthood, a new editor does not stop learning things after adoption. I think this is a quick jump of the gun, and I recommend having Hmwith go through editor review first. I have 100% faith that she will become an admin one day, and I look forward to the day when I can give her a strong support. --wpktsfs 01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I would like to see more contributions and constructive activity from this editor before I would support an adminship. I opine that this RfA is rather premature. --Fahrenheit451 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed To Support #Neutral, I'm very impressed by the number of edits, but the lack of experience bothers me. Also the fact that you have only 330 something edits on "Wikipedia" space. Otherwise, I like what I see. Try in three months and I will support.
    --Random Say it here! 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)    [reply]
    How is 8,000 edits a lack of experience? Surely we should be judging the candidate on the ability to use the tools correctly. My experience shows that this user can be trusted. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You contradict yourself so badly :) Impressed by the edit count, but find him inexperienced... then you say only 330 Wikipedia edits. Then you like what you see, so you suggest come back in three months... good grief... Majorly (talk | meet) 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All I was saying was that I feel that an editor needs around 4 months experience before I like to vote for them. There is no reason to jump on me. --Random Say it here! 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, per above, and per Gutworth (talk · contribs) and Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs). This might be a good candidate later, but give it some more time and experience. Smee 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  7. Neutral We do need more admins, and I believe it is possible to be prepared for this in the amount of time you've been here. My main concern is that if I'm wrong you could create a lot of work, whereas admins are supposed to reduce the overall amount of work. I was hoping you'd answer my question by saying something like "If I turn out to be a disaster because of inexperience I'd resign and try again later." Anynobody 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I like your strong stance on civility. I'm kind of worried about your length of time here. Is there a way to see your edits as an anonymous editor? Or am I not allowed? Why would you stay anonymous for an extended period of time? It could push me to strongly support. Orangemarlin 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't been consistently editing, but simply here and there, while at school, usually. hmwithtalk 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Needs to moderate her responses. (like for example, the comments that Nae'blis mentioned and the response to TigerShark above).- TwoOars 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the wording. If you go through my contribs, you will find that I don't have a history of defensive wording. It's difficult not to get flustered here, obviously, and I must remain cool and levelheaded, thus, after sleeping on it, I reworded my comments. I hope that they are okay now. hmwithtalk 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I am going back to support again. - TwoOars 08:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - Both in your reply to my question, as in the images you asked for permission, you failed to remember to change the email with the permission to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (as explained in WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed), so that the permission can be documented and analyzed by others. Make sure to add the OTRS number to the images you mentioned. --Abu badali (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I want to change to support, but would like first to see some sort of answer to question 6. Chasnged to support--Anthony.bradbury 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral – I'm completely on the fence here. I'd like not to be biased against a candidate on the basis of time, but a two-month span does seem rather short. I see no evidence of the requisite understanding of Wikipedia's policies, but then neither do I see ignorance. Your answer to question #5 is reassuring, if unsupported. I see no reason to trust or mistrust you. Just my two cents. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral: Wow, this is a tough one. I'm also on the fence here as well. Excellent editor and I have seen you around on AfD. I really really like what I see but for some reason I just can't get over how new this account is. For me, it's not so much the edit counts. I've seen people granted adminship with 2,000 edits (but then again, that was 2 years ago). I value consistency a lot more. Although I know people will say ad nauseum that there shouldn't be a time frame but rather experience which are mutually exclusive, time nevertheless is important to me; and to me # of edits doesn't necessarily equal experience and I've been here long enough for anyone to try and convince me otherwise. I just think this is too premature. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral Much like Madman bum and angel (talk · contribs), I think your time with a registered account is a bit shorter than I would normally be comfortable with. I don't see anything that makes me want to oppose, but I don't see anything that compels me to support right now either. My 2 cents is to spend a bit more time in the Wikipedia space (WP:ANI, WP:AFD, policy talkpages, etc) and try again in a few months if this particular RFA does not succeed. You are a promising candidate; for me it is just a bit too early though.--Isotope23 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral. Like others, I am really on the fence with this one. On one hand, I think you're a good editor. However, I really think you need more experience under your belt before you make the plunge to be an admin. I also feel that some of your answers show this inexperience. I'd be happy to support in the future, but I still wish you luck this time around. --132 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral, leaning towards support. The nominee seems to be unexperienced in editing and discusssing the really controversial articles. Sorry, and please come again later. Ukrained 09:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Out a curiosity and for future reference, what do you consider controversial? hmwithtalk 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hmwith&oldid=1147979999"