Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RHM22

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

RHM22[edit]

Final (78/16/8). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @ 17:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

RHM22 (talk · contribs) – I'm not sure that I should give an opinion on myself, but I do believe that I'm qualified. Currently, I have helped promote three articles to featured status (one was in cooperation with Wehwalt, one list to featured status, two articles to good article statues (one of which was later promoted to FA) and I have created or expanded five DYK articles. I am currently a reviewer, rollbacker and file mover. Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to voice their opinion!-RHM22 (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: My main reason for requesting adminship is so that I might move and merge mistitled pages. Though this is my main concern, I would also be interested in helping to work on the administrative backlogs or perform other actions either upon request or when I come across something that needs to be done. I understand if anyone would oppose to do my admittedly limited area of interest.-RHM22 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (Just a note, I meant to say that I would like to move pages over redirects and such.-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My personal favorite contributions is the featured content mentioned earlier.-RHM22 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes, to an extent. Once, approximately three or four months ago, an editor was inserting what I believed to POV in an article relating to the Tyson Chicken corporation. I reverted a couple of times, but the editor later inserted something a compromise which seemed very fair.-RHM22 (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from 28bytes
4. You mention helping out with the administrative backlogs. Which ones interest you? Which ones don't interest you?
A: I'm most interested in articles for speedy deletion and requested moves. I'm not really interested in blocking and unblocking, but I would do that if I came across a situation that required it. In other words, I'm mostly interested in article content and less in other matters, but I would not be adverse to helping out in those areas as well.-RHM22 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jasper Deng
5. Do you know what constitutes a BLP violation and if so, how would you deal it as a non-admin and as an admin?
A: Sorry, I misunderstood your question earlier. Like I said, I haven't worked much in the BLP category, but I believe I have a fairly good idea of what constitues a violation. Obviously, anything defamatory is to be avoided, and any potentially controversial statement (either positive or negative) needs to be sourced to a reliable website, publication or what have you. If I came across someone who was in violation of the policy, as a non-admin, I would issue a warning based on the level of disruptive editing or vandalism that the user had taken part in. As an admin, I would do the same unless the editor began adding disruptive content consistently. At this point, it would be appropriate to block the user, though the amount of time would depend on the severity of what the user had done.-RHM22 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
6. Would you ever consider getting a Wikipedia-related tattoo? Why or why not?
A: That's a new one! No, I would not get any tattoo, because I don't believe in body modification of any kind. Of course, if I was editing an article on someone who did have a tattoo, I would not let my personal viewpoint influence my editing!-RHM22 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from MauchoEagle
7. In your opinion (not from policy) are blocks placed on user accounts punitive or preventive?
A: I would say both, though I suppose the reasoning depends on the admin that issued it. Some admins might feel the need to issue a block solely as punishment, but I believe that most would probably be most interested in preserving the quality of the encyclopedia.-RHM22 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ebe123
8.Could you write a text opposing yourself, and then make a rebuttal?
A: I would do it as such: Oppose I do not believe that this user needs the administrative tools, as he/she appears to edit almost exclusively within a very confined area. Also, this editor has engaged in a content dispute recently, which is unbecoming of a potential administrator. Personally, I would probably not issue a rebuttal, because the editor would have an opinion and my responding would be unlikely to change that. That said, if I did issue a rebuttal, it would probably read as follows: I must disagree with the oppose, as I believe that adminstrative tools would in fact help me to improve Wikipedia, even if it was just in that one section. The fact is, though, that I have edited other sections, and I have stated above that I would be glad to assist in reducing the administrative backlogs. As for the edit dispute, I agree that I should not have taken part in that, but it seemed prudent that I should not allow what I viewed as POV to stay in the article.-RHM22 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from ErikHaugen
9. How would you close this move request? Please list everything that you would do, and explain why.
A: Well, I know little about fish, so I can't give an opinion on whether or not the requested move is valid. However, I would wait for consensus, and once it was achieved, I would act accordingly. I would absolutely not move any page that may be controversial (such as US/British spellings and that sort of thing), unless consensus was achieved in favor of moving.-RHM22 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my earlier answer, were consensus achieved, I would move "Pollock" to "Pollack" and delete "Pollock", leaving the DAB page. The page currently titled "Pollack" would be moved to "Pollack (disambiguation)". Hopefully that wasn't worded confusingly!-RHM22 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. If I may follow up again; it sounds like you are saying you would move Pollock (disambiguation) to Pollock? If so, why would you do that? What policies/guidelines come in to play? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would not move the DAB page. I would move the "Pollock" page to "Pollack", replacing what is currently titled "Pollack" to "Pollack (disambiguation)". In other words, "Pollock" would become a redirect to "Pollack". I know I worded my original explanation confusingly!-RHM22 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I meant to say that "Pollock" would redirect to "Pollock (disambiguation)", which would also have a link to the fish.-RHM22 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Chzz
10. Is it appropriate to add the names of staff (principle/headmaster, teachers, etc) to an article about a school?
A: Though I have no experience in this topic, I'll give an answer based on what I believe to be true and not what I know for certain. My answer would be no, in most cases. In almost every case, faculty are not notable and shouldn't be mentioned. In some cases, it might be notable, such as the Dean of Harvard or something like that. If you're talking about high schools or lower, then the faculty should probably never be listed, except where unusually notable, and even then it would only be headmasters. Students should never be listed, especially if underaged.-RHM22 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally optional additional question from Kudpung
11. Hypothetical situation based on Q7: An established editor with a clean block log and no history of disruptive editing calls another editor an 'obtuse jerk'. The insulted editor immediately takes the matter to WP:AN/I with simply the diff and 'Deal with this'. Not knowing that the plaintiff has a long history of incivility, personal attacks, and obscene commentary, an admin closes very quickly with: 'Unless you apologize within 24 hours, I will block you.' What's your take on this?
A: This is obviously not something that I would approve of. While I still believe that many blocks are performed as partly punishment, the most important reason is to keep unhelpful edits or vandalism off of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone should ever be blocked for being rude one time, unless it's a really long running issue or it spills over into the article space. I don't mean to make assumptions, but I think you might have misunderstood my answer to question 7. What I meant is that most blocks serve a dual purpose, both to punish someone for doing something wrong and also to keep them from harming the encyclopedia further. Of course the latter is more important, but I believe it would be naive to assume that the former never comes into play. A lot of people, even minor vandals, could one day be constructive editors. If they add good content, vandalize, and are blocked, they might learn from the block and begin adding good content again. So, in other words, a block is mostly preventative, but also correctional. That's my take anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Swarm
12. You come across an article about a fictional organization from a series of books; the article clearly makes no indication of notability and, as such, it's tagged with {{db-a7}}. How do you handle it?
A: If it's just something that someone made up (Such as "Bobby is a character in my short story"), then I would delete it. If it's from something potentially notable, I would nominate it for deletion in order to achieve consensus before simply deleting it. I think it's a good idea to get consensus on most deletions that are not obvious spam, libel, or nonsense. For instance, most locations and characters from the Lord of the Rings are probably notable, but characters from a one-episode TV series probably isn't, but it would seem prudent to achieve some sort of consensus amongst editors in order to avoid an abuse of administrator powers.-RHM22 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ancient Apparition
13. Where would tagging an article for speedy or proposed deletion be appropriate and when is it necessary to get more outside opinions on the matter by discussing it at Articles for deletion?
A: Well, the obvious answer would be that articles which are obvious nonsense ("Bobby is ugly lol") should be speedied, but other ones that are more questionable should be put up for AfD. An example of the latter would be an article on a subject that may not be notable, but is not so obvious that it merits immediate deletion.-RHM22 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hobit
14. This is a followup to 13. Say you have an article on a person that has sources but it's plain they aren't notable. Say they are a used-car salesman and the sources are just a link to their resume and a brief quote in a letter-to-the-editor in a small local paper while the article just describes their current job. What speedy criteria, if any, applies? Now say that there were no sources at all. What process should be used in that case?
A: The article would probably be deleted. Of course, resumes and letters to the editor aren't reliable sources, but the lack thereof doesn't necessarily mean that the subject isn't notable. Still, I would likely delete the article, since an average used car salesman isn't notable. Depending on what is written in the article, I believe that two criteria might apply. The first, and most obvious, would be that the subject is not notable. The second potential criterion would be that the article is promotional, but that would not apply in every case, as it is possible that the article could be neutral. I would use the same process for the unsourced article as the sourced one, since sources don't make something or someone notable. I'm not sure if you want the exact criterion name (A5, F6 etc). I could find that if you want, but I would have to look it up to find the exact letter/number code.-RHM22 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I would like the exact code if you could. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! If the article was also promotional, it would fall under G11 and A7. If not, it would just be A7. Please note, though, that I had to look up the answer and did not know the codes from memory.-RHM22 (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind this is an open book exam.  :-) Hobit (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Monty845
15. Sorry to ask another deletion related question, but I think it needs further clarifying. Suppose you come across an article that is 7 days old, created by an new acount, and has never been edited by anyone else. It says "John Doe, of Poughkeepsie, New York, is a political commentator who has been widely recognized for his commentary on environmental issues." Assuming you are unable to locate any sources if you search, what action if any would you take?
A: This is a little tricky for me. Like I always say, it depends on the exact situation, but based on your scenario, it sounds like the commentator could potentially be notable. In this case, I think that I would first contact the author (assuming the article was created in good faith) and ask why he/she believes the subject to be notable. At the very least, the editor may not become discouraged and go on to create some good content. Best case scenario, he/she finds some sources that really show the subject's notability. Obviously I could perform a Google search myself, but sometimes that might not catch everything. I've written about some very notable topics that are heavily discussed in literature but not online, so a quick internet search isn't the last line of defense. If the author couldn't show that the subject is notable, then I would either delete it or nominate for AfD if I'm still not sure. Actually, I would give every editor a personal message about why their page was deleted except in cases of obvious libel, vandalism or spam. I made a lot of mistakes in my early edits, and I'm sure we all have as well, so I always find it best to leave a nice note if a new editor needs to be reverted or deleted, just so they don't get discouraged.-RHM22 (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from My76Strat
16. If a user, in good standing, (8,000 edits, no blocks, and good stats,) is suddenly blocked 48hours for vandalism, requests to be unblocked, and advises you they forgot to log out from their account and their roommates played a joke and caused the vandalism. How would you handle that unblock request? My76Strat (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: I had to look up the answer to this, because I'm not well versed in the ins and outs of the blocking policy. According to policy, the account could not be unblocked, because it has been compromised and also because there's no way to prove that the person didn't add the vandalism themself.-RHM22 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good answer. I didn't ask the question because I necessarily expected you to know the answer from memory. It's fine if you do, but reflects better that you looked it up to be sure. After all it is an open book evaluation, and the best way to consider a thing where you are not sure is to exactly seek the correct answer. To my question, your answer is exactly what I had hope to see. Just to be sure, the compromised account would require an indefinite block with instructions to create a new account. My76Strat (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ankit Maity
17. Suppose suddenly one day Wikipedia shut down of bankruptcy. What action are you going to take?
A: Well, I suppose I would stop editing if that happened. Other than that, there would not be much else to do!-RHM22 (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

I also have discussed the questions and the course of this RfA with the nominee on his talk page. I've given him no specific advice. He doesn't need any!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just me or does anyone else fail to see the relevance in Q17? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:53pm • 02:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't anything new. I've seen countless "unrelated" questions ask (see also Q6), so it's really no big deal.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Strong support I've been privileged to work with RHM22 as informal mentor, and he's a fast learner, a fine writer, and a voice of common sense whereever he goes. Well deserves adminship.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support While I normally like to see more experience in the WP space, they're a content-focused editor, and I see nothing that would lead me to believe that they would misuse the mop. Furthermore, their answer to my question was spot on and I'm confident they have enough clue to work in CSD. Also, per Wehwalt; if that's an accurate reflection of this user (which I trust it is), RHM has everything they need to be a good admin. Swarm X 18:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC) updated 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks to be a good collaborative editor, can't see them misusing the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Seems like a good candidate. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting since your query is yet un-answered. Mlpearc powwow 19:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ebe123's question is more of a thought experiment than something needed to judge a support over. Swarm X 20:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I think you handled experiment No.8 very well. No qualms here. Mlpearc powwow 21:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Candidate seems clueful. Has shown pride while editing after a careful look into his contributions. I came to a few pauses while going through the candidates archives and I am very much impressed with the amount of contributions you have made at DYK. Shows intelligence while answering questions. And in my opinion, the content dispute the candidate engaged in, whiles it was stupid, it was not a big deal as to warrant a block. Will make a good administrator. Looking forward to seeing you mop up the admin backlogs some day. Also, RHM22 has shown civility and no lack of communication on his talk page which is a detail I look for in adminship candidates. And I commend the candidate for his answer to experiment No.8 above me. mauchoeagle 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - Good Wikipedian, knows his way around the project, knowledgable, helpful, works well with others, couldn't ask for anything better in an admin than that. Give this man a mop. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I'm going to support you here. Besides the limited experience in project space, I don't have any other big concerns. Don't disappoint me. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Three FACs will give you much more [useful] experience than hundreds of edits to the various noticeboards and one doesn't get articles through FAC by being an imbecile—it's something I've just about managed once, and that's with twice RHM22's tenure and nearly 15 times his edit count, which just goes to show that there is much more to RfA than the pie chart. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Keepscases (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support if he is able to wade through the questions submitted he as the ability to deal with vandals and other unhappy people. Also anyone with three FAs has the policy knowledge to do well. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Adminship is no big deal, and this clueful and experienced content editor will have, in my opinion, no issues with the tools. That being said, it would be good if you got more experience in a wider variety of areas. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - While the edit count is low, 3 FAs indicates that those edits must be well thought out. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the lack of contributions to AIV/UAA/RFPP/CSD/AFD etc. worry me a bit. Please be careful when getting into them, and go in slowly. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support – Content contribution. FAC process veteran. I'd actually multiply edit count by 5 to get a better approximation with a dedicated gnome editor. Lambanog (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Since your project-space edit count is pretty low, I'd suggest easing into adminship slowly if you get it at this RFA. But I really don't think limited time in the project space matters that much as long as you've got Wikipedia's primary goal-- building an encyclopedia-- in mind, and you clearly do. If this RFA doesn't pass, try again later and maybe get some more project-space edits in the meantime. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I don't see any reason not to trust him with the tools. It looks like the worst case scenario is that he'd spend too much time writing featured articles to the neglect of ANI drama. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great article writing. Minima© (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support He has the policy knowledge he needs by contributing to articles. Wants to move some articles around or delete/not delete some? Great. More interested in content than other matters? Perfect.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I like the "not a big deal" attitude of this candidate. Also, his/her interaction with other editors seems to be honest and well-intentioned. Moreover, the experience with featured content suggests that RHM22 has a decent idea of how Wikipedia operates. This person appears to have the "diplomacy" and good faith needed for the job, and s/he will quickly learn about the specific aspects of the admin work. Good luck, RHM22. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support changed to oppose, see below -- because I like the work and the realistic judgment of their own capabilities. If this does not pass now, I'd recommend investing in a little diversified experience and trying again in a few months. After the many recent RFAs on candidates with problematic records where the question is one of trust, and the discussion is therefore inevitably unpleasant, it'dsnot encouraging to see a candidate possibly rejected with a clean record that is merely not as complete as it should it. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. per Ajraddatz. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I can see that you're contributions to the WP space don't amount to a huge lot. That'll be your only criticism from me however, and nothing that you've done here is disappointing or non-constructive. You have my faith that you will do nothing other than good if granted the tools. Orphan Wiki 11:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Trustworthy and a good editor, be stupid not to let them have tools. Egg Centric 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Despite low-ish experience, I think he'd do just fine. Adminship is not rocket science. Pichpich (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Some points of value in opposition, but I think you'd be cautious - so support per WP:NETPOS. Pedro :  Chat  14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Have read through this RfA to date, and reviewed addressed nominee's work in those & other areas. Likely to improve edit count whether this passes or fails, and see no reason why quality should not be recognized. Dru of Id (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Content quality is recognised with FA/GA status, not necessarily by awarding administrative tools Jebus989✰ 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that where I meant work, I specified that. Dru of Id (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support This reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7. I opposed Hawkeye7 for reasons somewhat similar to those being voiced in the "oppose" section of this RfA. Out of all my votes at RfA, if I had to pick one to reverse, that would be the one. I can't do that, of course, but I can offer my support to a similar current candidate. RHM22 has contributed some impressive content to the encyclopedia, and he's had the dedication to elevate four articles to FA status and two others to GA status. His responses to Q11 and Q12 show that he'd bring a common-sense approach to admin tasks, which certainly is very welcome. In short, I'm confident that RHM22 would have a smooth transition to adminship. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support regretfully. Regretfully in that I've enjoyed your series of articles on esoteric numismatics, and this passing is likely to delay further entries, but many of the standard edit count and time things looked for at an RFA are useless when a candidate has 3 FA's and an FL. Take it slowly, realise that other admins are here to guide you, and you'll be fine. Courcelles 01:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're the one that read them!-RHM22 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. support I think the concerns held by the opposes about CSD are 100% valid and I sincerely hope you'll read and watch for a month or more before deleting anything there. That said, your answers have largely been good, and more importantly, measured and thoughtful. Quality content contributions and a good head on your shoulders is enough. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support the candidate has multiple featured content, more than most of the opposers could ever even dream of having. I would, however, recommend caution before using tools related to speedy deletion. AD 12:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak support - The candidate has good contributions and judgment. I have concerns though about their experience in some administrative areas but believe they would make good decisions with the tools.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. We need more article writers as administrators. Writing an FA means he's capable of knowing Wikipedia policies. Secret account 19:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - has enough clue. Kansan (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support - The user appears to understand the policies of Wikipedia through his articles (particularly his FA article), whilst appearing refreshing and open-minded - reflecting the ideals of the Wikipedian society. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Knowledgeable user, outstanding content contributor, though I share Courcelles' concerns: don't stop your content work if you can! =) Though, if the user is promoted I'd suggest that they give seemingly hopeless articles a chance before deleting them (that's a last resort), I do understand that their speedies have all been correct but some of the basis for opposition is in relation to "trigger-happy speedy tagging". —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:03am • 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, and I agree completely. I didn't mention it earlier, I would absolutely leave a note on the article creator's talk page, sometimes before deleting it and sometimes after in the case of really bad (but good faith) stuff.-RHM22 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Seems good. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support – A really good editor. I totally loved the answer to Q15. I trust RHM22 :) Novice7 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - would be a useful addition to the mop crew! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 10:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support the only question here is one of trust. Can this user be trusted not to abuse the tools? Based on his record, I think so. Lovetinkle (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, mainly per Vejvančický. My main concern was that the candidate didn't have a strong understand of administrative policies and was apt to "play it by ear" rather than investigating what the relevant policies and guidelines were before acting, but later answers to the questions suggest he's willing and capable of finding the appropriate information, albeit after a little bit of poking in a couple of cases. Other concerns were the CSD issues pointed out by WSC (people are still putting A1 tags on a minute after creation?), the lack of any edits of AIV, UAA or RFPP, and the limited involvement in deletion debates. Ironically, if I thought the candidate was planning to spend a lot of time on admin duties, I would probably withhold support for now and recommend spending a few months getting more experience in those areas first. But judging from the candidate's contribution history and comments in this RfA itself, his interest is clearly in content creation, and I can't really object to giving the tools to a trusted, clueful editor with a good temperament and solid article-building experience. 28bytes (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Here's a candidate with experience and, I would say, a general trust of this community. Seems very good, no reason to oppose. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I think RHM would be a very good administrator. His responses to the questions indicates that he's willing to take the time to look up the right way to use the tools if there is an issue to which he cannot immediately figure out how to respond. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Fully confident that RHM22 can be trusted, and will be a net positive to the project. The content creation is commendable and engenders extra credibility when issues of deletion may be a consideration. My76Strat (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support we need more people doing history merges. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. It's taken me a while to decide on this one, with my concern really being a relative lack of experience and very little clear experience in deletion-related areas. However, seeing the way the candidate has handled this RfA (which many would find stressful), has kept cool, has interacted positively, and has responded to questions (a number of which are about deletion), I think I see someone who will take care, and will be especially careful over deletions, and I've decided to support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. A lack of experience, but that is low risk given the candidate's profile and likely areas of activity as an administrator. I agree with the comment above that "if I thought the candidate was planning to spend a lot of time on admin duties [to which I would add one qualifier: contentious admin duties], I would probably withhold support for now". --Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per the people above who have pretty much said it all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak Support - As you're a trustworthy and capable editor, I'm sure that if you have any questions about a closure or the like, you'll ask someone else for help or to step in. That being said, the lack of admin experience is a bit troubling, but you're a good candidate. ceranthor 14:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I have to admit that I'm disappointed that all our discussions about RFA haven't changed anything yet. Here we have an editor that someone should have talked to before the RFA got started; just a little attention to demonstrating competence in admin areas would have saved us a whole lot of drama here. And just a little clearer feedback from the community to Arbcom about what kinds of slip-ups should result in demopping would go a long way toward dealing with the highly justified anxieties I see in the oppose section about what could go wrong here. I wasn't going to vote ... but I just have to support someone who cares so little about their RFA that they're working on at least 3 FACs during the course of this one (one of which just got promoted). Priorities are clearly in the right place. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Everyone on RFA always complains that we need more admins who just write articles to run. There's one right here, so there you guys go. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I think the answer to my(9) and Swarm's(13) questions aren't quite right, but they're right enough where it counts and I think this editor is trustworthy to not misuse the tools. And WP:RM needs help. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - lack of experience? Maybe. Here to build an encyclopedia? Definitely. I have full confidence that this user has enough clue to make up for what he might not yet know. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support – generally appears to be sensible, collaborative, and there's reason to believe he would be cautious enough with use of admin tools; otherwise the lack of experience in admin-related areas would be more concerning. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Despite a slightly low edit count, 3 FA's are pretty impressive. He has responded well to questions thrown at him. I think this guy is ready to hold the mop. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 05:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. I've interacted with him at FAC, and he seems like a straight-shooter. I have no reason to think he'd misuse the admin's tools. --Coemgenus 14:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - see no reason from his behavior at FAC and on articles that he would abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Fully qualified candidate, in my view. I am sure the candidate will more cautiously at first in the areas in which he has relatively less experience. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support—I see a net positive admin here whom I can trust with the tools. Airplaneman ✈ 22:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support- Great Candidate, good contributions (5 DYKs, helping with three FAs etc.) won't abuse the tools (even if he only uses it for select areas, although I believe he will be helpful where ever needed). @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Somewhat concerned about his policy knowledge, but at least RHM22 has common sense. This appears to be a similar situation as to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain. NW (Talk) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support (moved from neutral). I've been thinking a lot about this one, and have decided to move to the support group. While it's true that I generally prefer to see more time before getting those extra buttons, the temperament, maturity, and skill set here (along with the fact that Wehwalt thinks enough of him to nom) have pushed me into changing my !vote. I get the impression that even if (s)he does make a mistake, he'll take any forthcoming advice constructively, repair the damage, and learn from the error. In the end, I'd rather have admins with common sense, compassion, and an even temper, than ones who just have a whole bunch of edits. — Ched :  ?  05:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Better answers to the questions than I've seen in a long time. Come on, opposers, nobody's perfect! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support from Neutral. I said in my neutral that I wanted to support. I've watched the RfA, and RHM22 has responded to the stress admirably. I may have suggested he waited a few more months before running, but there are insufficient red flags here for me to stay neutral - I wanted to support and now I am. WormTT · (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Article contributions are excellent and although there are not so many Wikipedia-namespace contributions, what is there demonstrates that the candidate interacts well with others, and has plenty of clue. The current activity does not indicate a very active administrator, but that is not a requirement. The needs listed under Q1 are important enough, since it takes time and effort to find an administrator who will look into a request for a page move (I recall that the immediate reason I reclaimed my admin bit in 2008 was to carry out such a request). There is no need for all administrators to be involved with WikiPolitics, we also need those who will use the tools for less noisy purposes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Clearly understands what Wikipedia is all about. Inexperienced in some areas, but every reason to suppose he will be careful with the tools. Definite net positive, hence strong support from me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Not just a vandal hunter, which is always a good thing. Appears to cope well under pressure, seems to have sufficient policy knowledge, and is aware that looking things up when unsure on a matter is the best course of action. BigDom (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Per Courcelles.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support IMHO, admins only learn how to be admins when they become one. This candidate clearly understands the essence of Wikipedia, is a fine contributor, and is civil. Graham Colm (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Excellent editor. Answers to questions were good. Looks to me like a user who will use the tools cautiously and ask questions before leaping into things. Admins who only use the tools occasionally are fine and I can't see any of RHM22's admin actions being a negative to the encyclopaedia. Checked the opposers and they don't bring up anything that concerns me enough not to support. Jenks24 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Decker41811a (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Weak support not enough experience, but you look good Pass a Method talk 20:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. More patience than I have since I'd never have answered all those questions. Not too many Wikispace edits. FA record shows attention to detail and willingness to jump through hoops. Seems like a good fit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. from oppose section. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I'm confident RHM22 will make up for a relative lack of experience in deletion by being cautious and learning the policy.--Banana (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support honesty in answer to My76Strat's question. Shiva (Visnu) 05:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Almost my complete opposite. But why, I like it. Per quite a few people above. T. Canens (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support good track and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Though I would like it if he read up on the BLP policies, to be sure. I am quite happy that he is not an "instant delete" person for new articles which have a question about notability. Collect (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Yes, the candidate has made only 3900 edits, and relatively few are to project space, but the amount achieved in those edits is very impressive. Answers to questions seem to show reasonable policy knowledge and a great deal of common sense, and the opposes aren't that concerning. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose: Where's your understanding of WP:BLP. Anyone can move pages, so if that's the reason for this RfA, the mop is not needed.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I actually meant to move pages over redirects.-RHM22 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lengthy thread regarding this !vote moved to talk page. Swarm X 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Found here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I respect the fact that the candidate has featured content, and I'm not worried about their understanding of BLP policy, if RHM22 ever writes an article on a living person I think we can safely assume they will do it at least to the same standard as the articles they've written on dead people. I like the clean block log, and if anyone does quibble about the percentage of mainspace edits I'd just point out that if they'd started articles by moving their sandbox to mainspace rather than copy pasting it, their userspace edits would be much lower and mainspace much higher. But I have a couple of concerns re communication and tagging for speedy deletion. I think admins should communicate well with newbies, and though this speedy tag was correct and this was correct but overly hasty both were to newbies who created articles with good faith edits, and their articles were deleted whilst they still have redlinked talkpages (the hasty one was an A1 tag in the minute after the article was created). I'd also point out that edit summary use could be higher, you usually do leave an edit summary when editing in mainspace, but I'd suggest changing your user preferences to prompt you to leave an edit summary, Edit summaries on talkpages and in sandboxes can seem pointless, except for example to editors watchlisting to see who you've replied to. I'd be very happy to reconsider you in a future RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking Oppose due to the commitment made to Ancient Apparition that in future the candidate would inform such newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Great content work and good interactions on your talk page and at the helpdesk, but I regretfully oppose due to inexperience in WP space. If you plan to be involved in admin areas other than page moves, you need first to show a sound understanding of policy which can only really come from experience in new page patrolling, anti-vandalism work, AfD discussions (and/or many other areas). I see you have patrolled some new pages, one of the articles you marked I would have at least tagged as not meeting notability guidelines, if not PRODed, but the others seemed fine. If there was a pagemoveroverexistingpages user-right I would not hesitate in supporting you to receive it. Also, to nitpick, re:q5 I wouldn't say 'anything defamatory is to be avoided' in BLPs; take the Charlie Sheen article, there are plenty of defamatory statements (e.g. "currently insane", cocaine, domestic violence etc.) but – as you do go on to say – reliable sources justify their inclusion in the article Jebus989✰ 20:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Concerns with experience, limited activity in the Wikipedia namespace. Your responses to questions one and four suggest you have no real need for the tools. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested moves is a giant backlog. We need someone with the tools there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A fine writer, but limited experience IMO, especially in projectspace. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion about logistics of the vote-counting bots moved to the talk page.--Chaser (away) - talk 14:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Having the uppermost respect for your fairness and judgment, I humbly request you to evaluate this candidate one more time, only because I see a candidate that befits a second look. My hope is maybe you will see a net positive candidate. My knowledge is that you are always fair and thorough in your assessment. Thanks, My76Strat (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose – I feel that this candidate lacks experience in the Wikipedia namespace, even though he/she has nice content work. —mc10 (t/c) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Strongly per experience and lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. Baseball Watcher 00:31, 13 April 011 (UTC)
    Oppose (Moving to 'neutral'). I have absolutely no reason to believe that this candidate would misuse the tools; however, making skilled judgment is also part of the work. Although 631 of a total of 944 edits (very low) to article space are only to a handful of pages I'm impressed with the work on numismatics and cleanliness of the creations (although IMO this could do with a few more inline refs). Nevertheless, some things give me more pause. Q7: The candidate appears not to have understood that punitive blocks are definitely a no no. I would have liked to have seen more work on some advice desks, and AfD, and ANI, etc., which would demonstrate more knowledge of policy. Moves over redirects can be exceptionally complicated and although there is a backlog it's not an essential reason for wanting the tools. Everyone makes mistakes when tagging articles for deletion - even the admins who actually delete them, but speedy deletion does not mean speedy tagging - it's always best in cases of uncertainty to move on and let someone else tag. Finally, with the low edit count and only six months of active editing, the candidate just does not meet my RfA criteria, and in this case, I can't see how I can juggle with them to make the aggregate fit. Without any hesitation however, I would certainly strongly support a future RfA when those criteria are met. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your judgment on the candidate's response to Q7 seems unfair because it specifically asks for an opinion not based on policy. To punish the candidate for giving an honest answer that the questioner requests does not indicate that he will block according to what his ideal conception of a block is as opposed to WP:BLOCK. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No reasonably stated opposition rationale is intended as a Punishment, but I cannot see my way to supporting a candidate who is unclear on a fundamental blocking policy whether they intend to use the tool or not.. Note that this was not my only reason for opposing, and then note my encouraging closure. I suppose you'd call my message here, posted at the same time as my !vote, as a punishment too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    a little examination of the an/i archives will demonstrate that we do in fact use block as punishment, however we word it to make it technically appear otherwise. I think the candidate has in this respect at least a fairly good understanding of what goes on here, derived, it seems, not from extensive experience but common sense. as compared to what is officially supposed to happen. (I am not making any personal judgement about whether blocks _should_ be used as punishment, or whether we should adjust the rules to reality or the other way round.) DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RHM22, thank you for your well considered answer to my question, which BTW was based very loosely on a real situation. I think this leaves no doubt in my mind now that you understand the blocking policy. My own opinion FWIW, is that punitive blocking is a strictly no-no for a single burst of incivility when the integrity of the Wikipedia is not at stake, should not be threatened as a demand for apology, and that blocking admins should make deeper research before reaching their decision. My own ANI closure in such a situation would probably have been something on the lines of: 'Please consider appologising, consider the matter closed, and stay away from each other'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I don't feel comfortable supporting someone with such low general experience, but more important very low mainspace experience, along with A4. I see barely a dozen deleted edits, and that definitely is too low for CSD work, which the candidate expressed an interest in in A4.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship (answer to question 1). Intention to work with CSD (answer to question 4) without significant experience in the area or in AfD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposed initially. It doesn't seem right that a candidate with no record of editing policy or guideline pages, or contributing to their talk pages, and has only participated in a single XfD discussion, would specify speedy deletion as their leading interest. RHM22's normal, highly valuable contributions would not benefit from admin tools, and he doesn't seem to have experience in areas requiring use of admin tools. Most page moves, especially those required due to mistitling, do not require admin tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So? In what way is giving the tools to this highly trustworthy and valuable editor a net negative?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear that he may perform poorly at judging speedy deletion requests, given the lack of experience in discussions relating to deletion. Some participation at AfD would probably allay this fear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me like people are setting a bar, then moving it every time the candidate gets close to meting it. By what arbitrary measure is AfD participation any use in judging someone's ability to handle speedy deletion? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it. I'm not going to badger, and will refrain from commenting on opposes further without a real good reason, but I see the community giving one of its most conscientious editors, a budding star, an extremely hard time. I regret that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A really good editor should handle opposition with a calmness and respect. The adminship isn't the most important thing in the world and I think RHM22 knows it very well. Therefore I supported :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell, I cannot see any evidence of experience touching deletion (except the userboxes), and speedy deletion is the most dangerous sort of deletion to get wrong. I don't know about numbers, but in terms of combined edits to AfD pages and DRV, zero is low. If he could make a handful of exclusively sensible comments at Wikipedia:Dashboard#Relisted_AfD_debates, I would reconsider (although I expect none of them will be speediable). If he could go to some AfDs and find some speediable cases and !vote accordingly, or dispute some "speedy delete" !votes, then I would reconsider. Five to ten, maybe? Or, perhaps an admin could attest to a number of correct CSD taggings, or correct PRODs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to support. Never felt good opposing, and after email with the candidate, I think the likelihood that RHM22 is going to break the encylopedia by engaging in a rash of bitey, uninformed, ill-considered speedy deletions is low. On the other hand, an new admin who is eager to help out at Requested Moves is a highly desired thing. Even if tools are not required usually, we like to have admins to close the contested discussions. RHM22 didn't take up my challenge of demonstrating deletion-wisdom, but instead continued to do valuable work at some very nice-to-read articles. This demonstrates his real interest. He is not power hungry. I do not realistically suspect that RHM22 will be overly adventurist with the tools. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Axl. I would like to see more experience in the areas in which you would like to focus your admin work, such as AfD. Logan Talk Contributions 18:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Too many edits are to talk pages and sandboxes. Lacking edits to articles. If the editor addresses these concerns, I will be tempted to move to neutral.Zombie Douche (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    — Zombie Douche (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This user (Zombie Douche) has been blocked indefinitely as a sock.Jasper Deng (talk)`
    I'm a biased party here, of course, but I'm thinking this should be indented.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally don't respond to !votes unless a question is asked, but I would like to note that my sandbox activity is high because I write most of my articles there before moving them to the mainspace.-RHM22 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay, they "have been reading wikipedia for days."[1] Seriously though, I agree that this SPA could probably be indented by a bold user. Swarm X 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I said days but I occasionally slip the word for years. If this is how you editors treat new members, something is terribly wrong with that.Zombie Douche (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nothing personal, but sometimes new members are actually either duplicate accounts of other members or misunderstand the qualifications to become an administrator. That said, I have no problem with allowing his/her !vote to remain as-is without indenting, unless the user proves to be a sockpuppet of some sort. It's very possible that the editor has been reading behind-the-scenes content for some time before creating an account. It does seem unlikely, but still possible, so I would not feel comfortable disregarding this !vote.-RHM22 (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it appears as though this user has now been blocked, so I would support indenting his/her !vote.-RHM22 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose The candidate has been involved in several qualitative (GA, FA) content contributions, but lacks quantitative contributions to mainspace; and has been highly active only since November. More contributions and work in the administrative areas (e.g. CSD, anti-vandalism) needed before I can support.--Hokeman (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you perhaps mean "Wikipedia namespace" instead of mainspace? Swarm X 17:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose - While you are definitely a great editor, I cannot see any edits that indicate your knowledge of sysop policies, such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, CSD, AFD, etc. Maybe in 3 months, with more contributions to admin areas. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you meant to add your oppose !vote to this RfA, but you have already supported earlier. I'd be happy to indent one of your !votes (whichever you agree with) if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what happens when you stay up until midnight the night before studying for exams, then continue editing until 2300.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that! While rereading through some of my answers earlier, I had to cringe at the awful grammar I used on one of them.-RHM22 (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Inexperienced in admin areas, very little use for the tools. Dive into some areas where admins frequently work, and come back in a few months. —SW— talk 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Sorry, but not enough hands-on experience for me to be entirely confident. I would like to see some demonstration of your ability first, you seem to grasp the principals, but putting them into practice is a completely different matter. However, what you have done seems great, but just not all that relevant to adminship. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose I almost supported but needs some experience outside of article space. Some work at the notice boards and XFD and I think we could revisit in as little as 3-6 months The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I originally supported, but on the basis of the further questions in which the candidate tires to explain their understanding of the practical application of policy, I've been forced to conclude that they are obviously not quite up to speed on even core admin functions. The questions the candidate has needed to check up on are those that a candidate should know before coming here. I'd encourage reapplication again in a few months. I do have confidence in the ultimate sucesss. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any reason to believe he would not look before he leapt? Or make the same mistake twice?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've admitted your bias and stated you won't badger, the voter has explained their position and I think you should leave questioning of opposers to more neutral editors at this point in the RfA Jebus989✰ 20:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice. RfA is not a vote, it is a discussion, whereby the community reaches consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like to get involved in disputes, and at the risk of sounding confrontational, I must defend Wehwalt's actions here. Personally, I have no interest in challenging any opposes, unless something said was blatantly untrue or misleading. DGG's opinion is his opinion, and challenging that is not something I want to do, because he's entitled to it. That said, Wehwalt is right in that it's his prerogative to question the opposer if he wants to. Jebus has questioned the support !vote of Dru of Id after !voting oppose, which is arguably the same as what Wehwalt has done here. Opposing or supporting my RfA is fine. Questioning the opposers or supporters is fine. However, suggesting that supporters should not question opposers, or vice versa, is really not in the interest of achieving any sort of consensus. That's all I have to say here.-RHM22 (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I've stricken my questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree, but of course it's your choice if you want to do that. Does anyone mind if I move all of this to the talk page?-RHM22 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Firstly, I'm a neutral party here. Although I opposed, this is due to no personal bias, i'm not aware of any interaction between us. Furthermore, my single statement, not question, to one supporter was because the vote was based on the wrong idea that adminship is a kind of 'reward' for users adding good articles. This is not comparable to Wehwalt, your friend, questioning several of the above opposes. Your friend questioning multiple opposes and a neutral party making one statement that happened to be to a supporter are not, in my humble opinion, 'the same'. p.s. the RfA candidate should probably not move things to the talk page, again it's best to leave to those uninvolved observers if it's deemed necessary Jebus989✰ 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, though I don't see how any of this is related to the RfA. Still, if you think it's useful, I don't have any problem with keeping it here so others can see it.-RHM22 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose Might i add this is very weak. Im not satisfied with the length of editing time done by the nominee to gain the experince necessary and some of the concerns from the opposition seem to relate to this- his previous edits though give indication that this may not be a problem, So leaving it up for the beaurocrat to decide whether this is weak oppose is valid or not. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - I can't support an account with such limited contributions/experience. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
moral support To be honest, I'd prefer to see a bit more experience as well. It looks as though the user is doing some fantastic work, and I can't bring myself to oppose solely on the number of edits; but, I'd just rather see a bit more. I didn't look at the actual "content" of the posts, but I would mention that you may want to use caution in posting to Jimbo's talk too often. To be honest, there's nothing really "wrong" with it, but I've seen "perception" get the better part of "reality" here at RFA. Best of luck to you, and if you don't make it this go 'round, I'd imagine I'd be happy to support in the future. — Ched :  ?  03:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral.moved to Support I want to support, really I do, but something's not sitting right. It might be the relatively low edit count (combined with what appears to be multiple edits where a preview could have been used, like 17 edits to do nothing). It might be the low participation in wikipedia space, it might be the gaps in edit summary usage. I'll sit here in neutral, and will probably change my mind to support by the end of the RfA, due to RHM22's helpfulness I've seen throughout their work. WormTT · (talk)
  1. Neutral I have seen nothing to indicate that this candidate would misuse the mop, they seem trustworthy. However I am very concerned by the professed interest in getting involved in CSDs. The candidate does not appear to have much experience with CSDs, and admin actions related to CSDs are virtually impossible for non-admins to review and I don't know how much checking goes on by other admins, but I gather not much. To support this candidate I would need some sort of assurance that they either have a firm grasp on CSD decision making, or would not participate in an admin capacity until they had done so extensively in a non admin one. Monty845 17:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We all make genuine mistakes, but judging by the relatively low number of DRV, PROD refunds, and userfication, I would assume that admins in fact do a lot more research before finally clicking the 'delete' button. One of the effects of research is that it often catches socks, persistent spammers and hoaxers, and other multiple recreations. All these things can of course be checked by the taggers if they are doing what is suggested at WP:NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the people who are likely to be subject to a CSD don't know how to use the processes, I would anticipate an article from an experienced editor would at least make it past the CSD stage. Monty845 05:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The responses to the deletion related questions continue to prevent me from supporting this candidate. I don't think the example in question 15 meets any criteria for speedy deletion. "...is a political commentator who has been widely recognized for his commentary on environmental issues" indicates why the "subject is important or significant" and there is no reason to think it is not a credible claim. As a result the article cannot be eligible under A7, it is positive, so it cannot be a G10, and it does not strike me as an obvious ad, so no G12, and none of the other CSD criteria appear even close. Now maybe some people will disagree that it is enough of an assertion of importance, but it is at least borderline, and I would hope an admin would not unilaterally delete in a borderline case, but would instead tag it for CSD so that another admin could provide a second evaluation. Throwing on a notability tag, PRODding it, sending it to AFD, or even passing on it would have been fine, but I'm really concerned about the possibility that the candidate left open of unilateral deletion. Clearly they mean well, and if they succeed in this RFA I remain convinced of the candidates good intent, but being able to properly apply guidelines and procedures is a core part of being an admin. Not to say that a candidate for admin needs to know every procedure, guideline, and essay, only that they should make sure to know the ones that apply to a situation before taking action as an admin, and remember that they can still use the non-admin ways of dealing with things. So I must stay firmly out of the support category. If this RFA does fail, I'm sure the next one this candidate submits will pass. Monty845 05:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now, leaning toward oppose. Nearly 25% of your edits to date are to the user space and with only ~4,000 edits, that's a high percentage for me to be able to support. I'm just not completely comfortable with the idea of handing you the mop, at this particular point in time. Should this RfA fail (it looks like it could go either way, at this stage), I would suggest not taking it personal, addressing the concerns of the opposers, and run again in the future. I like the article work that you've done so far, so some more experience in admin-related areas would very likely bring me over to the support column in the future. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 07:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The high userspace count is because this candidate builds articles in sandboxes. In fact, other than his own userpage, all of his most-edited User: pages are his sandboxes. See for example User:RHM22/Early_United_States_commemorative_coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Answer to my question will help determine my !vote, the concerns raised by those opposing in regards to deletion need addressing. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:39pm • 07:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Switched to support. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:03am • 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - You've made some good contributions so far, and I think you have the temperament for adminship. However, I'd like to see more experience in many areas of the encyclopedia. There are several times in the Q/A section where I could tell you hadn't previously thought of some of those issues. That's fine - adminship no doubt will have its surprises - but I think another few months of experience will help a great deal. Best regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral- Seems to be too soon. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - (Moved from 'Oppose'). I've had another very long think about this, and although the candidate does not meet my criteria, in this particular case, trust trumps them all sufficiently for me to move here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Willingness to look it up when you don't know is a damn good trait to have, and a rare one around these parts. However the starting point here isn't where I want to see it. I can't oppose here, but neither can I support. Slum around with the admins in a few admin areas for six months, and I'd think you'd power through your second RfA. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for some experience in admin-related areas. While his quality content building experience is excellent, the proportion of admin tasks that deal with high-quality content building is rather small. But I'm not seeing any red flags that would warrant opposing. Mr.Z-man 16:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I like what I see in the way of high-quality article content edits, but limited experience in other areas almost (but not quite) makes me invoke WP:NOTNOW. I'm going to stay firmly seated on the fence. Still, best of fortunes. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2011 (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/RHM22&oldid=1147870699"