Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richardshusr

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.

Richardshusr[edit]

Final: (67/1/0); ended 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Richardshusr (talk · contribs) - I first encountered Richardshusr a few months back at History of Christianity, restructuring and filling out many of the blanks in article content. I have since seen him contribute a lot of good content on a number of articles. While some of these articles are contentious, he has always had a level head and has been remarkably civil in talk page discussions where the other party has lost their cool. In addition, Richardshusr has been an active contributor here at RfA for a long time, and knows what makes a great admin (just see his well thought out post to Redsox04 regarding mentoring). Because of this, Richardshusr has spent literally months and months honing his knowledge and skills with a meaningful self-assessment and an editor review, which demonstrates his detailed knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Richardshusr has a balanced proportion of edits in various name spaces, which shows his commitment to discussion and consensus. He has been a frequent contributor to RfA, AfD, in addition to adding significant article content, and working well with other editors even in the fairly heated environment of certain controversial articles. Andrew c 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you, Andrew for that glowing nomination. I humbly accept the nomination. --Richard 00:57, 16 June 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 questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: By far and away, the tasks that I will participate in most is the closing of AFD discussions. I really started getting involved after the implementation of AFD categories which allowed me to spend my time in Society topics which seems to capture my interests the most. My primary Wikipedia interest is in history and politics. I will comment that I only participate in AFD discussions where my opinion will make a difference (i.e. I try not to "pile on"). Thus, there will be many AFD discussions that I will be able to close without creating a perception of conflict of interest.
I will also participate in page protection. While I have not participated very much on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, I have been an active editor of a couple pages that have had to be protected due to edit warring (I was not one of the edit warriors) so I understand that sometimes a page needs to be protected. I cannot ever remember asking for page protection although I may have done so once or twice. I would prefer to discuss than to protect but sometimes this just isn't possible with some editors.
To a lesser degree, I will also work on blocking persistent or blatant vandals if necessary. Although I have done my share of vandalism reversion and, to a lesser degree, warning of vandals, I have not been very active on WP:AIV. I do think I have a good grasp of policy regarding blocking of vandals, though. As annoying as IP vandals are, I also understand the collateral damage caused by blocking shared IPs and will try to use blocking more as a scalpel than as a butcher's knife.
--Richard 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: First, I should comment that I consider myself a WikiGnome. I spend more time cleaning up and reorganizing than writing new text. A lot of the time what I enjoy doing is working to resolve POV conflicts among other editors.
My primary work has been in two areas: (i) articles related to the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII and (ii) History of Christianity.
In the case of Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII, my contribution has been to help organize what had been a mess of POV wrangling. This is a highly controversial topic and the POV pushing is never-ending. I try my best to help keep things on an NPOV stance in the midst of very strong and passionate POVs.
In the case of History of Christianity, I discovered that this very important topic was very inadequately treated and so I started to work on improving it. I was joined shortly by User:Lostcaesar who was much more knowledgeable than I. We developed a good working relationship. Unfortunately, he left Wikipedia about a month and a half ago. I miss him. Since then, I have moved on to History of the Eastern Orthodox Church and History of the Russian Orthodox Church. I created both of these articles initially by extracting text from the Eastern Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church articles and then adding content to expand the articles. After my initial effort, much of the work in expanding these articles has been done by User:LoveMonkey who is more knowledgeable about the subject matter than I am.
Also, I haven't done this recently but one thing that I enjoy doing is saving an article from AFD by improving it and then convincing the "Delete" voters to change their minds based on the improved article. A couple of examples where I did this are Crime in Mexico and Poverty in India.
--Richard 05:08, 16 June 2007 (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, while I like to think that the conflicts have been few and far between, I have certainly run into my share. I confess that some of these conflicts have caused me quite a bit of stress although I like to think that I kept reasonably civil in most cases and apologized quickly if I "crossed the line" in a few. And this, I think, is key. Although I have occasionally made the mistake of not assuming good faith, I always try to be open to reviewing and reassessing my actions and apologizing quickly and sincerely if I have made a mistake.
Also, after more than a year at Wikipedia, I am now far less likely to break into a sweat because somebody has a different opinion than from mine. I can recall a couple of times last year when I was pounding away at the keyboard, typing furiously with heart rate in the stratosphere because of some dispute. Yes, I was civil but I was not calm. It took more and more effort to remain civil as the stress went up. These days, I'm far calmer because I know that I can gently and patiently state my case and, if that doesn't work, I can pursue the Wikipedia dispute resolution process.
--Richard 07:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by AldeBaer

4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: Hmmm... the hard thing is keeping this list down to three. On the policy side, I like WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I use these all the time as an editor. I strongly believe that all POVs should be presented (without giving any POV undue weight) but that POVs must be sourced and not just asserted as the OR of one or more Wikipedia editors.
On the article side, I emphasize content over writing style. Thus, the articles that I would nominate are not necessarily well-written, just fascinating to me personally. What I like best about Wikipedia is that I have learned a huge amount of stuff that I didn't know and some of what I learn is actually stuff I value. Examples of these are Religion in Carthage - I didn't know that Carthaginians were alleged to have engaged in child sacrifice, Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII - I had no idea of the scope of the expulsions, suffering and deaths, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) - I knew very little about this period of history except that Kemal Ataturk created the Turkish Republic. I found reading about the collision of Greek and Turkish nationalism to be fascinating.
--Richard 18:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Chaser

5. Under what circumstances can one make an exception to a guideline? A policy? Under what circumstances can one ignore a guideline or a policy? What's the difference between the two? (Don't feel pressured to answer all three, as they are closely related questions.)
A: Whoop! Heh, heh. Thanks for that question, I learned something new. The difference between a guideline and a policy is not exactly what I thought it was.
Quoting from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines...
Policies are widely accepted and that everyone is expected to follow.
Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
Guidelines are less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases.
What this says to me is that policies are really quite rigid and should be followed except for the very rare appeal to WP:IAR. In contrast, there will be more common-sense exceptions to a guideline but perhaps not as many as I thought. I think it depends on the guideline. For example, the WP:SIZE guidelines are ignored by a number of very long articles. However, common-sense argues that articles of large scope such as United States or History of Christianity should have long articles. 30-50kb is just unrealistic for articles like that.
Let me turn my response into a discussion of WP:IAR which is always difficult for RFA candidates to get right. I personally think that WP:IAR is best applied when there is a "real world" issue at stake where the lives of real people will be adversely affected. There are a number of policies which protect personal information of minors and biographies of living people. However, if a situation revealed a hole in these policies and it appeared that there was a real possibility that people would be damaged materially (financially, emotionally or physically), then WP:IAR comes into play. Short of that, I would counsel following standard Wikipedia processes as there are few things that are so important that cannot be solved for patiently waiting for a process to work itself out. (NB: Of course, I'm sure someone will prove me wrong by posing a hypothetical situation that is an exception to this principle. Try me. I'm game.)
Now, let me also address the point raised by User:TerriersFan regarding the creation of Fire safety education which I acknowledge was not the brightest thing that I've done on Wikipedia.
User:TerriersFan cited the WP:MOS guideline. Actually, WP:STUB would have been a more appropriate guideline to reference. WP:STUB says...
A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. Any registered editor may start a stub article.
When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted.
The reason that I quote WP:STUB is to point out that my creation of Fire safety education didn't actually violate the guideline. It just wasn't a great idea compared to the better alternative of putting the content into Fire safety. Thus, it wasn't a policy or guideline violation, just a failure to consider all the options and pick the best one. A mistake... we all make them.
--Richard 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Beat the nom Support -- a good number of edits, seems to know policy and be a fair user. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:50, 19 June 2007 UTC)
    Still, a little more activity is probably to be desired, but nevertheless. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:51, 19 June 2007 UTC)
  2. Support, why not? A good number of edits and seems keen for the mop and bucket. Good luck Richardshusr. E talk 08:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, Seems to know what to do. Should be a big help with AfD. Good luck to you. - Andrew4010 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, a hundred times over. Daniel 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Very good, confident answers to questions (although you'll have to beat me with the AfD closures, pun intended :)) Sr13 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - there's always need for more admins with closing AfDs. I'm sure Richardshusr will do fine—arf! 08:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Given my brief interactions with this user, I thought he already was an admin. That's good enough for me! Riana ⁂ 08:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. Richard performed great in the minefields of Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII and related, highly controversial, articles. Very level-headed. I've always thought he would make a good admin. --Lysytalk 04:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, agree with Lysy. Great user who keeps his cool in contentious disputes. Kusma (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support (ha I hope this is the right place for it). "Fighting with the truth as the goal, is the highest benefit to all." Richard needs to be less passive aggressive but is most definitely high quality editor/administrator material. LoveMonkey 01:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong supportinfinity When I considered leaving Wikipedia in June 2006, Richard left an inspiring message on my talk page, which convinced me to stay. Over the next few months, he proceeded to unofficially mentor me, displaying a knowledge of policy, unwavering ability to assume good faith, extraordinary patience, civility and friendliness. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - A very good and reliable user ..--Cometstyles 10:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support absolutely. —Anas talk? 11:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Don't waste our time support. Richard is one of the most helpful users I've come across on Wikipedia and will make a great addition to the admin team. – Chacor 11:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Richard is hard working and evenhanded. He is skillful at handling controversial situations. He will make a wonderful admin. Majoreditor 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Kafziel Talk 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --MONGO 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support definitely. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I thought your adminship... assessment thing was a little odd, but nevermind... you definitely seem qualified. Majorly (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Fully qualified per overall record. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Hell yeah. I recall an RFA or an editor review from a few months ago, and clearly Richard has improved since then, to the point where I would trust him with almost anything on the wiki. YechielMan 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I thought Richardshusr was already an administrator. :) Acalamari 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. -- Y not? 16:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I trust this user will do a good job with the extra tools. Evilclown93(talk) 19:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. He might have been overthinking the whole adminship a bit, but that doesn't make him less ready for it, which I think he has been for quite some time. I agree with Terriersfan that he's not perfect but I don't think perfection is required or even attainable for an admin candidate. Richard is open and responsive to cirticism, and that's quite a big deal to me. --JoanneB 19:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support He knows what he is doing, and I can trust him with the tools! Politics rule 19:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. A model of collaborative skill, coolheadedness on controversial articles, and concern for the project's well being, which itself would benefit from his mop. I acknowledge the merits of his criticisms, but fail to see how they imply his tool use would end up being a detriment. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support particularly per AFD contribs and A5. Admitting you didn't know something is difficult, especially during RFA. But learning from mistakes benefits individuals and the project more in the long-term.--Chaser - T 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support gladly. I worked with the candidate on Crime in Mexico and was impressed at the time by his demeanor and grasp of policy. --Spike Wilbury 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Very good contributer and has lots of good work on articles specified on his talk page. XAndreWx 21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support The two oppose voters, whose comments are oddly similar, object only to a single article created by this user; its format and content, while not ideal, do not bear in any way on his ability to function as an admin. A good range of edits, skills and knowledge. He will do well as an admin.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support vote. I do wish to point out that the two "oppose" !voters are very different. User:TerriersFan is an admin whose opinion I think is a bit extreme but valid. An admin should be able to distinguish a good stub from a crappy one. I was being lazy in creating a stub that was of questionable value and he called me to account on it. User:The king of the shadows is a newly created account whose only edits have been to oppose RFA candidates. I will leave it to others to evaluate the validity of the king's oppose reasons. --Richard 21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I made, or did not intend to make, any adverse comment on User:TerriersFan. My point was that User:The king of the shadows , who is new user who is commenting on every rfA page, has picked up Terrier's comments.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 24 hours ago this was empty. 30+ supports in that time can't be wrong! G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support based on a look at this user's good contributions, and his evident support from the community. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Good responses and strong edit history. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support This is a solid user who has been editing wikipedia for a while now. I doubt that he will abuse the tools, and we are in need of admins, so why not? Good luck:)--†Sir James Paul† 23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    moved from neutral column; evidently placed accidentally at end of page.--Chaser - T 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support A user that I trust with the tools. Captain panda 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, surely. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support After reviewing your answers and contributions I feel confident you can handle the tools wisely. I also appreciate that you favor content over writing style. --Ozgod 01:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Appears sensible and trustworthy. You got my support ...comment. —AldeBaer 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. Pedro's diff does concern me a little, but this users actions with regards to this RfA (notifying critics and deleting !votes cast before the start) show a very good stance on consensus. I fully trust this user with closing XfDs, but might suggest that in future, adding a maintenance tag is preferable to deleting something if you can't be bothered to fix it :) Good luck, - Zeibura (Talk) 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, mainly per the brilliant response to the oppose below. --Haemo 06:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support From Neutral, but I do agree with Zeibura - a maintenance tag would have being the way forward in the instance cited. Nevertheless, I see very little that is not quality, and your civility and transparency swing it for me. Pedro |  Chat  07:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, Pedro. I have to admit that, upon reading Zeibura's comment and reviewing the edit in question again, I agree with the both of you. Adding maintenance tags such as {{cleanup}} and {{FixPOV}} would have been more appropriate. It was just one of those things where I was in a rush to leave and not thinking clearly under time pressure. I will try to develop better collaborative reflexes for use in future situations similar to this one. --Richard 07:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above is an admin quality respone / comment, IMHO. Pedro |  Chat  08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. strong support. I've had the pleasure of working with Richard on a few topics and wikiprojects (particularly WP:AZTEC), and have on every single occasion been impressed by his helpful, cooperative, honest & open contribs. My first encounter with Richard was actually to disagree with some article reorganisation that he and another had embarked upon, but thanks in no small measure to Richard's manner in dealing with potential conflict situations there was no 'dust-up' and there was in the end no issue. As well as the good sense, knowledgeability and civility apparent in all his contribs, Richard has plainly taken the time to understand matters of guideline & policy, and I have no doubts at all that he will put the admin tools to effective and beneficial use.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support- no obvious faults, user has a good understanding of wikipedia and its policies, acceptable nomination reason. Francisco Tevez 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per above. Peacent 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Looks like a good candidate. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. This Candidate gets my vote as I see no reason to oppose. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 06:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Richardshusr is ready for the mop. -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - good grasp of policy (especially recent opinions at WT:RFA), and has good ability to work with other editors. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support ElinorD (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Makes alot of contributions everyday and i don't think he would abuse the tools. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Terence 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per nom (hmmm... wait, I am the nom). Don't know why I didn't add this earlier.-Andrew c 14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per late nom support (that's pretty funny Andrew thanks for adding a smile) and the fact that this is a good editor - ready also for admin.--VS talk 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -- favorably impressed with the candidate's responses to concerns of others in this RfA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
  59. Support - Good answers, good user. Good admin. --tennisman 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Spevw 14:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Have come across him and was impressed. Sophia 08:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Mop wisely... - KrakatoaKatie 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - will do well. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Bucketsofg 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Great grasp of policy and I totally agree with their take on IAR Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Very good when I have seen him in action, including interacting with difficult users. Johnbod 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - admins need to have a good handle on policy and a good understanding of article development as a basic prerequisite for the role. For example, Fire safety education should never have been created in this form; failing WP:MOS and several policies and its launch was an indication of a failure to understand our policies. Even a stub should be worked up in the sandbox and sourced, catalogued and stubbed before creation. TerriersFan 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that I invited this comment here. I thought it would be disingenuous to ask for an editor review and then not advise those with negative comments of an ongoing RFA so I made a point of inviting all those with negative comments on my editor review to comment here as well. Unfortunately, User:SanchiTachi's talk page is protected so I couldn't leave a message there.
    In retrospect, I think that creating Fire safety education was not the best thing that I've done on Wikipedia. The topic is encyclopedic but perhaps creating the article could have waited until there was more content to put in it. However, I disagree with TerriersFan that this action should be considered a blanket disqualification for becoming an admin.
    I will point out the WP:MOS is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, I think that, while the qualifications for an admin do include an understanding of policy, they also include an ability to be civil, be open to reviewing one's own actions and willing to admit and fix mistakes. I think I have those and can continue to learn policy as needed.
    --Richard 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral Everything looked great, but as I've not run into this editor I spent some time reviewing their contributions to properly assess my feelings, and came across this diff. Richardshusr, I kind of appreciate what you were getting at, but the edit summary concerns me greatly. If you have no time to fix something then it appears you prefer deletion, which for someone who wants to be active at AfD's is not so good, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs)

No - it was signed at the time and split when Richard replied. Get back to your server you troublesome bot!Pedro |  Chat  10:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro, thanks for taking the time to look at my edits and for your comment. I would like to draw a distinction between deleting text from an article and deleting an entire article. When it comes to AFD, I am an inclusionist although I want to state in no uncertain terms that consensus is what counts in AFD not any individual admin's inclusionist/deletionist philosophy. I will implement AFD consensus even if it goes against my judgment. However, if I have a strong opinion, I reserve the right to join in the AFD discussion and let some other admin close it if they feel they can assess the consensus objectively.
As for the diff in question, my point is that the text that I deleted was POV and very poorly written. Since text can always be re-inserted, I believe it is more important to maintain high quality in an article and put the onus on the editor to insert high-quality text. As a WikiGnome, I work hard to clean up the writing of other editors. This goes beyond spelling and grammar to include improving diction, fixing logic flow and re-establishing NPOV balance. It can take 10-20 minutes to fix one paragraph. However, some text is simply too difficult to fix in such a short period of time. I might not know enough about the topic or I might not have enough time to figure out how to fix a particularly difficult section. In this case, I believe Wikipedia benefits by having the poorly written text deleted and putting the onus on the original editor to fix it. This is, of course, a touchy course of action as deleting other people's text will most likely annoy the heck out of them. I know it annoys the heck out of me when other people delete my edits. Therefore, deleting text should be reserved as a last option to be used sparingly and with an explanation on the Talk Page of what the issues are. I checked the Talk Page of the article in question and it appears that I did not leave an explanation there of why I deleted the text. That is an omission and I can only say that I try not to make edit summaries my only way of communicating in this kind of situation because edit summaries are too terse and this leads to misunderstanding and conflict. However, we all make mistakes and the edit you found was apparently one of my mistakes.
--Richard 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further - I just spotted this - am I to read into this that you are keeping your nose clean to avoid opposes, but after you get the tools your attitude will change? I can see no other explanation for those comments? I won't oppose because of a lot of other things, but can't support. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... when I wrote that, I was wondering if it might be misinterpreted. No, that's not what I meant at all. I think you read my comment too broadly. What I meant is that one should not challenge the rules of RFA while one's own RFA is being considered. For example, an RFA candidate may think the current RFA format sucks. However, that position should be brought up on WT:RFA and not during the candidate's RFA.
WT:RFA is a place where many editors discuss "why RFA is broken" and "how to fix it". I have participated in these discussions in the past although infrequently. However, the experience of other RFA candidates has shown me that it is not wise to challenge the rules of RFA during your own RFA. You can do so "before" your RFA or "after" but "during" is a bad idea.
As good as it felt to have fellow editors support me before I had even finished answering the standard RFA questions, I felt that, if I had left their "jump the gun" support votes on the page, somebody would have opposed me for violating the stricture inWikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate against allowing "premature" votes. It makes it clear that it is the candidate's responsibility to remove those votes. I agreed with Radiant that the stricture was "instruction creep" and a bit silly but I removed the premature votes anyway.
--Richard 09:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard, I appreciate your time in providing a robust and detailed "explanation" of the two diff's I highlighted. I would like to take some time to consider further, so remain Neutral for now. Nevertheless You RfA appears to be going well, and your transparency in removing !votes prior to the true start was a good thing. I will think on, meantime best wishes.Pedro |  Chat  09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After consideration I feel the work done outways a couple of minor niggles. Switch to support.

Neutral Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment

This was on Richardshusr's talk page from a person who was writing on the same article as I was.
Until you're an actual administrator and have REAL power, I see no reason to follow your dictates. Yendor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs).

It looks like Yendor better soon follow Richard's dictates as his election win looks like a certainty. Spevw 14:04, 23 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/Richardshusr&oldid=1090625699"