Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richwales


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it. 

Richwales
'''Final (58/44/9); ended 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)  - ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Richwales has been editing on Wikipedia for almost six years. In that time, he has started or heavily revised four articles (including one DYK); has made significant contributions to fifteen more (one of which gained a week-long WP:ITN listing); and has made minor wikignome improvements, offered assistance (including "third opinions"), and fought vandalism on many pages. He hasn't been the most prolific editor, but he has been a steady contributor.

Rich has tried, in several cases, to mediate disputes between competing factions with strongly held positions and limited tolerance for opposing views. As a result of those experiences he has learned some of the finer points of the NPOV policy, gained practice explaining it to other users, experienced the challenges of achieving consensus, and refined his "people skills" in difficult situations.

He has shown that he has good sense, works well with others, and makes positive contributions to the project. In my opinion, he would be a careful, conscientious, and useful administrator.  Will Beback   talk    23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Initially, I expect most of my admin work will deal with reducing edit warring and vandalism. Since I started editing in 2005, I've done a fair amount of work in this area — by trying to forge consensus between warring factions; by seeking extra input on articles where a small established group of players have reached an impasse; and by reporting obstinately counterproductive editors.  I have also reverted (and, since getting rollbacker rights in January 2008, rolled back) far more clearly inappropriate edits than I can count.


 * In one case, responding to a "third opinion" request (at East–West Schism) resulted in my getting involved in an extended effort to mediate an ongoing dispute extending over several related articles. Since admins are often called upon to intervene in random situations, this sort of experience is clearly an important thing for me to be acquiring.


 * Having the admin tools would allow me to supplement what I can already do with the additional ability (where appropriate) to do a block or a semi-protect myself instead of having to get someone else to do it. I'm sure I will branch out over time into other admin areas, but I understand and agree with the advice to go slow and not try to take on too many new tasks all at once.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have made major contributions to several articles dealing with United States citizenship and immigration law. My first big piece of work on Wikipedia, in 2005, was a major rewrite of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a landmark Supreme Court citizenship case from the 1890s.  I also started an article on Vance v. Terrazas (another citizenship law case) in 2007, and I have made significant contributions to Afroyim v. Rusk (another citizenship case) and Plyler v. Doe (a case dealing with the rights of illegal immigrants).  An article I started (White Horse Prophecy) made DYK in June 2010.


 * 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: The most stressful editing conflict I've been involved with happened in February 2010 and involved Another Gospel, a book linked to the Christian countercult movement. After an initial and embarrassing novice stumble in the AfD world (my first impression of the article was that it was hopelessly flawed and really belonged as a small part of a wider article on the subject in general), I accepted that other editors really wanted the article to stay, and I resolved to do whatever I could to improve the page.  Although my attempts to fix the problems I saw in the article were initially met with fierce resistance, I did eventually manage to get some (not all, but some) of my concerns fixed — in part following requests to WP:3O and WP:RFC.  If I ever encounter a similar situation in the future, I will definitely try harder to find good sources earlier, rather than later.  And if I ever find myself pulled into a contentious situation like this as an uninvolved admin, I'll make every appropriate effort to persuade people to work cooperatively rather than as adversaries.


 * Additional optional question from Mkativerata
 * 4. Assume that your RfA passed on 4 November 2010. I supported it. On your first day as an admin I have come to your talk page with this message, congratulating you on your RfA and asking for your help with the tools on a matter in which I am involved. I am asking you to consider protecting this page on a Malaysian political party (assume it is on the mainspace). I've been trying to stop the insertion of material by a new editor, User:KMalaysia (see the article's history). I think the material is unreliable and POV. Please (a) respond to my message on your talk page; and (b) describe here what action you would take, if any, in respect of the page and the editors concerned.
 * A. See that section of my talk page for my response in detail. In brief, I would give the other editor (a very new editor who is not obviously trying to vandalize) a strong warning to stop violating WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA; direct him/her to WP:RS and WP:NPOV; mention specifically that blogs are not acceptable sources; and caution him/her that s/he will get a 24-hour block if s/he persists in his/her current misbehaviour.  You, on the other hand, are an admin (and should know better, and are to be held to a higher standard), so I would give you an immediate 24-hour block and suggest you use some of that time looking for the kind of acceptable sources that the other editor is apparently having trouble locating.  Additionally, since (as a highly involved administrator) you had no business simply erasing the other editor's page protection request (as alluded to in one of your edit summaries), I would reinstate that request — and then decline it in the proper way, since protecting the page is not appropriate here.  This was, by the way, a very interesting exercise (and complicated in numerous subtle ways); I hope I managed to catch all the issues you raised.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum to my answer above: It's quite apparent that many people feel I was being way too harsh (and even out of line) for proposing a more severe action to stop an edit-warring admin than an edit-warring newbie.  I respect those views, and I realize that no answer I might give to this question can possibly please everyone, but I do want to be sure everyone understands that I felt (and still feel) that my proposed response is a reasonable interpretation of WP:ADMIN.  I don't realistically expect this comment will prompt people who are putting me down over this issue to change their !votes, but I would at least hope that people might read/re-read the admin policy, consider/discuss what they think it really means, and possibly propose refinements or changes to the existing statement of the policy.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from Access Denied
 * 5. What is your opinion on the double standard between admins and other editors? If an admin was edit-warring with a non-admin, how would you administer the blocks?
 * A: See my answer to question #4 above. In an obvious, blatant instance of edit-warring, I would consider the admin to have already been warned a long time ago, and I wouldn't hesitate to impose a block on him/her right away (while, at the same time, giving the non-admin the benefit of at least one warning).  I believe this is fair and appropriate, since administrators can be expected to know better than to engage in serious misbehaviour.  There are, however, borderline cases which reasonable people might perceive differently; in such a case, I believe it would be proper to give an admin a polite (albeit urgent) warning to reexamine his/her manner of editing before I would feel obligated to block him/her to prevent further disruption.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 6. What is your opinion on civility blocks? Where should the line be drawn between incivility and personal attacks?
 * A: My impression, from reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, is that personal attacks are a particular type (and often, though not always, an extreme type) of incivility. The basic "don't do it" concept is the same — always try to be polite, try not to offend, and focus comments on content rather than personalities.  And conversely:  assume others are acting in good faith, and try not to take offence (even to the point of sometimes letting something that might be a bit improper pass by without comment).  Rather than expend lots of hair-splitting effort on deciding whether a given comment is "incivility" on the one hand, or a "personal attack" on the other, the important thing seems to me to be that we should try hard not to engage in any sort of misbehaviour of this type.  And I personally make it a habit, by the way, of re-reading anything I write on a talk page several times to be absolutely sure it says what I really mean (and, hopefully, so I won't be misunderstood and possibly offend people).  As for how to respond to incivility or personal attacks, and when to block, the policy pages suggest that there's a continuum in each case — minor incidents (possibly resulting from misunderstanding) may best be simply ignored or call for a gentle word of caution, while extreme incidents of either type may require immediate and strong actions (including even an indefinite block until a particularly egregious remark is retracted).  But the general rule for blocks, as I understand it, is that blocks are not to be issued in order to punish, but rather as a means of preventing future disruption of Wikipedia.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 7. If an editor has a long-term pattern of serious personal attacks, trolling, and use of good-hand bad-hand accounts to troll and deceive, but they have also produced quality content, does their content work cancel out their abusive behavior such that they should not be blocked?
 * A: Short answer: No.  (Regrettably no, perhaps, but still no.)


 * Longer answer: I think WP:BAN describes the issue well when it says that "By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing...."  Also WP:BAN:  "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good."


 * When warning people who are seriously violating the accepted policies or norms, I have sometimes commented that if s/he persists, s/he likely to get blocked from editing, and if that happens, the community will thereby lose the opportunity to benefit from whatever helpful contributions the person might otherwise have been able to make here.


 * And since I just replied to a "blocking" question by quoting from the "banning" policy, I know I need to say that I do know the difference between a ban (a ruling that someone may not edit certain pages or, in some cases, may not edit at all) and a block (a technical mechanism which enforces a site ban by making it impossible for a user to edit even if they try). Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Minimac
 * 8. Have you worked, or have you had an intention to work in the backlog? If so, what areas were or would you be interested in?
 * A: In July 2010, I signed up for the Guild of Copy Editors' backlog elimination drive. Unfortunately, I only had time back then to work on cleaning up one article — [ History of Bălţi] (about a city in Moldova).  As I look right now at the backlog list, some of the categories (aside from "copy edit") which I believe I would find interesting are "minor POV problems", "biography articles without listas parameter", and "disambiguation pages in need of cleanup".  Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from Sandstein
 * 9. You made a recent revert with the edit summary "rvv", which is shorthand for "reverting vandalism". Do you believe that the edit you reverted was vandalism, and if yes, would you – as an administrator – block the user who made it?
 * A: This specific revert needs to be understood in context, and I would recommend you take a look at the recent revision history of the "Anchor baby" article. An editor (happens to have been an "anonymous" person using an IP address instead of an account, but that's not the point here) made a particular change five times within a period of a little over a week — four of these times being within a period of less than 12 hours.  Two editors (myself and one other person) reverted this change, indicating (first in edit summaries, and then on the user's talk page and the article's talk page) that the disputed phrase was supported by reliable sources cited in the text of the article and could not simply be removed without (a) reviewing the sources involved and (b) discussing the proposed change on the talk page and reaching a consensus that a change was warranted.  Even after the IP-anon finally did start discussing (actually, mostly just arguing) on the article talk page, he still made the change again, twice, without obtaining a consensus first.  It was at this point that I made the revert you asked about (with "rvv" in the edit summary); given what had happened up to this point, I felt the editor's actions had clearly crossed over into negligent (or possibly malicious) territory.


 * Note, too, that at this same time I also filed a notice at the administrators' edit-warring noticeboard — and the IP-anon ended up being blocked for 24 hours by an uninvolved admin. Aside from my concern that the person in question was edit-warring, I lodged the notice when I did because I believed it was important to create an official record of what was going on, lest an admin might possibly come by and, without noticing the big picture, conclude that all three of us (the IP-anon and the two of us who were reverting him) were edit-warring and deserved sanctions.  This was also the basis for my decision to use "rvv" in my last edit summary — again, to alert other people to the true nature of what was happening.


 * In point of fact, I use "rvv" (or variations thereon) very rarely. At one time, I was pretty quick to label questionable edits as vandalism in my edit summaries, but I eventually came to the conclusion (see this comment from 2008) that a too liberal use of "rvv" in edit summaries could be inflammatory, and maybe even uncivil.  I have backed off a little bit from my decision, back then, to stop using the "rvv" edit summary tag entirely, but I currently try to use it only in cases where someone simply isn't getting the point and I feel it to be essential that others should clearly realize that I'm fighting inappropriate edits and not trying to participate in an edit war.


 * Finally, I want to say that although there may perhaps be a valid reason to question the content that was in dispute in this particular case (indeed, the uninvolved admin who did the 24-hour block questioned whether the disputed phrase really belonged or not), the overarching issue here was not a content dispute as such. Even if the IP-anon may have had a point, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to handle this sort of thing, and engaging in a revert war was unquestionably the wrong way.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum to my answer above: Although I do believe the IP-anon's misbehaviour in the above scenario did descend to a level where it was proper for me to label it as vandalism, I would not have blocked this person myself (if I had been an admin), but I would still have reported it (as I did) and allowed someone else to decide whether to give the block or not.  Although, technically, reverting vandalism doesn't negate an admin's status as "uninvolved", it could reasonably have raised questions in this case, and it would be better for me to take the more cautious approach.  Further, it happens that I have been significantly involved with this particular article in the past — in discussions over whether the term "anchor baby" is inherently derogatory or not — so for me to give a block myself in this case would definitely make a reasonable person wonder if I were abusing my administrative powers to advance my own position on the dispute.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Second addendum: After re-reading WP:Vandalism and further considering this situation, I am going to conclude here that I was in fact mistaken.  Stubborn, repeated editing in defiance of consensus (or without even really trying to achieve a consensus) is definitely not appropriate on Wikipedia, but unless the activity is clearly being done in bad faith, it does not fall within the narrow definition of "vandalism".  In this particular example of edit-warring, the IP-anon — while (in my opinion) going about what he was doing in the "wrong way" — was, more likely than not, doing so in good faith.  If I could retroactively take out that extra "v" in my edit summary, I would do so — but since I can't, I will whack myself with a WP:TROUT and most likely go back to my 2008 resolution (see above) to avoid "rvv" and "vandalism" pretty much entirely.  I do stand by the remainder of my answer:  the IP-anon (even though not in fact guilty of "vandalism") was edit-warring, failed to make any meaningful effort to discuss the issue on the article's talk page until very late in the overall incident, and was appropriately reported to the 3RR/EW noticeboard.   (FWIW, I wrote this before seeing Sandstein's comment in the "oppose" section.)  Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Richwales:
 * Edit summary usage for Richwales can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted on talk page. Airplaneman   ✈  14:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I see no issues here. Richwales should make a great admin.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 05:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Per nom.    Will Beback    talk    05:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support Still awaiting answer to Q7, but answer to Q5 and Q6 are spot on. Excellent balance of vandal fighting and content work. access_denied (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I like what I see in the candidate's history, and the answers given to date look good to me --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Changed to neutral --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Thank you for your payment to my bank account.  I received the contribution.  I support your candidacy. :p  MVOO (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Q4 was aced, in my view. I suggest that anyone who disagrees with the block (I don't) nonetheless considers that all important points were covered, and the candidate showed he knows admin misconduct when he sees it. Otherwise, everything looks great. The candidate is clearly an excellent communicator (see edit summaries) which will serve him well with the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my view, WP:NOT and WP:IAR are important points. WP:EW is not a license for biased users to force material from political activist blogs into Wikipedia, so long as they are sufficiently numerous, and neutral editors are sufficiently few. Administrators need to understand that Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission should come first, and not enable obvious disruptive editing. The "block everyone" response to edit warring should be reserved for cases in which it is not immediately obvious to an uninvolved administrator who is in the right (both "sides" have apparently reliable sources that seem to support their preferred versions.) Chester Markel (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Thoughtful answers to the questions, no problems that I could find in the edit history; seems to have a good temperament and understanding of policy. 28bytes (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per answers to Q1-7, which show a responsible and considered attitude to the use of the tools. Jimmy Pitt   talk  10:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Good contributions and a good history of interactions with other editors. A bold response to questions 4 & 5. It is true that admins are expected to have a higher standard of conduct.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Has clue... and knowledge... and a clean block log after 5 years... I think it's time for me to go ahead and support this nomination. Minima  c  ( talk ) 12:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Good answers to the questions and has more than enough experience. I have only seen good contributions from Rich and the mop will help him make even more of them. Airplaneman   ✈  14:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Why not? —  Waterfox ~talk~ 15:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Your response to question nine was well done. In response to your answer to question four, I would advise you to perhaps contact the admin first, directly, and demand that they revert their own edit.  As an administrator, you can do the right thing in this situation without using your button.  It would not be wrong to block the admin, but it would possibly be more correct to take a less drastic method.  Nonetheless, it appears that you are qualified to do administrative work.  Best of luck,  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to note that although he has a slightly lower participation level in the projectspace, he makes up for this with clue.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 08:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support He has a lot of experience, so he should be fine.  WAYNE  SLAM  18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please direct me to this experience? I see a low edit count over a long period of time, not a lot of content experience, and virtually no Wikipedia namespace experience. Where are you seeing "a lot of experience"?  Swarm   X 22:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support per answers to questions. Not even looking at the relatively low edit count (by today's RfA standards), this user has a great understanding of policies and dispute resolution. Eagles  24/7  (C)  18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Move to oppose - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ray  Talk 20:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support very longterm user with a clean blocklog and no real negatives that I could see. Technically yes Malleus is right in that Admins shouldn't get fewer warnings than other editors, but I'm not uncomfortable with the idea that we should be setting an example, and therefore will not oppose for his views on that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a general comment, not a comment on this candidate's answer to Q4, I really can't see that the present state of affairs, which swings wildly between administrators sometimes being given far more leeway than mere editors and sometimes far less, can be anything but an unhealthy development. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I agree that consistency is a virtue, and I'd prefer an attitude of "if anyone is entitle to greater rope it is newbies not admins". But I'm not going to oppose this candidate over that answer. As for your comment re the present state of affairs and wild swings, are you talking about inconsistencies over time, between different parts of the project or from different admins, and more to the point how would opposing this candidate for that reason affect that issue?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Different admins. Therefore one more leaning the wrong way is hardly likely to make things better. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Good answer to Q4, and the diff LoveMonkey cites below is the kind to aspire to. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Not seeing any issues. ➜Gƒoley Four   (GSV)  21:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I like the answers to the optional questions. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Per #1 & #2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Canceling out some of the ridiculous opposes, I don't see a problem with you. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which of the opposes do you think are ridiculous? I think that some of the opposes supports are ridiculous as it happens, especially the rather ridiculous "Why not? votes". Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume you mean ridiculous supports, well, Fastily's Why Not is legit, s/he has his own set of RFA criteria, and if that person meets all the criteria, s/he signs with why not. I think LoveMonkeys oppose is ridiculous because s/he states This person should not be an administrator and then says that he already acts like an administrator, referring that Richwales telling him/her to use more edit summaries is inappropriate, that makes no sense. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would assume that you mean "set of of RFA criterion", as "set" is obviously a collective noun. But you said "some" opposes, which implies more than one, yet you have mentioned only one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake, I did not wholly agree with Swarms oppose, stating that he has a lack of activity, while 50-100 edits a month would not be alot, it has been steady for over two years, and I would not expect it to suddenly drop. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So because I feel 50-100 edits a month is too little of an activity level for an administrator, you call my oppose rationale ridiculous and vote 'support' specifically to spite the users you disagree with? Thank you for that. I love RfA, where someone always feels it's okay to throw pleasantness out the window.  Swarm   X 03:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I called the numbers part of you vote ridiculous, quality not quantity. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Good answers and sustained effort throughout. Andrei S (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – Good answers to the questions. — mc10 ( t / c ) 06:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Good answers to questions. As someone who became an admin with a good deal of time experience, but arguably limited editing experience, I have confidence that you can do what is expected of an admin without four thousand edits being a concern. One two three... 09:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. This editor's history convince me he would have a steady and unbiased hand on the tiller. Criticism as to number of edits is just silly since any drone can accumulate thousands of brainless edits. I see an attempt to create quality rather than acquire quantity. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could provide a link to some of this quality that the candidate has in your opinion created then? Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite understand that you are unable to, but I fail to see why you would prefer not to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite your accusation that I would be unable to show quality edits by the candidate (thus hinting at both my incompetence and/or my honesty), my response using Bartleby the Scrivener's choice quote is more an attempt to gently disengage with you and your apparent vigorous mission against this candidate. I read your original oppose and your rationale. I let your statement stand as expressed without comment. I request you consider extending a similar courtesy to others. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have made claims that you are unable to substantiate. That's fine with me, just wanted to clarify, that's all. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support - Answers to the questions above, as well as a review of some recent contributions show me that Richwales won't abuse the tools. Definitely a good candidate! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Cerebral answers to questions combined with the candidate's long-term commitment to the project make a strong case for support; however, I do have to confess that I'm somewhat stunned at the level of opposition to this nom.--Hokeman (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I believe he is a experienced editor, who has proven himself to be ready for the role of becoming an admin. -- BobNewbie talk 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I can appreciate what some of the opposes say about wanting more contributions, and ideally, I would have preferred that too, but other factors make me support. I think that the answers to questions here have been very strong. I see an impressive ability to conduct himself in the ways that I want administrators to act, in areas where there are strong content disputes, and these things taken together give me confidence to support. In fact, I'm concerned that a big part (not all) of the opposition is simply what comes with doing good editing in areas where opinions run high, and I don't want to see that scuttle this RfA. Specifically, I'm very interested in building NPOV at pages dealing with religious controversies, and so I've just spent some time reviewing at length the page histories concerning the Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox subjects that are discussed in some of the opposes. I've had a lot of experience working closely with Esoglou/Lima at Crucifixion for as long as I've been editing here, and more recently with Taiwan boi at Christianity and violence, and I've found both of them to be very good editors to work with, so it caught my attention to see how they regard this RfA so differently. I've very carefully reviewed Richwales' comments at the talk pages of the involved editors, and, bottom line, I think Rich has been spot on. Oh, and that high dudgeon about whether decapitation is medically reversible (something quite different from spinal cord regrowth, I assure you!) is hardly worth discussing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) support This editor seems to me to both skilled and careful. If he does not have as high an edit frequency as many other editors, then so be it. Surely quality is better than quantity. Many of the oppose votes seem to me to be excessively superficial, and having read them all and followed the relevant links I personally find them unconvincing.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quality undoubtedly trumps quantity, but this candidate appears to have neither. Perhaps you can supply a link to some of this quality output, the link that Quartermaster is unable to produce? Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction. Quartermaster (me) is unwilling not unable. Malleus is unwilling to accept or unable to understand that precept. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I appreciate that you do not approve of this candidate, and this is both your right and your privilege. But why are you so determined to argue against his acceptance by the community?--Anthony Bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against his acceptance by the community, I am merely asking those who claim that the candidate has produced quality output to provide a link to at least some small part of it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Good answers to questions, opposers raise good concerns.. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 12:22pm • 01:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)  Move to Oppose.
 * 1) Support I see no issues. I n k a <sup style="color:black;">888  03:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - while I understand the concerns about activity, I simply can't see opposing someone for having a real life. Perhaps that shows more restraint than most of us! In consideration of the possibility of Rich being a bit fast/heavy with the blocks, Lovemonkey's link balances that out for me. For the record, I agree with his answer to Q4 and theoretical block of the theoretical Mkativerata. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy"> PrincessofLlyr royal court 04:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Lots of clue, even temperament, displays a strong disposition towards administrative work. Will be a net positive overall I believe. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools.  --rogerd (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Although some editors have raised concerns about his edit count, consistent activity levels proves his dedication and perseverance to the project even after five years. I think he can improve on his referencing skillset given time. He understands WP:MOP is a privilege and not a god given right or trophy from his answers to the questions. I don't think he will tear the house down given the tools as he is a level headed, methodical and logical operator of reasons and persuasion for content disputes and actions of other editors.--Visik (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The track record is impressive, editing count is low, but seems to have a general quality to edits. I think him trustworthy, valiant attempt at queries, Net benefit. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I normally avoid RfAs like the plague, but I've interacted with Richwales for some time now, and I know him to be a solid, even-keeled contributor with good judgment. No danger of misusing the tools.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I see he is an experienced wikipedian. –BruTe Talk
 * 9) Support Adminship is no big deal. I trust you would use the tools wisely. Basket of Puppies  16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - No problems that I can see, and I don't consider a small edit count to deny someone who would clearly use the tools access to them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Good answers to the questions, no other problems that I think are major factors. Krashlandon (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak Support: Not quite there yet. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) support Some concerns but overall looks good. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Has shown that he would be a helpful and polite administrator. I think edit count is not of the highest importance, since adding content is not the principal task of an administrator. Esoglou (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support To keep up his faith in applying again...  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Not terribly concerned about edit count. Candidate contributes regularly and diligently (which is really all that should matter), and would be a net positive. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Dispute resolution is a very important thing here. It allows dissenting editors to move on and improve the articles they had been battling on.  But it requires a lot of homework, and it doesn't do much for the edit count, so many editors (me included) often back away when things get hot and heavy.  We all have all strengths and weaknesses in our editing patterns, but I think a strong skill in mediation outweighs the content-creation weakness mentioned in many of the opposing votes.  If Richwales will make this a focus of his adminship, I think he would be a valuable addition to the admin ranks.  The Interior (Talk) 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it that leads you to believe that the candidate has " a strong skill in mediation"? The answer to Q9 would appear to suggest quite the opposite. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I formed that opinion after reading the exchanges on his top-edited Talk pages. Q9 did not change my opinion.  The Interior (Talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution is certainly a very important thing here. Ask around the editors who have been involved in disputes which Richard has observed, and ask what he did about them.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - as per WP:Net Positive. Aeonx (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support From what I see from the oppose side my support goes down but I'm barely on support. Baseball Watcher (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Moving to neutral Baseball Watcher (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I had every intention of voting to oppose based on number of edits. These exercises seem to turn on answering arcane questions of policy sometimes. But they are often about watching the way the candidate handles himself/herself, and the way he/she can handle constructive criticism and suggestions. So I'm going out on a limb, in spite of a low edit count, based on this candidate's response to questions. This candidate has the attitude, flexibility and humility I seek in an admin. Hope you make it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - spending 24/7 on Wikipedia is not a requirement for adminship. --B (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Welcome to RFA (Requisite For Abuse) before getting those extra buttons. All to often, we hear the phrase "...Administration privileges are no big deal".  However, in the RFA process, it seems like this is a motto that is more often mouthed than followed. After reading the Oppose opinions, looking at your edit history, reviewing the requirements for administration privileges, I have to come down on the side of support. Your edit count is low, when compared to a user that who utilizes automated tools.  However, all your edits where done manually.  This shows me that you take the time  to review what you are doing and I can find no technical faults with your edits other than ones based on opinion, such as the one pointed out by  Colonel Warden and question 9  Both clearly an opinion call, unless we call in the Wikilawyers, and there I guareentee you, it would be a split decision.  Overall, I find your edits clearly a net positive that far outweigh any negatives expressed so far.   I trust this will carry over to the availabilty of those extra buttons.   Good luck. ShoesssS Talk 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - ShoesssS's answer is persuasive to me. Shadowjams (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've known Rich sometime now and I have always been impressed with his fastidiously neutral attitude in certain article hotspots. This implies a steady hand, a nice attribute when you hold the block button. As far as his content work is concerned, adminning is really not a content creation-oriented activity anyway. Why then should we demand content experience for admins? I am not convinced with this line of reasoning. So support it is. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis  12:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I think he knows what he's doing; even if he's not 100% perfect, I don't see any indication that he would misuse the tools. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. No one can be perfect, and though flaws are evident, he would be a great admin.  :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:&#124; pepper &#124; :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:  01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - sufficiently experienced to know what he would be doing with the tools and sufficiently clueful to use them properly. I'm not convinced by the opposes; he was tripped up by a tricky question and misused the word 'vandalism' in an edit summary, but I don't think either of those indicate serious long-term problems. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I am not convinced by the opposes either.  Rich will do fine with the tools.   ERK  talk 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. This candidate appears to have no significant content experience; the last thing wikipedia needs right now is yet more career administrators lording it over those who are actually trying to produce some decent content. The candidate mentions United States v. Wong Kim Ark, to which he has 75 edits, as one his biggest and best pieces of work, yet it is almost completely uncited and has contained two request for citation tags since June. This does not seem to be setting a good example. I'm also troubled by the answer to Q4. Administrators should be held to exactly the same standards as any other editor, neither higher nor lower. That and the answers to several other questions give me the distinct impression that this candidate might be altogether too keen to be handed the block hammer. Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. This person should not be an administrator. This person has been defending User:Esoglou and covering for this biased and POV pushing editor while not once publicly criticizing Esoglou for his various edit wars and wiki hounding behavior go look at Esoglou's talkpage and thats only the tip of the iceberg. This person is hypercritical and blinded and therefore will just contribute to making even more editors leave the project because of administrator protecting their their pet editors and those pet editors edit warring activities. The fact this person is up for administrator is proof of just how mess up wikipedia has become. Richwales already acts like and administrator as the inappropriate comments he posted to my talkpage today shows. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you perhaps mean "hypocritical" rather than "hypercritical"? BTW, I can hardly believe I'm writing this, but it isn't right to tar all administrators with the same brush. Sure, there are too many that ought not to be left unattended, but there are quite a few decent and honourable ones as well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LoveMonkey, the diff you provided makes me want to support the candidate even more. That has to be the most restrained, polite, and non-threatening "warning" I've ever seen on a talk page. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If this person already acts like an administrator, shouldn't he be one? And, how does telling you about using edit summaries constitute as an administrative action, I don't ever recall reading somewhere that non-admins couldn't do that. Maybe I missed something. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is losing editors and contributors because this type of none sense., Period blame me but I am not here seeking to be an admin. I have contributed allot to this project but I don't socialize as that makes the clix, cult that everyone complains about. Go ahead keep being critical the wrong people are taking over your bashing me won't change that. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of content on this wikipedia, a lot of it. There is not nearly as much demand for new articles, but updates still need to be made, which is why our level of editors is going down. I still don't understand how Richwales telling you to use more not mention users in edit summaries is rude, he was very nice about it. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not and I repeat I am not, calling your sincerity into question. This is about more than me. But really if you read what Wikipedia actually say is the reason, its people running around acting like administrators giving bad direction and causing frustration.
 * "In the context of these complaints, the term "administrator" is often used to also encompass editors who are not formally administrators, but who engage in administrative activities like tagging and categorizing articles, running robots, writing and enforcing rules, and proposing user bans and article deletions, or who are mistaken by other editors as administrators on the basis of their previous actions or arguments."(i.e. Criticism_of_Wikipedia)
 * It is your prerogative to either be inductive or deductive on how you will approach a problem. I say if one is deductive that they gather as much data as possible about the issue and THEN derive a conclusion. I assume nothing and thats where I am coming from. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also why are these first opposes not showing in the tally? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted. You have to put a hash in front of the indent colons. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most excellent you are a good soul. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose – I can't see why he needs the tools. One of the stated uses would be vandlaism fighting; but looking at his edit figures, he has made less than five reports to WP:AIV. (WP:AIV doesn't show up on his most edited pages in the Wikipedia name space while the last, and least edited, one on the list has five edits.) If he's rolled back "far more edits than [he] can count", but has only made at most 5 AIV reports then he either misunderstands what vandalism is, or misunderstand AIV. Over a six year period that isn't a lot at all. From a content point of view, well, five new articles in six years isn't what I'd expect. I'd like to see more experience at the coal face before giving anyone a promotion. I counted ten months, out of the last 70, where the user made more than 100 edits per month, i.e. more than four a day. The activity levels just aren't high enough. We need someone who's around, in touch and contributing. If he gains more experience in AIV, increase his involvement in the project, and produce more content then I would happily reconsider. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  21:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose For multiple reasons, primarily because they have a huge lack of experience. User only has 4,000 edits, and in six years time that shows a lack of activity that isn't desirable for an admin. First, I agree with Malleus about the lack of content experience. In addition, doesn't seem to have experience in the areas they intend to work. Virtually no experience in the Wikipedia namespace whatsoever (less than 200 edits!). Only ten edits at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and apparently less than five reports at WP:AIV! Are any of the 'why nots' actually looking at this user, or do they just not care? Although I disdain WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, the edit counts alone show a lack of experience that I can't trust in. Response to Q7 gives me the impression that user is unfamiliar with WP:No vested contributors. Some of their other answers are unsatisfying to me as well, but my real issue is the huge lack of experience. Also per their answers to Q4 and Q9.  Swarm   X 22:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope all supporters and opposes are looking at the editor. I have, and I've dismissed the so-called "low edit count" as a concern because it is abundantly clear to me that the candidate makes full use of the preview button, making his count look a fair bit lower than other editors with "similar experience". (Note: I do agree with Malleus that the content work is less than stellar; but adminning AIV is so bloody simple I don't care if he's never made a report there). --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have 16,000 edits in three years (or one year since you became active), is that because you don't make good use of the preview button? I'm inclined to believe it's because you're very active here, something that I can't say for this user.  Swarm   X 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If I did use the preview button as much as I should, I'd have significantly fewer edits, that's for sure :) But more to the point, if we're talking about scrutinising the candidate (a good thing), is there any demonstrable evidence of the lack of experience? A cock-up that a more experienced editor would not have made? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The less you edit, the less likely you are to make a cock-up. There's clearly a problem with the candidate's activity level. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Swarm, if you look at X's edit tool, he has been editing steadily from November 2005. I wouldn't really call that a lack of activity, some people just can put forward 300 edits a month. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand this, but editing steadily since 2005 and less than 200 edits in the WP namespace? Come on. I don't understand it.  Swarm   X 03:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Lack of experience, lack of activity, inadequate use of citations, and I have seen him observe an edit war without significant intervention or contributions towards resolution. On the "Theological differences between Catholic and Orthodox" page Catholic editor User:Esoglou repeatedly made POV edits misrepresenting the Orthodox position (improperly sourced edits, misrepresentation of sources), and engaged in extended edit warring. Several times I made the suggestion that the User:Esoglou confine himself to edits which discuss the Catholic position, and that User:LoveMonkey confine himself to those which discuss the Orthodox position (which he was mostly doing anyway), in order to try and reduce the friction. I also opposed User:Esoglou's disruptive editing. Richard observed the edit warring but made very few attempts to resolve the situation, other than a couple of requests that people stop edit warring. Richard rightly commented that the article needed to be reduced drastically in size, but didn't do anything about it. I made some bold edits, removing extensive material on specific subjects to the respective subject pages, which finally defused the edit warring on the page, a move which Richard supported. I would have liked to have seen Richard take active steps to resolving the problem, especially since the entire issue was the result of one consistently disruptive editor, User:Esoglou.--Taiwan boi (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'd like to mention that I did make some additional efforts to improve the situation at Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences. I posted a request at [ WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy], in an attempt to get more editors participating on the page.  I also posted a request on OrthodoxWiki (an outside wiki) for more participation here; and I contacted a few individual editors and asked them to consider contributing to the discussion.  I was (and still am) convinced that an article on an inherently controversial subject (such as this) needs more than just two active editors; otherwise, it is impossible to achieve consensus when disagreements arise, and each editor is really forced into a situation where s/he must attempt to present and critique both sides of the issue (making allegations of distortion/misrepresentation almost unavoidable).  Merely chasing one or both of the existing editors away might have put a temporary end to the drama, but it would not have improved the article.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard, my comment wasn't intended to be unmitigated criticism and I apologize that it came across that way. I should have balanced it by acknowledging your efforts at the Theosis page (I have also appreciated your balanced work at the Christianity & violence page). However, I would have liked to have seen you do the same at the Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences page. Getting more editors involved was not the solution because it wasn't addressing the problem. The problem was that two editors were using the article to criticize each other's personal religious beliefs. This was resulting almost entirely from the fact that User:Esoglou was not confining himself to edits on the Catholic Church, but was actively attempting to attack the Orthodox view by posting material which he claimed represented Orthodox beliefs but which User:LoveMonkey (who is Orthodox), believed was not accurately representing Orthodox beliefs. That is where the conflict was coming from. As I pointed out more than once, neither editor had to be chased away from the article, they just had to be encouraged to behave themselves. The edit warring would have stopped immediately if Esoglou had confined himself to edits on the Catholic perspective, and not repeatedly made edits attempting to (mis)represent the Orthodox perspective. Failing that, some intervention had to take place which defused the conflict, and in this case it proved that simply removing the superfluous material from each section into the individual subject articles diffused the conflict to the point that it was no longer taking place in the article. What I felt was necessary from you was a clear declaration of what the problem was, and a clear recommendation for a solution, followed by actual personal action towards that solution. The entire issue could have been shut down instantly if Esoglou had been kept from making edits ostensibly representing Orthodox views, given that he isn't Orthodox and has a record of attacking and misrepresenting Orthodox views, sometimes with inadequate or misrepresented sources. To my mind a good administrator identifies a root problem, makes it clear to the editors involved, calls out disruptive editors, and works actively to a solution which addresses the root problem directly, rather than just asking for more editors to contribute (it doesn't take an administrator to do this).--Taiwan boi (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am indeed sorry to see that two editors who have it in for me have, for that very reason, here expressed opposition to the candidature, which I would certainly support, if I did not fear that listing myself among those who support might appear to be merely a reaction to the attacks by these two. The candidate has not been a backer of my opinion and has actually reined me in, guiding me, for instance, to avoid edits what might appear as poking fun at others over what I find something amusing in what they write.  It would be quite out of place for me to discuss here Taiwan boi's accusations, and his demand that I refrain from editing what are really caricatures of a church's teaching.  Anyone who is interested is invited to intervene at Talk:Theoria.  Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made my objections clear and they have nothing to do with "having it in" for you. Please don't come here and re-interpret what I say. I have never said that Richard was a backer of yours. Your record for disruptive editing, the list of editors who have opposed you, and the AfD which was carried out specifically because of your editing, is a matter of record. This is not the place for you to canvass for support for your disruptive edits on the Theoria page.--Taiwan boi (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - User just doesn't have enough involvement or experience for me to support at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I sample his contributions and immediately find this edit to decapitation. These are quite assertive statements of fact and yet no reference is provided to verify or substantiate them.  The candidate does not seem to have relevant qualifications or expertise which would make him an authority on this topic and so is presenting his own opinion of the topic in an improper way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon, that you cannot reattach a severed head with today's technology hardly requires a reference. In fact it is so obvious that it does not need mentioning at all. -- The other sentence was merely moved around from somewhere else. --Pgallert (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The disputed edit said "Repair of a severed spinal cord is not possible through any known medical technology.". But see Neurobiology of spinal cord injury which states "Several investigators have even reported successful attempts to regrow the spinal cord of rats, overturning the long-held dogma that the adult mammalian spinal cord cannot regrow and reconnect".  Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot read that quote, but the "even" seems to prove my point rather than yours. Needless to say that the decapitation article is not predominantly about rats, and that they didn't regrow it in seconds? --Pgallert (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit is still on the page and still technically unsourced; is it really worth opposing for? Still, I'm not ready to support, but I certainly won't oppose.  —  Soap  —  16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For some supporters little short of genocide is really worth opposing over. But this lack of sourcing is a feature of what very few contributions this candidate has made to article space, as I pointed out above. It's not the quantity of contributions per se that's of concern it's their quality. I understand that many administrators consider WP:CIVIL to be the most important of the five pillars, but this candidate doesn't even seem to be on nodding terms with an equally or perhaps even more important one, WP:NPOV. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (reply to Pgallert). The decapitation article is a general one about animals in general, as the lead indicates.  This includes insects which can survive decapitation for long periods - some live longer if you cut their head off.  The key point here is that we have an editor who seems lack elementary knowledge of key policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR.  But let's verify this by looking at another edit such as "fixed year of Tahvo Putkonen's execution to be consistent with the existing article on this person".  Now he obviously means well but seems not yet to understand that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  And the article that he's using as a benchmark for this fix doesn't have any sources.  I did some digging and my impression is that the English article is based upon the Finnish equivalent.  That has some sources - a genealogy site.  A guy roots around in court records because "I am trying to check who is in Finland the last person beheaded, because there seems to be different information".  I'm not sure what the contrary information is because my Finnish isn't up to it.  By our customary standards, we shouldn't have the Tahvo Putkonen article and so I shall now nominate it for deletion.  I wouldn't trust the candidate to close the AFD because he doesn't seem to understand the basic principles of this place and so should not be an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your general concerns, and yes, it seems to be more than a once-off slip. --Pgallert (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) (Moved from neutral) Well, no wonder you state in question 4 that you're willing to block a user for "edit warring" because they repeatedly removed unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous material about an organization: you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself! "It's obvious" is an inadequate excuse: if the truth of the material were plainly apparent, there would be no purpose in inflicting such useless banalities upon the reader. Chester Markel (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need for rhetoric such as "you delight in frequently adding unsourced material to Wikipedia yourself". Also, which of the exemptions to the 3RR did those reverts fall under, because I'm not seeing it? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. Removing potentially libelous material about an organization sourced only to political activist blogs should be an exception to the 3RR, for some of the same reasons that the BLP contentious content sourcing exception was created: since corporations are (legally) people, the same issues of defamation are presented in both cases. Other justifications for WP:BLP don't really seem to apply, because Wikipedia considers there to be no moral issues involved in how we write about organizations :) It's much less trouble to simply let editors force WP:LIBEL out of articles, and use blocking and page protection to ensure its removal, than it is to respond to OTRS complaints, or lawsuits (even though the Wikimedia Foundation almost certainly couldn't be held liable for defamatory content in an article, just responding to a lawsuit by someone who's being defamed, or dealing with a subpoena to seek the IP address of a user who added libelous material to an article is likely to be expensive. When occasioned by bad decisions such as Richwales' wikilawyering 3RR block, such expenditures would be a highly avoidable waste of donor funds.) Chester Markel (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm generally inclined to be more liberal in supporting RFAs, but this edit (the one Sandstein referenced) clearly isn't vandalism. I wasn't convinced by the answer you gave to his question either.  DC   T • C   18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Low content experience is never a good thing. Plus most edits to the pages indicated seem to be routine Vadalism Reverts. Articles s/he is proud of lack sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, unfortunately. Level-headed editor with clue and a long history of contributing, but the following concerns accumulate and make me feel uneasy (see also my conversation with Colonel Warden above): --Pgallert (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually all articles he is proud of show a strange pattern of referencing other Wikipedia articles, and of containing lengthy passages that are not referenced at all,
 * I am really no fan of requesting many edits, but for a self-proclaimed vandal fighter (indeed, many of his recent edits are reverts) 4,3K is not much. This combined with rather low content development (6 articles created, 1 DYK, 1 ITN) amounts to some concern for me.
 * My last concern is a bit hard to formulate (and sorry if I'm coming across too negative), let me put it this way: He claims to be involved in many things where his actual contributions are not exactly stellar, e.g member of the projects Star Trek, Romania and Georgia (what are the achievements?), WP:3O (grand total of 5 edits to project page), participation in French Wikipedia (6 edits in 4 years). Together with an apparent eagerness to become admin (his preparation user subpage having more edits than anything he worked on in main space) this leaves a bad feeling. --Pgallert (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied your sig, so that the RFA bot knows that this is your oppose and not Colonel Warden's. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The answers to question 4 and 5 are a failure. Immediately blocking an administrator? Administrators are expected to lead by example, but it is also understood they are human and make occasional mistakes. That's from Administrators. That policy page does NOT indicate that administrators should be blocked without warning because they are expected to know proper behavior and being an administrator have already, in effect, been warned. Acting in this manner is far more likely to result in a serious problem than attempting to calm the situation via other means. This elevation of administrators to a higher standard, a higher status is upsetting. Participate more in Wikipedia space, learn the ropes, understand what administrators contend with on a routine basis, and learn to appreciate they aren't any more or less of an editor than anyone else here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Answer to question 4 is extremely concerning to me. A 24 hour block for what reason? Punitive, preventative? Because the user is an admin and "should know better"? I just loath this sort of admining of wikipedia and do not wish to see more of it. A very dubious block with no discussion, no warning, no taking the issue to ANI etc. We have enough admins doing that sort of thing we do not need another. Polargeo (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Dreadful Not the best answer to Q4. Admins should be no more and no less subject to blocks and due process around them - half the whining that goes on around here is about "the cabal" after all. It should be a level playing field - whatever your user rights you get the same treatment. Immediate blocks without notice are used in only rare cases, mostly post checkuser evidence. Blocking people on the basis that they "should know better" treats us all like seven year olds. Naughty step anyone? Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ammended. I think that this is probably a "weak oppose". I was very impressed by the candidates commentary here and agree fully with much of his sentiments. Pedro :  Chat  16:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds much too block happy, and despite his good qualities, we don't need block-happy admins. AD 21:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – I am concerned about the lack of quality contributions made so far. Work on the mainspace some more and make sure you understand what verifiability and neutral point of view entails, and I'd be willing to support in the future. –MuZemike 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Q4 answer. Admins should be treated no differently to any other user, regardless of experience. Parrot of Doom 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Insufficient experience with content, deletion, or the stated area of work, AIV. You don't have to make a layover at FAC before coming back here, but I do think you need more general "hand in the machine" experience. Courcelles 23:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I have read through the responses to questions and while I do believe admins have a responsibility to set a good example, that does not mean they are or should be better editors, or be treated differently when it comes to misconduct. The answer to question 4 is problematic on many levels. First there is a willingness to block without warning, when other approaches might diffuse disagreement. Second, while the candidate believes blocks are preventative rather than punitive, there is no clear indication here exactly what harm is being prevented and indeed significant suggestion of punishment for being a bad admin. Third, and most seriously for me, the candidate then proposes to suggest to the blocked admin that they "use some of that time looking for the kind of acceptable sources that the other editor is apparently having trouble locating"! This shows absolutely no tact or "clue" whatsoever, and suggests an "I know better than you" attitude that is very unhealthy in adminship. Geometry guy 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now noted addenda to the questions, and kudos to the candidate for whacking himself with a trout (that cannot have been easy, although I have never tried it). My concerns remain, however, and it also seems that the candidate is somewhat wedded to "the rules", rather than the spirit they reflect. This is a problem which should resolve itself with more experience contributing. Geometry guy 21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The idea of warning people that one dislikes their conduct seems to have entirely escaped this candidate; yet sometimes it works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Per question 9. Sick of seeing these accusations of 'vandalism' from non-admins, the last thing I want is an admin doing it. Answer is completely unconvincing. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 23:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - you don't need to be at the top of WP:WBFAN to be an admin, but you do need to have an idea of the work involved in developing an article. Q4 is also concerning. Candidate needs more experience with the day-to-day affairs of Wikipedia before being granted the tools. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose This is a candidate who I think has the potential to be an admin at some point in the future, but who does not appear to have the experience and editing history to justify handing over the reins. More experience editing in mainspace is one of the factors that would sway my opinion in the future. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per Q4 and Q9. Sorry. --John (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose due to a lack of content contributions, and also poor answers to questions as alluded above. Skinny87 (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Lack of good judgement and too little actual experience.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) 'Oppose. Lack of good judgement, experience in admin areas and some answers which left me with no option but to oppose. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. In my opinion, admins should present a bit more commitment to the project, along with demonstrated knowledge, rather than showing that they are able to answer the questions to (almost) everybody's satisfaction. I would prefer to see practical demonstration of the appropriate action in content development, article deletion, and dispute resolution. I don't expect perfection, just experience in various areas of the project in which admins generally lend their support on a daily basis. I would give it at least another six months with focused efforts in gaining some practical experience and knowledge. This candidate leaves me with no idea how the tools would be used. That said, thanks for throwing your hat in the ring. Try again in six months. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak oppose for a number of things highlighted above. Mainly inexperience that is 'obvious', lack of content, Q4, Q9. I would support at a later time but not yet. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, concerns about content experience, and temperament. -- Cirt (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Sorry, but I find the answer to my question, no. 9, unsatisfactory. The correct response would have been something like: "sorry, I know that obstinately disagreeing with me about matters of content is not the same as vandalism, it was a slip of the keyboard and it won't happen again." Also I share some of the concerns above about the lack of substantial article writing.  Sandstein   21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I see the potential for you to be an excellent admin (not least in the way you've handled criticism at this RfA): but I do not think that potential will be realised if you pass this RfA. Get some more experience, and try again when you're ready. Rd232 talk 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very kind. Believe me, regardless of which way this thing goes, I'm taking away a sizable list of homework assignments.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It's all been said above, but I also found the answer to No. 9 to be off the mark. That's not the only reason, but again, it's all been said, supra. Perhaps try again in a year. Saebvn (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I don't have confidence in this candidate. Mainly because of lack of experience and their answers to several of the questions as other users have pointed out.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 03:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Unfortunately, per above.  Concerns with judgment and policy knowledge.  Maybe next time. - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Sorry. You specifically state that you want to do anti-vandalism work, yet just up until this week you've had a mistaken assumption on what vandalism is and is not.  You need more experience in this work before being able to block vandals.  Them  From  Space  11:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Serious concerns about answers to questions. Candidate appears to not understand the accepted definition of vandalism, and is too eager to resort to blocking. the wub "?!"  13:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Q9. For someone who wants to use the mop to fight vandalism, this user should know that "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, but edit warring" (WP:VAND).  <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I would not be opposed to a future RfA when I am convinced that the nominee has experience dealing with vandalism consistent with what the nominee has undoubtedly learned through the questions and discussions here. <font color="#D00000">RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 01:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I appreciate the second addendum to q9, although in some sense it goes too far; now you don't appear to be willing to call vandalism what it is and deal with it appropriately. While not treating nonvandals like vandals is arguably more important, I think being able to confidently and correctly distinguish vandalism from other problematic kinds of edits is also very important - especially for an admin who intends to focus on dealing with edit warring and vandalism. Wrt q4, from your comments to Mkativerata on your user page, you seem to think that KMalaysia has crossed the 3rr line, but KMalaysia has not. I don't know if this was a counting mistake or a misunderstanding of the rule, and in any case your plan to use uw-3rr and not block is correct, but "for the wrong reasons" as they say. Also I don't read WP:ADMIN as saying they are "more blockable". I don't necessarily think the block was completely wrong, but I think admins should be blocked exactly when others are blocked; to have a different standard means that you are essentially using the blocks as a punitive measure rather than a preventative one, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you say about the suggestion that the real issue here may (or should) not be so much that Mkativerata is an admin, but rather than KMalaysia is a newbie? As I understand WP:3RR and WP:EW, it seems to say that no one (experienced or not, admin or not) is entitled to get a warning prior to being blocked for 3RR or edit warring — but, rather, it's up to an admin to decide what is most appropriate in the specific situation in order to get the misbehaviour to stop and get the editors involved to act more properly in the future.  There is probably a stronger argument for giving someone with only a handful of edits a warning, rather than "bite" him right away with a block (see WP:DONTBITE).  I see a lot of room (maybe too much room?) here for admins to exercise judgment and discretion in how to apply general policies to specific situations — and an admin may have to make a quick decision without being able to afford the luxury of time to discuss it into the ground on a noticeboard and obtain a broad consensus first — and no matter what an admin might decide to do in a situation like this, there will almost certainly be people who (after the fact) agree with his action 100%, and others who disagree 100% (as illustrated by people's reactions here in this RfA).  I'm not saying all this in hopes of talking you or others into changing your !votes — barring a miracle, I assume it's extremely unlikely that my current RfA is going to pass — but I do hope some of the questions raised here (things on which it's clear that experienced editors strongly disagree) can get hashed out and possibly clarified for the benefit of future editors and admins.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not criticizing your decision to block MKativerata; blocking or not blocking are probably both defensible. Wrt KMalaysia, I think the warning was fine and good, but like I said it was good because KMalaysia hadn't violated 3rr yet, not (mostly) because KMalaysia is new. But had KMalaysia committed another revert, thereby going over the 3rr line, then yeah, I'm not saying you have to block and not warn. You're right, I think "it's up to an admin to decide what is most appropriate in the specific situation in order to get the misbehaviour to stop", and it's a judgment call, to an extent. Sure, I suppose newness might enter in to that, but a new person reverting everything is still disruptive, so I'm not really sure it matters a whole lot how new they are. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sorry, I rarely weigh in on these, and never oppose, but not enough experience for me. <font face="Kristen ITC"> C T J F 8 3 chat 23:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Outside Comment - Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by "not enough experience"? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, while I realize there is no specific amount of edits a user needs to be an admin, 4,390 edits in almost 6 years doesn't show much dedication to the project. <font face="Kristen ITC"> C T J F 8 3 chat 13:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Very little content experience considering that Rich has been editing for four years, and there are too many problems in the material zie seems most proud of. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social club, and admins  should have demonstrated a sustained ability to build the encyclopedia in accordance with policy ... but I don't see that here.  Plus, the answers to questions suggest that Richwales would be far too trigger-happy with the block button. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - per concerns over experience and judgment. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 3:14pm • 04:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Lack of significant amount of content building with proper referencing. I hate to pile on since some of the opposition here is piling on with stuff I don't agree with, but I cannot trust your judgment at this time.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 02:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose In my view admins must have a strong history of content creation. Without this experience, I don't think it is possible to understand the effort that goes into building the encyclopaedia, and the hard work, difficulties and frustrations involved. I don't want to see admins solely acting as the "managers" of all our precious content creators. Most readers come to Wikipedia to read our articles. This is not Facebook. To see so little content creation in so many years is not good. Graham Colm (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Interesting response to #4. I read "reverting pending WP:RPP request" not as meaning "I have reverted your WP:RPP request" but rather "I am reverting your change to this article until my pending WP:RPP request is addressed." If my interpretation is correct, that's a hell of a nasty block you just gave the theoretical Mkativerata. Admin or not, I think a warning and demand that they revert themselves would be a better call. Nonetheless, I'm leaning support pending the other questions. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say either way I've breached 3RR and it would be a fair block. I read it as "I'm reverting to the version I want until one my admin mates at RPP protects my version". (I then did seek out a mate, wrongly thinking that Richwales was one :)) --Mkativerata (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 28bytes, you're clearly right about my having misunderstood "reverting pending WP:RPP request". If this had been a real case, I would presumably have realized my misparsing of the edit summary as soon as I went to WP:RPP's revision history and failed to find any revert by Mkativerata of any request by KMalaysia!  We often get too "telegraphic" in our edit summaries, I think, and it's often a very good idea to be a bit more verbose in order to make an edit summary as clear as possible.  As for the "h*ll of a nasty block", I really think I need to stand by my decision — even if an admin is edit-warring in a good cause (!), there are "right" and "wrong" ways of doing it, and in this case I think it's clear that "the theoretical Mkativerata" was going about it the wrong way and had no valid excuse not to realize that.  And Mkativerata, if this had been a real scenario, I would hope (possibly unrealistically, of course) that you would not hold a long-term personal grudge against me for "calling 'em like I see 'em"; my motivation was to help Wikipedia, and to help you stay focussed on being a better editor.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 08:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A 24-hour block for breaking 3RR is definitely supported by policy; but as you mention in your answer to question 5, a "polite (albeit urgent) warning" is also supported, and I think reasonable people can disagree about which is more appropriate in the scenario given. Regardless, the rest of the answer to #4 seemed spot-on to me, so still leaning support at this point. 28bytes (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving to support. 28bytes (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Strong neutral I find your response to question 4 to be misguided. While adminship is not diplomatic immunity, neither are administrators subject to a reduced threshold for blocking. They may be blocked for edit warring on, and only on, the same terms as any other editor. In the example, Mkativerata's behavior did not merit a block. I concede that, according to a literal interpretation of Edit warring, repeatedly removing highly unreliably-sourced, potentially defamatory material about an organization is doubleplusungood, and not excused by WP:BLP because for Wikipedia policy purposes, corporations are not people. However, the policy states that editors may be blocked for violating it, not that they must. Administrators are expected to wear their encyclopedist hats first, and exercise discretion. I would suggest that blocking KMalaysia for violating WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:LIBEL would improve Wikipedia. The suggestion that "you use some of that time looking for the kind of acceptable sources that the other editor is apparently having trouble locating" is inexplicable: why assume that material attributed to political activist blogs could be reliably sourced? Also, the response to question 6, while generally satisfactory, misses an important point: a block of an otherwise productive editor for any incivility or personal attacks short of legal or violent threats stands a good chance of being controversial, and needs to be discussed on WP:AN or WP:AN/I before it is issued, to avoid a block war. Chester Markel (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving to oppose. Chester Markel (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't think you'll be a bad administrator, but I see several things that I usually don't like seeing at RfA: relatively low activity levels since 2005 (your "record" was 368 edits in one month, and your average is around 100 edits/month), relatively low number of edits to projectspace/projecttalkspace, few edits to AIV (as you want to work in vandalism patrol), and relatively low number of edits in general (relative to most RfA candidates that I support, that is). The attitude I have seen from you is something I like, even though I disagree a bit with your answer to Q4. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One reason (not the only reason, but one) why my edit count is relatively low may be that I've been doing everything by hand. I've read good and bad comments about the various productivity tools, and I would be willing to consider using one of these if it would really help me work more effectively.  I'm open to recommendations (please be aware that I use Firefox on Linux — so, for example, IE/Windows-based tools are out of the question).  Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The concerns over inactivity etc are concerning, but not enough on their own to prevent me from supporting. However, Malleus raises a valid point about the zeal with which Rich might swing the banhammer, though I probably would have blocked the hypothetical Mkativerata because I tend to prefer blocks to shutting all editors out of an article. I get the impression that there are some situations in which you might act without considering all the options. Those concerns are enough to prevent me from supporting, but, like Fetch, I don't think you'd be a "bad" admin, so I'm not opposing. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that you are on trial here but, honestly you prefer blocks? Surely negotiation, warnings etc. in that sort of situation? Did the hypothetical Mk need to be blocked to prevent damage to wikipedia? Or to stop ongoing abuses? Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Not convinced either way. The candidate seems trustworthy, but their lack of experience and inactivity worry me.  ceran  thor 18:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Indenting} The Anchor baby incident is giving me pause for concern. The IP was engaged in an edit war, but had entered into a discussion on the talkpage, and the situation is not clear cut. There is, from looking at some of the earlier discussions on the talkpage, some concern about the use of the term. There might be questions raised about the control of that article, and if appropriate space has been given to allow alternative views to be aired. I'm looking at it and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the IP's view as it appears that the opening sentence might be a POV, and might not be - as has been argued by Richwales - fully suppported by the sources. It's bordering on OR. Vandalism it is certainly not. The questions here for me are: was the IP's concerns appropriately addressed (no); was the reverting of the edit appropriate (probably not); was the eventual blocking of the IP appropriate (yes, as the IP had violated 3R); and could the situation have been handled better (most certainly). Of course that incident by itself shouldn't stop someone from becoming an admin, as we all make mistakes, and it is learning from them that matters. But when the incident was raised in this RfA, Richwales has not, apparantly, seen any problem with his action, and has gone to great lengths to explain it - that causes me concern. And when that is matched with comments from opposors who are drawing attention to this candidate's poor content contributions, poor understanding of the need to research and source, and minor involvement and contributions over a long period, I am wondering what real positive qualities the candidate has to overcome the negative points.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to oppose. Lack of good judgement and too little actual experience.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Very great candidate, but the lack of activity bothers me. - <font face="Century Gothic" color="#2B65EC" size="2">Dwayne  was here!   &#9835;  22:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral -- Not now --  Nolelover  It's football season!  18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure NOTNOW applies here. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I wasn't paying attention when I linked that; thank you. To clarify, I think "not now" in the sense that I would consider supporting you at a later date. I just can't support right now. Like fetch said, I don't think you'll be a bad admin, I just think you should wait a bit.  Nolelover  It's football season!  18:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not sure, so I'll place my !vote here. ~  Nerdy Science  Dude  20:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral I totally understand Richwales' response to Mkativerata's question, but there's one critical step he's missing. Especially if KMalaysia is a new user, the first thing to do would be to check the new user's contributions and see if they match the patterns of any known sockpuppeteers.  In this particular case, given the subject of the example article (Malaysian politics) and the user (Mkativerata), it's especially important because there's a chance it could be a sock of User:Roman888, who aside from being a prolific sockpuppeteer was/is a serial copyright violator, which carries a special urgency given the legal implications copyright violations involve for the WMF.  I'm interested to hear if Richwales has a response to this; my vote may yet change.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern, but it's not obvious to me that this KMalaysia would be a sock of Roman888. Although both users are sharply critical of the Malaysian government and have accused Mkativerata and other editors of being paid Malaysian government agents, KMalaysia was repeatedly trying to add material from blogs (whereas the sources offered by the socks on Roman888 seem, at least on the surface, to be legitimate mainstream news sources).  Clearly, all Malaysian dissidents/critics are not a single person (in terms of the WP:DUCK test, these could be two ducks of the same species, but still two separate ducks).  If I thought the people doing SPI on Roman888 might not otherwise become aware of the possibility (albeit slim) of KMalaysia's being a sock, I might report it — but since Mkativerata has already been involved there, my impulse would be to hold back and let him/her report it if s/he felt it appropriate (once the 24-hour block I gave him/her was over).  As for the copyright violation issue, I don't see that as an urgent driver here, because KMalaysia's edits don't seem to be the kind of thing that would be a copyvio, and his/her edits are already inappropriate (violating, for example, WP:V and WP:NPOV) without even getting to copyrights.  If KMalaysia were to seemingly "shape up" and try to offer material with more appropriate sources — but which appeared to constitute copyvio — then his/her contributions could be dealt with as possible copyvio (and that additional evidence might be enough to tie him/her in to the Roman888 SPI).  Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I see what you're saying. I think I'll move to support; I just want to make sure I make the decision after the euphoria of being done with finals wears off.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And moving now. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Neutral (Moved from support) From all the things I read from the question to the oppose content I'm not having a good feeling about this user. He doesn't seem fit to handle the mop. Baseball Watcher (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral (Moved from support) The opposes raises valid concerns, which prevent me from supporting with a clear conscience - however, they are not strong enough to change my !vote to an oppose, hence I'm sitting on this sofa instead. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Definitely clueful, but needs more experience in more areas. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.