Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richwales 2


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

Richwales
Final (84/5/7); Closed as successful by – xeno''' talk at 20:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
Hi. I've been editing on Wikipedia for 6½ years. I had an unsuccessful RfA bid last December, and I resolved at that time to accept the justified, constructive criticism I received and to address the issues raised. Nine months since then, after having expanded both the scope and the content of my editorial experience, I am grateful to get an opportunity to present my candidacy to the community once more.

In the last nine months, I've produced four Good Articles (and have nominated two more GA candidates which are currently awaiting consideration). Additionally, one of my GAs is being considered right now for possible Featured Article promotion. I realize that many other editors have produced far larger amounts of recognized content than I have, but I hope that what I've done since my first RfA will go at least part of the way to calm the fair and understandable concerns of those who felt last time that my grasp of proper writing and sourcing skills was inadequate or unproven.

I've been branching out into various aspects of Wikipedia maintenance that I hadn't been involved in at all previously, in an effort to get a broader range of understanding and experience that may hopefully make me more useful on the site (either with or without the mop). I've spent some time so far with AfD, NPP, and CSD tagging. I've also continued to work on refining the way I handle vandalism, other forms of unconstructive editing, and edit-warring; kept on trying to help from time to time with conflict resolutions; and continued to make numerous minor wikignome improvements as the occasion has arisen. I hope that aiming for more of a well-rounded approach to the project will address the worries of some people who felt last time that I may have been too focussed on confrontational enforcement issues and was showing signs of being "block-happy".

Since my first RfA (at which I had about 4,300 edits), I've made around 3,500 additional edits. At the same time, I do understand and realize the fact that my current edit count (around 7,800 edits) may still be considered low compared to many established and respected editors who have edited far more than I have. I do hope that as time progresses, I too am able to contribute as much to Wikipedia as they have.

In my activity on Wikipedia, especially over the last nine months since my first RfA, I have strived hard and sincerely to work well with others (including those who may have had editorial disagreements with me). I have also tried hard to be conscientious, careful, and to contribute as positively to Wikipedia as possible. At the same time, I have learned many lessons, and I am sure I will keep on learning with each passing day on this project. In all, I hope that given my contributions, the community will find me trustworthy in this request for adminship. Thank you. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Co-nominator: Richwales is a sensible, intelligent, conscientious and mature editor. By electing Richwales as an admin we're electing a person genuinely dedicated to improving the project rather than a bureaucratic functionary. Rich's competence as an admin is well demonstrated by his nomination statement and answers to the mandatory questions. I would add that a mere review of his talk page history demonstrates that he has the desirable administrative qualities of assuming good faith, willingness to assist new editors, and seeing others' points of view. He clearly passes the "not a dickhead" test, the importance of which shouldn't be understated. Richwales obviously won't be the most active administrator in the history of the project, but his help will be very much appreciated. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Co-nominator: Richwales is a name that I often come across in  spite of  not  having  tens of thousands of edits under his belt. Having reviewed his recent work,  I find that  he has amply  addressed  and made up  for any  shortcomings that  were voiced in  his previous RfA. I am fully  confident  that  in  giving Rich  the tools, we will be making  a strong  addition  to our  regiment  of mop & bucketeers. I am pleased to  be able to  join  with   Mkativerata in  fully  endorsing  Rich's self nomination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Co-nominator: It's a pleasure being one of the co-nominators for Rich Wales' 2nd RfA. The last time, when I had supported Rich, I had left a justifying statement − "To keep up his faith in applying again... " There are few editors who, after failing an RfA, look inside themselves, take the rightful criticism positively, and address the issues that may have been brought up. There are fewer still who gather up the guts to apply again at the RfA can(n)on test. I'm pleased that Rich is one of those few and am honored to present his candidacy to the community as one of the co-nominators. From having worked on his editorial skills to expanding his interactions beyond the focus he had had earlier to the 1st RfA, from being honest about his mistakes and drawbacks to being not overly confident of his strengths and competencies, Rich has tried − and I believe hard − to ensure that his contributions to Wikipedia give to the community and to our project as much as he is learning from these. My best wishes to Rich for this RfA.  Wifione  Message 19:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am grateful, and honoured, by the support of the above co-nominators, and I accept their confidence in my candidacy.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:58, 17 September 2011 (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: Addressing the issue of vandalism is one area where I wish to contribute as an administrator. I've also been trying to increase my exposure in other areas where I may (in the future, once I become confident) undertake administrative work.  AfD, NPP, and CSD are a few of these areas — although I need to confess that if I do become an administrator, I'll prefer (initially) to rely on input from senior editors and administrators who are already contributing diligently in areas where I am new.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have brought four articles to the Good Article level — three US Supreme Court cases on citizenship law, and a fourth article on the late Steve Irwin. I've nominated two more articles (which are in the queue awaiting consideration for GA).  Additionally, one of my existing GAs is currently being considered for Featured Article status.


 * 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: One key editing conflict I've been involved with happened in February 2010 and involved the article about Another Gospel, a book linked to the Christian countercult movement. After an initial and embarrassing novice stumble in the AfD world, I accepted that there was consensus for the article to stay, and I resolved to improve it.  Although my attempts to fix some of the issues with the article were initially met with fierce resistance — and there was some (understandable) questioning of how I could sincerely be trying to improve an article I had so recently tried to get deleted — 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.  This experience helped teach me why it is important to make every appropriate effort in good faith to ensure editors work cooperatively rather than as adversaries.


 * Additional question from Roux
 * 4. Kind of an unusual question, but bear with me here. Why should people not support this candidacy?
 * A: I don't really feel there are any truly pressing reasons why people should definitely not support me.  However, I imagine some may feel that 7,800 edits isn't enough for their tastes.  And some might feel that at least one Featured Article (or possibly more) should be required, in order to prove beyond any doubt that a candidate really understands content work well enough to do admin tasks.  (One of my Good Articles is currently being considered for FA, but I believe it's too early to tell if it'll get approved this time around.)  There may be other issues that some !voters will bring up — but in any case, I believe my candidacy is legitimate and realistic.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Buggie111
 * 5 Don't want to be sticking my nose into personal buisness, but how would you explain the two "peaks" of editing that correspond to your two RfA's, 2,000 edits in six months and 5,800 in the remaining 70 months.
 * A: After my first (December) RfA, I put a lot of effort into bringing four articles up to the GA level. Real-world (family and job) concerns sucked up a lot of my time during the next few months.  When summer came (I work at a university), I got back into serious Wikipedia work by creating a new article (which made DYK in early August), improving two other articles (currently GA nominees), and bringing one of my older GAs to FA candidacy.  Additionally, I started seriously experimenting with STiki and Twinkle after my RfA — eventually deciding that the best approach was to use these two tools in tandem:  identifying and reverting an unconstructive edit using STiki (but with the user notification option turned off), and then composing and sending an appropriate warning to the user via Twinkle.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow up question These are the same reasons why edits were so few pre-first RFA? Buggie111 (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I took my first, failed RfA as a wakeup call. I realized that I could — and should — take my activity on Wikipedia (especially in the area of content creation) a lot more seriously than I had up till that point.  That's basically why you see significantly more activity from me starting around that time.  I know my edit counts still can't hold a candle to people who have amassed tens of thousands of edits in a far shorter time than I've been here, but I'm sincerely and diligently trying to contribute as much (and as well) as I can.  I hope you, and others, will consider this sufficient, but if you feel it's still not enough, I will respect your point of view, even if I may not agree with it.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Monty845
 * 6. As an admin, how would you handle the this AIV report IP editor reported at bottom?
 * A: My first reaction is that this report is vague (doesn't say exactly which pages or which edits), stale (two weeks old), and the IP editor hasn't been active for two weeks — so the report should probably be removed (with an explanatory note to the editor who reported the issue).  Assuming I were looking at this at an earlier date when the report was not stale, my next thought (based on an examination of the IP editor's contributions, the comments on the IP's talk page, and the histories of the pages apparently at issue) is that this looks like disputing or edit-warring over content, and not vandalism.  The AIV report should probably still be closed (since vandalism doesn't seem to be involved), but before doing that I would write to the user who posted the AIV report and ask him to clarify exactly which pages and which edits he is referring to (just in case I might have missed something).  I would also recommend to the reporting user that he post a suitable warning (with specifics) on the IP's talk page — because what is there right now really isn't sufficient to justify a block for edit-warring or vandalism.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 7. Pick a current WP:AIV report where you think a block would be appropriate and discuss what factors you would consider in the case you picked, both in determining that a block would be warranted and in determining how long to block for?
 * A: None of the four current AIV reports seem to me to justify a block. The two user-reported alerts at the moment are 88.152.64.10 (which I discussed in your previous question) and Promovideoproduction (already indef-blocked).  As for the two bot-reported alerts, 173.230.24.11 doesn't show any contribution history at all (not even the edit that apparently tripped the filter; was this edit oversighted??) — and with only one edit, which (based on the edit filter log) isn't obvious vandalism, there seems to be no reason to block at this time.  Regarding the other bot-reported alert, 173.208.197.226 has a contribution history, but it doesn't seem to include the edit that tripped its filter either (was this edit oversighted too?) — and the other recent edits by this IP were to the sandbox, so again, I don't see any grounds for a block.  Sorry, am I missing something?  Would you like me to check back later, when there might be other AIV reports?   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification of question 7: The link I provided in question 6 was from 2 weeks ago, for question 7 I was hoping you would pick a current report from what ever happened to be at WP:AIV when you got to the question. Monty  845  03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. You're right.  Sorry about that.  I'll give another answer shortly.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I'll pick RyanWilliamson.  This appears to be a single-purpose BLP attack account, based on the info in the edit filter log that shows he was editing a now-deleted article on "Ryan Williamson".  I need to say here that I would block the user, indefinitely, at once.  A more cautious alternative might be to give a final warning and then indef-block on the next unacceptable edit — but given the sensitive nature of BLP violations and the overall evidence, I think an immediate block is necessary in this case and that it would be irresponsible for me not to do it in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.  I would leave the user with the ability to edit his own talk page, and in the event he gave a satisfactory explanation that showed me I was mistaken, I could unblock, and little harm would be done except for some egg on my face.  (But I doubt this would happen in this case.)   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, that was my report. → Σ  τ  c . 06:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Sp33dyphil (if you think I've asked too many questions, please tell me to eliminate some questions)
 * 8. An article about an newly-coined word was tagged for CSD G3, what would you do?
 * A: Per WP:NOTCSD, the mere fact that an article is about a neologism isn't enough for it to qualify for speedy deletion.  I would do some research to see if the word is real; if there appear to be reliable sources, I would remove the CSD tag and inform the editor who had placed the tag about the sources I found (and also suggest that an AfD might be in order per WP:NOTNEO).  If I weren't able to find any reliable sources substantiating the existence of the word, then it might in fact be a hoax — but rather than make that call all by  myself, I would generally prefer to report the issue at WP:ANI and seek input from some other admins as to whether there is any basis for the word.  I might make an exception if an article about an alleged neologism is obviously an attack page that should be speedied via CSD G10.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 9. You see an article that was written in a foreign language, please tell me all the actions that you might possibly take?
 * A: Foreign-language articles having essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project should be speedily deleted per CSD A2.  If I were able to identify the language (either from my own personal knowledge or through research using translation services), and if I could find the same (or virtually the same) article in that language's Wikipedia, I would delete it per A2.  If A2 doesn't apply, the article might still qualify for speedy deletion if it falls under some other CSD category (such as G10 for something that turns out to be a non-English attack page).  If the content is not obviously worthy of speedy deletion — or if I'm unable to find a translation or even identify the language — I would tag it with notenglish and list it at WP:QTN in hopes of getting a translation.  Additionally, if the article appears to be about a living person (including, for example, a case where one or more names or photos appeared on an otherwise unintelligible page), I would also list it at WP:BLPN.  And if the page seemed to possibly be utter gibberish, I would also report it at WP:ANI and see if anyone else can identify it, or if there is a consensus of admins that it should be speedied per G1.  There are obviously lots of permutations and possibilities here, but I think these are the main ones.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 20:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Σ
 * 10. You have two CSD tags done with Twinkle. Do you consider that to be "increasing your exposure" with other areas, and will you ever work heavily in deleting things in CAT:CSD?
 * A: Two tags is a start. A small start, of course.  I do intend to spend more time with CSD and get more involved with tagging (and deleting) as I gain more experience.  I understand it's a tricky area, and one where the community rightly expects accuracy.  FWIW, I tried to tag another article I saw a couple of weeks ago with CSD G3, but I was a little too slow with my careful double-checking, and someone else beat me to it by a few seconds.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 11. In what occasions would you block a user without any warnings?
 * A: In general, every misbehaving editor deserves at least one recent, serious-level warning before being blocked.  Having said that, I do understand that some situations are so serious that our policies call for an immediate block.  Some of these, listed at WP:BLOCK, are accounts used exclusively for vandalism; "public" accounts being shared by a group of people; accounts with inappropriate user names; unapproved or malfunctioning bots; open/anonymous proxies; accounts or IP addresses being used to evade an existing block; and accounts that appear to have been compromised.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from The Interior
 * 12. I see you have a high level of Talk page edits. You have participated in some fairly contentious areas concerning religious topics.  How do you approach a content dispute where both sides have strong beliefs about the topic?
 * A: Talk page interaction is an essential part of what makes Wikipedia a collaborative community. Dispute resolution needs to focus on collaboration; on assuming others are acting in good faith; on content rather than personalities; and on the importance of demanding verifiability, using reliable sources, avoiding original research, and striving for a neutral point of view.  Effective dispute resolution requires all involved parties to be willing to work together and to respect and try to understand different viewpoints.  This can be an especially difficult goal to achieve when religious or political topics are involved and partisans on all sides are convinced that theirs is the only "right" position and that "compromise" is a four-letter word.  And even when a consensus is achieved, it may last only until some new editor comes along, refuses to respect the earlier process, and the whole thing has to start all over again.


 * I've tried many times to work with obstinate, tendentious editors who may either keep on arguing their view and defying everyone else who sees the matter differently, or who insist on ignoring the discussion process altogether and simply want to edit-war until everyone else gets the point and gives up. I'd love to say that I'm a miracle worker in the area of mediation and dispute resolution, but I've had to accept on more than one occasion that the only realistic thing to do is to accept the fact that some people are not going to "agree to disagree" — as with this RfC/U which I filed last May, which was closed after the editor in question chose to disappear — or with [ this situation], where I finally admitted (to myself and others) that I was being ineffective or simply wasting my time.  But I plan to keep on trying, and hopefully I'll get better at it as time goes on.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Surturz
 * 13. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?
 * A: I understand and respect your opinion on this subject.  I also understand and respect the views of many other people who believe (based on their comments in recent RfAs and talk page discussions) that this is an unresolved policy matter that needs to be hashed out elsewhere and is out of scope at an RfA.  Accordingly, the best answer I feel I can give here and now would — in the word(s) of the legendary Zen monk — be  "mu."   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Smithers
 * 14. In your own words and with an example, explain CSD criterion G1.
 * A: CSD G1 is for pages which contain only material that simply cannot be understood.  Not just by a potential tagger, but by anybody.  If anyone is reasonably likely to understand what an article is trying to say, then G1 doesn't apply — though, of course, other CSD criteria might.  A page doesn't need to consist solely of a random, incoherent jumble of letters, "lorem ipsum" filler text, or excerpts from the Voynich Manuscript to qualify under G1.  For example, an article whose sole content was "Colourless purple ideas sleep furiously" — or "Snoozing banshee within ... wake it and DIE!!  Thank you for your cooperation ... have a nice day. :-)" — would, IMO, deserve to be speedied per G1.  On the other hand, an article which contained only "რიჩვეილზი იდიოტია და ყველამ (მის გარდა) იცის" should not be tagged with a G1, because it could mean something to someone (specifically, someone who happens to know the appropriate language) — and once it's seen by someone who understands it (presumably after having been tagged with notenglish and listed at WP:QTN), it would be recognized as an attack page and subject to tagging and deletion per CSD G10.  (The butt of this specific, silly attack is me, BTW, so no need to do a BLP operation on this RfA.)   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 15. Is there something pulling you to run for this position? If the answer is yes, explain.
 * A: I'm not totally sure if I understand what you're asking.  "Pulling" seems, to me, to connote some kind of underlying attraction, motive or agenda, which might not really be what you had intended.  In any case, I'll assume you meant something like, "Why would you want to run for this position?"  That's certainly a valid question — especially after the sound drubbing I got at my first RfA, which did make me feel for a time like it wouldn't be worth repeating and I should simply try to develop and improve my skills and usefulness as an editor and a content creator.  But the bottom line, for me, is that I want to see Wikipedia grow and succeed; and in whatever constructive ways I can help improve the project, I'd love to have the opportunity to do that, even if it's not always comfortable or convenient.  So I think another, possibly better way to phrase this question might be, "Why would you want to ask the community for access to additional tools?"  In short, because I believe I understand (or can learn) how to use them, that I can be trusted not to misuse them (either maliciously or carelessly), and because I know there is a need for more competent and trustworthy editors to perform the various maintenance tasks which are, in their own way, as important to the success of Wikipedia as the creation and improvement of encyclopedic content is.  The point here, in my mind, is not about some supposed glory or prestige of becoming an übereditor:  if the "administrator" post were to be abolished next week and the community decided to split up the toolset into smaller chunks to be given out (and possibly turned back in) as needed, I wouldn't feel I had somehow been cheated or that there was no longer any goal to strive for around here.  Basically, I'm here because I'm hoping the community will decide I can be even more helpful if I had access to the tools.  I hope this answers your question satisfactorily, whether in the end you decide to support my application or not.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * 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 on the talk page. -- Σ  talk  contribs  07:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know...an accusation of votestacking without any evidence seems inappropriate...even for RfA. Swarm  u /  t 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is an anecdote suggesting that RfA works! and that the community is right to expect experience in both writing and proto-administrative tasks. Rich's last RfA was rather close. Rich acted upon the criticisms and now enjoys the overwhelming support of the RfA community. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as co-nom. Wifione  Message 20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I'm confident Rich will do a fine job as an administrator. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - no issues here. LOL at the number of co-noms though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Per answer to Q4. There really are no reasons not to support! — My76Strat (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - excellent answer to my question, no issues I see. → ROUX   ₪  20:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support with full confidence. Literally two days ago I was thinking to myself that Rich should be an administrator. I opposed their last RfA because of a lack of experience, and as far as I'm concerned, they've fully addressed that issue. Swarm  u /  t 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) 'Crats count votes so I'd better put one down here even though it's clear from my statement above that I support the (excellent) candidacy. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support – I was disappointed to see his first RFA fail, but he has put in a great deal of work since then. That is something I definitely want to see in an admin; Willingness to learn from past experience! I supported him then, and I support him now. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support agree with Kudpung and Wifione. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Same rationale as last time: Long-term commitment to Wikipedia (3/'05), cerebral answers to questions--Hokeman (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) I supported last time and am happy to do so again. The candidate has done more than enough manual edits for us to assess them, more than twice as many as at least one successful candidate from the last year or so. I did notice a couple of occasions in the last month or two where he applied a BLPprod to an article that was poorly sourced rather than unsourced. Not an unusual mistake, that process is a bit of an awkward compromise where any source prevents a BLPprod being applied but only a reliable source can justify removal. I didn't notice anything worth opposing over.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support – Excellent editor, with much more experience in admin-related areas than before. — mc10  ( t / c ) 00:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Happy to do so again for the same reasons as last time. Good luck, Airplaneman   ✈  04:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) per below, cause I am that original :) --Cerejota (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Per my reply to one oppose and per Ubu. Happily,  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support; I think the candidate is competent and can be trusted with the tools. A random walk through past edits didn't discover anything worrying. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - supported last time around, happy to support again. Robofish (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - A look over your contributions suggests you are dedicated, mature and trustworthy. With RfAs, I always look at how a candidate interacts with other users - anyone can add information to a page, but not everyone is capable of being civil, polite and assuming good faith. All of your contributions to talk pages demonstrate exemplary conduct, which I think is vital for an admin. I cannot see a reason to oppose. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. It strikes me as ironic that some would diminish an individual's qualifications, based on the high number of automatic edits, when the candidate is applying for access to additional tools. That's like saying, "You can't have access to these tools because based on your history, you might be too effective in their use." I am confident that Rich will make a fine administrator, based on his background, knowledge, and proven ability to be effective in the use of tools previously entrusted to him. Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 14:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Continually satsisfied with this editors track record. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Good answers to the questions. Yes, I'm aware that not all of the questions have been answered, but unless the candidate gives me good reason to rethink my opinion, I'm not going to wait until the three hundred optional pointless questions have been answered before I place my vote here. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Sure. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - No negative past, plenty of edits, breadth of edits seems fine. Seems like a fine candidate I see no reason to oppose. --Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) T. Canens (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. I supported last time, and I support again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I don't see any reasons not to and I don't agree with the opposes below. MJ94 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - I disagree with comments above that Rich should have passed last time. Ironically the Q4 of this RFA contrasts neatly with the Q4 of the last one however. It's evident he's clued up on the reasons the last one failed, and those concerns having being answered I'm delighted to support. As to the (current) second oppose over too many co-noms..... I believe I have the record for "too many nominators" and really it's a dreadfully silly - indeed paranoid - reason to oppose over. Pedro :  Chat  20:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Not an impressive candidacy, but a perfectly valid one indeed. Why not? —  Kudu ~I/O~ 21:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)  Abstaining from voting (see comment under neutral). —  Kudu  ~I/O~ 20:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Anyone good with Mkativerata is good with me. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Good contributions. (It's reassuring to know that he passed the "not a dickhead" test.)  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Appears to have carefully considered and benefitted from the input he received last time around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - After reviewing edits and interactions, I see nothing to cause me any concerns. GB fan 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) So what if the candidate doesn't spend 24 hours a day undoing vandalism? He has experience, he is active, he is trusted, why not? Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that the candidate should devote all of his spare time to vandal fighting? I'd like you to help me find it. Buggie111 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see why not. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Stephen 03:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Would prefer the candidate to have more experience in admin related areas, answers to questions seem acceptable, otherwise looks good. Monty  845  03:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --rogerd (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Would make an excellent administrator. -- Bryce   Wilson  &#124;  talk   05:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose oppose  Support - User has given good answers and endorsed my AIV report. → Σ  τ  c . 07:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 09:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support No reason not to - "Mop please"!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 10:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Two supremely Three hilariously ridiculous opposes do not sway me from seeing anything other than an excellent admin candidate. He performs admin tasks, he understands what he's doing, he's unlikely to block Jimbo or delete the main page. I don't see any other issues. Trusilver  12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support On the basis of his excellent content contributions and experience fighting vandals. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I ended up in the support column last time, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be here again. It's also worth noting that AIV reports aren't the best metric for vandal fighting; most of my AiV reports have been for MascotGuy socks, for instance. Based on what I can see of his anti-vandal and article wirting efforts, I feel compelled to support. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Intelligent user with good grasp of policies. No red flags.  Hopefully will be active in dispute resolution.  The Interior  (Talk) 16:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Per your answer to Q13 (the best I've seen in a while on that question). I'm troubled by the low level of experience in some of the cleanup areas (CSD, AIV, et. al.) but you seem sane enough that I don't think you'll charge headfirst into things that you don't yet know how to handle.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --   Luke      (Talk)   16:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Seen you around here and there, and nothing I've seen suggest that he might go rogue, lacks the required level of clue, or can't play nice with others. Can't see any reasons Rich can't be trusted with a few more buttons. Calmer   Waters  17:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support &mdash; This user is a wealthy country. If that alone doesn't qualify a fellow being for the keys to the janitor's closet, then God only knows what does.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Thoughtful and trustworthy. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - Plenty of gorm, no twitchy mop-trigger finger. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I opposed last time and for this reason feel obliged to re-evaluate, and to participate in RfA 2, even if it might make no difference. Bluerasberry makes some valid points in the oppose section. Those points would have given me a pause if it was Richwales' first RfA. But it is not. Content creation is exactly what we asked him to do. Citing sources is what we asked him to learn. And he did both, which shows me that he is taking advice from fellow editors. Honestly, if someone asked me to produce a few GA, I would not pick Holocaust or Business but a few articles for which the effort is reasonable. I trust Richwales will not abuse tools. --Pgallert (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Very acceptable. jorgenev 07:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Support as I did last time. If the primary criticism is automated edits in fighting vandalism then you aren't apparently very familiar with fighting vandalism. 15 AIV edits (or whatever it is) is low, but I don't doubt that the editor understands the distinction enough to help us on AIV reports. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Glad to have you aboard. -- &oelig; &trade; 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - very thoughtful responses, I am sure that you will do well... Moogwrench (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Can't recall exactly where I've seen him around, but when I have, he seems to be sensible and trustworthy. Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Support; sane, thoughtful, competent. Antandrus (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Plenty of experience in articles and in Wikipedia space, good communication skills. Like Jenks24 above I can't remember where and when I've interacted with Rich but I vaguely recall it was a positive experience. I looked at the previous RfA and it looks like the majority of concerns from that time have been addressed. --  At am a  頭 18:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) Support No valid reason presented to warrant oppose.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) I opposed the first one, but I've seen enough since then to land on this side this time around. Courcelles 00:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Support — stay ( sic ) ! 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) Support per Atama. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Support all experiences w/him have been positive. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Support per Blue Rasberry in the opposes... and no, I'm serious. I usually have a great disdain for people who "support" because of an oppose because they are done so in a petty/spiteful manner.  And that's not my reason to support per BR.  In this case, BR makes a good case for supporting.  The fundamental question is answered in point 5; is the candidate trustworthy and smart enough not to break the wiki?  That is the only one that really matters.  Do the arguments in 1 and 4 have merit?  Not really.  1 is about the need for tools, and if he makes a useful admin action once, it is beneficial to the project.  4 is about the role he's had here, so he's getting more active, thus we should oppose?  That doesn't make sense to me. Getting more active---especially in response to criticism from a previous RfA is a good thing.  It shows that he wants to be here and will listen to the community. Points 2 and 3 are opinions; but they are not deal breakers---especially the way BR presented them.  If BR represents the most articulate and in depth oppose for Rich that there is (and so far he is), and he represents the most cognitive reasons to oppose, then I have to support.  Not only do I find the rationale unconvincing as an oppose, I see it convincing as a support--more of two people looking at the same evidence but seeing a different outcome... points 4 and 5 convinced me to support.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to understand my position perfectly. Thanks for supporting my work by using it.  I am flattered that you saw fit to use my presentation to support an alternate viewpoint.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NP. I wanted to make it clear that I was supporting per your rationale because two reasonably  intelligent people can look at the same information and reach different conclusions.  It was not "I'm going to support because I think BR's oppose rationale is dumb" or "I have to support to counter the dumb oppose of BR."  It was, "If this coherent argument is the worst the opposes can present, then I'm comfortable supporting."--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I've never seen so many co-nominators add their encouragement to someone's own RFA nomination. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 14:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because after 3/4 nomintors, it starts to look like vote stacking. A few years ago it was becoming common practice to get as many noms as one could get... I don't know what the record was, but it would not surprise me if it is around 8.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 18:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Phaedriel (now retired and much missed) attracted the record at three nominations with another seven added post acceptance for a total of 10. I hold the dubious honour of six at transclusion. After the criticism encountered in my RFA the numbers started to reduce back to three / four and then tail out to one or two. No stats to back this up, just too many years watching RFA's :) Pedro : Chat  20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which was exactly the reason cited when I was nominated by three people, and the other two stayed out of it for fear of generating opposes based on something as ridiculous as "too many nominators." I don't recall EVER seeing a situation with four or more noms where someone hasn't at least brought up the idea of too many nominators. Trusilver  22:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Great contributions, good ideas about dispute resolution. Quigley (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A review of Richwales' contributions and responses above leave me with no concerns regarding his ability wield the mop. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support No issues with him.  Wayne  Slam 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I would trust him --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support No concerns at all, he seems eminently level headed. I also agree with Sven Manguard that your answer to Q13 is great, it made me smile anyway. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin  13:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) support Looks good to me. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - No problems here, agree along the same lines as Antandrus. Respected co-noms   Mlpearc Public   ( Talk )  17:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Fine editor. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I'm long familiar with the nominee's work as editor, as well as his pre-Wikipedia work on the dual-citizenship FAQ that  he self-administered.  I'm sure he'll make a fine addition to the Wikipedia admin corps. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I've seen this editor showing sound judgment in various areas.   Will Beback    talk    23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Pile on support. I see few issues. Clearly trusted with tools. As an experienced editor who was considering at some point applying for service, I'm especially disappointed with the quality of the arguments made to oppose. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support No concerns  Jebus989 ✰ 15:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Secret account 18:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose The candidate states he'll be active in vandalism, but a look in his contribs doesn't back this up. It also shows a rahter uncomfortable (for me, at least) number of automated edits. His past 500 contribs show about 100 of vandal fighting, although most of them seem to be through automated tools, which echoes his overall automated to total ratio of about 15.95%. A look at his past 500 edits with the statement "revert" goes back to July 21, which correlates to about a 28% vandal reversion rate and a 91.8% use of automated tools. Along with that, he has made more edits to this RFA than to AIV I'm ok (which means I'd like to see it higher, but am not strongly opposed to it as of now) with his edit amount (which seems rather low for a person registered in 2005 with 1000 automated edits), but he seems to have been not very active during the months between his two RFA's, along with the months prior to his first. I might change my mind if the answers to questions are good. Buggie111 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the problem using "automated tools" to fight vandals? A Twinkle revert is no different in terms of user contribution than an Undo, they just use different software. But for some reason you'd regard them differently? --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I applaud your thoroughness, I don't get the oppose. That amount vandal-fighting experience (1,000+ edits with STiki) is more than sufficient to work in that area as an admin. Swarm  u /  t 22:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I take, STiki is a tool that throws edits to the reverter for final confirmation, while Twinkle justs adds the template to a page the reverter stumbled upon and already analyzed (am I making sense?). I'd still ike to see at least 15 AIV reports, though. Buggie111 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I use STiki to look for potentially inappropriate edits (which might or might not fit the narrow definition of "vandalism"). If I find something that needs reverting, I can do that in STiki.  STiki can produce a user warning as well, but I don't use this feature any more — instead, I go find the user's talk page in my browser and use Twinkle to create, preview, and send a user warning that (in my own judgment) is appropriate to the situation.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fifteen AIV reports? Why are we re-introducing arbitrary numerical requirements into RfA again? Hell, Rich, make sixteen, you might get a "strong support" out of the crowd! / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fetch (may I call you that?), that wasn't "arbitrary". I just don't feel comfortable with a candidate who has so few AIV reports and wants to work in vandalism. Buggie111 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may call me whatever you wish, provided it isn't "butt-face" or something like that :). / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The large number of co-nominations indicates pre-RFA vote stacking. A good candidate doesn't need four nominations. Townlake (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you produce an evidence to back up your inference? What's wrong with "pre-RFA vote stacking" -- can't a potential admin ask his peers to see what they think if him/herself? The fact that there are four co-noms indicates a lot of faith the community has in the person. Surely you'd ask your close buddies about what they think of you prior to an RfA, wouldn't you? Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between asking around to see who'll support you and actually having them write and publish their supports before the RFA goes live. Townlake (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Townlake, I would suggest an alternative interpretation: Rich's 4 co-nominations demonstrate his respectful acknowledgment of some criticisms made at the last RfA. The candidate's profound respect for the community is demonstrated even more seriously by his having written four qood-quality articles. Gently,  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That acknowledgment does not require numerous pre-stacked support votes. (I won't be responding further to this RFA; folks can agree with my rationale or disagree with it, it's all good.) Townlake (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your attitude of "here's my opinion, challenge it or agree with it if you like, but I won't listen to you or change it" I can only hope it's not also translated into real life Townlake. I can honestly tell you it's a crap idea to be so headstrong. Pedro : Chat  20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Point of fact: Rich does NOT have 4 nominators/co-noms. He has 3, which is ok but not unheard of.  The fourth statement is his own statement.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that it seems weird for an editor to self-nominate when there are co-nominators who add their co-nominations before the self-nom. Especially considering the stigma that exists against self-noms. I don't see this as "vote-stacking", really Rich would probably have been better off letting one of the other 3 editors be the nominator. But just because it's weird doesn't mean that it's an indication of a problem, if Rich was trying to rig this RfA in his favor somehow I imagine he wouldn't have nominated himself in the first place. And having multiple co-noms usually just means that a person has a lot of support from other editors, which should be to that person's favor, not his detriment. --  At am a  頭 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Atama, actually it was I who had suggested to Rich that he place up a nomination statement despite my statement of nomination as I believed that he would be able to bring out more emphatically the issues he had faced in his first RfA and how he has attempted to address them to earn the community's trust. So if you found his self-nom weird, blame me. Wifione  Message 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, then you're weird. :p Either way I don't see how it's a problem, unless someone is freaking out about cabals or some nonsense. --  At am a  頭 18:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * :)  Wifione  Message 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I`ll just  close this unnecessary  drama by  adding  that  some weeks ago I  had reviewed Rich's editing  for him and suggested that  I  would nominate or co-nominate his second RfA if he wished to  run  again. By  the time I  had caught  up  with  some exceptional  events in  RL, others had beaten me to  it, but  I  added a co nom  anyway. Sorry  to  disappoint  your suspicions of vote stacking Townlake. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, for these reasons:
 * 1. Inadequate nominations. I just read several nominations for this user, including the self nomination, and collectively they give no base on which I could give a vote of support.  I expect that the nomination would give a reason for granting admin privileges and show proof that the person is likely to need these userrights.  Instead I see vouching for character and mentions of GA editing, and these are not persuasive to me.
 * 2. The GA content does not indicate ability to edit to high Wikipedia standards. The editing is good and everyone should be grateful for it, and thanks Richwales for your contributions, but this user has more to learn.  In January of this year on one of the GAs he produced these edits.  Richwales is just learning to use citations and cited many sources with an internet link and a publisher; I expect the best editing from admins and unless there is a reason not to do this, I highly recommend using citation templates, especially for articles before GA review.
 * 3. This user has encouraged the promotion of non-controversial articles to GA status. I am very pleased with the contribution and everything is in order, but it is not a demonstration of the skills required to be an admin and occasionally get involved in anything controversial.  Check this GA nominee about a 1947 British airplane disappearance.  I know there are limited sources and the article is approaching its quality limit, but this is a soft target for demonstrating proficiency in Wikipedia.  Few people contribute to this article so there is little collaboration or interaction between editors, and there is only one solid source accounting for most of the article.  This is a great beginning but not supporting evidence of admin-level proficiency.
 * 4. This user is changing his relationship with Wikipedia. He says that he has been editing for almost seven years, and I would have rather that he not have cited that as a good attribute because it is misleading.  Of this user's 8000 edits, about 3000 have happened in since January 2011.  It seems like most of these edits have either been for adding content or making minor changes, and if this user has been spending time areas which could use admin userrights then I do not see it pointed out in this RfA or in my own checking.  I would prefer that this user get more experience doing what he has been doing in the last year instead of branching out into admin bureaucracy, especially since he has not already shown a lot of interest in doing that.
 * 5. I do not doubt that this user could be trusted not to harm Wikipedia with admin tools. He seems level-headed on discussion boards and like he would never cause a problem or make any errors in judgement, and I would trust him to seek advice from other admins if he saw a problem he did not understand.  I just do not think it is a good idea to give admin rights to someone who makes no particular argument and provides no particular evidence for needing them.  Suppose as an arbitrary standard that one might expect admins to use an admin userright once a month; Questions 1 and 10 indicate to me that this user does not need them even that much.
 * Thanks for being an awesome Wikipedia editor, Richwales. I mean that.  In the future if you want something then tell people why you want and need it.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since January 2012? If the candidate has a time machine, I really hope I can use it for a couple things.  Keepscases (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011. WP:BB next time; fixed now.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Crap. I could seriously use a working time machine.  Keepscases (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I rarely question opposes, but this one seems to be the height of ridiculousness. This editor has gotten four articles to GA status, created two DYK's, he has either created or might as well have created at least six articles that I have found. But that's not good enough because he hasn't helped perpetuate 'teh dramaz" by working on controversial articles? Is that it? Seriously? Your idea sounds like a really good one if consider adminship to be some badge of honor that should be bestowed upon the mighty and noble (someone cue to dramatic organ music and beam of heaven light), the academic elite among us. If you consider the mop to be nothing more than a set of administrative tools to manage the encyclopedia, then it doesn't take a great genius to see the necessity of giving the tools to the person with whom they will be the most valuable. There are many great contributors who are also great administrators, however how many of these great contributors immediately move over to start manning the WP:AIV or the WP:CSD desks after they get their bit? Historically, not a whole lot of them. Why? Because they are busy creating content, which is a damn good thing, but the gritty and often tedious admin work STILL needs to get done. Keep the following thing in mind... And I'm going to use two random examples off the top of my head. User:Deacon of Pndapetzim is an AMAZING editor, I respect the hell out of this guy for his long history of contributions and consider him a great admin even if his admin actions take a back seat to his content creation. Now consider User:DGG, another amazing and long-term editor whose edits are almost entirely related to admin functions. If I had to choose one to be removed from the project tomorrow then I would, with regret, say goodbye to DoP. The reason for this? If we lose a content creator, it doesn't mean that the article won't get written, it just won't get written as quickly. If all the content writers left the project tomorrow, the encyclopedia would remain viable in its state indefinitely, albeit incomplete. If all the admins who handle the behind the scenes work (and most importantly, the anti vandals) left the project tomorrow, the encyclopedia would cease to function as such within a matter of weeks. Trusilver  22:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that I encouraged you to spend time to consider something which you found ridiculous. I feel that you do not understand me and that you misrepresent what I wrote, and I also think you would not appreciate my explaining more or clarifying. I cannot think of anything more appropriate to do than say that I stand by what I said but regret any problem I caused you.  Please accept my proposal to end my part in the discussion thread you have started from my input.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   03:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology is necessary or warranted, everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's very hard to change people's mind when they have already made it. My intent was never to influence your !vote, but rather those that would be inclined to agree with you. Trusilver  03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blue Rasberry, I changed your numbered list above because your numbers broke the count, I hope you don't mind. Feel free to change it to whatever you like, just try not to use # symbols to do it. I tried to get it looking as close to your original list as I could. --  At am a  頭 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose because there is a lack of experience of the referencing. I mean you see, he didn't use a citation template which shows me, he only just read WP:REFB and is learning to use references you see. This was a GA nomination! It needs to have things like cite web and things you see.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The diff you linked to contains 48 intermediate revisions by 7 users, could you point more specifically to the edits you find objectionable? Monty  845  18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * yes  Puffin  Let's talk! 20:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you realise that WP:WIAGA only requires inline citations? And that you don't even need to use citation templates for FAs? Jenks24 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he was being funny. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he's serious. I've reviewed one of his (Puffin's) GA nominations (and quickfailed it, so far the only GA nominee I've failed) and seen several of his reviews. I don't mean to be rude, but he doesn't really know what a GA entails. However, he is definitely learning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I didn't know what it meant them, I suppose you could classify it as a test... anyway, I know about the GA criteria thank you, as you can see in my reviews, and in Djungarian hamster.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Citation templates are not necessary and I would not encourage anyone to oppose this candidate for not using them, if they also believe that an internet link (and possibly publisher name, as shown in my link above) makes for an adequate reference in a GA or is a good style for an admin to use as an example to others. It is my assertion that admins should use referencing which would be adequate by any traditional standard; there is no established style (MLA, Chicago, APA, etc.) which would allow an internet link alone.  I do not support the use of insufficiently-labeled internet links at any time by either admins or in articles with GA status because this kind of usage is not supported in academia.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Puffin: It appears that you definitely have learned more about what a GA means. (However, it still doesn't require etc.) I retract my comment above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems like a bragger.  Limited only to certain areas of wikipedia.--Xania Image:Flag_of_Italy.svgtalk 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, he seems to be fairly well-rounded within his areas of knowledge. Could you be a little more specific with your borderline personal attack? Trusilver  22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Xania, do you believe that any editor wishing to request for adminship should have unlimited experience to all areas of Wikipedia?  Wifione  Message 00:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The signature guideline forbids images. Thanks, → Σ  τ  c . 05:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Xania, comments on your talk/user  pages lead me to  question  the appropriateness of your participation at  something  as serious as RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not ask someone to change or explain their votes. That is not how voting works.  Why are you not asking those who have supported the request without giving a reason to state their reasons?  I am perfectly capable of voting in an RfA - or would you prefer that only those who know wiki policies off the top of their heads, who sit at their computers for 18 hours a day and who have 100,000 edits are the ones who should decide how Wikipedia is run?  Further comments are on my talk page regarding this and my signature (grow up).--Xania Image:Flag_of_Italy.svgtalk 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also add that questions of vote stacking fit in to my bragging theory. We don't want people who brag or seek approval of people in this way prior to an RfA.--Xania talk talk] 19:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please do not ask someone to change or explain their votes. That is not how voting works." Which is one argument as to why votes at RfA aren't real "votes". But it's standard to challenge oppose votes if someone disagrees with or doesn't understand the rationale behind a vote. Please note that bureaucrats can and do weigh different votes based on the arguments made (which is why we don't just add signatures or click a check box to vote in RfA). If someone challenges your oppose vote with a compelling reason and you refuse to respond to the challenge (which is your privilege to do), the bureaucrat closing this discussion may give your vote less credence or may discount it entirely, especially if this RfA ends up being close (though at this point, it's not very close honestly). --  At am a  頭  20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I'm stuck here. I know I supported you in your last RFA, and even pestered some who opposed, but now that I look everything over again I'm just not sure. You're a great editor, but are you admin criteria? I try not to get into editcountitis, but your monthly counts are a bit low, especially for someone that gets help from automated tools, however, as of recent they have climbed. Depending on how this RFA goes, I may switch to support/oppose.  T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to double check the definition of the word "criteria" and try that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm a bit confused. I have no reason or intention to oppose this RfA, as I don't question that this user is a trustworthy member of the community; however I can't get my head round how this user has only made 6 reports to WP:AIV when it seems like this will be his primary area of administrative work, if I understand the answer to Q1 correctly. One of the secondary areas that seems to be mentioned in Q1 is CSD, yet the candidate has only ever placed 2 CSD tags? Is this correct? Mato (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Candidate will not agree to term limit, reconfirmation or recall. I quite liked his answer to question 3 though, so won't oppose. --Surturz (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you  still  haven't  learned from  the many comments on  your tp  that  this is not  the place to demonstrate your wishes for changes in  Wikipedia policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What if I hide my non-RfA-policy criteria in my userspace and expect candidates to meet them anyway? Would that be okay? --Surturz (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I certainly won't oppose. But I'm not prepared to back an RfA where no attempt has been made by candidate or numerous co-noms to dissuade over-the-top comments. Many of the points made in the oppose section are valid, even if the decision to oppose based on those points is in my opinion over-the-top. —WFC— 10:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have a point in that WFC. I believe Rich did come in to give his point of view in the first oppose. The one reason which has made me desist from taking up a tug of war within this RfA with an editor like, say, Townlake is that not only is his reasoning - as you mention - quite over the top, but I also believe strongly that a closing bureaucrat would not at all have taken into consideration such a rampantly misplaced ad hominem argument of votestacking. Concurrently, I have extreme faith in the intellect and judging capability of our editorial community in assessing the worthiness of any candidate and in weighing the accusations in opposing statements. By mentioning all this, I'm not veering off your viewpoint - I acknowledge the issue and hope that there will be fewer reasons for me to step in, in this RfA in the coming days. Thanks. Wifione  Message 18:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) - Solid content creators should not get mired in administrative drudge work. Clean block log, there's nothing to oppose here, other than to note the swamp is already overpopulated with alligators. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I take your meaning correctly, you are saying that you won't support anyone, no matter how qualified, until there are fewer admins. Is that correct? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, Your tone above provoked my crude parody you may wish to review the meaning of "if" and "anyone" and "correct" and try again . Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Carrite, there are special venues for expressing  dissatisfaction  with  the RfA system. This is not  one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Above, I voiced my support for the RfA system, given the crooked timber of humanity. I was not chastised for speaking generally. Thus, Kudpung, your comments here have the appearance of partiality; worse, they may catalyze rather than quell Sturm und drang. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Beeb, I support people all the time. Good janitors do good work, god knows there's plenty of swill to stop at the front gate. But writers should write and rule enforcers should enforce. When the former starts to do the latter, the project suffers because a content creator is often lost. This would appear to quite possibly be one of those lamentable cases. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Abstain from voting. Sorry, but I'm rather worried by the concerns outlined by Blue Raspberry and Reaper Eternal. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm pretty sure Reaper Eternal's comment had to do with [ this exchange] he had with Puffin.  If I'm mistaken and Reaper was in fact criticizing my GA skills, I trust he'll speak up.  I respect your right to change your !vote — I just want to make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudu, I'm sure you've misread Reaper's comment, which was directed at Puffin, and not Rich. If you notice this interaction on Reaper's page that Puffin had, it would clarify that Reaper is alluding to Puffin in his statement above and not to Rich. Thanks. Wifione  Message 00:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) As others said, the skills required of a good administrator are not the same as the skills required of a good content author/editor. The status of an administrator should not be granted as a gold medal for anyone who did good work in the project. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2011 (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.