Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronhjones


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

Note: Closing bureaucrat's rationale can be found here.

Ronhjones
[ Voice your opinion on this candidate ] (talk page) Final: (88/23/11); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– It is my honor to nominate Ronhjones for consideration as an administrator. We have all seen Ron around doing vandal patrol and clean up for sometime. He is knowledgeable in our processes and active in the community doing both clean up work and article creation and improvement. His user page is impressive and a hard look at his edit history and talk page more than confirms that he is an excellent candidate for administrator. His devotion to Wikipedia is evident in Template:Grand Junction Canal Route Map which is used on Grand Junction Canal, clearly hours of work. I have always found him to be courteous and helpful with new volunteers and vandals alike. Jeepday (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you kindly for this nomination, which I accept.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Obviously, I would start in the areas that I know best, and see a great deal of with huggle - vandal fighting WP:AIAV, WP:CSD, and extending into bad usernames and WP:AfD. Of course, as with any of the new tools I have used (AWB, HG), I would go carefully at first to gain experience - I know that there will be plenty to learn (starting with WP:NAS) before using the tools, it is probably better to sit back at first and observe how other admins execute their duties, rather than diving in at the deep end. Then I can use the tools for obvious decisions, and as I gain experience, progress to the more contentions decisions.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'm not a person to write pages of prose, it doesn't fit with my intuitive scientist profile. I prefer more of a mental challenge - I'm very proud of all the canal maps I have made of the UK canal network - I have now made six of these, which is as stated is quite time consuming to get to the finished product, often involving making one or two new icons in order to fit the real world. I also constructed an intrinsic Infobox for Navigable Aqueducts - Template:Infobox AqueductNavigable, and placed it in all the appropriate pages. I think my best article page would have to be the Lune Aqueduct I also like popping into the Help and Reference Desks, and commenting where my background and knowledge allows.


 * 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: I don't do stress. Once you start vandal fighting then you have to expect some serious abuse to ones user and talk pages (and bad language). Thankfully often reverted by other editors before I see them. I always endeavour to be civil to all, even though sometimes the other user might not be so polite (and the very impolite tend to be reverted by others before I can reply), and I will reply back and try to assist them into making constructive edits. I think the most problematic page I encountered so far would be Robert Cochrane (witch), where basically we have three groups of people all claiming to be the "Clan of Tubal Cain", and in March this year were all deleting each other. I made a few reverts, tried to get them talking (sadly, they didn't want to), and told then to stop edit warring. With help of one group, we managed to set up references for each group, and I added a rider that there were three groups - "although they may not necessary completely agree with each other". Since then the vandalism has petered out and that section has remained untouched, but I still watch the page. I find that it's always better to politely reply to any comment with a cool head, which helps to defuse any problematic situation, so that is how I always intend to deal with any conflicts in the future.


 * Optional questions from Dank:
 * 4. Point us to a conversation where you did a good job of explaining or supporting a policy or guideline; or if you prefer, point us to a conversation where you made a good argument against a policy or guideline.
 * A: Looking back through my talk pages, I came up with Soldiers of the Cross, The Fall (browser game), Jan Jananayagam. There are probably other examples on other user's talk pages, but it not that easy to find those with so many edits.


 * 5. Do you have any links where you communicated with editors about Robert Cochrane (witch)? I can't find it on the article talk page or their user talk pages.
 * A: I'm afraid the third group decided to communicate by e-mail only.


 * Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
 * 6. While patrolling AIV, you come across an account which replaced a fairly well known administrators talk page with insults. The user has not been warned before being reported to AIV, and the edit was several hours earlier. What administrative actions, if any, do you take?
 * A: Firstly revert the edit. If the user was an IP address and there was no evidence of any recent editing, then it's probably too late to post any warning (as the IP may well be on a dynamic address), and I would just watch the user for any future vandalism. If the user had an account, and there were no warnings on their talk page (or history - some vandals are quite good at blanking warnings) I would consider posting a Uw-npa1 message - as the level 1 messages do assume good faith.


 * Additional optional questions from Btilm
 * 7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
 * A: I believe that people come to Wikipedia hoping to find good and reliable information. So I like to ask myself the questions "Could the page content be useful to someone? Is the data likely to be correct?". WP:N is a reasonable guideline, it's probably not perfect, but it has to cover such a wide range of articles that it is unlikely to be perfect. I don't think anything should be automatically notable / not notable - one should examine the data available, and see if there is enough verifiable data to allow a creation of a useful page.
 * 8. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: A ban is a directive to a user that they must not edit a certain page/topic for a specified period of time, other than that, they are quite free to continue editing on Wikipedia. If they ignore the ban, and do edit the banned pages, then they make be blocked. A block prevents an editor from editing any page, except his own talk page, where they may request unblocking. The right to edit that page may also be withdrawn in cases of vandalism of that page.
 * 9. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
 * A: Never. It will more than likely have the opposite effect on an editor, it is far better to try to engage in a dialogue to ascertain the problem. However, if said editor does not wish to converse (I'm sure some never read their talk pages), and is still disruptive, then one may have to resort to a short block as a last resort to gain their attention.


 * Additional optional questions from Coffee
 * 10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
 * A. It would depend on the number of participants - if this number is rather low, then I think it must be re-listed to try to gain a consensus. Assuming that there is a satisfactory number of participants, then I would re-check all the arguments to convince myself that the result is "no consensus" - in which case, the article should be kept. Once closed as keep, I will (if possible) add any additional tags to the article to suggest where improvement is required (and of course, make some improvements myself if I am able to do so).


 * 11. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
 * A. I think the current BLP policy is good. It helps to protect the subject from all the rumours and sensationalism that is so prevalent in some media. Work on BLPs - I wrote an article Bunty Bailey. I have reverted countless edits on BLPs based on the policy e.g. One of the most common edits is "Mr.X is now dating Miss.Y", with no reference or just a reference to Twitter/Facebook. These have to be removed immediately - Mr.X may well be dating Miss.Y, on the other hand he may be actually dating Miss.Z, and then Miss.Z is going to get rather annoyed with Mr.X... If these edits (often well intentioned) were allowed to stay, it would not put Wikipedia in a good light.


 * Additional optional questions from Lambanog
 * 12. There is an advocate who is promoting or out to prove a particular point of view (this is explicitly stated) and creates an article for that purpose. It is a legitimate point-of-view and can be verified. However, the article omits a critical opposing viewpoint.  Another editor recognizes this and believing the opposing viewpoint takes issue.  The creator advocate makes edits so that the article while not omitting the critical opposing viewpoint still glosses over it and portrays it in such a way as to diminish its importance.  Rather than get into a time consuming edit war involving content that may also end up lending credence to the views of the article creator, the opposing editor instead decides to heavily tag the article with specific NPOV related templates and gives reasons on the talk page.  Questions: Is this proper?  How long should the NPOV tags be allowed to stand?  Should the onus be on the article creator to balance the article or the editor raising issues to directly make edits?  In general how should one-sided advocates be dealt with?  In your view are current Wikipedia guidelines sufficient in addressing this issue?


 * A: The simplest way to "neutralise" the article would be to carefully improve the article so that it is no longer POV. However, the addition of POV tags and adding explanations on the talk page is an allowable way to proceed. It may well be that a useful dialogue can be struck up with the page creator on the talk page. The addition of too many POV-section tags might be better done with a single POV tag for the whole article coupled with suitable text on the talk page explaining which areas need addressing. I don't think there should be a time limit on the tags, the tags should be removed when they are no longer applicable. The tags do not direct anyone (neither creator or second editor) to make the article NPOV (although either &/or both could do it). The tag addition will add the article name to the NPOV dispute category, this may encourage other editors to examine the article and assist in the editing process. Should these processes fail (e.g. more heavy POV editing by the page creator), then one might have to consider posting a question in the NPOV Noticeboard and if that fails to achieve a solution, maybe then onto dispute resolution. That whole process would seem to me to be the best overall solution, and hopefully one would be able to gain an early consensus about re-phrasing the article content until it is neutral, without going to the final stage.


 * Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve
 * 13. You do a lot of anti-vandalism work, which is to be applauded. However, I feel that your answer to question 1 did not really explain what you would do with the admin tools that you cannot already do during your vandalism patrols?
 * A: I'm sorry if I was not quite clear enough in Q1. I will elaborate:- Sadly the maxim "Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" all too often tends to be "Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia that anyone can vandalise", so when on vandal fighting, there is very often the case that WP:AIAV get backlogged - huggle revert rates fluctuate with time of day, but at peak times can easily be in the order of 15 reverts a minute, add to that the reversion done by editors using Vandal Fighter and Twinkle, plus the reverting bots, means that I would estimate that 25+ reverts a minutes is not an unreasonable estimate - hence a backlog occurs - I often see this as huggle will report "User has been reported" over and over again (for the same vandal), and I have easily seen 10+ minutes of random vandalism (they know a block is due, so they just go and vandalise as many pages as possible before the axe falls). Therefore use of the tools will enable me to block these repeat vandals (thus preventing excessive page vandalism), and where necessary protect over-vandalised pages - there does seem to be a tend for concerted vandalism of some pages. This will also help reduce any backlogs. I intend to assist in the deletion of articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion and are uncontested. I would also look at reviewing contested CSDs, plus playing a part in reviewing inappropriate usernames and closing AfD.

General comments

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

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ronhjones before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted on the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as nom Jeepday (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Proud to be among the first. Ron's writing, by his own admission, is thin and I would have made an issue of that until recently, but since that is no longer as important as it used to be in an Rfa, I say hand this dude the mop! (And as a fellow vandal-fighter, I additionally beam with pleasure. Good luck and best wishes on this.)  Jusda  fax  23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Looks alright to me.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support He's an excellent vandal fighter and seems discreet enough. Though I would like to see more regular edits, I don't think that would be a real problem based on the work he intends to do. All-in-all, I think I would trust him with this line of duty.-- Twilight  Helryx  01:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. --Katerenka (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Not every admin need to have written reams of prose before being appointed. As their primary role should be to facilitiate others to make contributions I don't see a problem with Ron's relative lack of article-writing experience. His work in fighting vandalism is enough to demonstrate he has the right temperament to continue doing that with some extra tools.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - automated edits are not a problem. This user wants the tools primarily to fight vandals, and I see no evidence that he would do a bad job at that. Robofish (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Per above, plus you have a clean block log and the tenure and editing experience needed for adminship. I've gone through quite a few of your deleted contributions and not spotted anything untoward.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Per above vandal fighters don't need to be huge content creators.   Dloh  cierekim  14:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Candidate seems fine, has the necessary experience, no communication issues. The percentage-requirement for non-automated edits is completely illogical. Any one of the opposition down there - pick your favorite editor here. The one you look up to, the one you think would make the best admin. Now, that person goes - this week - and reverts 30,000 vandalism articles using some new automated tool that just slays the vandals. Would you now oppose them because their percentage of non-automated edits is too low? I can't believe that people latch on to this requirement as making any sense at all. "Oppose, he's done too much work in an area I don't respect". That's really what you should say, because that's what it really means. Tan   &#124;   39  15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong Support per Tan, and per his post on the RfA talk page. Had he done everything manually, he'd have less vandalism work, but it seems like, more or less, he would have more supports... that is utterly illogical.  The thing that sho uld not be   15:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Will use the extra tools to help with vandals fighting by blocking repeated ones as their noticed and states he will expand out as he learns. Sound and ideal way to go. --Natet/c 15:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Lots of good work here, and 17 articles is more than I've created. I see no evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per Tan and The Thing That Should Not Be. Honestly, percentage of automated edits is one of the shakier rationales I've seen here. Glass  Cobra  15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Pleasent interactions with this editor in the past. Though i think more activity on article development would be a plus. At anyrate, Fully trustworthy in my opinion. Good luck! Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to the closing 'crat: Although I generally withhold support when I see a candidate with few non-automated edits, I find the opposes below unfair. Many of them are based entirely on Ron's supposedly low number of non-automated edits, despite the fact that we have had unanimous and near-unanimous RfA's for candidates with lower total edit counts than Ronhjones's manual edit count. Because some oppose !votes are based solely on the candidate's edit count, and candidates with even lower edit counts do not tend to get so many opposes, I have to see them as expressions of an attitude hostile to admins who use automated edit tools in general, irrespective of how many manual edits they've made, and I wish to distance myself from that attitude.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I like how Tan framed it. Whether it is automated or manual, the work gets done correctly. Warrah (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, the opposes just don't get what adminship is about. We have admins who only do vandal fighting and we have not seen any problems with them. The oppose by Btilm is completely lopsided and nonsensical.  Majorly  talk  17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: 85% automated edits... Has never voted in a RFA... Not enough Constructive Edits (See my used page). Close but no cigar! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I see lots of good work and nothing problematic -- opposing because of the number of automated edits strikes me as wrong. Does using Huggle disqualify an editor who would otherwise be okay from becoming an admin? Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Not convinced by the opposes. Per Tan et al. Tim Song (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with above regarding the quality of the oppose rationales. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Why not? The faster the vandals are gone, the better. A8  UDI  20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good track record defending the encyclopaedia, no  reason to think theyll  misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Glad to - no reason to think you'll abuse the admin tools, and in reply to the opposes: they really *can* be valuable on antivandal patrol (I suspect every one of us Hugglers has had the frustration of repeatedly rolling back some vandal's edits at 2am until some admin finally gets to the half-hour backlogged AIV page). Requiring familiarity with the full range of situations an admin is likely to encounter, when you've well indicated your limited purpose with the admin functions, is just going too far and likely to deprive us of a good productive admin. Ray  Talk 02:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Answered my questions to my satisfaction.  Lambanog (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per the opposes based on automated edits. Hopefully the crats will acknowledge that such votes contain precisely zero substance.  Sluggo  &#124;  Talk  06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Can't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I've seen him revert vandalism I think he can be trusted with the tools-- NotedGrant  Talk  09:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Has done well, will do well. As far as automated edits go, I'm in full agreement with Tan above and Jusdafax below. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I see no reason to oppose. The ability to identify and use tools is not a negative, and there is good content creation.  Jim Miller  See me 16:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) It's been stated that Ronhjones has some 5,000 or so edits that weren't made with an tool such as Huggle: 5,000 edits is easily enough to judge whether someone will make a bad admin or not. He's created 17 articles? That good! Never voted in an RfA before either? That's good as well: admins aren't required to participate in RfAs, and his answers are more likely to be genuine rather than puffed to pass RfA. Having a high percentage of automated edits doesn't make someone untrustworthy, especially when when they have several thousand non-automated edits in addition to the edits with tools. In addition, Ronhjones would have to make several thousand non-automated edits to have them be equal in percentage with automated ones, and then several thousand more for a 3-to-1 non_automated-to-automated ratio (and even 25% automated edits can still be too much for some people, and bear in mind he'd have to cease all automated editing to get those percentages). I think he'll be fine. Acalamari 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support because the oppose rationale's are pathetic, IMHO. Since there is no good reason to oppose, I support.  iMatthew  talk  at 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support: Indeed. Automatic or not, his edits are enough to convince me. ☆ Pick both man lol ☆ 17:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Looking through edits and answers to the questions, I see no reason to suspect that Ron will be anything but a net positive to wikipedia.  GB fan  talk 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) SupportRon has a clear understanding of right and wrong and has displayed professionalism that is expected of a future admin. Nothing in his edit history suggests that he would violate community trust and who really cares how he does the job (with regards to his automated edits), just as long as he does it without prejudice. Good luck Ron!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, productive editor who will employ the tools usefully. No material issues presented below. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong support - Vandalism fighting is a plus. The percentage arguments below are absurd, and I see little that would lead me to oppose a positive editor. Shadowjams (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I see nothing which would suggest this user cannot be trusted. Nothing raised by those in opposition in persuasive. Crafty (talk) 06:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I trust him with the tools. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support; per Acalamari's mathematical rationale. I think he's a mature, intelligent editor who is beneficial to the wiki (and the fact he's used +rollback I assigned back in July so well :-) . -- Menti  fisto  07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, no reason to oppose. As many others, I would oppose a user who had made only automated edits, but that is not the case here: Ronhjones has made at least 5000 non-automated edits (about 2100 more than I had made when I passed RfA). --Aqwis (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, I don't understand some of the rubbish in the oppose and neutral sections about having too many so-called automated edits. If this candidacy fails, please don't reduce your anti-vandal activity on wikipedia in order to "improve" your automated/non-automated ratio. Dwr12 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. 5,000 non-automated edits is plenty to judge a candidate who has no other edits. Suggesting that someone is therefore unsuitable to be an admin merely because they also have significant experience in a different area is patently ridiculous and completely absurd. While contributions in other areas are always useful, we have many admins who restrict their activities into just one or two venues, and I see nothing to suggest that the candidate will not be able to branch out of this in the future. I also see nothing that troubles me with regards to their countenance or behaviour, and thus vote support. A le_Jrb talk  14:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Having a lot of automated edits is no problem, given that you have made c. 5000 manual ones, which is plenty. The only problem, mathematically, is that the large number of auto-edits shrinks the percentages of your other edits, so that the edits to wikipedia talk, for instance, which are perfectly adequate, come across as only a small percentage. But an adequate number. Will be a good admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support I agree that 5,000 non-automated edits is great, not to mention all the automated anti-vandalism edits. Dog  poster  20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support A competent and mature contributor of content. As for all the automated vandalism reverts  — thank you. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.  Kablammo (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. If you ignore all of Ron's automated-edits, you get a dedicated, clueful contributor. If you stop ignoring them, you get a dedicated, clueful contributor who does a hell of a lot of vandal fighting. rspεεr (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - Even if 85% of edits are automated, 5,000 non-automated edits is still good. *Pepper  piggle*  *Sign!*  22:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Definitely, clearly very competent in his chosen area of work, and could greatly use admin tools to operate more efficiently. ~ mazca  talk 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support I have always supported the preference of looking at the quality of work rather than direct edit count. I agree with the work this editors does and adminship privileges would serve both him and Wikipedia. Mkdw talk 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Support We need more people like this. Good luck.  West one girl (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 34) Support --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support The automated thing is a red herring, vandal fighting it vandal fighting, automated or not. So he takes advantage of the tools provided, who is this a bad thing? What is the point of huggle and others if their use is seen as negative. I've seen his edits and he does good work, whether he has to do one click or two, the end result is the same. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Support None of us would  support a candidate who does only automated edits, but this is a  very different case. Good work and good understanding generally.    DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support I wouldn't mind you at all, even if you have the majority of automated edits. Infact, the quality of your edits matters the most. It's what's in the inside, rather than the outside.Boeing7107isdelicious 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Support I was just about to write an oppose because of his lack of experience. However it does seem like in his specialty anti-vandalism, he seems to have a good grasp of the work and seems to enjoy it.  I say, let him have the mop and do what he does best.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 12:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Per Tan, and per Pepperpiggle's pointing out of the basic maths. Not likely to break the wiki with the bit. Pedro : Chat  13:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Excellent vandal fighter, some good CSD work, some article creation, and other work in admin-related areas. Good attitude. I like those percentages. -- Stani Stani  17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support I hope you can handle this...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support, and Q13 partly explains why. I know very well, with my daily experience, how it feels to fight vandalism as a rollbacker or as an admin - there is a huge difference - and I do disagree that one can be efficient in that without the ability to block. I daily recover month-old sneaky vandalism which was missed simply because no-one followed and blocked a vandal, who frenzied on random articles (many of which are not watched enough). Vandalism is a problem, which does divert content contributors (including myself) from writing, and an extra experienced hand is more than welcome there. Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said! Speaking as a Huggle-using vandal fighter, I know Ron's answer to Q13 to be spot on, and your additional comment, Materialscientist, is the icing on the cake.  Anyone undecided on this issue should read Q13 and get a real clue.  It is not too dramatic to say: There's a war going on.  Jus  da  fax  06:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is at war? When did this happen? Oh wait I forgot, you didn't mean like the wars I fight in, you meant like a game that two 12 year olds play. Let's take our foot off of the drama pedal k? --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 07:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wars may be fought in different arenas, soldier. I do not question your fitness in the field, I do question your maturity on the battlefield of wiki-civility and intellectual savvy. I repeat: I do not think it too much to say that Wikipedia would be a steaming junk heap in just a few weeks without the efforts of a few dozen rapid-fire reverters who are dealing with tens of thousands of vandalistic edits a day.  I know this because I had the luxury of being able to spend up to ten hours a day in the past six weeks reverting it.  I trust Ron with my back out there. While I honor your service, I don't trust your judgement here.  And your language on the talk page may be suitable in your current environment, but no one... no one... stood up for it but you. With mingled respect and rejection,  Jus  da  fax  07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Son I'm not looking for popularity, I'm stating my opinions. Now I would be interested as to how vandal fighting increases one's "intellectual savvy", the mere bluntness of my comments show that at least I don't try to beat around the bush. You act like you're the only one here that knows what vandal fighting is like. Jusdafax, I do it all the time. You're taking yourself too seriously, so please put the stick down and walk away. --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 07:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen (or/and ladies). Would you please stop fighting each other on my vote thread (and on this page). Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Give this guy the banhammer to stomp out worthless, timewasting vandals.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support after much thought, as net positive to the project. Another admin in the European timezone to help with AIV, UAA and CSD would be quite beneficial, and I am impressed with the way the candidate has responded to the opposes, some of which are not convincing at all. --Taelus (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per question 9. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Fully qualified candidate. I don't agree with every single word the candidate wrote in response to the questions, but neither do I think it is necessary that I do so in order to support. Nor do I think that a candidate needs to have experience relating to every possible administrator task before being entrusted with the tools. The candidate has ample and positive experience in the primary areas within which he intends to work, which are important ones, and that is sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, agree with the nom and per answers to the first three questions. Also essentially agree with . Cirt (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Ronhjones works in the best interest of Wikipedia and I would be shocked if misused or abused the tools. J04n(talk page) 21:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) (switching from oppose) The issues here are different than in any previous RfA I've voted in (and that happens a lot, in fact.) I didn't oppose because I saw something, I opposed because I couldn't find evidence of something and the candidate didn't provide it when asked.  But so many highly-respected supporters have been satisfied that I'm comfortable trusting them.  I wouldn't be switching my vote, of course, if I had seen something I really didn't like and the concern was not addressed ... that would not be the time to put my trust in the mob. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support - On one hand, he meets my standards, but all those automated edits make me a wee nervous. I happen to agree with your comments about AfDs. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak Support per nom.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support --<b style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:small; color:#FF0000;">Neozoon</b> 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Per Tan- 85% automated edits might be a problem against a thousand edits, or even 5 thousand. But throw out every single automated edit- which I think is unfair; but do it for the sake of argument- there's still 5,000+ edits in this user's history.  Would we have someone use two accounts and make manual edits on one and automated edits on another, if they want to ever have an uncontroversial RfA?  Surely not.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I see two areas most folks are opposing: automated edits/focus on vandal fighting. I think 5000 unautomated edits is significant and the automated edits are just not a factor for me.  In addition, if after so many automated edits the user hasn't had their ability to use automated tools revoked, it sounds like they are doing a sensible job.  As far as the focus on vandal fighting, I would never encourage a user to work outside of an area they enjoy in any volunteer community.  If that is what the user wants to do and they can provide a better job at it with the mop and can be trusted with it, then I support.  If they eventually break out into other areas, I would expect that I could also trust them to be cautious with the mop in those areas until they have a firm understanding of the relevant policies and procedures.  I have seen no evidence this user cannot be trusted and so I support.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Good answers to the questions and in my opinion, would make a fine admin.. Best of luck!-- Pookeo9 <sup style="color:#7723ff;">Say What you Want  23:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per has sufficient experience that I'm confident he won't break the wiki, despite some weaknesses in areas I usually like to see in RfA candidates. With thousands of manual edits, any add-on automated edits didn't sway me one way or the other.  If he'd only had a few hundred manual mainspace edits that would be different.  The only thing automated edits did was make it harder to wade through his edit history myself, so I did the lazy thing and waited until late in the RFA to crib off of others' work :).  I would've preferred to be able to look at a better sampling of his manual edits, but that's simply not practical with the logs flooded with automated ones.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - The opposes concerning "automated" or the percentage of "automated" edits are unconvincing, as I see nothing wrong in using tools to help maintain the encyclopedia. Ronhjones is an experienced user and I see no indication that he will misuse the tools. Airplaneman  talk 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Excellent Huggler and should be commended for his work. He's paid his dues and has earned the bit in my view. I trust this user to put the tools to good use in fighting vandalism, something that Wikipedia always could use more of. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. on the balance of evidence and probability likely to be a net positive, so worth a trial with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Switched from oppose. I think you'll do fine actually, I didn't think you were unsuitable for the tools at all, just not ready. But other people here are adamant you are, so I'm supporting.  ceran  thor 04:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - can be trusted with the admin tools and has justified in his answer to Q13 how he can use them for the benefit of the project. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support (moved from neutral) - although candidates that are primarily vandal-fighters are not always the best candidates for admins, a more thorough review of Ronhjones' contributions has convinced me that he is mature and well-balanced, and not the kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" vandal-fighter we all love to hate. Although he does have litte experience in other areas than vandal-fighting, I think he can get this experience after he has the flag, by immersing himself in these areas. I don't think he's going to abuse the tools. Draftydoor (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support seems like they would do work, don't see anything that would indicate that they would abuse or misuse the tools. Don't see much merit in opposition based on number of "automated" - but good - edits. Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, candidate has a need for the tools; clearly, and is proficient in the area he intends to work. As much as I would love to see all editors become well-rounded content editors, politicians, and janitors, I just don't think that's a necessary precondition to have access to simple set of tools.  This is simply someone who wants to help out, and has been doing so long enough to earn our trust that he won't blow up in the first day or so.  If he does, that mess can be mopped up as well.  I simply fail to see anything in the opposes that causes me concern.  Kuru  <sup style="color:#f5deb3;">talk  14:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Based on the contribs I have looked at and the answers to questions, I expect that the user would use the sysop tools productively and responsibly. --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong Support This guy tees me off something bad, as he always gets in there first to do a Huggle revert. What has he got, a supercomputer or something? Seriously, I can't think of a better candidate for administrator. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) SupportLooks all right to me. Seems like a careful person who won't be out there shooting from the hip on day 1. Can't ask for more than that! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, you will do fine in my eyes. I would like to see admins with a bigger window of daily activity (you're usually active the same 2 hours a day), but I'd never oppose based on that. 0 edits to WP:ANI so far, so I guess that'll be 2 hours well spent. ;-) Like I stated below, many of the oppose voted are ridiculous. I suggest you take the BLP concerns some editors in the oppose section have to heart though.--Atlan (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Support last moment Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - I respect your ability with vandalism and I would like to thank you for everything you have done. But the fact that 27,933 edits were automated disturbs me too much. And also, that is 85.25% out of the 32,766 edits you have ever done. Too much. Sorry.  Smithers   (Talk)   01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If he had only the 5,000 non-automated edits, would you support him? Gigs (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Percentages are what matters to me.  Smithers   (Talk)   05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not often to quibble with people's RfA reasoning, but that strikes me as dangerous. I do a lot of automated edits, but I'm sitting there for each one of them. I understand thinking those edits are less "meaningful" because they're quick and easy, compared to adding to an article, but if the user has a huge edit contribution otherwise, why oppose on that fact? I'm seriously curious, unless I've misunderstood you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Shadowjams in questioning this reasoning. The term "automated" is misleading in itself.  It's not like your edit count goes up while you are asleep.  Jusda  fax  07:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion on the talk page regarding this, because the question was raised in several places throughout the RfA. Gigs (talk)14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Nevermind there's a discussion someone opened here. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Fighting vandalism is great, but I don't see good examples of dispute resolution or communication skills. In fact, much the opposite; the examples provided that are meant to show good explanations/arguments of policies or guidelines show the opposite. Especially when discussing matters with an inexperienced editor, it usually doesn't do more than confuse a person when you just link a policy page as a way of explaining yourself. Doing so is like telling someone "RTFM", and if these are your best examples of policy arguments then I have to oppose. --  At am a  頭 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [Switching to support]. Agreed with Atama.  I want to add that sometimes links can be okay; I'm not saying you have to explain policies in detail all the time.  But I'd want to see that when it's necessary, you can (figuratively) listen to people, figure out what it is they're not understanding, and teach it to them, making connections to guidelines and policies.  You're doing fine, it just takes a long time and a lot of experience to get comfortable with this.  Keep up the good work, drop a note on my talk page in six months if this RFA doesn't succeed, and I'll be happy to talk about the prospects of another RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Links are often okay, I use them all the time myself, but either as shorthand when discussing things with an experienced editor (to remind them of what a given policy/guideline says), to back up what I'm saying, or just to say "read this policy". It's usually not helpful to just link a policy in the middle of a sentence when talking with a new editor because they have to now read a web page to understand what you're saying to them (especially if you're not piping to keep your sentence in clear English - see what I did there?). Having said that, I agree with Dank that you probably just need some more experience in that area. --  At am a  頭 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Have to agree, unfortunately. Vandal fighters are always needed, and their work often goes under-appreciated. However, I see little evidence of work outside of RC patrol. That isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. Additionally, vandal fighters have tools that enable them to preform nearly any task that a sysop can do, so if you're primarily an anti-vandalism editor, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more choosy. Don't let it discourage you though, and best of luck regardless of my opinion. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC) FWIW, I considered supporting after reading Acalamari's well-written statement, but I find HJ Mitchell's argument sufficient to re-establish my oppose. Will reconsider periodically, though. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) With Regret, Strong Oppose. You do some quality work fighting vandalism but with 85.25% of your total edit count as automated edits, I'm afraid I cannot support you.  The large number of automated edits makes it extremely difficult to evaluate your understanding of key principles and policies of the project.  Sysop's tools are not as simple to use as pushing the "q" and "space" keys on your keyboard.  -  F ASTILY   (T ALK ) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably he should stop making automated edits to fight vandalism if he wants to become an admin in the future? Surely it's the quality of his other contributions that matters, not the ratio of them to automated edits.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is the voters responsibility to look at an editors work. While you may discredit automated edits as part of that work, you must look at the remaining body of work. If you feel that remaining body of work is not substantial enough, then you must comment upon those lines or other problems you have with that work. The logical argument to say these automated edits compromise your remaining work by somehow making them less than they would have been with out these automated edits is well... bizarre. The work this editor has shown on his grasp of Wikipedia policy on a number of areas is available in his other work. Perhaps a closer look into his non-automated edits will adjust your opinions in regards to his work. As easily argued that you find it difficult to gauge his work from his automated edits, it could also be argued that it would be just as difficult to gauge a negative reading as well? Mkdw talk 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose with reluctance. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC) (moved to neutral)
 * 1) Strong Oppose You have 85% automated edits. You have only created 17 articles.  You have never voted in a RFA.  Yikes!  <span style="-moz-border-radius:1em;border:1px solid black;font-size:11px;background-color:green;color:white;padding:1px 4px 1px 5px">Btilm  05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to minimize the candidate's contributions. 17 articles are nothing to sneeze at, even if including stubs and disambiguation pages. A look at some of these articles, like Lune Aqueduct, shows the candidate's dedication to the project, although probably his most impressive work is in his 15 excellent templates. I agree that the automated edit count is too high, and that the candidate lacks the necessary experience, but he is a good contributor and deserves a little more respect than the comment above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for speaking first, Will. Agree that the candidate deserves more respect. I have personally seen Ron do a lot of good, honest hard work in the trenches for the project, day after day, week after week.  Btilm's comment crosses the line, in my view.  Jusda  fax  07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A8  UDI  15:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't !voted [yet], but I might agree that 17 new articles isn't a lot. But I am really bothered by references to the percentages. As if someone who did loads of good work who started doing loads of other good work (or vis versa) should be disqualified is insane. If it sends any message at all it sends the message that the RfA regulars don't respect vandal fighters, new page patrollers, and other wiki gnome tasks. These people know the system in and out ( they have to, or they hear about it) and they are critical to most admin tasks. As I've said above, I'm fine with opposing on edit counts, but not percentages, unless I hear a good reason otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the habit of bashing oppose rationales and have no particular opinion about this candidate, but I find it quite ridiculous he is apparently required to vote in RFA's and to create a great number of articles, in order to be an admin. The vote even ends with a "yikes!", as if creating "only" 17 articles is a red flag.--Atlan (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Never having voted on an RFA is arguably a positive, in my view... Robofish (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, but RfA is the one area where I don't expect admins to be active at. Lack of participation in adminship policies is a valid objection for RfB, but not for RfA. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind whether an RfA candidate !votes at RfA or not, but for the record I (an admin) do so quite often. Do you not feel that an admin should be in a good position to judge the qualities that an admin needs? --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly. I just don't feel it should be a prerequisite for passing RfA. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Too many automated edits. Décémbér21st2012Fréak   &#124;  Talk 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate on why that makes you oppose? Should those who want to be admins not bother fighting vandalism? Or should they do it all manually? -- Pontificalibus (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that either. "Not enough non-automated edits" makes sense, but what is with the stigma associated with making automated ones? While I understand that automated edits take less effort (which is the point of using them) and might indicate less forethought, if the results of those edits are positive that should reflect well on the editor, not poorly. --  At am a  頭 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Automated edits still take thought; they're not automatic. If you have 25,000 (arbitrary number off the top of my head) that are within policy and beneficial to the encyclopedia, how is that a bad thing? @Kate   (talk)  04:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Not yet. Admins have tenure and it's extremely difficult to rid the project of a bad one, and there's no way to restrict them to one area of the project, so I'm afraid I insist on seeing evidence of all the key administrative skills before I can support.  I'm not seeing the dispute resolution, talk-page work or discussion participation that enables me to reassure myself that this is an appropriate candidate.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I couldn't care less if 99% of edits were automated, to me that seems an absurd argument to make. However, what gravely concerns me is the lack of work outside vandal fighting- which I dabble in myself and I consider a very respectable field. However, I don't see any substantial work that shows what they would be like as an admin. If you were to come back in a few months with slightly greater breadth of experience on the project, I would certainly not oppose. I really hope this doesn't dampen your enthusiasm for the project. HJMitchell    You rang?   19:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've decided. I'm sorry, but you are a net positive as an anti-vandal worker. That's obviously not a reason to oppose your RfA, but the other concerns leave me with enough doubt to think you are ready at this time. There are two paths you could take from here. If you could, try to make some strong manual edits. A good example of a user who made excellent, well thought out edits every time before their RfA is Maedin. You could also take the Jdelanoy route, and work on other areas so that you could expand your knowledge. After all, his first RfA was not even close to successful, but his second was way over. Best,  ceran  thor 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's sensible advice for someone who's main ambition is to become an admin or to pass an RfA with flying colours but I'm not sure we should encourage that. Editors are not employees looking for a promotion, they're volunteers contributing in whatever way they find interesting, fun or gratifying. Ronhjones is a good vandal-fighter and his work would be easier and more efficient with admin tools. It would also mean less work for the rapidly shrinking pool of other administrators. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was not meant that way. But just anti-vandal work doesn't show enough judgment or knowledge of policy to portray he's ready for adminship. He's getting there, but I don't think he's ready just yet. Best,  ceran  thor 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's not as if he's done nothing besides vandal-fighting. It is by far the field in which he's been most active but from what I checked, the rest of his edits show decent familiarity with other tasks including WikiProject involvement, sockpuppet investigations, reference desk work, AfD participation, extensive template work. And his deleted contributions (over 1000) contain solid CSD work which shows good judgement. Just sayin'... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a good argument, as do others on this page. I'll switch to support; Ronhjones won't destroy the wiki and plus he'll make a great replacement bot for Jdelanoy. ;)  ceran  thor 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Admins will be called upon to do more that fight vandals, and while I also do alot of cleanup after vandals I think that any admin needs to be more well rounded within the community than this editor...   RP459 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Per HJMitchell, with regret. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - - Per your stance on no consensus BLP AFDs defaulting to keep. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further discussion moved to the talk page.
 * 1) Weak Oppose. I am not concerned about the number or ratio of automated edits. However, I am somewhat concerned about lack of experience in other areas. The candidate has limited experience outside of vandal fighting, limited interaction with other editor and a limited content/encyclopedia-building track record. With some additional experience in these areas the candidate will be ready for the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Although I have the utmost respect for the candidate's vandal fighting, I feel that the candidate has too little experience in other areas to be able to support at this time. I have no problems with automated edits - but I do expect an admin to have a more rounded experience, so I cannot support at this time. Hopefully, the candidate will learn from the comments here, and do another RfA when they have shown more experience in other admin-type areas. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Not very well-rounded. Admins do more than just rollbacks and vandal hunting. Shii (tock) 01:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Apologies Ron; as I think you have done some fine work here, and I do appreciate the efforts you've brought to our project. The views of those opposed above would perhaps push me towards a Neutral position; however, your response to Q.10 simply pushes me into the oppose section.  While we don't currently have a strongly worded "no consensus = default to delete" policy, I personally believe that a "no consensus = default to keep" is a very bad direction for WP to be heading.  I do try to find possible reasons to support the "keep" efforts on the majority of our articles; however, I think the WP:BLP issues are entirely too contentious, and too capable of doing real world damage to include them in our "keeper" group without some consensus to do so. — Ched :  ?  19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (move to neutral)
 * Further discussion moved to the talk page.
 * 1) Oppose I also agree that more article writing, and more wikipedia namespace edits are needed. Lack of experience. Also I don't like the question number 11. He mentioned that he created an article on Bunty Bailey, but there is massive sourcing problems there. Imdb and Myspace, along with fan sites and such aren't reliable sources. Information in Imdb can be added by any fan, with little vertification required. And Imdb was used as a source for her dating the musician. It's clear with that article creation he needs more experience with sourcing and BLP. Secret account 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) While I can appreciate the fact you have become a poster child for the automated editing administrator, my concerns lie simply in the fact I don't really know you and I haven't seen enough to convince me that you have the qualities I hope administrators have. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I would like to see more edits in other areas than only in vandalism-related areas. Bejinhan  Talk   06:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Far too many automated edits, not enough edits outside of vandalism-related areas, a lack of dispute resolution and communication skills, a lack of any good or featured content, and not enough experience or knowledge of policies and guidelines as I'd like to see. Laurinavicius (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. If people who do nothing but make automated edits are elevated to admin-ship, then I should be too.  We don't want that. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further discussion moved to the talk page.
 * 1) Oppose Admins needs to be clear about what real-world damage can be caused by BLPs - and it's certainly far more than who someone may or may not be dating. Also the BLP default to keep issue. Just no, the BLP situation is a joke as it is without more admins supporting the way Wikipedia currently implements the policy GTD 01:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that IAR might apply in certain cases, but you want admins to go completely against a policy? How is that helpful?  The thing that sho uld not be   01:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorting out the BLP mess, with Wikipedia potentially acting as the planet's greatest defamation machine, is far more important than policy. As I've mentioned before, I'd far rather have a separate class of editors who edit BLPs, who have to be of a legally accountable age and provide full identification. That is some way off, but for now I would not support the "promotion" or otherwise of any editor who believes the current BLP approach works well. Some things are too important GTD 01:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of a similar idea I had once on IRC... splitting off all BLP's onto a seperate Wiki, with a group of dedicated editors updating them there...  The thing that sho uld not be   05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Automated tools do not an admin make. Hipocrite (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To what degree? Any single automated edit is an automatic out?  What is your line?  I am sure 85% would cross it by your standards but could you be more clear?  I think 5000 manual edits is still significant.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose:   85% automated edits... Has never voted in a RFA... Not enough Constructive Edits (See my user page). - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I (barely) understand the first and don't understand the third, but the second one leaves me baffled. What does voting at RfA have to do with being an administrator? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The third means see his user page, which lists 2000 constructive edits as his personal minimum. As this candidate has 5000 non-automated edits, apparently his minimum has changed. Tan   &#124;   39  17:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, you have a point, so I changed to weak oppose. Now give me your three best reasons to support. -  Ret.Prof (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about: (i) Giving this user the tools would benefit the encyclopaedia, by making his vandal-fighting tasks easier. (ii) No evidence has been provided that this user would abuse or misuse the tools. (iii) In the absence of any good reasons to oppose, one should support. Robofish (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Robofish. Airplaneman  talk 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Res ipsa loquitur: You guys have made my point. You have condemned him with faint praise. The areas in which he is weak are as follows:   1. Helping newcomers,  2.Solving disputes,  3.ConstEdits (see my user page),  3.Upgrading articles. 4.RfA's,  5.People skills,  6. Conflict resolution,  7. A lack of any good or featured content,  8.Little copyright work,  9.  Little policy work. . . I could go on but you get my point. People quitting Wikipedia has increased 10 times as compared with the data for the previous year. The number of people leaving the editorial post is way more than the rate of new joinees. I look for Wise Admins who can turn this around. Wikipedia depends on volunteers and financial donations! Don't get me wrong! The candidate is not bad, it is just that he is not good! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)  PS  If he becomes an Admin it won't keep me awake nights!
 * 1) Strong Oppose: Before reading above oppossed users, there's too much explained my oppose.  MisterWiki  talking! :-D  - 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Not sure yet. He is an excellent anti-vandal worker and all, but I'm not sure that I've seen a lot of personal judgment from this user. Also, as an admin, he'd probably focus less on that area. He's one of the best, and that would be a NP. May be swayed one way or another.  ceran  thor 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - For now, waiting for an answer to #4. I'm leaning toward support for now but I want to see how the Robert Cochrane article discussion proceeded to see a good example of this editor's communication skills, problem-solving, and judgment. --  At am a  頭 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --  At am a  頭 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning support. Answers to abouve questions will determine my vote. Also, 85% automated edits is a bit much. *Pepper  piggle*  *Sign!*  00:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) moved to support *Pepper  piggle*  *Sign!*  22:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If he'd written 15000 articles and made 85000 edits reverting vandalism would 85% still be too much? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm confused why being a sysop would be a tool for you or help you out with what you do already. Automated edits and reporting IPs/users doesn't really require adminship status. A8  UDI  03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Move to support.  A8  UDI  20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Your heart is there, but I didn't realize that you had that many automated edits. Better luck next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Going back to support as I forgot about your creations and other stuff. Sorry about that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral I like your vandal fighting, you can obviously block vandals without makeing mistakes but the comments in the oppose section have made me !vote neutral. You may want to do dome more article work ect.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Moveing to support


 * 1) Neutral You are not quite ready yet; however don't be discouraged as numerous opposes above are unfair to you. Keepscases (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - pending answers to questions.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 16:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral pending answers to questions, and possibly a reply to concerns about #4. The points raised by Atama and Juliancolton are good ones in my opinion, but there are also good reasons to support. No concerns over automated edits however. --Taelus (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remaining neutral as I cannot bring myself down on either side. Some of the opposes over automated rate, and your opinion on an "in discussion" BLP policy of defaulting to keep are not convincing. However, points raised by Atama and Juliancolton are convincing. I think I will remain neutral, leaning weak support. Changing to support --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now. I don't really care about the automated edits, since I'd rather see 5,000 good contributions manually made and 1 million automated edits that were well-made instead of merely 5,000 manual edits.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. 5000 non-automated edits is plenty, and ratios in this case have very little meaning. More compelling are the recommendations to get involved in other admin areas. If you have another RFA later, I would appreciate a friendly notice. ~YellowFives 16:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral No real reason to oppose, but your views on BLPs prevent me from supporting. Astronominov  17:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm really not sure about this one. While I do not automatically oppose based on automated edits, I do not see much experience elsewhere.  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral Ron is definitely a positive contributor, and trustworthy enough for adminship; however, 85% automated edits is way too high for me to support your candidacy at this time. Your anti-vandalism work is very respectable, of course, and your work on the templates mentioned above is stunningly commendable. Please don't take this the wrong way; you're an excellent editor and I think you would be an excellent administrator as well with more experience. I've moved to neutral from oppose per Btilm's unfair oppose, and because I decided that automated edits are not a reason for opposing, although I still think Ron lacks some of the experience I'd like to see in an admin. If he gets the mop, it will probably be a net positive for the project; nevertheless, I don't think it does any harm to leave a wishy-washy non-vote down here in the neutral section. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I disagree pretty strongly with some of the opposes and was tempted to support based on that (ratio of edits, BLP answer). However you just don't have wide enough experience at this time for me to feel I can support.  Come back in 2-3 months after having spent more time in AfD, DrV, ANI, etc and I'll be happy to support.  I'd specifically direct you to work on the things pointed out by Atama. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Good anti-vandalism record, but I'm not seeing evidence of experience with dispute resolution, there's very little interaction on talk pages, and his content contributions are limited, e.g. the sourcing for Bunty Bailey is weak. I wonder if he has enough experience outside of Huggle. If he sticks to anti-vandalism tasks the tools may be useful, so I'm not opposing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I agree with others that the large proportion of automated edits makes it difficult to ascertain the candidate's judgment, communicative style, maturity and other capabilities that are important for an admin. However, there is nothing directly negative, so I see no reason to oppose. I do believe however that it is important for administrators to have a somewhat wider horizon than just automated vandal-fighting. Draftydoor (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. Draftydoor (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral.  While I still don't see enough content, or enough policy/guideline work, or really much outside the vandal fighting alone to feel comfortable in supporting; I do have to reconsider my thoughts on this candidate.  Ron has responded to my concerns, and while I don't feel fully satisfied with what may perhaps be a bit of politicking, perhaps my question was too much of a no-win query.  I also had to consider that perhaps my views on a situation were influencing my thoughts on the candidate; and Ron has not expressed any outright lack of understanding of our current policies.   All that being said, I have too many concerns to outright support, but without any clear violations I feel it would be unfair of me to oppose as well.  Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I was leaning toward oppose. I am concerned that this user wants to use a process he does not participate in to get himself elected. I don't like the high percentage of automated edits. Another user was promoted to admin who stated he wanted adminship to unblock his bots himself, and it was basically decided, why not? Well, why not is that he then abused his powers to inappropriately unblock his bot. I don't see what Ronhjones needs admin powers for in his edit history. I think he seriously misunderstands WP:Reliable. I cannot oppose, though, because, in spite of the lack of need for the tools, and misunderstanding of primary policies, Ronhjones allows himself to be the civil one in heated situations and this may seriously outweigh any detrimental qualities in him as an admin. I may change to support for just this reason. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2009 (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.