Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2

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

RMHED

Final (talk page) (20/64/10); Ended Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:05:51 (UTC) closed by Nichalp

RMHED (talk · contribs) - An OK user, who mostly makes a positive contribution. Though has been known to very occasionally act like a fuckwit. I only really need the tools for AfD & CSD, to help out with any backlogs there or possibly elsewhere like RPP.
I have deliberately not answered the set questions as I've come to believe that they don't really serve a useful purpose. No doubt that decision will go against me, so be it. I'd also like to state, that during this RfA, any harsh, rude, or just plain nasty comments about myself, are most welcome. Please feel free to be as creatively unpleasant as you wish, I won't be the least bit offended.

I'd like to thank all participants in advance for taking the trouble to contribute to this RfA. RMHED (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from xenocidic

1. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.
A:I'm not the least bit interested in blocking anybody. RMHED (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Filll
2. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?
A. No, I'd rather people were upfront and honest in their opinions. I think a full and frank exchange of opinions can help clear the air.
3. Answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.
A. Nice challenge Filll, but honestly I'm far too lazy to go to all that trouble.

Optional question from Shapiros10 contact meMy work

4. WHat is your opinion on users who have formerly been blocked for things other than 3RR? Are they to be valued as equally as other editors?
A: That rather depends on what they've been blocked for and for how long. In general though I'm all for redemption, God loves a sinner who repents. RMHED (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from weburiedoursecretsinthegarden
5. Is this RfA an indication of your "lazy" attitude to Wikipedia (which would presumably pass itself on to your admin role), or are you seriously this laid back, honest, and prominently cheeky in your day-to-day editing?
A.Good question. This RfA was just one of those spur of the moment things. Though I can be quite lazy and don't imagine I'll ever win any awards for dynamism. I don't really consider myself laid back, or that cheeky. I try to be honest, but having integrity and keeping one's word is the main thing.
Optional questions from User talk:Dweller
6. Did you intend this RfA a joke? (A one-word answer will suffice adequately, if you like)
A.No
7. (If the answer to 6 is "No") When you initially answered the questions in the way you did, did you do so with full knowledge it would cause the RfA to fail, without question? If so, why did you bother to nominate yourself, a seemingly pointless (and fairly time-consuming) exercise?
A.I knew that even if I'd spent many long hours crafting well reasoned answers to the questions that even then, the RfA would still have failed. This RfA nomination took very little of my time, about 15 minutes I'd say. As to why I bothered, I thought it would be interesting and informative to read others frank opinions of myself. So in that respect it is a stunning success. RMHED (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • See RMHED's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
RfAs for this user:

If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RMHED before commenting.

Discussion

  • Are you open to optional questions being added? –xenocidic (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No answer, so I'm just going to add it. –xenocidic (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it. We don't want to sysop him becuase we don't want him to close AfDs as no consensus? Even when there's no consensus? Of the diffs brought up, none of them seemed blatantly wrong (at a glance, at least). —Giggy 01:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things really chap my ass about this RfA.
  1. First, is WP:BOLD an instruction or not? Do we bust this editor's figurative balls about closing some contentious debates or coming down hard on an issue? I know that consensus is an important part of what we do but another important part of what we do is doing it. Processes don't more forward unless action gets taken and this seems to be a pretty strong disincentive to take action. I read this as "don't close debates as NAC or else it will come back to bite you". This give us admins who are meek, oleaginous or indecisive (or, alternatively, it gives us total ciphers). We want admins (I hope) to be able to make smart, hard decisions and to take the heat when those decisions are wrong. We want to see WP:BRD. We don't want to see (again, I hope) 2000 mainspace edits, all from bots or reverting vandalism and no inclination to push process. We can't pay lip service to WP:BOLD and then punish editors for living it out.
  2. Next, who really cares about the questions? What do the questions serve except as a method to show comprehension skills? I think of these questions as akin to interview questions: bullshit. "How was your last boss" is code for "don't say anything bad about your last boss or we won't think you are a team player." "Tell us one bad thing about yourself" is code for "Don't tell us anything really bad, feed us some nonsense answer, like how you just aren't living up to your own standards for learning PHP in your off time, or some crap". We have the advantage, at wikipedia, of not needing that stuff because we can see every single edit this editor has ever made. We don't need to hear how he might respond in a figurative situation because we have thousands of analogous situations to extrapolate from. If we don't have enough edits to form a complete picture, the answer is easy: WP:NOTNOW. If we do, then what are the questions for?
  • these are, of course, personal opinions and are subject to the constraints of my imagination and the fidelity of my temper. They should be read accordingly. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding several opposes citing "closing AfDs as no-consensus" as a reason, these are personal views, and at most can be considered received wisdom. Wikipedia currently doesn't have a clear policy or guideline that prohibits non-administrators from closing no-consensus AfDs. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be spelled out verbatim with WP:CREEP, but it is generally accepted that non-admins do not close "no consensus" XfDs - that's left up to the discretion of administrators since those situations are often tricky. I don't see this as being bold, I see it as being brazen, especially when you take this in conjunction with the candidate's demeanor in other situations. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I too share the opinion that "no-consensus" AfDs should be left up to administrators. Just pointing out that this is a personal opinion and is mentioned in no black and white policies/guidelines. :) If user closed AfDs as no-consensus sooner than proper duration, it is a valid raason to oppose. But it's overly severe to label such actions as something like "flagrant disregard for the restrictions" (as said below) just because the candidate doesn't agree with personal views of the opposers. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Weak Support because of your astonishingly honest nomination. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I've seen RMHED around in my time at AfD and DRV, and he makes thoughtful contributions there. Looking over his last 100 or so contributions, he does use sarcasm quite a bit, which may come off a bit WP:BITEy to new editors, but I trust he knows when not to use it. You've got enough experience in deletion to make me comfortable with giving you the tools in those areas, and while I haven't seen much work around WP:RPP I trust you have sufficient clue to figure it out. Failure to answer the set questions doesn't bother me, though I believe I will ask some specific questions later on. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your AFD closes worry me, as I'm an opponent of WP:NACs. However, your blunt honesty keeps me on the support end (for now). Switching to oppose. Wizardman 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I consider self-nom as a sign of being power hungry - which I'm fine with, we need more people with a bit of fire and ambition. Plus we are desperately short of admin and you don't seem to a vandal so you meet my minimum requirements. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where on earth do you get "desperately short of admins" from? We have about 10000 active users (going by the 9000 qualified to vote in the election and allowing for new users) and 993 active admins – a 10:1 ratio seems fairly reasonable to me. – iridescent 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I think that your honesty and brevity are refreshing. - LA @ 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support per such excellent AfD closer work as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars pez, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raccoon City (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide booth (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (5th nomination), etc. Correct closes and explanations of closes are both encouraging. --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually a very good point. While overzealous application of non-admin closes can be considered a negative point, I think the fact that he's generally done a very good job with them, despite the fact that he wasn't technically supposed to, does say a lot about his knowledge of consensus and policy there. ~ mazca t | c 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isn't he supposed to? SQLQuery me! 12:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was going to flail my arms in the air and howl into the wind over the racoon city one until I basically realized that it was the right choice, albeit a hard one. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even I with my somewhat stricter interpretation of inclusion rules have to agree that the closures are very well-executed. Actually, I can't think of many admins who may have done any of them any better. user:Everyme 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC) switching to oppose[reply]
  7. Per hilarious nomination statement. user:Everyme 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support —As much as I loved the bold nomination (though I do not condone the lack of answers to valuable questions), my support arises from this users contributions. The opposition brings up good points, but while perusing them, I found more good then bad. Leonard(Bloom) 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support most of those questions are of the "so what is your worst quality" type. RHMED is honest and direct. I appreciate working with him even though we are on opposite sides of arguments. This nomination is very much in line with who he seems to be throughout the rest of the wiki. Looks like this one will go down in flames but take note, any RfA that has Allemantando, me AND Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles on the same side of the debate is on to something good. :) Protonk (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. For not answering the questions. —Giggy 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I like your style. Skomorokh 11:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ageism worries me somewhat byut RHMED otherwise seems like a excellent candidate ergo weak support, not that it will do any bloody good. — CharlotteWebb 17:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
  13. Don't like the attitude but I'm not bothered by the so-called 'ageism' (i.e. common sense), or the closing of AfDs (if you feel like doing that you go for it). Naerii 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Which part of Wikipedia:Be bold is so hard to understand? If the closes had been terrible, that'd be a damn good reason to oppose. They weren't, so what's the problem here? I am really puzzled, and perhaps even disappointed, by some of the opposes from people who usually support boldness and getting things done. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not to play some MMORPG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Keep per the Divine Right of Kings and the consensus of the Wikipedian minions to maintain the status quo" is an acceptable closure reason to you? – iridescent 22:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's humour, or even humor. Or at least I think it is, but perhaps it's sarcasm. Always to hard to tell. Anyway, it's fairly clear than in bureaucraticfuckspeak, which is what I use when closing XfDs, that translates as "The result was keep" or "The result was no consensus to delete, rename or merge". The difference is that I smiled for a second or two when I read RHMED's closing comment, but my versions are not in the least funny. What was I saying? Ah, yes, a bit of humor, or humour, does no harm in the right place. A block isn't the right place. An XfD, especially an AfD, closed as delete is probably not a good place either. Elsewhere it's at worst harmless and at best positive. While it's right to take the project seriously, it really doesn't do to take ourselves, the editors, too seriously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Angusmclellan above. You've shown good judgement in your AFD closures so far; I see no good reason not to grant you the tools and allow you to close them as 'delete' as well as 'keep/no consensus'. The desire to help out with backlogs elsewhere is also a good sign. This RFA is probably going to fail, but I'm supporting anyway to make the point that there should be nothing wrong with (i) not answering optional questions, and (ii) closing AFDs as 'no consensus' when there really is no consensus. Terraxos (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I laughed at the AFD close, and, I agree one hundred percent with Angus. I guess we need to reinforce that the questions are optional as well somewhere. SQLQuery me! 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support Thank the lord for a RfA which is not yet another clone of the last 210203 of them. Vive la difference! Why shouldn't an admin have a personality? TrulyBlue (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between having a personality and having a negative attitude. The latter is apparent here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 16:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "Support He should have passed last time, has a solid history over a number of years making good faith contributions, and a demonstrated history of knowing what to do, and how to learn. That he has learned that the RfA is a joke is in no way a reason to oppose. His first RfA was approached entirely in good faith, and really only went down because of a difference of opinion on policies which are essentially open for debate. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. So he's closed some debates that he technically should not have. Were any of them overturned as being an incorrect read of consensus? The only logical conclusion I can come to here is that this user puts the goal of end results before a sycophantic devotion to procedure for its own sake and in my opinion this is an immensely good thing. I'll support. Shereth 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I completely agree with Shereth. So he didn't follow the rules and closed debates that a section of a policy might disallow. Were any of these closures overturned as incorrect? None have been listed. So, basically, what I'm getting from the oppose section is that even though he closes AfDs correctly, he doesn't follow the rules and would therefore be a horrible sysop. That is absurd on its face. We are a wiki. We do not follow rules to follow rules. If the closes are a correct reading of consensus, then it does not matter who makes said closures. The next oppose reason is his attitude toward this RfA. Last time I checked, a common complaint was that people take adminship too seriously. And here we have someone who does quite clearly does not take it too seriously, and he is being opposed for it. This community is schizophrenic. And then there's the ageism (or adultism, if you prefer) opposes. Those are just ridiculous. Why on earth does believing that most young people are unfit to be an administrator make one unqualified to be an administrator? It doesn't. Like Doc Glasgow said, opposing someone because he is ageist is more stupid than opposing someone because of their age. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... is that the common complaint? The complaint I always see is about arrogant admins who think they are above the community. How, exactly, does the Wikipedia community benefit from yet more admins who hold their peers in contempt? --JayHenry (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    support 68.195.234.13 (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs cannot !vote. Artichoker[talk] 02:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you IP, now register an account and create approximately 200 sock puppets, all vote support and Huzzah! Adminship will be mine, and nobody will suspect a thing. RMHED (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Very impressed by this nom. Bstone (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
No, not another of your type, sorry. Naerii 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with your oppose, but could you elaborate? What do you mean by "your type"? —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should expand: The type that "calls a spade a spade" or "tells it like they see it" - in other words being unecessarily hurtful under the guise of being honest [1] [2] Naerii 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong oppose, sorry, I can't support a candidate that willingly refuses to answer the questions. They really do help in determining whether or not you can be trusted with the tools, and your refusal could be taken as an unwilliness to cooperate. Best, —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 20:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Strong oppose per Naerii and Iridescent. What gives you the right to close any AfD you want (that doesn't fall under WP:NAC, of course) when you're not an administrator? To me that—ipso facto—demonstrates that you are too arrogant to make a suitable administrator. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - For closing AFDs as no consensus. Willfully ignoring the common practices (but not in the form of IAR) strikes me as arrogant. You shouldn't have done that. It's not up to you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Interim oppose at the moment. You're perfectly within your rights not to answer the questions, but if you're going to do that you need to tell us something about yourself. If you're not going to help us, I don't have any reason to think you'll help editors with a problem. – iridescent 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to straight oppose having found this less than a week ago. – iridescent 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per Iridescent, and also because, you've proven to me personally that you're lazy and have no business being an admin. Maybe you should have put up an editor review instead? All the best, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In the month of July, I have counted 18 non-admin closures, several of which were closed as no consensus. This is not only discouraged, but in my mind a violation of the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure policy. I still like your honest statement, but after a quick look through your contribs you are definitely not admin material right now. Oppose. Granted, I have no problems whatsoever with you not answering questions, too many fluff ones are asked. Wizardman 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find that policy is in fact an essay. RMHED (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But it summarises Non-administrators closing discussions, which is a pretty-much-universally accepted strong guideline. – iridescent 21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that indeed is a guideline. Guidelines are there to guide us, not to tether us. RMHED (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an essay, yes, but one I believe strongly in. Wizardman 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wisardman has a right to his own opionion, just like you and I do. America69 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone has the right to their opinion and any other brainfart, but opinions shouldn't mean squat for policy- and common sense-based consensus. In other words: Opinions by their very nature cannot be challenged; whence the people who inevitably repeat the bullcrap that everyone has the right to their opinion, which, while true, is also meaningless, because anything that cannot be challenged has no place in a real discussion. I'm not accusing Wizardman of opinionism, just felt like explaining this to all the people who feel compelled to chime in, in ostensible defense of free speech. Consider that people who actually indulge in opinionism never actually enage in any discussion, because they are not willing to be swayed by other people's arguments. That's why such people have a tendency to destroy discussions, and they never show the basic decency to at least not participate. I don't feel any necessity to smother everything with my personal opinion, and when I do it, I do it such that it's clear that it's just my opinion. user:Everyme 00:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Over-eager NAC's strongly concern me. MBisanz talk 21:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Grave concerns about the candidates attitude and approach to others. Seem likely to be an example of the kind of user who believes they are "getting the job done" by "telling it like it is" and ignoring the rules, without having a clue that their impact on others actually leads to an overall negative for the encyclopedia. TigerShark (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Didn't answer questions, an automatic oppose for me.--LAAFan 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I have little trust because you did not answer the questions. I must also say that closing AFD's wihout consencus makes me worry deeply. Sorry. America69 (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This recent edit [3] worries me. America69 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This one [4] is far more worrying surely? RMHED (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, it is. We don't come close to needing admins who not only enjoy displays of open disdain for those whose views they don't like but who brag about doing so. Let's change my Oppose to a Strong.  RGTraynor  08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose No answers to questions gives me little to go one besides contribs. In my opinion, consensus is what keeps Wikipedia functioning as well and as fluidly as it does. The "I'm right, so there's no need for consensus" opinion is what puts a halt to this process. Self-nom also gives me very little reason to support you. Sorry. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not well suited by temperament in my opinion. Avruch 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - per this (we have plenty of perfectly capable 12 year old admins), and this - I'd prefer someone who can give solid reasons for their actions. I thought you were joking with that comment at first. Al Tally talk 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt this information is somewhere amid the whole Ryan RfA drama, but what admins do we have that we know are 12 years old? ~ mazca t | c 08:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are, and have been a few. Anonymous Dissident is perhaps the most well-known, who displays his age. Ilyanep passed in 2003 age 11, and is now a bureaucrat. There are others too but they don't publicly reveal their ages, so I'd rather not say their names here. But there are a few, although some have "grown up". Al Tally talk 10:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose—I'm quite worried by Majorly's diffs. Maxim(talk) 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong oppose--Per his hurtful comments to younger editors about age and adminship. King Rock (Gears of War) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you meant Strong oppose? Artichoker[talk] 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose per Mizu onna sango15, and Majorly's diffs. LittleMountain5 23:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The candidate's flippancy suggests he does not take the process seriously. Perhaps it would make sense if the process did not take the candidate seriously? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Per Majorly's diff and a rather lazy RfA, take a little pride in yourself. Tiptoety talk 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Per Majorly's diffs, but the second one is more controversial. There are quite a number of young admins on my home wiki. Chenzw  Talk  01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose per all comments above, mainly though because user refuses to answer RfA questions. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Flagrant disregard for the restrictions placed on non-administrators closing AfD discussions suggest a bigger problem which we don't need, namely non-application of the blocking, deletion and protection policy. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per the comments about Spartaz. Sarah 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose User does not seem to have the temperament to respond to the inevitable stresses that come with the mop in a consistently civil and respectful manner. The overeagerness of the non-admin closures, combined with the often flippant and borderline disrespectful remarks that come along with them, serve to further prevent me from trusting that this user's judgment would be applied appropriately in sysop-required situations. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose Per all above   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - gotta pile on here, sorry. Admins don't need the sobriety of a judge, but should try to remain 'above' nonsense. What I like about wikipedia is the fact that we don't have arbitrary administrators who ignore other people's rights like most websites do. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose — You're too old for adminship. Matthew (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How old is too old? I'm curious, because not all of us are as young as you'd think... SQLQuery me! 12:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May be this is the background story :) -- Tinu Cherian - 12:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur, and unless RMHED is nocturnal, he too has a "bedtime" so a comment like that is useless. I see his point, but it's extremely patronising for anyone to make a make a statement such as that. Sorry, RMHED. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 20-Mule-Team Oppose: - My only experience with RMHED was in a deletion review he filed on a number of prods I had made. [5] In the review, of which he didn't inform me and I found out by accident, he came up with lines like "Yes process can be irksome at times, but generally it is there for a good reason." To see him be a champion now of WP:IAR and of the notion that guidelines are only guidelines, to be ignored at will, is startling. While this is a pile on, I can't ignore the stark inconsistency, and wonder whether what he really means above is that rules are optional only when he himself finds them irksome. I also would prefer admins not to publicly question the motives behind a decision in reviews where they pointedly exclude the decisionmakers from the process. Finally, the closest I come to Kurt's kneejerk POV on RfA is when I see overzealous non-admin closures at AfD; it's always struck me as power hunger akin to "Look at me! I can do what admins do!"  RGTraynor  08:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, some might say that this user "tells it like it is" and "calls a spade a spade", but some would say that this user is unnecessarily rude, hostile, and harsh. No thankyou. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Oppose - Not admin material. Not admin behaviour or attitude. I wouldn't be altogether comfortable giving this user the tools in the current state of this RfA. Lradrama 09:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose The attitude's a little much. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - While I admire the boldness of the nomination and found some good arguments in favor listed here, the opposing arguments are quite convincing as well. What made me oppose is the fact that when looking through his contribs, there were virtually no discussion edits on any talk pages within the last 6 months. While it's important to have editors who know the procedures and how to use them, I think every admin should also have experience in discussing problems on talk pages (problems with the content that is, i.e. consensus building). I doubt he can manage this when he needs to as admin, given the already mentioned rude comments about other users. So#Why 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Mostly for Naerii's diffs.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose: "OK" user? Not a lot of effort put into this RFA. seicer | talk | contribs 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Woefully inadequate self-presentation of credentials. Over-eager NAC closures and the diffs by Majorly are concerning, to the point of strongly opposing. Rudget (logs) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose: apparently answering the standard questions will not be useful, but inviting incivility here will be? No, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. We don't need more people who clearly intend to go Sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose - Yes, I realize it's a pile-on at this point. But we certainly don't need administrators with attitude, regardless of how one feels of current administrators. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. strong oppose- he's not very friendly, he also does some very strange closures at AfD sometimes which are not in accordance with WP:NAC, and in general seems to think he is above others and he can behave how he wants on wiki. Sticky Parkin 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Oppose Nomination statement, replies in this RfA (specifically to America69), and AfD closes show an astounding ammount of arrogance on your part. Completley unfit to be an admin.--Koji†Dude (C) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose while I do not expect all admins to be perfect, I do anticipate that the ability to resolve conflict and to have an air of neutrality to them would be the norm. Your nomination draws hostility and reflects on your attitude which I find not acceptable for the tools. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Your nomination statement implies either 1) You don't realy care about adminship/being an editor/Wikipedia (in which case I don't trust you with the technical ability to replace the main page with porn) or 2) You really have the non-communicative, rude, aggresive and uncivil attitude that is precisely what we don't want in any editor. Either way I suggest you re-think what this work is about, and why you help here. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to Wikipedia I have to admit I really don't give a fuck. RMHED (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not reply to opposing editors with such extreme sarcasm; it portrays a great deal of arrogance (whether real or not).Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't sarcasm, that was a link to an enlightening essay. RMHED (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse DGAF just about as much as the next person (mainly tongue-in-cheek-wise), but your complete indifference towards the responsibilities of adminship and Wikipedia as a whole show unsuitability for the job. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Oppose per the rather flippant attitude displayed on this very page. Also suggest close under snow guidelines. Winger84 (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certainly object to a SNOW close. RMHED (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, despite the opposition, RMHED does have a significant amount of support, therefore making snow less appropriate. As RMHED has also stated that he doesn't want this closed early, which he is entitled to do, I don't believe that this should be closed as snow at all. Acalamari 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When did 27% become a significant ammount of support?--Koji†Dude (C) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about numbers. Read the support section, read WP:SNOW, and read the 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) comment. Whatever it is, it's not unanimous. —Giggy 08:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since you throw out the "read WP:SNOW" canard, allow me to quote it: "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." Nowhere in WP:SNOW do I see the word "unanimous." In a RfA where the next 136 editors must vote Support just to clear 75% (a level of Support few RfAs, no matter how popular, have ever attained), then yeah, this doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. That being said, I see no reason to begrudge RMHED's hour to be the center of attention. By all means let the farce march on.  RGTraynor  11:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's focus here on whether the candidate is or isn't suitable for adminship. There's a discussion about a proposal to apply SNOW to this RFA here. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose - Hmmm, this took a while. I think I kinda understand where you are coming from; "what you see is what you get", etc., but it really comes off as very flip, and open and honest can go right to arrogant and rude in a heartbeat. King Pickle (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I wish we'd stop pretending that nonchalant arrogance is some sort of impressive virtue. I'm unconvinced that it takes bravery or skill or something to adopt this posture. Go to a shopping mall on any school day and you can find some 15-year-old playing hooky who possesses the exact same "honesty" and also "DGAF". Yawn. It's as impressive here as it is at the food court. I'm extremely unconvinced that Wikipedia would benefit from having this attitude in greater abundance. --JayHenry (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "It's a remarkable thing (and I've traded on it all my life) that a single redeeming quality in a black sheep wins greater esteem than all the virtues in honest men." -George McDonald Frasier, Flashman and the Redskins

    In any event, Sir Harry was right. No doubt there are a lot of folks who chafe under Wikipedia's civility rules, but there are a lot more who wouldn't like the results of a Wikipedia full of jaunty individualists who popped off their mouths, and wouldn't stick around long.  RGTraynor  07:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose — Lazy RfA, don't know what happened to the original questions... macytalk 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per the attitude displayed here. Comments listed above are also startling. Mastrchf (t/c) 04:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose I could be rude myself, but I'll just say per Jay Henry. Nick mallory (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - Erm...<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong oppose I haven't taken part in RFA much recently, but I just happened to stumble across this and had a read through. All of the diffs posted above are very troubling. Not only is this user prone to generalisation ("User is 12 years old"; why do you oppose 12 year olds? Because they're immature? Fine, find a diff of the user in question being immatureand post it, don't write an oppose like that), almost every talk page comment they've made has been ridiculously aggressive. All this portrays quite a bit of arragance on this users part. I'm sure he would be prone to look down on non-admins where they to become an admin.--Serviam (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong oppose There isn't really much else I can add to comments already made. Minkythecat (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Entirely unsuitable behaviour prior to, but particularly at RfA. And I don't mean not answering optional questions. If this RfA is a leg-pull then I apologise for being humourless, but when I last checked today wasn't April Fools Day and adminship, while not being a "big deal", isn't a "big joke" either. (And if it is a joke, we've had much funnier mock RfAs, appropriately on April Fools Day) --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong oppose per Iridescent and this. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose — for not withdrawing this RFA yet. be bold, but don't waste our time. –xeno (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would respectfully contend that it is not a waste. Firstly, one never has to look at RFA pages. Secondly, perhaps the user is interested in getting the most complete view s/he can of the community's opinions. There is nothing wrong with letting a request for anything run its allotted time. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still oppose for gaming the system. That's what editor review is for. cf. [6] –xeno (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should tell him about editor review?  Asenine  18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. I wasn't going to jump in and pile-on on this one, but since it's still open, I suppose I will. Opposing as per pretty much everything said above and per the lackadaisical answers. Useight (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose per a tendency to game the system. I also witnessed several abusive closures. I have the feeling that the candidate acts in his own interest and doesn't realize how serious administrative actions are. Cenarium Talk 17:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - Per everything everyone opposing has said thus far. When you're this far down on the oppose count, there isnt much more to say except that you agree... and pile on doesnt seem to be a concern at this point. So... yeah. Qb | your 2 cents 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong oppose - Lack of effort with this RfA has me thinking that there will certainly be a lack of effort in his adminship.  Asenine  18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. While I respect your attitude to the tedious "optional" questions, your admission of "mostly positive contribution" and "very occasional fuckwit" does not fill me with confidence. Axl (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose -- Per the afd closure diffs. Sorry! --Cameron* 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - candidate is no where near ready to be an administrator. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - Pretty poor attitude in all times I have encountered him on here and an over zealous use of non-admin closures in situations where it should not be used. -Djsasso (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - per Majorly's diffs.   jj137 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose - Candidate does not seem to be serious about work, and I doubt that he will utilise his admin tools efficiently. Also see America69's link ([7]) IceUnshattered (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is work? I thought it was a hobby, oh well, I guess I know better now. RMHED (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Ice had an implied "his" before "work". Once again, please refrain from sarcasm.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that sarcastic? Really I never intended it to be, oh dear maybe I'm just leaching sarcasm without being aware of it. RMHED (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Oppose due to refusal to answer the questions, the aformentioned difs, and (IMHO) not taking this situation very seriously at all. JPG-GR (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged, I really can't take the RfA process seriously. If I had a sword I would fall upon it, but as I don't, I'll take another swallow of bourbon and reflect upon life's mysteries. RMHED (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I misread RMHED's edit comment as "tiddly porn" and having read the transcluded text I can only say that I am most disappointed. Apologies if this isn't in keeping with the spirit of the RfA; I couldn't tell. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. One part of my brain is squealing "support this user, that self-nom was brilliant and he doesn't appear to be an idiot". The other half is equally shrilly informing me that this really shouldn't be the way you go for adminship, and generally behave, in a collaborative project like this. So I'm just going to put a post here and acknowledge the terminal indecision. ~ mazca t | c 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral reviewing the reasons why people opposed. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why bother posting saying you're making a decision? seresin ( ¡? ) 23:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm indenting the above vote because the person voted again more recently in Oppose. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - I have seen this editor around quite a lot, when I saw you were nominated I expected to see bells, whistles, balloons and possibly 5 co-noms. Yet all I see is this rather...charmless introduction. I really don't know what to make of it. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral — I appreciate the honesty, it's a huge factor. That said, though, I really do need more from you to support. I need answers to optional questions! — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 19:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: He's answered all the optional question, albeit very briefly. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 08:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Damn Why d'ya have to come at here like this? Ya could've been a contendah Plutonium27 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No-need-to-pile-on-neutral. Brave to be so honest, but some of this honesty reveals some truly concerning issues. S. Dean Jameson 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Pardon me , But are you really serious about this RFA ? -- Tinu Cherian - 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can be seriously serious, though rarely really. RMHED (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But are you serious now? The "rarely really" doesn't really look good to me, RHMED. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now I'm struggling with serious, come on now, can you really expect me to be serious about this RfA? Life's too short for that. RMHED (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    God forbid you take 7 days out of your 90 year life-span for an RfA.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    90 year life span!! With my alcohol intake! Highly unlikely I'd say, but nice of you to be so optimistic. RMHED (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I admire your honesty and am bothered by the vengeful users who voted against you because you voted against someone else. How petty! Anyway, call this moral neutral. I wouldn't want you to have the power to block me, that's the only thing stopping me from supporting. I guess I'm selfish. Beam 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I'd like to applaud to RMHED's honesty to the issue, and I'd like to support him, but it looks like there are certain issues still not worked out by the editor despite his best of efforts shown. I'd have to go neutral on this one. I'm sure that your continued productive efforts will catch the attention of other editors and in the future will become knowledgeable admin. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 19:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral for sheer bravery and there is no reason to pile on opposes like drive-by shootings.--Finalnight (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RMHED_2&oldid=1088200192"