Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2
Edit count for RMHED
[edit]User:RMHED
run at Mon Jul 14 21:06:05 2008 GMT
Image: 58
Mainspace 4454
Talk: 3292
Template talk: 6
Template: 20
User talk: 696
User: 24
Wikipedia talk: 11
Wikipedia: 1436
avg edits per page 1.28
earliest 22:56, 8 February 2006
number of unique pages 7796
total 9997
2006/2 127
2006/3 5
2006/4 0
2006/5 1
2006/6 370
2006/7 748
2006/8 528
2006/9 266
2006/10 35
2006/11 62
2006/12 45
2007/1 8
2007/2 0
2007/3 0
2007/4 0
2007/5 4
2007/6 3
2007/7 12
2007/8 36
2007/9 7
2007/10 4
2007/11 1323
2007/12 2239
2008/1 2863
2008/2 269
2008/3 5
2008/4 11
2008/5 251
2008/6 527
2008/7 248
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red
denotes edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
271 [2]Deaths in 2006
105 [3]List of historic houses in England
40 [4]Deaths in 2007
32 [5]List of films based on British sitcoms
23 [6]Dead pool
20 [7]Deaths in July 2007
19 [8]Archibald Low
17 [9]List of comedy television series
17 [10]Joan Hamburg
17 [11]Alberto Cavalcanti
16 [12]List of The Shadow stories
14 [13]Minder (TV series)
14 [14]Bastards
13 [15]Francis Cammaerts
13 [16]List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 33
Talk:
7 [17]Murder of Emily Sander
4 [18]List of films based on British sitcoms
4 [19]Dead pool
4 [20]Deaths in 2007
3 [21]Flavor
3 [22]Ross Overbeek
2 [23]Harry Bentley (The Jeffersons)
2 [24]Soncino, Italy
2 [25]Vigevano
2 [26]300-page iPhone bill
2 [27]Union Flag/Archive 2
2 [28]Nembro
2 [29]Peschiera del Garda
2 [30]Tatsuzo Shimaoka
2 [31]Michael Mayne
Image:
3 [32]Will-Hay.jpg
3 [33]Bill-Daniel-meeting-JFK.jpg
2 [34]ExperimentalWorks.jpg
2 [35]Johnny-Jenkins.jpg
2 [36]Charles-Barrow.jpg
2 [37]Funsho-Williams.jpg
2 [38]Francis Grenfell.jpg
2 [39]Kitchener recruitment.jpg
2 [40]Carry-On-Regardless.jpg
2 [41]Douglas Reynolds.jpg
2 [42]Archibal-Low.jpg
2 [43]Charles Garforth.jpg
2 [44]Carry-On-Constable.jpg
2 [45]Basket-of-light.jpg
2 [46]Inlovingmemory.jpg
Template:
6 [47]Province of Brescia
5 [48]Will Hay
Template talk:
6 [49]Did you know
User:
8 [50]RMHED/monobook.js
5 [51]NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological)
3 [52]Nlsanand
2 [53]Gougs001
User talk:
243 [54]RMHED/articles
6 [55]Thatperson
5 [56]Noface1
4 [57]Sewfan
4 [58]RMHED
4 [59]Jmfreak10
3 [60]Bishoprashad
3 [61]Gwen Gale
3 [62]DGG
3 [63]Redvers
3 [64]71.246.103.253
3 [65]82.35.25.65
3 [66]Joker-913
3 [67]Boyboy888
3 [68]69.153.68.29
Wikipedia:
37 [69]Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
29 [70]Most wanted articles
15 [71]Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters
15 [72]Requests for adminship/RMHED
13 [73]Requests for adminship/Ryan
11 [74]Administrators' noticeboard
11 [75]Administrator intervention against vandalism
7 [76]Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee
6 [77]Articles for deletion/Aiden Ford
6 [78]Articles for deletion/Esteemsters
6 [79]Articles for deletion/Guyball
6 [80]Articles for deletion/Raymond Cass
6 [81]Articles for deletion/Stephen Coles
5 [82]Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18
5 [83]Requests for comment/Kmweber 2
Wikipedia talk:
4 [84]Administrators' noticeboard
2 [85]WikiProject Heroes
2 [86]Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3
If there were any problems, please [87]email Interiot or post at
[88]User talk:Interiot.
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC).
Regardless of the wishes of the applicant, I feel that the above RfA should be closed per SNOW. At this point, there is absolutely no constructive criticism being offered and it's essentially a pile-on that is draining people's time. It is not up to the candidate to keep it up and running - as a courtesy and a form of Wiki-congeniality we say "ok, we'll keep it open..", but seriously folks, if this were true all the time then WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW wouldn't exist, and would never be invoked. Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support this if it showed signs of becoming a drama. It's currently remarkably calm. I don't think it's wasting peoples' time - even a pile-on has the value to others, even if not to RMHED, of what kinds of behaviour at and prior to RfA are not deemed acceptable and "adminlike" by the community. If I were admin coaching, I'd send coachees (is that a word?) to that link for an (several?) object lesson(s). --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there is a distinct lack of drama, which is quite refreshing given some past RfAs, however, all one needs to do is look at the last handful of opposes to see the repetitive recycling of rationales. It may not be "wasting people's time" per se, or even demoralizing for the candidate at this point, but it's certainly belaboring and drawing attention away from other Wikipedia processes besides general editing. There are other, less contentious, RfAs at the moment, just as a for instance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 10:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it has value, there are a number of supports, it's undramatic and the candidate doesn't want it closed early. Add to that that there is a possibility further editors will add new material. That lot versus the number of minutes each future editor will allocate in assessing and responding? I think it's worthwhile. Actually, the best result of all would be if RMHED took heed of the criticism (sometimes it takes hearing the same thing 100 times from 100 people to get the message) and became a more valuable editor and future admin as a result, because there's clearly a lot of value in their contrib history. This is not some 2 day old account holder applying for adminship after 3 bits of vandalism and 2 constructive edits. Heck, I'd be happy to mentor RMHED if they were serious about looking to improve their behaviour, but I sadly somehow doubt they'd welcome the offer. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I agree with Wisdom here; while the AfD does seem remarkably civil, the number, and percentage, of opposes really does make it a textbook example of WP:SNOW - it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Right now about two hundred people would all have to show up and vote support if it was somehow going to pass. I understand RMHED is happy for it to remain open, but really that's why there's a difference between "closed per WP:SNOW" and "withdrawn by candidate". All it's really doing at the moment is wasting people's time, he isn't even getting any new constructive criticism out of it. And its current state is already enough of a warning to others not to try applying in that way if they expect to succeed. ~ mazca t | c 11:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even if I agreed, I'd say "not yet". The candidate has recently answered an optional question, since when some more optional questions have been added <ahem... two by me, lol>. Even if all subsequent support and opposes add nothing new, I'd argue that if the candidate chooses to answer more optional questions, it will bring a substantial nett positive in terms of the community being able to assess this RfA if/when there is another. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I agree with Wisdom here; while the AfD does seem remarkably civil, the number, and percentage, of opposes really does make it a textbook example of WP:SNOW - it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Right now about two hundred people would all have to show up and vote support if it was somehow going to pass. I understand RMHED is happy for it to remain open, but really that's why there's a difference between "closed per WP:SNOW" and "withdrawn by candidate". All it's really doing at the moment is wasting people's time, he isn't even getting any new constructive criticism out of it. And its current state is already enough of a warning to others not to try applying in that way if they expect to succeed. ~ mazca t | c 11:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it has value, there are a number of supports, it's undramatic and the candidate doesn't want it closed early. Add to that that there is a possibility further editors will add new material. That lot versus the number of minutes each future editor will allocate in assessing and responding? I think it's worthwhile. Actually, the best result of all would be if RMHED took heed of the criticism (sometimes it takes hearing the same thing 100 times from 100 people to get the message) and became a more valuable editor and future admin as a result, because there's clearly a lot of value in their contrib history. This is not some 2 day old account holder applying for adminship after 3 bits of vandalism and 2 constructive edits. Heck, I'd be happy to mentor RMHED if they were serious about looking to improve their behaviour, but I sadly somehow doubt they'd welcome the offer. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there is a distinct lack of drama, which is quite refreshing given some past RfAs, however, all one needs to do is look at the last handful of opposes to see the repetitive recycling of rationales. It may not be "wasting people's time" per se, or even demoralizing for the candidate at this point, but it's certainly belaboring and drawing attention away from other Wikipedia processes besides general editing. There are other, less contentious, RfAs at the moment, just as a for instance. Wisdom89 (T / C) 10:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that this is certainly a WP:SNOW candidate, but let's face it: SNOW as it applies to RfAs is heavily slanted towards sparing a failed candidate's feelings. This is not the case here. To do so because it is "wasting people's time" only factors in if we are compelled to participate in the RfA. We are not. We can cease to post in it or read it any time we want; it isn't as if with 50 Opposes this will suddenly reverse behind our backs. The same applies to the notion of this "becoming a drama." Let's say it does. So what? We still don't have to buy into it if we don't want to do so. Whether RMHED is going through this out of a desire to be the center of attention, to be "controversial" or for any other such purpose, we don't know, but I think it's his privilege to want it stretched out to the bitter end. Ravenswing 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Can folks stop posting a thread on this page about every RfA with a problem element? Most RfA participants don't watch this page, so if you want to address a problem specific to an RfA you should use the talkpage of that RfA or (depending on the nature of the problem) WP:BN. Avruch T 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Or how 'bout just the nominee's talkpage? The bright orange bar doesn't turn up anywhere else for them. Keeper ǀ 76 16:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I created two of them. In both cases, I had already been at the candidate's talk pages to inform them of the issue, and when it wasn't resolved there, I posted here. In both BigVinu and Morhange's cases, there was a slight issue with the RfAs that I felt a quick community insight could help handle. Also, in both cases, I feel the fact that it was brought here let the community discuss it and solve the problem. If I feel I can do something on my own, I do it, or if I feel prudent to let the community know about an RfA issue, I bring it here, as I will likely continue to do in the future. Sorry if the repetitive nature of the topic titles bothered you, Avruch, but I believe they should've been brought here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How is a page that you have to consciously click on and then decide to read a waste of everyone's time? If the time is wasted, it is because you chose to waste it on the RfA, not because the RfA itself wasted your time. Clearly, all of us discussing on this page, or making more than one comment in any given RfA have a little extra time here and there. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't wasted time, it's just foolish to keep it open (maybe wasted space?). At 18/56, there really isn't any chance of the RfA passing. Think of the exact number of support votes he would need, just to cross into the 60-70% range; it's really only because RHMED is an established editor that it hasn't been closed.--Koji†Dude (C) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- And doesn't snowing an established editor seem to indicate that there is some larger, more serious issue at hand here? I agree that the percentages are against him, but the simple fact is that this editor, on the face of it, stands more than a snowballs chance in hell of making admin. Minus the RfA's, simply scanning this guy's contribution would not make you think "wow, if this guy submits an RfA it would have no chance". People essentially oppose him for not taking RfA seriously, which obviously puts the poor snowball at a disadvantage before entering Lucifer's domain, but in such a situation I think it is fair to leave things to the nominee's discretion. The problem isn't so much with his qualifications, as with the RfA voting community's interpersonal issues. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c) If the only possible benefit to keeping the RfA open was a surge in support resulting in a surprise adminship, I would agree that keeping it open was foolish. However, the candidate may have other reasons, and given that they know what they are doing, as long as they do not want to withdraw, I think we ought to respect their choice, and ought not to concern ourselves too much with the reasoning behind it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's plenty of opposes for things that have nothing to do with not answering questions. I agree with Avruch and think this whole thread should be transplanted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RMHED 2 –xeno (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)