Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RickinBaltimore

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

RickinBaltimore

Final (199/3/1); Closed as successful by Wizardman at 00:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, I'm pleased to present RickinBaltimore as a candidate for administrator. Rick has been an editor since 2006 and returned to active editing about a year ago, and he has proven himself indispensable in the grunt work of maintaining the encyclopedia since.

Rick is a prolific new page patroller and vandalism fighter. He has worked diligently at AIV and I cannot remember a mistake he made in reporting there. This gives me great confidence that he can help our AIV and RFPP backlogs, which have been growing in the last couple of months. He is also familiar with SPI, though not a clerk, and I think he could make a great contribution there as a patrolling admin, something we desperately need.

The countervandalism tools are automated, so of his 41K edits, a good portion are naturally from Twinkle. This is not a drawback to Rick's candidacy – it bolsters it, because it shows he can use this tool effectively and appropriately. His CSD log is proof of his judgment, and it stands to reason that he can help with the CSD backlogs as well.

While dealing with the problematic users, he has continued to keep a calm, professional manner, even though his talk page has required several stints of semi-protection from vandals and trolls.

The administrative backlogs are daunting, but we can fix that by giving the tools to trusted people with a good sense of clue. I hope you give Rick your support, because I know he's going to be a terrific and helpful administrator. Katie^talk 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I'm deeply honored to co-nominate RickinBaltimore for adminship, and I would like to take two minutes of your time to explain why you should support him today. Rick spends a great deal of time patrolling through new pages and recent changes, tagging articles for deletion or improving them where able. Through this work Rick has come into contact with some of our longest standing vandals and has definitely experienced both the good and bad of Wikipedia - although tested, Rick has responded to vandalism in a courteous, professional yet firm manner, and throughly understands the policies governing vandalism, blocking and page protection. His dedicated work has led him to make a staggering 1809 edits to AIV, 825 edits to UAA and 240 edits to RFPP. Rick is a kind and clueful editor who will take the time to reduce our backlogs and protect our content from those who would wish to disrupt it. I hope you will join me in supporting him. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am honored to be nominated by such well-respected editors, and I accept the nomination of this candidacy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Currently I primarily work with recent changes and new page patrol, and would focus my work within these ares, specifically with vandal-fighting. Primarily I would review

WP:SPI, as I know that there always seems to be a backlog there, and will work with the Checkusers in having these matters resolved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've only created a few articles, mainly ones related to my area of interest being that the city of Baltimore. Robert Long House is one, while a small article, I'm pleased with how I researched and developed the page over a subject that didn't have a tremendous amount of information on (and I still need to go down to take a picture to add to the page). As I primarily work in the areas of vandal fighting, I feel that just assisting in helping remove vandal edits makes Wikipedia a better place overall. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: One good thing that I feel I have is the ability to not become stressed out over my editing at Wikipedia. In the end, I am able to walk away if I feel things become too heated, or start to get out of control, and I can keep my emotions in check. The majority of any conflicts that I have had in the past have been with editors that have disagreed as to why I have tagged a page for deletion they created. Regardless of the situation, I approach each person with

good faith to try to explain why I did what I did, and how they can either improve the page to possibly keep it, or as to why the page isn't a subject that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. An example I feel of my level-headedness would be with this conversation here, when an editor that was upset I removed their edit by blanking page. After the initial confusion, I directed them to making edits in their sandbox, then creating the edits in main space, which the editor did, apologized for the confusion and thanked me for helping them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from DatGuy

4. Are there any particular accomplishments you're proud of? This could be anywhere from content creation to finding a sock-farm, etc.

A: A few actually. One is a bit recent, and minor, but I'm happy how I got a consensus and agreement on the matter. The owner of the Baltimore Blast, Ed Hale at the end of the 2015-16 MASL season said he was starting a new indoor league, the

WP:RFPP for this very reason. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from DatGuy

5. Do you work a lot on any type of venue/subject in particular?

A: My area of editing tends to be topics related to

2016-17 Major Arena Soccer League season page for this current season. Out side of those areas, I tend to edit in random areas, don't have one specific area that I would deed to be a speciality in itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Lourdes

5. What are your views on our

COI

guidelines with respect to fans editing pages of their teams? In other words, how would you wish a fan to identify his/her (non-trivial and non-vandal reverting) edits to the page of his/her favorite team, so that the same are in line with our COI guidelines? This is my first question; I shall add my second query post your response. Thanks.

A: Seeing as I have an admitted COI in that regard with the teams I support, this is an interesting area you posed with this question. Many times I have seen, from myself and others, fan edits are relatively neutral, that is it's information about the team (such as statistical changes, roster changes, and so on), and fans of these teams tend to be knowledgeable in these areas, so for the most part these edits are fine I would say. I don't feel a fan of a team needs to come out and admit "I support Team X" for the purpose of a COI, as while yes there is a bias to post about your team in a positive light, and opposing teams in a negative light, from reading

WP:COI "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense". In this area the edits need to be looked at via the lens of common sense, and presented from a NPOV by the editor. If edits start to go the way of over the top fandom, they should be reverted and a simple warning placed on the user's page explaining the need to edit from a NPOV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional questions from Yellow Dingo

6. Can you point us to any particular discussions where you have helped other editors understand guidelines/policies? Thanks.

A: I can in fact. For one, I had a discussion with a user regarding the blanking of a user talk page

WP:FICTION for a better understanding of notability within fictional characters. (Link is here: [1]) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

7. As you have admitted, your not particularly active in content creation/expansion. What are your reasons for not getting more involved in the content side of Wikipedia? Thanks.

A: That question I know is one that can be of the most concern to some who will comment on my RfA. I've prided myself in trying to be open and honest, and to give an honest answer, it's because I don't know what to edit at times. There are days I will look at random articles, make a correction here or there, perhaps add a link or a reference, but for full-scale content, I'm just not a great writer I would say. I do know, and appreciate good writing, and will read random articles, just because I find the topic or area fascinating. Writing however always has been an issue for me, would take my time just to get the ideas together I would want to write research papers in college (though I ended up getting good grades for the most part). So, for the sake of this question, it's simply something I'm not great at, however I do try to improve articles the best I can. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Carrite

8. I'm already headed for the support column but do have a couple pretty routine queries. First off, I notice that you were essentially away from Wikipedia from the end of 2011 until June 2015. Why did you stop participating?

A. I took a break for a while to handle things in my personal life, found that I missed editing on Wikipedia and started again. Even since I decided to come back, I realized that I can balance Wikipedia and my daily life with no problems, and enjoy working on Wikipedia and look forward to it. Looking back, I realized I didn't need to step away as I did, but at that time I had other issues come up, which thankfully are no longer of a concern. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9. Have you ever used another account name to edit WP and, if so, what was that name or what were those names?

A. Yes I did, and thank you for asking this, because I wanted to make sure this was addressed in some way. I edited for years under the Wildthing61476 username, in fact I had a failed RfA years ago (when to be honest I wasn't ready for it at all) under that username (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wildthing61476). I took a break as stated before, and came back last year and chose to run for Arbcom. My reasoning behind this was that I in my daily life handle disputes, and I have experience with handling disputes between conflicting parties. I felt that this experience I could translate into disputes here on Wikipedia as well. That was a learning experience, and the compliments and criticism I received I would take to heart to better myself here as an editor.

I chose to change my name as I wanted something a bit more "professional" for lack of a better term, and chose RickKJr. I simply forgot there was a user RickK already, and was asked to change it, which I did to my current name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question(s) from

UNSC Luke 1021

10 What WikiProjects are you a part of and, as a relevant follow-up, what will you do to help WikiProjects become more well known? As an explanation to the follow-up, let me explain: Certain WikiProjects, such as my favorites,

WP:ELECTRICAL

, are very unknown, despite the fact that they offer a large amount of info that can aid the site as a whole. I'm not a part of the last two, because they are not in my field of knowledge, but I feel they can make a big deal. So, repeating the follow-up question, how will you aid these smaller WikiProjects so they can become as large as some of the one's I've mentioned?

A: I'm in two different projects, that being

WP:VG would have.

So how would I try to make these projects larger, or more well known? That comes down to getting articles improved, and therefore getting more visibility on these articles. FInding editors that frequent these pages, and reaching out to them to invite them to the project to help improve other articles. This isn't an overnight thing mind you, this takes time. But I think "word of mouth" and good editing can go a long way to help boost the image of these projects. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Matticusmadness

11. A user is going around and removing Sinebot's 'preceding unsigned comment by' text and replacing it with the signature and time stamp as if it was signed properly. Is this in violation of any policies? And if so, which?

A: This question isn't quite as straight forward as it looks. The first thing to examine is how often the user is changing these signatures. It could be a situation where the user forgot, and replaced their signature after seeing SineBot sign their post. If this is a rare occurrence, at the most a reminder to sign posts is all that is needed, as it's a simple mistake, and that they can leave the signature by Sinebot in place. If this is an editor that is constantly doing this to the point of being disruptive, a warning at first would be needed to tell them to sign their posts, or leave the signature by Sinebot alone if they don't sign their posts. If this was ignored, then further warnings would need to be escalated, up to a short-term block if all else failed.

WP:SIGNATURE even says this, stating: "Signature use that is intentionally and persistently disruptive may lead to blocks." Hopefully however, discussing with the user how to sign their posts would be all that is needed. Also, the user can be told that they can opt out of Sinebot signing post here as well: User:SineBot#Opting out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional questions from Nsk92

12. In your answer to Q2 you cited Robert Long House, a rather short article, as you note yourself, as one of your best Wikipedia contributions. Your userpage does not list anything about the articles you created or improved/significantly contributed to. The Article creation tool shows that you created 16 articles, 14 of them in 2006-2007, and 10 of those are nice but very similar articles about Maryland highways. Could you please elaborate here on your content work (even with the understanding that this is not your main area of contribution on WP), such as examples of significantly improving/expanding some particular articles?

A: Generally, as I've stated earlier I do a lot of vandal cleanup work here, and that's been the bulk of my editing. Directly content related, I've worked on improving articles related to Baltimore, such as making updates to the List of streets in Baltimore, and Dundalk, Maryland. Also, I've helped with adding sources to articles that were tagged for deletion at AfD, such as Douglas D. Taylor, where I added additional sourcing to imporve the article, and help keepit from deletion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad

13. It's great to hear that you are interested in helping out more at SPI. Here's a situation that you may encounter as an admin: A CU runs a check, but it comes out as "possible," "unlikely," or "inconclusive." How do you deliberate what to do when the technical evidence is ambiguous or shaky?

A: With SPI, there can be times where the technical evidence may not be enough to confirm one account is the sock of another as you said. In those cases, you also need to look at the behavior of the accounts involved. Take for example the SPI done here:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obari2Kay/Archive. In this case, you had a user that was found to be unlikely to be linked to the puppeteer, however their behavior led to them being linked to ANOTHER puppet, and then blocked for this (which happened prior to this SPI). There's an open case right now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/089baby, which the CU said there was a possible link, and behavioral analysis would need to be done to determine what actions need to be taken. It's a case by case basis, and many times if there is not a technical link, an admin may need to rely on behavior and act appropriately there. A lot of times, an admin may do the best thing, and that's to do nothing if there isn't a proven link between accounts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rick from Baltimore - I would of course congratulate them on their taste and choice of username. In all seriousness, this is a clear cut case of
  WP:MISLEADNAME (even though it's VERY close to mine, it's not exact), and the name would need to be changed. I had a similar situation happen to me (changed my username to RickKJr) and was asked to change it, which I did immediately. If this was a new user, a softblock and a request to change the name I think would be enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Additional question from

Sagaciousphil

15. You recently made these edits on Liv and Maddie: 1, 2, 3, 4. What Wikipedia policies could you have been violating (or be mistaken for violating, if necessary) and what action could you expect an administrator to take?

A: In this case this at first glance could be seen as a violation of

WP:3RR, as I made 4 edits to the page in less than a 24-hour period. 3RR however has an exception which is: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." This was obvious vandalism of adding the Volvo logo to the page, and in fact the IP making the changes was blocked for 31 hours for vandalism (see here:[2]). I've had a few occasions where I have by the letter of 3RR broken 3RR, however these are cases where I was removing obvious vandalism, and still was within the bounds of the rule, per the exception listed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional question from Wnt

16. (I have no reason to think this applies to you in particular, but reports like [3] make this sound like a growing problem:) Is there anyone, such as an employer, government agency, or probation/parole official, that is in a position to limit or take action against you for what sources you can cite or what you can discuss on Wikipedia, beyond legal restrictions generally applying to residents of the U.S. and Maryland?

A: Not at all. I'm not working with anything top secret or confidential, or of a matter of national security and never have been cited for even a traffic ticket in my lifetime. I'm rather mundane in that way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ottawahitech

17. I noticed you removed an

wp:Guidelines

that address this issue?

A: Normally, removing someone's comments from a talkpage could be considered a violation of

WP:BANREVERT also states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.". While that page does say immediately after "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor ...", in the example regarding this question the IP is continuing to behave in the way that caused them to be site-banned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Links for RickinBaltimore: RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for RickinBaltimore can be found here.

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

There seems to be this belief from some editors that AIV and anti-vandalism work is something we're sorely lacking and desperately need admins for. I was curious about this, so I started patrolling AIV myself to see if it was true. What I've discovered is AIV is about the easiest admin task on the block which you can do with your brain switched off, which is impossible for more demanding things like copyright checks, and certainly for non-admin work like GA and FA reviews. (I've also discovered people are sufficiently confused about the difference between vandalism and good-faith edits that I wrote an essay about it.) I'm not trying to poo-poo RickinBaltimore's interests here, as he does do a lot of good work in checking for CSDs in particular and would be a worthy addition to the admin corps just for that reason; rather I don't think wanting to work with vandalism and nothing else is really a good enough reason to give anyone the tools anymore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious vandalism is obvious, right? My understanding is that this is mostly handled by bots now. Anyway, I noticed Ritchie's support below which says "I grilled him on content a while back, and he created some, so that's sorted out." I was wondering where this grilling took place so I could look at it. I thought it might be at ORCP but Ritchie didn't comment on that occasion. Instead, the candidate was given fairly clear advice to do more work on articles like the Robert Long House but they don't seem to have followed up in a significant way and that's why I'm opposing. I'm still wondering why Ritchie thinks this level of content work is adequate. Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious vandalism is better handled by computers, but bots cannot block for it (yet) so it needs a human to look at three diffs, think "yup, screwing about", hit "block" with a "vandalism" template, total time elapsed : 15 seconds. No amount of "experience" at AIV managed to catch any of the well-known Wikipedia hoaxes, though. Regarding this RfA, see User_talk:RickinBaltimore/Archive_12#RfA for the full explanation - as you can see, I was thinking about nominating him then, so it's not really a surprise for me to support this one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link. In that discussion, there's even more advice about how to get the Robert Long House up to DYK level. The candidate says things like "I am going to add a photo soon" but he still hasn't done this and the article is still stub class. Now I regularly add images to Wikipedia – simple snaps like this, for example. It's not so hard when you know what you're doing but there's still a significant learning curve. The candidate has never loaded any files, so far as I can tell, and so I suppose that they are still quite inexperienced in this regard. If all the candidate has done is to play whack-a-mole with vandals and this is easy, then how can we assess their general competence? Andrew D. (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It just has to be a judgement call. In that link, you can see I wanted to write "Content creation
  for dummies", and I still do, as instead of just parroting "oppose, not enough content", I could say "not now, please read this workshop and come back when you've finished". But real life seems to get in the way too often. Anyway, Rick hasn't said he wants to work in FFD, so I'm not going to hold his feet to the fire on that. If he did say he wanted to work in that area, I might ask a question similar to Q7 on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rehman 4. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The photo is just an example. He appears to have trouble finding sources too. I take a quick look for this topic and immediately turn up additional sources like this and that and more. This isn't advanced stuff; it's our basic work. Why give out advanced power tools to someone who hasn't mastered the standard toolkit yet? Andrew D. (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:AIV isn't handling the more difficult things. I've had to draw back from closing discussions to handle page protection lately, because every time I "let it go", I come back to a large number of requests that should have been quickly processed. Counter-vandalism is largely the job of non-admins, but we have to quickly respond to page protection requests and AIV reports at all times of the day (and night) to keep the Twinkle and Huggle users effective. I ran on a platform of helping out with the obscure backlogs and leaving the basic stuff to other admins, but I've unfortunately not lived up to that because we just don't have enough admins who enjoy those areas to cover them. Meanwhile, the obscure backlogs suffer; see, for instance, the permissions-commons OTRS queue, which we had down to 400 or so emails and trending toward extinction during the summer: graph. Now, it's being measured in thousands rather than hundreds. I'd love to have an influx of admins willing to handle those tasks so I can go back to the backlogs that are more difficult and more enjoyable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• (edit conflict) Yesterday, October 30, in the middle of the afternoon CDT, there were 16 requests at RFPP and not a single one had been acted on. The oldest one was 14 hours old. Fourteen hours. Last weekend AIV was backed up for 22 hours (an anecdote from an ANI thread). Now you tell me how we're serving the encyclopedia by not addressing the concerns of editors who come to administrators for administrative help. How do backlogs like that help the content creators like you? Do you really enjoy all that disruption, or should we just mark AIV and RFPP as {{historical}} and move on? I am heartily tired of being compared to a trained monkey for doing the work in which I'm interested, and it's snobbery of the highest order to peer down your noses at those who work with and alongside me. Katie^talk 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to personally attack someone just because they offer an opinion you don't like. The backlog is not fourteen hours now, which means someone fixed it; while the AfC backlog has been on over 1,000 for a few weeks, NPP tends to get backlogged about a month, Wikipedia:Copyright problems goes back to February, Rob's just talked about the FFD backlog, and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons is jammed back a couple of weeks. So I think it's fair comment to suggest I have a preference for admins who are keen to work on the seriously backlogged areas - indeed I believe I supported Rob at his RfA for this very purpose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Yeah, but when I note that I can't get to the obscure but large backlogs because I'm stuck pitching in on the high-priority basic ones, doesn't that imply we should bring on some administrators to handle those so I (and other admins like me) can get back to handling the incredibly large backlogs like we prefer? Since the disruption reported at the noticeboards are high priority to prevent active damage to the encyclopedia, I can't move on to FfD, OTRS, CfD, TfD, transferring to Commons, etc. until the noticeboards are adequately covered. If we bring on some people to handle AIV, RFPP, etc., that will help the backlogs because it will free up my time (and the time of many other admins like me) to work on the other stuff. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I have to agree with Rob here. If it were up to me, I'd be working at AfD and DYK, and cleaning out spam at NPP: but instead when I have the time to spend on admin tasks my first stops at RFPP and AIV usually take up all the time I'm willing to spare. Now I don't hate the work so I'm not complaining for myself, but surely putting more eyes there is going to help ease the backlog elsewhere, too. Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: You could equally ask "why give adminship only to featured content creators?", which I find a far more perplexing question. With vandal fighters at least you know they are likely to use the toolset, but with featured content creators they are more likely to hold adminship as some sort of trophy, if they maintain themselves within their speciality. But let's face it: the typical requirements for adminship have become vastly inflated, discussed to some extent in the essay WP:RfA inflation. This creates the illusion that vandal fighters are somehow undeserving of adminship, which should be about levels of trust and need for the tools, rather than an award for contribution brilliance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This candidate's content experience is quite limited – nowhere near featured level – and yet there is a massive preponderance of support !votes. Compare this with their earlier RfA. All that seems to matter is things like length of service, edit count and an impression that the candidate has good faith and is polite and sensible. That's what was needed in 2007 and it's much the same now. There has been no inflation. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 is right. Content creators require the toolset; when it comes to vandal fighting, most of the work can be done by bots. For human intervention against vandalism, we are looking for someone with content expertise. The reason for the backlogs is that people like myself are forced off Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: whereas I agree with the premise that content creators require the toolset, I would disagree with the idea that 'vandal fighting' could be dealt with bots. I appreciate you say "most of the work", but frankly what we have in place now (Cluebot and the such) are probably as good as we're going to get (unless ORES gets better heh..) - we still need a clueful individual to click the button, which I imagine is not as trivial as it sounds. This clueful editor doesn't need to be a content creator, but they do need to demonstrate an understanding of our five pillars and be able to judge content competently - both things Rick has shown both through his answers so far and his contributions to the project -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I agree with you completely! By "most of the work", I meant that the bots are great at dealing with people who randomly insert swear words into articles, but they can't handle the ones who randomly change numbers in the articles. That requires knowledge of the content. There's also dealing with edits like this; which aren't vandalism per se but require knowledge of our policies to correct. Cluefullness in other words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every previous candidate at RfA (except for The undertow and any others we don't know about) has at the outset declared previous usernames and failed RfAs. The information had to be dragged out of you, yet you say

... thank you for asking this, because I wanted to make sure this was addressed in some way.

Again, you claim "I've prided myself in trying to be open and honest." In your ArbCom election statement you said :

I have only edited through this account during my time here (save for when I forgot to log in).

To ensure there are no skeletons in the cupboard please list the numbers of the IPs you used.

On the subject of your attendance record, the following would seem to be relevant:

The answer to Question 3 is disingenuous. The candidate is happy to go as far as 20RR pursuing an editor he claims is banned but is not.[4]. He lacks enthusiasm - we want administrators who will stick around. He disappeared in 2007 and from 2012 to 2015. Two red flags are his nominators. KrakatoaKatie would not have become a checkuser/oversighter if another candidate had not protected her (and his) question page in defiance of the Arbitration Committee.[5], [6]. Samtar is the only edit filter manager who is not also an administrator - for good reason.[7]. The candidate is cavalier about observing policy - previous accounts must be linked but he makes no mention of Wildthing61476 and RickKJr. 86.176.18.160 (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I did see a few places where Rick superficially appears to have violated 3RR (eg:

WP:NOT3RR), so that is a non-issue. Administrators are free to take a break at any time they wish; indeed I would prefer admins who aren't online 24/7 as it implies they have a life and balance outside of Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Question for Matticusmadness: In question 11, did you mean that the user was removing SineBot's tags on their own edits, or on those of other users? Just a point of clarification. Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 22:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On edits of other users @Rasimmons: , I worded it badly. I know this now. I kinda covered this in my support vote (number 96) below. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 22:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Matticusmadness. That explains it. I was really confused as to how doing that to one's own edits would constitute disruptive editing, but now I understand. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. We're all counting on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.136 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rick's answers to the questions are well-reasoned and moderate - even the crank one I'm responsible for. But technically speaking I think he's wrong about one thing with #5. I think a "fan" of a team doesn't have a COI at all, but just a POV. The COI policy gives a band's manager as an example of a COI - I assume the band's fans are merely POV, based on the "standard definition" the policy cites. The fan consumes the team's products and services, but he doesn't actually have a relationship with them - they wouldn't know him from Adam. Still, compared to the misinterpretations of policies I've seen from actual admins on multiple occasions, this is a very mild quibble. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as nominator. Katie^talk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Great user.
   civil. Really, the only fault I can see immediately obvious regarding Rick is content creation. However, Rick is great at every other point. I believe the nominators summed it up pretty well, but out of multiple hundred CSD nominations, only around 15 are blue-linked. Most of them are even user talk or user pages, which infrequently get deleted. I would also like to point out Rick's participation at AfD, with a 89.3% match between Rick's vote and the consensus. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Support: Does excellent work all around Wikipedia. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support: We need more adminstrators, see no reason to think this editor would abuse the privileges. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support: Phenomenal editor, great at explaining things.
   Net Positive to the project. Often offers great insight to other editors. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk)
   23:55, 30 ƒOctober 2016 (UTC)
6. Support: No obvious reason not to, need more admins. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I've seen Rick's name around the project. He is a dedicated vandal-fighter and would be a great administrator. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support as appears decidedly suitable for the administrative role, including the areas outlined above. I particularly liked how this user turned around a discussion through civility here, as linked above.
   HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. (edit conflict × 2) Support I've seen some of their work at SPI. I would like to see more links in their SPI reports, such as their 18 October 2016. Detailing how and why socks are "obvious" by at least providing links and diffs saves work for the reviewers from needing to work it out again on their own -- especially if the assessment has already been done. That being said, they've clearly done some good work in other areas and they more than meet my RFA criteria. Mkdw^talk 00:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - The candidate is active in admin-related areas, and has demonstrated general competence in a way that makes me think they will be able to use the sysop tools well. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Obvious support, and adequate content creation to prove that they are not trying to rack up points. Esquivalience (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - The project will benefit if this very clueful editor is granted the extra tools. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - more than likely to be net positive with tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Will do a good job with the mop. Miniapolis 01:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. He's expressed interest in areas I think need more attention, and he's competent at them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Clear need for the tools. I haven't worked with this user (from what I can remember), but looking at their exchanges between them and other users, they seem to have the right temperament. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Definitely. I've seen this user around plenty, and they appear to exercise good judgement in the basic administrative areas that we badly need more admins in. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support -- suitable candidate for the role; CSD log is a good indicator of their value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support seen this editor around before. Good contributions and would help Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I could have sworn he was already an admin. I think my mind is playing games with me. I have had good experiences with him and I strongly believe he will be helpful and trustworthy as an admin. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support as per yes. Competent, friendly, trustworthy editor, and SPI needs more personnel. GAB^gab 02:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Clear net positive, and no concerns regarding tool abuse. Gap9551 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Looked over his edits about vandalism, and they all seem good! Seems like a trustworthy editor. I'm rooting for him!!! Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support based on demonstrated cluefulness at fighting vandals, despite little to speak of in terms of content creation. No reason not to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I had actually pegged him as a likely admin earlier this year, noting that he was even-tempered with lots of clue and a good understanding of policy. Lots of experience with CSD, AIV, UAA, ANI, and RFPP - all very valuable training for an admin. I think he will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Have only had good interactions with Rick in the past, and can vouch for his accurate AIV reports. His contributions looks a lot like mine when I applied, so this hits home a little for me. Maybe we could revive the old RickK anti-vandalism barnstar, but of course without the extra K. Very little hesitation in supporting, especially with the backing of these two nominators who are among my favourites — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support RiB takes the time to look into things before acting. Having the mop and bucket will only increase his value to the project. MarnetteD|Talk 03:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 03:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I've seen this person around Wikipedia and they seem OK - but what really pushes it would be the votes of confidence from other editors that I trust.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Support I had some concerns about his low article count, but he is good in all of the other categories. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support It's about time! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. I have seen Rick's work over a considerable period of time. He is excellent at anti-vandalism work and at SPI, not an easy area in which to find facts and make good contributions. He has a good, civil demeanor, which I think is important for an administrator. He has done enough other work to prove he understands Wikipedia. He has long experience which has shown his trustworthiness. He should be a great contributor as an administrator. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support The few interactions I have had with this editor have been entirely positive. The only potential concern I could find is that content work is a little low: but this is more than outweighed by their excellent and prolific contributions elsewhere. I wish them the best of luck. Vanamonde (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, great candidate. Rick being a admin will be a huge net positive to Wikipedia. I'm impressed with the CSD work and general civility. He also has a good need for the tools. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support: He's not an admin already? Whoda thunk. --Drmargi (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support One of the strongest candidates we've had this year. Widr (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Don't see why not. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support as co-nom -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 06:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Not a
    Renaissance man of Wiki tasks but clearly good at what they intend to do, with a considered approach, and well-regarded by those who should know. Sounds like good admin material.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Support A good all-rounder; I grilled him on content a while back, and he created some, so that's sorted out. Just don't go nuts on Twinkle otherwise you may be spending quite a bit of time at ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support About time! Tazerdadog (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Yep, this is a pretty easy choice - I've seen RickinBaltimore around the place doing all sorts of good stuff. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support 100%, we desperately need administrators such as this user. The way you handled this situation was inspiring. It's about time. Sro23 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Happy to support - Mop please! Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} ^(Whisper...) 09:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support A solid, level headed editor with a history of participating in areas that admins need to be involved in. oknazevad (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support His name comes up everywhere when I'm dealing with vandalism - obvious need for the tools (might give Widr some relief over at AIV!) and he'll use them well I'm sure. Mike1901 (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support seen his work, I support.-- H^akan·IST 10:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support yes please (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support since I see no reason to oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support 14 days ago I made a short, shortlist of potential candidates I would probably nominate before the end of the year. RickinBaltimore was on that list and I was very pleased to hear back that he was already in discussion with possible nominators. Anyone would be very hard pressed indeed to find any genuinely compelling reasons to oppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support without reservation for this trustworthy, productive editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - I've seen him doing a lot of AV work, and I know he will benefit from the mop. Best of luck! Patient Zero^talk 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support: He seems determined and ready to fight against vandalism, and he has a track record to prove it. Reason is Immortal (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Exactly the kind of editor who needs access to the admin toolbox. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - Per nom. We need more vandal fighting admins. Jdcomix (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support: Great editor and is good at explaining things. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support While not an impressive content creator, and somewhat narrow in his interests, he has an impressive vandal-fighting record and more effort is required in that area. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - I am happy to expedite the work of vandal-fighters, who need the tools. Clean block log, adequate tenure, and no indications of assholery. Supported by several editors here whom I consider good ones to watch, including Kudpung, Opabinia r., and MelanieN. Carrite (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support, it's about time! -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support, a familiar name and more than enough nous to wield a mop. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support: I have only ever seen this user exercise good and temperate judgement, and I have no doubt this will continue if he is granted administrative rights. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I've seen his work both with dealing with vandalism and otherwise and feel that he would make a good admin.
    Talk 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
64. Absolutely. —
    foxj 17:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Support without hesitation, and per above. For a brief moment, caught me by surprise, I thought this guy was already an admin. Seen RickinBaltimore several times earlier in the year, and is clearly very knowledgable in the area of counter-vandalism. — Andy W. (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - no good reason not to support this.
    talk 17:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
67. Support for his tireless work on anti-vandalism and NPP, would be an asset as an admin
    XyzSpaniel Talk Page 17:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
68. Support with a single good admin action, he will be a net positive for the project. I believe he will make many more than one single good admin edit. Narrow focus is a bogus reason for opposition, and thankfully is being entirely ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support enthusiastically. If you look up "wait, you're not an admin?" in the dictionary, you will find a picture of RickinBaltimore: a user already keenly familiar with policies in the areas in which they intend to administrate, from having spent the time doing the grunt work in those areas already. This is the capacity in which I'm familiar with Rick's work, from having encountered him at numerous SPIs (frequently edit-conflicting with him providing more evidence) and reverting disruptive edits, all the while keeping a cool head and civil demeanour. Plus he still finds time to do a decent bit of content work. 10/10 would +1 again Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - no real concerns. GiantSnowman 18:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Honestly thought this one was an admin already. Should also be a great help cleaning up some of the footy articles that are questionable at best for GNG. Best wishes with the mop. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Almost a waste of time going through all the editor's contributions. Should have just said support right at the beginning than investing so much time trying to find out something amiss. Great candidate. Understands sticky issues quite maturely. Lourdes 18:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - He seems fit, but I wanted to ask him a detailed question anyway just to confirm my decision. He gave me a straight, detailed answer that satisfied my question. I haven't had many admin-hopefuls give me a straight answer, so I'll have to support him.
    talk) 18:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
74. Support - Trustworthy, diligent, and long overdue. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - I have no concerns with giving him the tools whatsoever. A solid candidate IMO   Aloha27  talk  19:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - No reason not to. I see there's been some discussion about the lack of content creation, but I don't see how that diminishes someone's potential to be a good admin. First off, nobody owns any article; articles are created, developed and improved through the work of multiple editors, and are not trophies of their creators; being the creator of an article doesn't make it "yours". Secondly, a specific subject can only ever have one article put to its name; the fact that somebody creates a lot of unique articles is merely down to the fact that they were lucky enough to have nobody create those articles before them. Thirdly,
    Linghost 666 ^Trick Treat 20:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Spot on,

    Linguist111. I couldn't have worded your third sentence any better, and yes, there are plenty of other administrators who don't specialise in content creation who are working behind the scenes as wikignomes, so I don't see why Rick shouldn't follow suit. Patient Zero^talk 13:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Of course, given this is an encyclopedia, admins should have an understanding of and comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when it comes to articles, but they don't necessarily need to have a lot of experience in content creation. It's great if they do, but not necessary. With 5m articles, 30m editors, never-ending conflict and disruption, adminship is never easy for any admin, but I'm all for giving the chance to those who show promise. I won't oppose someone's adminship unless I have a very good reason to do so, such as a big lack of civility, a history of vandalism or socking etc., or if they are far too inexperienced or clearly not ready.

    Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 15:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

    ]

78. Support - RickinBaltimore is a conscientious editor and I'm sure they will make a fine administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support—excellent work, interactions have been positive, good answers to questions. I wish him the best of luck.
    parlez moi 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
80. Support Candidate will be an excellent addition to anti-vandalism efforts. Joshualouie711 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. A trustworthy user who has demonstrated good judgment; will make a good admin. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - To be honest, I thought this user was already an administrator until I saw this RFA! Anyway, I have no concerns and I think Rick will be a net positive. Class455 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Clueful, able, and willing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support We do need more admins dealing with vandalism. For example I asked for page protection[8] and it took nearly 13hrs[9] for it to be enacted. This was for a BLP too. Trustworthy, experienced vandal fighters who are willing to do this kind of work are an asset and should be given the tools. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    In that instance, I would ask Materialscientist why he reverted an early instance of the vandalism but took no admin action. You probably then found protection was slow because nobody wanted to second-guess an experienced admin. Also, the tool you have, "revert", worked well as an interim measure. Meanwhile I've got unreviewed GAs dating back a few months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protection is not about interim measures, but stopping it continuing and keeping the page clean. For example it was 20 minutes before Materialscientist found and removed one of the vandalism edits[10]. I am not going to second guess why he didn't just protect it himself or why it took so long, the point is that we have a noticeboard set up for dealing with what was pretty persistent and obvious vandalism and we need more admins willing to monitor it.

    I get that you think content is king, I do too.[11] However, it is also important to keep our articles clean and if someone is willing to help do that with no apparent problems apart from the fact they haven't reached some magical and oscillating content creation number then I say give them a chance. The good article comparison is irrelevant as you don't need the tools to review a Good Article (the best way to get reviews is to help reduce the review backlog). AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86. Support because there is no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Kill the vandals! Figuratively of a course, and we need someone everyday, especially a admin to help Wikipedia stay factual.— JJBers|talk 22:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
89. [majestic titan] 23:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
90. Support: enough experience; little drama. Jonathunder (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I see nothing at this time which gives me pause. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. This is an obvious choice. As an admin, Rick would be a great asset on the anti-vandalism front.
    Biblio (talk) Reform project. 23:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
93. Support I don't see anything to give me pause. Overall a net positive. clpo13_(talk) 23:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Really no concerns. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (visit) 00:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support – Well-qualified. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - I will admit, the question that I asked was supposed to come out mentioning
    WP:TPO, but I didn't specify that the question was about a user changing signatures put in by Sinebot for other users. Either way, the dude gave an answer that's decent. MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) ^{(Now THIS... I did.)} 00:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
97. Support because Wikipedia needs more active admins, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support. I trust RickinBaltimore's judgment and think he will use the administrative toolkit (and the discretion that accompanies it) intelligently. /wiae /tlk 02:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - No qualms here. -
    open channel) 03:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. Support - It's an honor to be your 100th support vote! You deserve adminship, and I'm there to help you with learning the ropes, if you'd like :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
101. Apart from this being a
     100th 101st support (whoops), I really believe Rick is qualified based on the evidence. epicgenius - (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
102. Support has over 10 years experience.FITINDIA (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Blindingly obvious. Thanks so much for your contribution. Bluehotel (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Enough said.--Cahk (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support - no good reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support, without the slightest doubt. I've come across Rick while patrolling and I'd like to see him work at AIV and similar boards. I'm sure he'll be fine and I don't care if an admin only works on a certain part of the wiki and/or hasn't created many articles. If an admin knows and follows the rules in his/her area of expertise, then it's fine with me. In my house I don't expect the electrician to do the plumbing too, so why would I expect that here? Yintan  09:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - Definitely. Users like him are what we need for adminiship. He is a very civil person, helps out a lot. I reckon we give him the mop --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support precious "This user enjoys cleaning up", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support per noms. lNeverCry 11:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Looks to be a solid candidate - good luck! :) — sparklism ^hey! 11:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support - I have interacted with this user occasionally in the past, and they are very civil and clearly knowledgeable and experienced in Wikipedia's ways. If the two opposes below (including one from my friend Mr Andrew Davidson!) are the only objections people have, then there likely aren't any skeletons in the cupboard. I can live with people not creating an arbitrary minimum of 25 articles, and being a little enthusiastic about getting the mop, if they are generally level headed and understand how content contribution works in general.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. A name I recognise from AIV and have generally associated with good judgement, backed by two nominators whose judgement I trust implicitly. Weak opposition is not a reason in itself to support and I certainly respect Andrew's position even if I don't agree with it; demanding a candidate create an arbitrary number of articles before becoming an admin, on the other hand, is so absurd that it's better suited to the first day of April than of November. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support I have always thought that anti-vandalism and other maintenance tasks are just as important as content creation, and this user has a great track record on both. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 13:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
114. Support This users long experience give me confidence they will do well as an admin. I have not seen any good reason to oppose. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support: His anti-vandalism and other maintenance work are important. Will make a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support: So I can finally stop reminding myself that Rick is actually not an admin already.
     TimothyJosephWood 14:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
117. Support. This is an easy support for me. Candidate has a good temperament for an administrator, and plenty of experience in the areas that I care about for RfA. I like the example in the answer to Q3. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. it's about time! has over 10 years experience -- Derakhshan/^◄ 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support. Indeed it is. A highly efficient user of the tools in the areas the candidate chooses to work in, who demonstrates excellent judgement and has an easy going yet precise attitude to the project. Answers look good to me. An admin is primarily an editor, so prolific content creation at this stage is not an issue here. Admins I believe have been known to actually create and improve content, so to me this is merely a work in progress, and part of the candidate's development as an editor. We all have an editorial "career path". In all, A good candidate choice by respected nominators. I am sure RIB will make an excellent admin. Good luck mate.
     talk) 16:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
120. Support. Net positive /good candidate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
121. Support: Appears to have clue. That said, lack of content creation is a concern to me and I encourage this user, per Ritchie's essay, to take at least one article clear through the GA/FAC gauntlet if only to fully understand what we content creators do. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support - Seems like a good candidate to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support. Of course. No concerns. And we clearly need more vandal fighting/CSD'ing Admins. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Seen him around and find him generally clueful, and welcome the cleanup work in the NPP area. CSD log is mostly red so I trust him to help keep the CSD backlog under control. Crow^Caw 19:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
126. Strong support CSD/AIV could really use more admins. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support, seems fine for the job. bd2412 T 20:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support although I sort of thought he was an admin already. 😃 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
129. support more Admins needed in wikipedia. motion to make RickInBaltimore admin.Minimobiler (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support, based on review. I would like to see more content creation, but that does not out-weight the positive aspects here. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. As per noms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
133. Supportas RIB is willing to take on the more "mundane" tasks of adminship, which always need clearing. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - opposition is unconvincing.
     Steven Crossin 00:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
136. Support per nom. Surprised user wasn't already an admin. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. Add me to the "surprised he wasn't already an admin" list. I'm sure Rick will do an excellent job. agtx 03:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
138. Stephen 03:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support
     missfortune 04:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
140. Support Rick has excellent credentials, especially in vandal fighting, and the opposes are unconvincing.
     Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
141. Support Denisarona (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Ricks contributions are helpful and I think he will do well as an admin. --
     talk 08:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
143. Support - Well done, lad. :)
     Talk) 08:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
144. Support - An excellent contributor with a proven track record of dependability. Let's see if this RfA can crack
     WP:200! ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 13:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
145. Support - kinda already thought he was one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support even though they haven't created 25 articles. ;-) Seriously though, RickinBaltimore seems like a qualified candidate to me. ~Awilley (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support They appear to be a great candidate, but they have not created many articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support. Solid work fighting the enemy at the gates and a good example of why humans are still superior to "robots" in this line of work. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support - He has wide experience in editing Wikipedia. His edits and articles are very helpful. Surely, deserves to be an admin ! - Kunalrks (talk) 05:05, 2 November, 2016 (UTC)
150. Support - favourable impression gathered over the years Cabayi (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support we need more admins, and I see little to suggest that Rick would be a burden on the project with the mop. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support Looks a good candidate, and has signed up for the new
     Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge so clearly interested in content improvement and creation!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
153. Support solid candidate with lots of good work. No significant negatives as far as I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support Has always demonstrated strong knowledge of all things Wikipedic. A good egg. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support. Consistent solid work. Seen his work, shows judgment. A good example of why humans are still superior to bots in reverting vandalism. Extra hands and minds are always welcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
156. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support Jianhui67 ^T★C 00:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support: long-time user with rollback rights and good record at AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support See him around. No issues with this application. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support - Never vote before on one of these but sure. All these people can't be wrong. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

     I urge you do your own research of the candidate and not take the word of others. I also recommend having a read of

     WP:RFAV as well, it will help direct you on approaching RfA's in the future. It's not required reading, but, the quality of many votes in both camps are such that they are worth summarily ignoring. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

     ]

162. Support I've seen Rick around the project and I think he would be great for this job. Dr. K. 02:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
163. Wants and is able to help the project.
     flyer 03:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
164. Support, I don't find the issues raised to be a serious cause for concern, and think this editor will make a great addition to the admin corps. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support: I've seen Rick many times and I think he's a good candidate. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 07:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support Rick is civil, experienced, and does great work to improve Wikipedia. Will use the admin tools well. Gizza ^(t)(c) 09:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support I respect and admire his honesty. Other answers to the questions and his experience to date is enough to qualify. ronaz^Talk! 11:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support. No big concern to me. An extra pair of hands is always appreciated. Deryck C. 12:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support – absolutely no negatives. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support. I have encountered Rick before and I cannot find any reason to dispute his knowledge and contributions.
     Nightfury 15:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
171. Support Very dedicated to our project. Even if his contributions are limited in scope, what he does he does very well. He is clearly a net positive for Wikipedia and giving him the buttons will make him even more effective in the endless task of keeping our encyclopedia clean. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support. I usually lean towards those candidates who have shown significant article creations and contributions, but here a certain lack of that experience is made up for by a large amount of good work, and I have faith in this editor's judgment. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
173. 'Support I wonder if the janitors and security personnel in art galleries have to be able to create works of art? (Mind you, in some of the modern ones I wonder about the artists too...) Seen this name around. Seen no problems. Coming into the debate this late, not much to say that hasn't already been said. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support He appears to be a worthwhile candidate for this responsibility. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support Since I was not very familiar with this editor, I have waited and wondered if something truly negative might emerge. It hasn't, the editor is qualified, and we need more administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support no concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support: There's work that needs to be done and Rick has volunteered to do it. He seems to be a reasonable person, so let him at it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support: I'd like to throw my support behind this editor. I'm familiar with his anti-vandalism work and his other edits from seeing him around the project. This editor has a cool head and a clue and I'm glad he's requesting the admin bit. I'm also glad to see his comprehensive responses to the questions. I hope he will strongly consider making more substantive additions to article creation and improvement such as a DYK or GA nomination. - tucoxn\^talk 15:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support Oppose !votes are just the "same old, same old" RFA oppose !votes that have no real merit when it comes to deciding whether or not someone will become a good administrator. That being said, this candidate has no major pressing issues and I can support his candidacy. Good luck with the mop! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support. Thoroughly unconvincing oppose votes, you don't need 10 FAs to recognize disruptive editing. But more importantly, I appreciate the great responses to the questions. In particular, the response to the, er, second question #5 showed what appears to be a deliberate common sense approach to potential policy creep. Clearly knowledgeable about the spirit and the letter of the law. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support - I've seen RickinBaltimore around on the noticeboards pages and, if my memory serves correctly, they are generally reasonable and well collected in their comments. Their responses to the questions asked here have only given me more confidence in this user's ability to wield the mop appropriately. I thus support their request for adminship. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support – why not? Seems like a good editor who could be more useful with admin tools. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
     to reply to me 06:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support - Great civility, and also a great editor who seems like he would be a great admin.
     🥞 12:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
184. Support. We are severely understaffed with admins recently, and although their interests are not towards the worst affected areas such as ANI, they will free up more experienced admins for this work. This is an ideal candidate who admits their mistakes and learns from them, knows their limits and will work within them. Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support - From what I have seen from this editor, would make a great admin ! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support What we need in WP is not "content", but good content,and the necessary skill for admins is to be able to distinguish. One part of learning this is by contributing good content, but this does not necessarily mean contributing articles from scratch, or even writing substantial parts of articles. The true reason for expecting admins to have contributed articles is so they will understand the difficulties that people creating new articles have, and recognize the need for communicating with good faith editors properly and sympathetically. One can learn this very quickly--I learned it from unexpected challengers to some of my first efforts here. A few contributors who always write excellent content that is never challenged have shown some difficulties with this, and would not necessarily make good admins. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support - good in all areas, not active in creating content, but is pretty good at making such. I also think that the opposes were unreasonable, since they all focus in just the content creation, did not mention his work at AFD and CSD, which is primarily what helps keep content "good".Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 06:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support Clearly a net positive (especially per DGG on content). Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support just before the bandwagon leaves the station. Good clue. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
190. Support I agree with Drmies and DGG. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support I have come here late because the user-name meant surprisingly little to me. I suspect we must operate in different time zones and our edits rarely interact. However, I can see nothing to be concerned about and we certainly do need more experienced and level headed admins around.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support Spent some time inspecting the history here. While a bit of article writing would be desirable, I see good reason to support this candidacy here and no major problems elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support Piling on, at this point. I'm glad to know this candidate is known for his cool demeanor. That's enough of a plus for me. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support Net positive, nothing else is really necessary to say Full Rune^{Speak, child of Guthix} 20:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
195. "I thought you were an admin already!" just in case nobody else has already said it...
     Jim and the soapdish 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
     ]
196. Support: I have carefully considered the oppose votes and am not convinced by them. I see no other grounds for concern, and as such the candidate meets the standards for adminship. Best of luck! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support I don't know Rick well but I'm a firm believer in adminship being no big deal and bar any reason not to - I support.--v/r - TP 22:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support proven to be reliable in substantial contributions, and no concerns that I can see. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support: it's fun when it's as easy as this one, huh? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose The bulk of the candidate's edits seem to have been automated and in the last 8 months. Before that, the contribution history is quite patchy. The answer to Q2 further indicates a lack of experience and enthusiasm. For more details, see the discussion above. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you provide an example of his edits showing lack of experience? Jdcomix (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I have linked to some relevant discussion above. Since then, an earlier RfA has come to light. That was some years ago but, due to the candidate's long layoffs and their narrow focus, it doesn't seem that their experience level is much advanced from what it was back then. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose—you have not created enough articles. —
   talk) 20:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   How many is enough? Rick has created a number of articles, and has contributed to countless more -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I would say that twenty‐five is enough. —

   talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Discussion moved to the talk page. QEDK (T ☕ C) 04:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Many of the articles linked in
   talk, contribs) 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   If you look at Rick's CSD log, you will note a high correlation of pages being marked as reviewed and also being marked for speedy deletion. I suspect that there was a setting in Twinkle which automatically marked pages as reviewed when he tagged them for CSD. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, it's called "Mark page as patrolled when tagging (if possible)" under the Speedy deletion (CSD) heading. AFAIK, it's checked by default. The Curation Toolbar as used at Special:NewPagesFeed also marks pages reviewed when they're nominated for deletion. clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I've boldly indented and struck this oppose, given that it's based on a demonstrably false premise (see here and talk page discussion).

   [majestic titan] 15:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I have restored this oppose because it is the bureaucrats' jobs to weigh the strength of the votes in a case of discretionary range. No votes should be struck except by the editor themselves, though votes by those ineligible to vote can be removed by any editor. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   @

   GeoffreyT2000: Your comment appears based on a misconception - i.e. that edits made to nominate a page for deletion are not marked as patrolled, when in fact they often are (either automatically or by choice that to indicate to other reviewers that there is no need for them to visit the page). The presence of redlinks in the log to which you have linked does not mean that the candidate has been patrolling pages (in the sense of "approving them" as valid content for Wikipedia), which have subsequently been deleted. Now that this has been explained to you, do you still oppose this candidate, and if so, why? Please note that unless you clarify your comment, it is unlikely to be given much weight by the bureaucrat who closes this RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Oppose I would prefer someone with a Bachelors in Journalism, and a Masters Degree in English literature to do editorials due to the importance of the information that is sent to the public. Christopher Alan Levingston 04:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleving (talk • contribs)

   Struck comment apparently not made in good faith - see talkpage for further discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral —— I Can't Support or Oppose. Support has fine ideas for support but opposition issue on page numbers tugs me to a bay of disillusionment. Either way nice noticing ya! --Shadychiri (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• I would urge people not to rag on opponents, as I've seen in some of these RfAs. I speak as one who generally opposes, though I support this time. It's annoying and rarely changes minds. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, haters are going to hate. I have nothing else to say.— JJBers|talk 22:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably be better to urge opponents to actually use common sense rather than to urge others to stop ragging on opponents who clearly don't have the best for the project in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a certain amount of irony in this thread... --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree no-one should be harassing voters who have legitimate concerns, but I absolutely support editors who point out demonstrably incorrect or unreasonable opposes. The goal isn't to change the mind of opposing editors, because they are often unchangingly unreasonable. The goal is to change the minds of those who may see the opposes and become concerned when they shouldn't. Also, if RfA is holding on at all to the pretense of being a discussion, refuting the opposes helps demonstrate a consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, this isn't ragging on the opposition it's calling out poor reasoning for what it is. The voter's vote will be counted for what it is, and the comments in response to the vote will hopefully deter anybody else from submitting insufficiently well reasoned votes. I'd urge the voter to rethink it and use some common sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I don't think what we've seen here is "ragging" as such. In an RfA like this one, the opposes will always generate more interest than the supports, and people want to get to the bottom of what the objection really is, so they can see if there's any merit in it. Occasionally something will turn up that changes people's minds, even when the count is already at 100:2.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • True...too much negativity! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would urge people to rag on supporters: just for the sake of a more balanced view on votes. It appears to me that ragging on oppose based on wacky reasoning is reasonably frowned upon and rightfully pointed to. However, I have never seen the same distance wrt support votes. It's my POV that in general we have, by far, too much positivity, and lack healthy endurance. I request a trigger warning before being exposed to unreasoned support. ;] -Purgy (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't seen Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wbm1058 then, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To me the problem is that this thing is going to be approved in a landslide, and people with misgivings or issues should state their case without undue hectoring. It was really a preventive statement and not a commentary on the dialogue in the "oppose" section. I voted support, but I usually oppose new RfAs as I feel that admins need to be subjected to very high standards given the difficulties in removing them when they turn sour. If there are valid reasons to oppose I'd like to hear them. So far I haven't been convinced to change my support !vote. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna have to agree with Coretheapple. I don't have very standards with RFAs when it comes to article creation. Everyone creates articles. I believe I'm at 8 articles, excluding redirects. Whether it be the IP editor who created an article about X or the editor with less than 1000 edits, it's all the same. I don't usually vote for RFAs because I have no knowledge of the user and commenting based on their editing or the answers to the questions doesn't suffice for me. I'd have to have experience with the user, whether it be good or bad, in order to come to a conclusion. It's clear that nominators have to grasp the basics of how an article is ought to look like and how it should be, but for me the article creation is rather somewhat useless. An editor can focus on making necessary and dramatic changes to an article, giving out knowledge of core policies and guidelines. The reasons given for the oppose are seriously lacking in my opinion. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The recent spate of well intended reforms (Dec 2015) have actually done nothing to improve the standard of voting and the behaviour of the participants. In fact they appeared to have intensified the issues. IMO some (but not all) of the regular voters who almost always vote 'oppose' are more often than not demonstrating a general dislike for the entire concept of the work and presence of administrators. People who make silly votes should be directed to
  WP:RFAV and asked to lay off RfA for a while until they have more experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I humbly beg pardon for the hint that the silly votes habitually are on the other opinion. I for my part have seen far more "she will be great"-votes, than "he'll be a disaster"-votes. Is it to let them admins decide on their board, undisturbedly??? Getting too much OT ... Purgy (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking on the 'ragging on others' or the old 'this guy is better' argument: Just because one RfA was better than the current one doesn't mean that the current one does not deserve this position. It's not like the Presidential Election or something. You can have more than one admin if you want.
  talk) 12:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Rick for president? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:33, 2 November 2016 (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.