Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GoldenRing

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

GoldenRing

edit

Final (178/88/14); ended 04:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Maxim(talk) 04:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed per discussion between bureaucrats.

Nomination

edit

GoldenRing (talk · contribs) – I realise I'm not your typical user who becomes an admin. I've been here for a long time now - I registered this account in 2004 - and my edit count is on the low side for someone who's been here that long. I haven't done a lot of content creation - most of my activity has been anti-vandalism patrolling (and I created the User:GoldenRing/MoveStats tool to help with this) and project-space lurking and contributing.

But I think I've demonstrated that I have the right temperament for an admin. Despite a long time contributing to fairly controversial parts of the project, such as ANI and ARB, hostile run-ins with other editors have been pretty few and far between, and where they have happened I've always sought to calm things down rather than inflame them. I also go out of my way to have a sympathetic word with those who I think have come off worse in a situation, whatever I think the rights and wrongs of the situation were. I have little time for straight-out vandals, but a lot of patience with anyone I think could become a productive editor.

So why an RfA now? Frankly, I'm sick of seeing notices of backlogs at AN and not being able to do anything about it. I would be the sort of admin who keeps an eye on the backlogs and works through them as best I can.

If the community decides it doesn't want my services in that way, that's fine. I'm offering to help as best I can, but if the community thinks my efforts would be better employed by continuing as I am, then that's fine with me. GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

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: The places that I've been involved in as a non-admin and that are often backlogged; CSD, UAA, AIV and so on. Possibly the more routine bits of AfD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The things I'm most pleased with are the tools I've created to help with the work I do, MoveStats and WRCP. I'm not sure how generally used they are, but I find them helpful. The edits that I think have done the most good are my patrolling of edits by new users. I try to quickly get a feel for how likely a new editor is to become constructive in the future and react accordingly.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been involved in a couple of very small conflicts but I wouldn't say users have caused me stress as such. I had a brief run-in with User:Jehochman back in 2014. I took him to task - I hope respectfully, but still letting him know I definitely thought he was wrong (this was over an ITN nomination). I had a run-in with User:AusLondonder in 2014, which I tried to keep calm an on-point. I had a quite confused interaction with User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:M. A. Bruhn - all entirely my fault - which as far as I can tell stayed friendly, despite my criticism of others' actions, and I hope they think so, too. I've been openly critical of a few recent Arb cases (notably the treatment of Michael Hardy and The Rambling Man), though (probably to their credit) the arbs have regarded it as beneath their notice.

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 Ritchie333
4. A brand new user with no other edits creates an article with the following text : "aldford house is a posh house in west london". There are no references. What do you do?
A: First, quickly google it to check that my recollection is correct and Aldford House really is a posh house on Park Lane. From there it depends how much time I have at the time; if I have a lot of time straight away, I'd go looking for RS to make some sensible judgement as to whether it meets the standard of WP:GNG (note that WP:GEOFEAT just restates the GNG in this case). If I don't have a lot of time, I'd reword it to something, "Aldford House is a large residential building in Park Lane, London," tag it as a stub with no references and leave a friendly note at the creator's talk page. I think it's unlikely that it meets GNG, but this is not a case where any of the CSD criteria would apply, in my view. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Oshwah
5. What are your thoughts on blocking experienced editors and content creators for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's civility and no personal attack policies? How would you determine that these blocks, if made, were done in a preventative measure and not a punitive measure?
A: Well. Can I just try to second-guess you a bit? I'm guessing you don't really mean "content creators," you mean people who polarise the community and use "content creator" as a defence against the half who don't like them. Content creators who get on well with everyone aren't really the problem, are they? Sanctions have to be preventive, and in these cases I don't think a block does anything to prevent anything much. These types of people are not going to have their attitude changed by a block of any duration, so the only block that's going to prevent it is an indefinite one - and then we lose their contributions to the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that the only way that works with such people is for someone they respect to take them aside and have a quiet word about specific situations. My feeling is that if you say to these people, "Cut it out or I'll block you," their response is, "Bring it!" But if you approach them and say, "Look, I know the situation was horrible but what you said was over the top and this'd be a nicer place for all 'round if you went back and struck that and maybe even apologised," there's a small to middling chance that they'd actually do it - and that the effect might be rather more lasting than the effect of a block. Such people generally consider themselves to be decent and upright, and I think they respond better to people who expect them to behave in a decent and upright way than people who come along with a big stick.
Sorry for a long answer, but there's another point to make here: When such an editor is blocked, of course the pitchfork brigade turn up. And all too often they kind of have a point. I don't particularly want to mention specific situations here, but I'm sure we're all aware of the admin who's had a long term grudge who jumps on an AE report to issue a long block, or the admin who makes a false accusation and then continually doubles down on it, or the admin who takes a thread with a lot of back-and-forth and issues the maximum possible block within the letter of an arbcom remedy, or the admin who treats an ANI request about themselves as vandalism and edit-wars it closed. Admins should always take time and care when blocking someone, but failing to do so when dealing with people who you know will have a pitchfork-bearing army behind them always strikes me as rather short-sighted. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. How could this ANI have been handled better?
A: Could you clarify - handled better by whom? The closing admin of course did a stellar job...
I don't think the outcome of that ANI was particularly bad. By the end of it, TQP understood the concerns about how he'd approached the discussion and had agreed to act differently in future. No-one needed a block or a ban. It even only lasted three hours. Reading back through it, there was a point there where it could have easily turned ugly - "You can call me a potato because I am a potato" is not a saying likely to win friends in ANI, even if I can see what he means when I stop and think about it. 'lol' was never going to be a particularly constructive response to suggested sanctions. OID did decidedly well to calm it all down. I can see what MjolnirPants was trying to achieve, but I'm not sure it did a lot of good.
So things I think could have been done better: For the OP, I understand getting to a point where an ANI report is the right thing to do. You feel too worked up to calmly deal with the situation yourself and you need someone else to help. Fine. But it probably would have been best left alone after the initial report. OPs suggesting topic bans and site bans is not often constructive in this type of discussion, precisely because the OP is too worked up about the situation to be (or be perceived to be) even-handed. He should have left it alone. For MjolnirPants, I think what he was trying to do was good but it would have been better said at the user's talk page. Serious, sensible, calm, independent advice is so rarely found at ANI that even when someone sees it, they tend to dismiss it as flippant, stupid, outraged, partisan drama-stirring. The same words said at the user's talk page might have gone rather more to heart. For the closing admin: brevity is a quality to be valued (says me!) GoldenRing (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Yashovardhan Dhanania
7. How would you handle another experienced admin who is edit warring with a newbie, that is, assuming someone complains about it at your talk page rather than ANI?
A: First, go and look carefully at the history. There's lots of subtlety to be had in this sort of situation. "Edit warring with a newbie," and especially when that newbie has come to complain, can be anything from a user making legitimate edits that an admin has unaccountably taken issue with through to an LTA user who has a long-term problem with the admin in question or a simple vandal who's not giving up without a fight. In all these cases, I'd want to talk to the admin before I went and did anything about it. Eventually, edit warring is edit warring and if I'm convinced the admin is actually edit warring and isn't going to stop, well, the block button is there to prevent disruption. I'd want to bring it up at AN afterwards, I think. I'd add that this is not the sort of area I see myself being active in as an admin. GoldenRing (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TonyBallioni
8. How would you answer the concerns raised that you don't have as long a track record to judge your understanding of current policy and guidelines on Wikipedia?
A: People need to make a judgement on the record that's there and I'm perfectly happy to respect their judgement. I give what time I can to the project - and it might be more time than my stats suggest, as I spend a lot of time reading both noticeboards and streams of diffs and an not the sort to stick my oar in unless I'm convinced I can make a difference. But the record is what it is and people will have to make a judgement on that basis. GoldenRing (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Joshualouie711
9. You come upon the following usernames at UAA. What actions do you take, if any?
  • GameStart
  • UsainBolt
  • 0111010001110010011101010110110101110000
  • WikimediaIsAwesome
  • SecureContainProtect
  • Vote4Trump
  • Duck-fil-a
  • Nazi1488
  • Barnstars
Striking own question--Bigpoliticsfan covered this and there's no need for 20-some username evaluations. --Joshualouie711talk 20:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'll come back to this when I have time to answer it properly, tomorrow morning if not earlier. GoldenRing (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to complete the record, I no longer intend to return to this question as Bigpoliticsfan has struck it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Leaky
10. A new user's Sandbox - their entire contribution to WP - contains details of what appears to be an entirely fictional virtual game show. Should this be nominated for deletion? In what way?
A: See my taxonomy of new users that others have linked below. I would let it go - if they've respected our policies enough to create their awful article away from mainspace, they should be given the opportunity to respect them when it comes time to move it to main. If it sits there for months/years then it could be looked at, but I'm in favour of giving me users considerable latitude (or rope, depending how you look at it) in this regard. GoldenRing (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from RileyBugz
11. I am concerned about the hasty deletion tagging notice that you were given. This brings up the question, how will/did you alter your behaviour from this notice? (note:If you did this only because it was repeatedly recreated, then answer that)
A: As has been discussed below, that came about because the article has been repeatedly recreated and even considered on its own qualified for CSD under multiple criteria. I picked the first that i thought applied and I'll admit that the consensus not to use A1 in the first few minutes had slipped my mind. So I think the outcome was right, but I've been reminded to be careful, even when dealing with apparent vandal-only accounts. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SoWhy
12. In your own words, what is the scope and purpose of WP:CSD and especially of WP:A7?
A: In my view, CSD is a kind of standing consensus that certain categories of article are worthy of deletion without requiring specific consensus for each one - in a sense, it's acknowledging that the result at AfD is so obvious that it's not worth doing the process. Of course in certain cases (BLP, copyvios etc) there are pressing reasons to do the deletion quickly rather than just avoiding the process.
A7 seems to me to be a way of telling authors that if they want their article in the encyclopaedia, they need to give us at least some hint about why it should be there. In practice, this is often very similar to A1, because once you've identified who a person (for instance) is, their claim to notability usually becomes obvious. This is what happened in the trading of Caleb Walker discussed below; the article contained only the words "jo puta", making it impossible to identify which Caleb Walker the article was supposed to be about, if any at all. Even if I had heard of the actor's brother, there's no way to know that the author was actually thinking of him and not a mate (which is what I assumed). The admin who dealt with it thought differently, assumed they did mean the actor's brother and deleted it as A7; both were appropriate in my view, though I acknowledge I was strictly too hasty in applying A1 in this case. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Bigpoliticsfan
13. You come upon the following usernames at UAA. What do you do?
  • NetsSuck
  • BushdidKatrina
  • TrumpObamabirtherconspiracy
  • Steve Bannon must die
  • BretibartNews Writer 1234567890
  • 1 Valley Road, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
  • New York University Langone Medical Center
  • Stone the pope for heresy
  • Eat kitties all day every day!!!!LOL HAHA YOLO
  • Articles for deletion
  • Ritchie334
  • Chad Duell
A: The majority of these i would consider disallowed as either disruptive or BLP violations - I'd block immediately and then go discuss the problem at the user's talk page. Exceptions: the Breitbart News guy I'd just go and have a word about NPOV, RS, COI, spelling and the reception he's likely to get, then keep an eye out to see what happens. The one that's an address if also have a quiet word with about the wisdom of using an address in this way and see what the response is (though am I missing something? Is that address significant?) The medical centre should be blocked as an account the indicates shared use - then discuss at user talk. Ritchie334 is attempting to impersonate another user (almost certainly) - I'd look through their contributions and it'd have to pretty clean to merit anything but a block (and think about whether it fits anything at SPI). As for Chad Duell - am i missing something? I'd have to hope the user reporting it gave some indication why they thought it was a problem (and of course looking through their edits may well show other problems). It seems there is an actor by this name, but I can't see that as a problem of itself - it's not unheard of for two people in the world to have the same name. GoldenRing (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That should have been 1 Normal Road, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043 above. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure it means a lot to me. A quick google suggests that you might mean 1 Normal Avenue, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, which is the address of Montclair State University. I've never heard of it, but it's not that unlikely that someone who works or studies (or lives, if it's residential) there might use the address of the university as their username. I'd leave it alone as re policy, though might still have a quiet word about the wisdom of it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from CorbieVreccan
14. Do you have, or have you had, any other accounts on Wikipedia?

As far as I can recall, we have not interacted, so this is based on your low edit count with this account, combined with your assertion that you have sufficient experience to be an admin.

A: No. I have occasionally edited while logged out by mistake, but i believe this has not happened in the past few years and never in a way that is disruptive. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Timothyjosephwood
15. I'll give you an honest shot at this, since your answers seem to be winning over some people. I could care less about most statistics, but my main concern is that you've never spent more than about a dozen edits on a single article. That makes me worry that your answer regarding conflicts falls relatively flat, because you've probably never put yourself in a position where you're invested in the quality of an article, and had to overcome your own investment to try to negotiate a consensus. Why should I not be concerned that if you have to arbitrate between multiple editors who are in that position that you've never been in, that you will be able to empathize with them in a way that will enable you to help resolve the conflict in a way that doesn't involve obvious blocks or protection? TimothyJosephWood 23:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A: Can you spare me another day to think about this, please? It's a good question and, I think, deserves a considered reply. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Having thought about this a lot, I don't know what assurance I can give you that you'd believe. That's the difficulty of a community of anonymous editors, isn't it? And I think I still value my anonymity here. But let me tell you a bit about myself and see if it helps. I work designing custom computers and writing software to go on them (in the energy industry) and have done for about ten years; I work from home most of the time. Before that I did similar work in another field. I'm the treasurer of a local charity and a sort of elected trustee of another charity. I'm remarried, as people probably guess from my userpage, and have a young son. I drive a slightly battered Jaguar. I've spent most of the last three days as a pantomime villain (I don't mean on enwiki; I mean actually on stage as a villain in a pantomime, raising funds for a children's charity).
Now, if you'll indulge a few minutes of cynicism, my guess is that about three fifths of people here will say, "Look! Just the sort of responsible person we want as an admin." About a third will say, "Where are you going to have the time to do admin work?" and the few left will say, "Why should we believe you anyway?" But other than my record here, it's all I have. To see some of what my admin style might be like, perhaps you'd like to read this discussion. I can't say I'm pleased with the outcome, as an intelligent, enthusiastic editor was topic-banned from her area of interest as a result. I started the discussion questioning the report because the evidence presented was pretty thin. Then, when some further evidence was presented, I took a detailed look into the situation and the claims being made, and came to the conclusion that a topic ban was absolutely necessary to stop disruption. During the course of that discussion, I tried to resolve it without sanctions at her user talk page. Sadly, it didn't do any good and a community topic ban was placed. About six weeks later I felt it was necessary to have a word about violating that ban. I'm still not sure it did much good. But I hope it's clear from that history that I'm not the sort to leap to sanctions without trying to understand an editor's point of view. Others have linked it here already, but my User:GoldenRing/Taxonomy_of_new_users might also give you some insight into my likely style, if you've not read it already.
Perhaps I should comment further on my time commitments. As I've indicated above, I have responsibilities and don't have long slabs of time to commit to WP. That's reflected in my editing and is partly why I don't write lots of articles from scratch or make major content contributions. My time tends to come in short blocks in between other things and sometimes life is so busy I take a break for a bit. That means I tend to do jobs that don't require a long period of concentration.
Now, it's not up to me to decide, it's up to you. If that's the style of admin you want around here, then support this nomination. If it's not the sort of style admin you want, I'd be the first to urge you to oppose it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Kostas20142
16 As an admin , how would you balance the general guidelines regarding granting permissions(e.g. edits count) and the demonstrated comprehension of policies , need for the right, and generally, the work done so far? In what level would you make exceptions on the numbers in favour of the latter factors?
A: I think it should be fairly obvious from the fact that I took the time to put this nomination together that I don't place a lot of importance on edit count. I just can't see edit count as a useful metric for anything much; surely we all know the editors who have hundreds of thousands of edits but are utter prats who shouldn't be allowed near any sort of responsibility? And when it comes to taking someone's mop and snapping it in half, how often do you see total edit count as one of the factors considered? The point of edit count in these things is having enough of a record on which to judge someone's character. As that applies to me, I leave it to each editor's judgement and conscience whether they think they know me well enough from my record to trust me. GoldenRing (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from ϢereSpielChequers
17. You didn't mention your content contributions in Answer 2, though you do have edits like this, and this. Would you like to give some more examples of content you've added?
A: Let's not pretend that I'm a prolific content creator who's hiding his light under a jar. I'm not. It's very kind of you to point out those examples, and there are a few more (eg on Rome municipal election, 2016, Steph Swainston, Sepp Blatter, Jeremy Corbyn, Campus sexual assault - but now we've gone back two years!) There are none of these I'm ashamed of in any particular way, but none that I think are amazing contributions to the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hijiri88
18. You recently suggested that a user (me) should be blocked for violating a "ban" that had been unilaterally put in place by a closer in an ANI discussion, which had not been discussed by the community. Do you recognize that administrators are not generally empowered to impose editing restrictions on users, except in the case of discretionary sanctions? If not, how would you as an admin enforce such restrictions?
A: Let's start this answer by saying that I don't think you're going to like it and I don't expect it to win me your !vote. Nevertheless, this is how I see it. In the previous ANI report, you came to the noticeboard asking for action to keep John Carter off your talk page. The discussion ran pretty close to imposing a total iban and there was some discussion of a 30-day block for you, and I don't think Ad Orientem (who proposed the block) is generally the sort to unreasonably take sides or stir drama. So I think Mjroots was pretty well within their rights to sum that discussion up the way they did; they could have easily found consensus for a complete iban but instead gave you what you asked for, a user talk ban, and decided on the basis of what came out during the discussion that it should be mutual (actually I think pretty much all such sanctions should be mutual for all the usual reasons, but that's another discussion).
Now, if you didn't like that, or thought it was against the consensus, then that was the time to do something about it. Take it to AN and ask for closure review. I can't see any excuse, really; with the level of participation you had in that thread, it would beggar belief to think you didn't know what the sanction imposed was. It's not like it was a fast-moving tit-for-tat, either; you had nine months between that sanction being imposed and John Carter making his ANI report. So, in my view, the sanction was duly imposed and within the closing admin's discretion to sum up consensus that way. Could the closing admin have done differently? Yes. Could it have been subject to review? Yes, probably. Did you ask for it to be reviewed? No.
It's then a bit rich, in my view, to violate the imposed sanction and, when this draws complaint, to make lots of noise about the process used to impose it.
Now, what would my action have been had I had the bit then? Probably exactly the same as it was without the bit. I came to the discussion after it had got well bogged down; I tried to clarify it, pointing out what I thought was important; I think any unilateral admin action at that point would have been extremely controversial and counter-productive.
As I say, I don't think I've probably won you as a friend here, and I'm sorry for that, but that's how I see it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some further comments in response to @Hijiri88: below: No, I don't think a community sanction which is imposed by an administrator without discussion or consensus is enforceable. But, as I've tried to explain above, I don't think that's what happened in your case. As a general comment, sometimes a closer has to pick through a discussion and find what consensus they can. Sometimes there are multiple proposals all with significant support. Sometimes there are lots of things supported and not a lot opposed; the closer has to formulate a summary to captures what has the most support and the least opposition. TBH, if it had been me with the bit closing that discussion, I'd have imposed a mutual iban, as I think those involved in the discussion were pretty well unanimous about it (and it's what Beeblebrox found necessary nine months later). On the other hand, there were not as many participants as you might like to see to impose harsh sanctions. So I see the outcome as it ended up as Mjroots looking at what you requested, the discussion as it happened, and deciding to give you both just a little more rope.
So if you're asking, "Would you be the type of admin who will go in all guns blazing and unilaterally impose sanctions without seeking consensus and discussion?" then I hope it's clear that I would not. If you're asking, "Would you be the type of admin who has sympathy for a fellow-admin who decided to let two misbehaving editors off a bit lighter than the discussion might have indicated?" then yes, I think I would. GoldenRing (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nordic Nightfury
19. You have amassed only 2400 edits in total over 13 years, whereas most admins have more than ten times that - If this RfA was successful, would you see yourself at a disadvantage because of your contributions, or would you put your knowledge of Wikipedia first?
A: @NordicNightfury: Sorry for the ping, but I'm not absolutely sure I understand what you mean. I'll have a go. If my RfA was successful and my first action was to block Eric Corbett a very controversial editor for a month, then I think I'd be very vulnerable to the cry, "Those who don't create content prevent those who do." But that't not me. I'll not say I'll never impose sanctions at AE, but, as I said above, I expect to be involved at AIV, UAA, RfPP and so on - the nuts and bolts administration, not the star admin. We are very fortunate to have the wise and experienced editors who do lots of good work at AE - on the whole, they do a fantastic job treading a very difficult line. But I hope I know my skills and limitations, and, for the time being at least, that's not me. I will probably still lurk at AE, and my - very occasional - contributions will sometimes move from the 'uninvolved editor' to the 'uninvolved admin' section. But I think my experience and skills - such as they are - suit me to other work.
Now, that's quite an indirect answer to your question. I think what I'm trying to say is that the bit would not fundamentally change the work I do and so, from that point of view, my limited content contributions would not limit my admin activities more than I would naturally limit them anyway. I think quite a few of the opposes are on the basis that they don't trust that I'll limit myself that way, and I understand and respect that.
If I've completely misunderstood your question, could you comment further and clarify, please? GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing:- It may be down to how I worded the question, but you answered the question I asked, thanks Nördic Nightfury 09:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from scope_creep
20. Why do you want to be an Administrator?
A: @Scope creep: I think I addressed this fairly clearly in my nomination; is there anything more you want to know than what I've said there? I don't think I have hidden motives that I haven't mentioned there. GoldenRing (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from South Nashua
21 Can you provide an instance of where you stepped into a controversial topic you had no previous experience with and helped mediate the situation, or at least offered constructive insight as a dispassionate observer?
A: @South Nashua: Sorry this has taken eighteen hours or so to answer. I don't think there are any situations where I've employed grand diplomacy to take a situation that was headed for all out war and instead bring peace, prosperity and goodwill to all. But I try. You might want to have a look at these diffs in an AE case. Or this in an ARB case request. It's not quite on point to your question, but I'm happy to let it go when it involves myself and ready to see my mistakes and admit them. I prefer things to be resolved away from ANI where possible. I'd rather see light than heat. I try to contribute constructively to difficult discussions by adding relevant information. I'm glad to see someone I've disagreed with in the past making sensible suggestions and am happy to agree with them. You might also like to review the ANI section I discussed in question 15 above; it's a situation where I had no prior involvement and, I hope, acted impartially and reasonably to bring it to a conclusion. It wasn't a conclusion that made everyone happy, but then it's pretty rare for ANI to end happily. It ended with a topic ban for an enthusiastic editor which I regard as unhappy but necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

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

Support
edit
  1. Support Not everyone might be good at content creation, but he's sure good at what he does and deserves the tool. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I'll go out on a limb and say that despite the low mainspace count, this editor has demonstrated plenty of experience and understanding of Wikipedia in well-argued contributions to discussions such as here, here and here. Participation in AIV, UAA and ANI are on a respectable scale. His Taxonomy of new users page would be well worth reading by anyone starting out on patrolling-type activities. Anyway I'm glad he will remain part of the Wikipedia workforce regardless of the outcome here: Noyster (talk), 12:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Seems to be a nice guy. I'm so tired (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tonton Bernardo: Could you please adjust your signature as per WP:SIGPROB. Many thanks. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imperatrix mundi: àImperatrix mundi - why? that's my signature: 4 'snakes" I'm so tired (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:SIGPROB and compare it to your own as it appears as markup. Thank you, Tonton Bernardo — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion keeps messing up the numbering. Besides, it's not germane to this RfA, so perhaps it could be taken to Tonton's talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, probably just moral at this point, but.... The Opposes based on productivity or lack of edit count or no articles started or, even worse, NOT NOW (seriously, have you read that essay and WP:NOTNOTNOW?) are unconvincing. It is clear to me, from even a cursory look at the candidates contributions, style, and answers, that he understands the purpose of the project (an encyclopaedia), its means (a community), and his own limitations and desires towards those two. Obviously, he's not going to delete the main page, so i say give him the mop. Happy days, LindsayHello 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just popping back after a week to say that, though i labelled my support as moral, i am delighted to see that this RfA has moved from the realms of likely failure it was in to those of at least bureaucrats' discussion if not outright pass. I still support, nothing in the past week causes that to change, and i congratulate the candidate on the likely success of this unusual RfA. Happy days, LindsayHello 08:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support. Probably won't pass, but bring activity up and maybe next time. When I became an admin, 2000 edits was enough. That being said, that was over 10 years ago. Andrevan@ 13:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I recognise that this almost certainly will not pass, but anyone insightful enough to come up with the arguments and taxonomy that Noyster links to in his support vote above deserves the tools IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the answers to Q5 and Q6 are absolutely brilliant. We definitely need this kind of penetrating insight on Wikipedia! Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Passing/not passing, don't care. You've got clue and tact. I like your answers to Qs4 and 5, like your willingness to get feedback at User talk:Richie333 today and hang the editcount, you're clearly ready. If this fails, address the concerns below for a few months and then ping me and I'll strongly consider nominating you myself. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral support This won't pass, but your answers to questions 4, 5, and 6 are excellent, and perfectly displays what I want in an admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Answers to questions show a thoughtful and qualified candidate. Opposition is unconvincing. --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I wasn't expecting to support a candidate with so few edits, but the answers to Q4, 5 and 6 make me think GoldenRing would make a great admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: There's no evidence that old administrators appointed when standards were much lower are more likely to be removed from their position by ArbCom (indeed, I've seen as many new admins think, because they've passed incredibly tough modern RfAs, that they're infallible). This candidate would have easily passed 10 years ago and there's no evidence they would be a bad administrator or that a candidate with this editing profile, edit count and experience is fundamentally unsuitable to be an administrator. The answers to the questions are very good and demonstrate an understanding which tenure and edit counts are no guarantee of. Nick (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support . First of all, Your answers at questions 4, 6, 6 are excellent (to me at least). Second, their AIV, UAA and ANI is more than notable. And not to forget, his Taxonomy of new users is more than worth to be read, especially for new users. In case the RFA concludes unsucessfully, I am more than certain that in few months, after addressing the concerns mentioned at the oppose section, they will be successful.(I would re-nominate myself). I do not really worry about creating no pages. My only real concern is the non-existant move and upload logs. But for me, his significant anti-vandalism contribution overrides it --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you mean "4, 5, 6"? --Joshualouie711talk 15:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: GoldenRing has over 12 years of experience in Wikipedia and has did a lot of counter-vandalism. Admins are very important in counter-vandalism. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 15:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: Looking beyond the raw numbers, I see a candidate with sufficient tenure, is highly articulate, has fielded all RfA questions so far excellently, has put in solid work in various back of office areas, and has written a thoughtful guide. I am looking at the person behind the bare stats, and I think that person has what it takes to hold the mop. I am seeing no behavioural red flags, which to me is critical. I am picking up that indefinable "star quality" that stats do not measure, emotional intelligence, an awareness that we are all individuals and real life people that make this project tick..In short excellent admin material. I would advise the candidate to up their mainspace work and get more involved in other WP areas as a priority. Good for you, GoldenRing whatever the outcome, and good luck! Irondome (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Definite net positive, sufficient tenure, and excellent answers to the questions. I especially like I would be the sort of admin who keeps an eye on the backlogs and works through them as best I can. That's exactly what this project needs, and we'd be remiss to not allow you to help keep these backlogs under control. Good luck! -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Seems an ideal candidate. Many areas where GoldenRing will perform admirably. Question answers are impressive. Poltair (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Even though you probably won't pass, you seem to be a deserving candidate for adminship. Your answers to the questions above really got me here. All I'd say is that if you get through, you'll do a fabulous job! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Even though you probably won't pass...." ... "Remain are obviously going to win the EU referendum" ... "There's no way Trump's going to win, let's be honest" .... spot a pattern? ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: haha! The pattern is sure repeating here... Well, let's just hope this isn't an April fools prank! Yashovardhan (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support on second thought, I think GoldenRing would be a net positive with the tools. That's good enough for me. Lepricavark (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support: A breath of fresh air, with a people-first approach to problem solving. Although I don't entirely agree with his approach to handling bombastic content creators (a bit short-sighted when we balance lost editor against contributions), we need admins like this editor badly!! --Drmargi (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support GoldenRing would actually make a great admin, his answers to the above questions are fabulous and he seems to have some great experience. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - I skipped the stats; they're mostly meaningless waffle. Your answers to the questions so far indicate to me that you have the appropriate temperament to be a good admin. That, as far as I am concerned, is enough to get my support. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Article creation isn't everything. What comes after an article is created is equally, if not more, important. Expanding, improving (copy-editing), referencing, all of these things are important. Some of the articles are created and then left as it is. Exp: will be released in September 2011, where it should have been updated a long time ago with the correct tense. Minor things, but if you add it up, well. I'm also of the opinion that, if someone wants to do the work, he/she should get the opportunity to do it. LoMStalk 16:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, pretty much per Nick. The answers to the questions so far (up to 7 as I write this) are excellent, and I don't see anything to indicate that the candidate would be anything other than a careful, thoughtful admin. —DoRD (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Primarily above all else I look for trustworthiness and clue. I didn't obviously see it at the start of the RfA, but I kept an open mind and the answers to the questions have shown that GoldenRing has the right attitude to do admin work. Frankly, all admins should read the answer to Q5 carefully and seriously ruminate on it (especially those who get steam coming out of their ears every time I complain about Eric Corbett or Cassianto getting blocked). He might be a bit wet behind the ears with the CSD criteria, but as I've seen today, he's the sort of person who will look for clarity and confirm he's doing the right thing first, and won't go charging in on horseback into something above his skillset, making a big mess in the process. So let's give him a go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Stats don't always tell the whole story - I believe he has been here long enough to be trusted. Answers to questions show he would be a thoughtful admin.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support (edit conflict × 8) (my guess)– Just... Wow! Awesome candidate! I thoroughly believe that he will be a WP:NETPOSITIVE for the community, even if he isn't going to be too active.
    • Edit stats: This doesn't mean much but I'll do it anyway. Here shows less than 2,300 edits—very low for a passing RfA these days—including just 105 deleted edits—which is fine as GoldenRing didn't indicate that he wanted to do NPR. 41.34% of his edits are in the Wikipedia namespace, which is good if you look at Q1, and consider about 2004–2014. Mainspace falls below a quarter, but that's fine. With around 20% of his total contributions we've got user talk, influenced by the fact that he patrols recent changes.
    • Recent 500 contributions: His last 500 contributions go back to July, with work on WP:ARC, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:ANI (and WP:AN), and recent change patrolling in general. Perfectly fine.
    • Userpage and talk: Okay; 'A Plea to the Vandals' is not what admin candidates should be expected to have, but with a look around you'll see that we've got some pretty darn good admins with, well... bad userpages. Talk page has no recent issues.
    The questions have been answered excellently, and I could continue this review, but I'm thoroughly satisfied that he will make a great—though not necessarily active—admin. J947 17:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Will this admin-ship be detrimental for Wikipedia if it were to pass? No. Will it be beneficial for Wikipedia? Probably. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 17:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Guilty support: It takes either cluelessness or gumption to self-nom at 3000-or-so edits. As the first option appears less and less likely, the second remains. Furthermore, I see no red flag to speak of after looking into some potentially explosive discussions in which GR has taken part. The answers to the questions, which, as has been pointed out, are quite good, appear to be representative of his style. I feel a little guilty for supporting a user with so few edits while having in the past opposed users with far greater tenures, for he has had far fewer opportunities to screw up; the worst one can do plays such a heavy role in RfA (it seems to me; I know it does in my !votes). Be that as it may, opposing out of "fairness" for past candidates would, clearly, be misguided, as would opposing based on hypothetical mistakes that may have become manifest if he had 300000 edits. His tenure is sufficient, though not overwhelming, evidence that he won't screw up. His answers and the edits I have seen (I tried to home in on the "hot" areas, with little success in finding "dirt") show method, deliberation and a sedate level-headedness. I like it. Based on what I see, I do not expect those trends to change with subsequent edits, so holding out for them would be irrational. Overall, I'm already 85+% confident his nomination would be a WP:NETPOS in the long run, though also fairly confident he is not going to be an extremely active admin. But that's quite all right in my book, and contrary to some oppose !votes I have read, I'm pretty sure it's all right by policy as well. Not the usual RfA, and it's changed my mind about some things. Now I need a time machine to reexamine earlier !votes... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Clearly not a strong candidate if you just go by the numbers. However, his answers and his edits demonstrate he has common sense, maturity and a good grasp of policy. I don't know how active he will be, but I am very confident he won't break the china.--Mojo Hand (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support provided the answer to my question is in line with what a normal admin would do. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support As others have said, edit count and other metrics are lower than one would normally expect for an adminship candidate. However, the candidate has demonstrated they have sufficient clue in the areas they wish to tackle, and I don't see much danger of anything going wrong. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) 19:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. First, to counteract the tedious CSD hand-wringing, which rightly went out of fashion in about 2011. Second, because the answer to Q5 is excellent. Third, bonus points for the ballsy self-nom.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, good answers and no immediately visible red tape.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. To counteract some of the more ridiculous opposes—many of them are valid but some are among the stupidest comments I've ever seen at RFA, and it would be a travesty if nonsense like You may want to back after you've start editing a lot of time were to push this out of the discretionary range. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support; although admittedly the total of under 600 mainspace edits is a bit lower than ideal, overall the candidate seems to be a net positive, as others have said. He has a clean block log and does a lot of work outside of article space, and his answers to the questions thus far are spot on. There is no evidence that suggests he would pull a Robdurbar or otherwise be incompetent, so why not give a user with 12 years' experience and 2400 edits the mop?
    I also find the "plea to the vandals" to be funny and relatable, not a red flag. Just sayin'. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 20:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Refreshing responses to questions, I particularly like the candidate's suggestion that the user talk page is an underused tool when stuff shows up on ANI. And the "content creator" answer, with its balance between content and the "good fellowship" editing environment we strive for, is spot on. The obsession with admin candidates and deletion tags - x% of y's delete tags were rejected which means they'll be lousy admins - is something I've never understood and I can't see anything else to worry about. Hope you get the "fake metal" ring Golden ring! --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support A fine candidate. Not everything done here is about content creation, especially not the parts that admins do. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 21:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Per Nick, Iridescent, HighInBC, et al. Editcountitis is a terrible thing. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak support. Candidate's interactions on this page show a good temperament. Answers to questions show a clear desire to use admin tools and use them to make Wikipedia a better place to volunteer. Total edit-count is a bit low but enough to persuade me to stay on this side of the debate. Deryck C. 21:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I've done all the necessary research, and admittedly there was not a lot to do. WP:IAR is a policy - one of the shortest and most concise we have. I suppose this means also that I can safely make the unprecedented move of ignoring my own rules if they prevent me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. GoldenRing has demonstrated rare and extraordinary judgement in his answers to the questions, especially, and most significantly in his superb response to Q5. More clue in fact, than many of our current admins, including me. Important support comes from some of our most trusted users and admins who are seasoned RfA participants, such as Boing! said Zebedee, Ritchie333, Noyster, Andrevan, Dweller, Nick, DoRD, Mkativerata, HighInBC, Juliancolton, and Deryck to name but a few, with Gamall Wednesday Ida, themself not a prolific editor but who makes a very compelling argument for supporting, hitting all the nails on the head. It would therefore be totally amiss of me, despite some valid oppose votes, to not tender my support. This is one case where a user having the admin tools would help improve or maintain Wikipedia, however rarely they might use them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. The answer to question 5 tells me all I need to know about this user; they have common sense and they're not afraid to use it. I feel quite confident they'd be a net positive as an admin. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Despite your low edit count, I am confident you will make a great admin. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Fred (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, and early in this RfA I didn't think I'd be able to. Mainspace experience definitely light, but a low edit count over 13 years has different implications than a low edit count over six months. Very good answers to questions indicate plenty of clue, and I'm seeing supports from editors whose judgement I trust. Good luck! Miniapolis 23:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. We need admins to do routine work to tackle the backlog and I see nothing that would indicate trouble. Loopy30 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I like having active admins, but I also like having a lot of admins so it doesn't matter if some (like me) are slackers. I think the admin bit should be given more freely to anyone who demonstrates temperament and knowledge. There should be no further roadblocks to the admin bit. Activity, content creation, etc is nice, but the criteria does more harm than good. I'd like admins that build content who can sympathize with someone who creates an FA only to see it trashed by an ignorant do-gooder. But that's the kind of criteria I'll save for when there are no backlogs and we have a surplus of admins.--v/r - TP 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Has been around since before many of our wiki-grandparents were in diapers and didn't break Wikipedia in that time. Good editor, appears to know what they're doing - 'nuff said. Acalamari 00:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support While content creation might be lacking, he's been here long enough that I believe that he won't mess with the mop too much. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 00:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support User seems to demonstrate the most important traits of a quality admin, definitely has my support. Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support What an unusual RfA. Had you asked me yesterday whether I would ever support an applicant who has such a low edit count, the answer would have been "no way". But edit count is just a proxy for clue and experience, and if some of the answers above don't demonstrate the qualities that we are looking for in an admin, then I don't know what we'd be looking for. Schwede66 00:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support PRRfan (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support multi-year experience and thousands of edits without getting into trouble? Good enough for me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  53. Support - I see no compelling reason not to. They've been around for over a decade and have made a few thousand edits, which in my opinion is enough for adminship. Kurtis (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I only skimmed through the Q/A. But took a thorough look at his history. User's experience, understanding (general, and of wiki policies) and MO are more important than the edit count. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -His answer to Q5 and Q6 is a stunner.Though a good track-record at article editing/content-creation would have nailed it from all sides, I believe giving the tools to him would mean getting rid of unnecessary drama and leaving little mess at certain places.Winged Blades Godric 07:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Sensible. feminist 08:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Judging by the answers to some of the questions, the kind of thoughtful editor who would be a net positive as an admin. The major concerns appear to be lack of activity and lack of content-creating experience. Lack of activity, I think, is not a concern: the candidate is currently active enough that they will be able to use the mop, and there are plenty of people with the mop whose activity has dropped sharply and yet still retain it because our activity policies for admins are extremely lax. Lack of experience would be more of an issue if the candidate had weak answers to the questions, or hadn't been around for very long to absorb community norms: as it is, they show clue in the questions, and say themselves that they do a fair bit of noticeboard-lurking, even if they don't contribute very often. And I'm not going to start criticising them for not wading into noticeboards when they don't have anything substantial to contribute: I wish more people would do that! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. The numbers say no, the answers to the questions say YES. Cabayi (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. You remind me of me, editing-style wise. I also like to noodle around in backlogs and unloved corners. You seem even-tempered and unlikely to torch the joint. This doesn't look like it will pass, but I'd at least like to register my support for now and for next time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't obviously speak for everyone, but I think think a number of us are hoping this gets a crat chat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just need to get it to or above %65 and keep it there.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, your answers to the questions show you to be a reasonable, even-keeled, and thoughtful editor who clearly edits in the best interest of the project. As for sporadic activity and low edit counts, I appreciate that you have a life outside of Wikipedia and this only improves my expectation of quality mop-wielding, especially regarding interactions with new or non-power users since you're very likely to understand their perspective. Antepenultimate (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Very impressive answers to questions, and an all in all overwhelmingly positive impression I get of the candidate. Some of the opposes seem a little on "automatic reaction" side....so people, please take a look at candidate and their edits and behaviour, and not so much at your own criteria. And yes, I am all for a crat-chat too. Lectonar (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak Support A sensible, well balanced outlook comes across from your responces here and a review of your contribs. I especially like that you seem to favour sanction free drama resolution where possible. Yet only supporting weakly per SoWhy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I appreciate the sentiments in the opposition, but the longstanding tenure and sensible demeanor land me here. Answers to the questions are great too.  Wisdom89 ♦talk 16:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Although I think that the low amount of mainspace edits is a potential problem, this candidate displays excellent judgement, so it shouldn't be a problem. This candidate is also willing to admit when they went wrong. I don't know if this will pass, but I certainly hope that it will. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support = good answers to questions, no major issues that I can see. Deletionist at WP:AfD, but not overtly so. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - solid record, sound reasoning, worthwhile goals. --19:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
  67. Support - I was leaning towards neutral/oppose due to lack of created articles and edits, but from your answers, I believe that you can be a level-headed and understanding admin. --— Chevvin 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I suspect this user will learn the ways of an admin quickly, and still be respectful towards new users. →StaniStani 22:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Low activity levels concern me that we're wasting our time, but an admin to do adminy things is the way I like things. Various counters are understaffed, so having a chance at better response is always good. L3X1 (distant write) 23:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Editor is absolutely WP:HERE and is on a mission. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support – One doesn't need thousands upon thousands of edits to know that there is a backlog at relevant admin boards (particularly, AIV/UAA/RFP), want to fix it, the ability to know how to fix it, and the experience in those areas. I'm satisfied with their in-depth answers to questions. @GoldenRing: good luck! —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – Well experienced user with clear good faith intentions. Chibanano (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Evidently here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Seems fit to be an admin, based on their answers to the questions and their editing history. UserDe (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I think that the value of an Admin not only qualified for the responsibilities, but who fulfills WP:HERE in a different way than cookie cutter RfA candidates cannot be overstated. There are so many moving parts on modern Wikipedia that the RfA process needs to get a little WP:BOLD and see how well an editor without tons of edits and creation works out. New personality types with new specialties joining the Admin staff will only enrich Wikipedia.Jasphetamine (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. The user shows understanding, judgement and balance, qualities essential to an admin. There are many different ways to be a valuable Wikipedian, and this seems to be one of them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Reading his answers to some of the additional questions, I feel that this user - along with having a pleasant and entertaining writing style - has a very wise outlook on handling the dramatic situations which are a perennial part of user interaction on this fair encyclopedia. Although he proclaims a preference for avoiding these situations when possible, his approach is the sort one looks for in an admin. One can say a lot of things about Wikipedia's appearance, but listless ain't one of 'em! (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support: Answers to questions have demonstrated a sound understanding of policy. Further, they have shown a great temperament - I have every reason to feel that they will handle new users well. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support My standards for content creation are low, but I do expect to see that the candidate has added some content with inline citations to reliable sources. That isn't clear from looking at this RFA and especially Q2 where you would normally expect something. But looking at their edits, searching just in mainspace and ticking the ignore minor edits box, it is easy to find edits where they have indeed added cited content. As for their deleted edits, I hope non admins will take my assurance that there are a number of correct deletion tags including several G10s. Yes GoldenRing is not the most active of editors, but they've been here longer than I have, and may well be here longer than many of us who have short but very active tenure. We should be open for volunteers of a diverse level of intensity of commitment. If they have the mop and occasionally pitch in especially deleting the occasional attack page then I think it would be for the good of the pedia. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Weak support per WereSpielChequers. Candidate has a lot of clue, and RFA should not be about numbers. If given the mop, they seem like the type of person to take the criticism received here to heart. Answers to questions are generally good. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)(edited 05:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  80. Support - The user looks committed to Wikipedia, however the low activity is slightly concerning. Otherwise, the user looks like a good candidate. XboxGamer22408talk to me 18:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Some idiot I know became an admin with 2300 edits and hasn't deleted the main page yet ;) The answer to #5 should be required reading for current admins. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. I like the answers and have no problem with little content creation or breaks in activity. Even if Golden Ring only manages 10 good admin actions a week, that's still 10 good admin actions gained. Yintan  21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. The candidates says "I've not tied a lot of my self-esteem to this nomination, just offering my services if the community want them, such as they are." That demonstrates modesty, maturity, and perspective in its approach to public service, and is a worthy counterpoint to some of the empurpled rhetoric below. Kablammo (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support, enthusiastically. The oppose section boils down to one argument: "not enough experience". But sometimes we promote editors for their technical skills (bots, scripts, templates, etc.) even though they don't have significant content experience. Likewise those who revert vandalism. I'd promote someone whose competent focus was on content, too, even if they only had an occasional desire to use an admin-tool. We just require demonstrated expertise and competence in the editor's specialty, and a lack of "disqualifying edits". This editor's competence is in assessing consensus and disciplining established editors (keeping the "drama" boards as drama-free as practical), what's generally considered the most difficult skills to obtain, which this editor has demonstrated in spades. I've done a more thorough investigation of this candidates edits, which are concentrated in Project-space, than I usually do, and the more I looked, the more I liked. I like his thoughts on civility, harassment, and conflict of interest. Focus on edits, not editors. Some feel he hasn't made enough edits to demonstrate readiness, but I disagree. I quit looking before I made it through the entire history, because I would have voted support six months ago. About the worst I could find (in the same category as the speedy-deletion "issues" below): a "trout" for not reading WP:RMCI and properly closing this requested move. Not to worry, the next editor fixed it for you, within a day. Though he may have limited time for Wikipedia, the time he spends is quality time. I trust him to take the time to get to the bottom of editor disputes, and to not make quick, drive-by administrative decisions (see answer to Q 15 above). wbm1058 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Edit counts are not supposed to be the measure of an editors maturity; they are supposed to be a data set that that maturity is shown within, not by sheer numbers, but by their content. It is not a situation where quantity has a quality all its own; it is one where if those who do not have the numbers, by nature do the things those with the numbers would do, then the standard is still met. Overall I think we've got pretty good evidence to suggest that the editor is thoughtful and deliberate, that they'll be a net positive to the project, and that they have the potential longevity to outlast a lot of the people weighing in here today.

    Overall... I think this whole situation where you need to be a potential congressional candidate to start an RfA, and where sitting admins need to damned near commit a war crime to get desysoped, is not particularly beneficial to the project, and only helps to reinforce the notion, especially among newer editors, that user permissions in general are things to be had rather than things to be used. That candle only has a wick at one end, and it's here.

    Not to single anyone out, but we've had and have returning admins who fundamentally misunderstand certain policies, and it works out alright, because they're the types of people who by nature are willing accept a correction and adjust fire. I'm fine with that. There's very little here that can be done which cannot be just as easily undone. TimothyJosephWood 00:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  86. Support. I see no reason to doubt the candidate's potential to make a good, level-headed admin. Limited experience would be a concern if the editor's judgement seemed at issue, which doesn't strike me as being the case. Strong answers to the more recent Q's make that clear. I'd certainly love if they had more time to commit for additional content creation, but I think we shouldn't hold unrealistic expectations for editors if we seek to have smart, clueful people handle the mop. Ability is far more important than time accrued. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Prevan (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Sir Joseph (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - his contributions have been a clear net positive, and he's been around long enough to know how things work around here. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Astoundingly refreshing. I have some concern about mentions of poor CSD tagging, that can be dangerous, I'll look more later, but overall I have a strong impression of a mature intelligent person who can be trusted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Very interesting case. GoldenRing has been around a long time but with relatively few edits. However, his answers reveal the competence required to be an administrator. I think the biggest question is how much time will he have to contribute as an administrator. It looks like he plans to contribute more than he has in the past, which is good enough. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Answers demonstrate GoldenRing has a clue and will be net positive to the project. Rami R 08:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support has the requisite skills, experience and switched-on attitude to enhance Wikipedia as an admin. Gizza (t)(c) 13:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Weak support Edit count is WAY below my comfort level. That said, they have been here years, and have obviously developed a knowledge of policies, processes. I have been won over solely by the answers to the questions, which show an uncommonly level-headed and insightful thought process. Simultaneously, I haven't found a significant reason to oppose, other than low edit count. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - I find his answers to the questions above to be clueful and thoughtful, and that outweighs any weak points there may be in terms of lack of content creation. I trust him to use the tools wisely. --bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support thoughtful and honest editor who has the perfect temperament for an administrator, so even if activity is low definitely a net positive. Catrìona (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support User has been on Wikipedia for some time. Understands Wikipedia. Honest. Low edit count okay. CopernicusAD (u) (t) :) 14:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support This is a person who reads carefully, studies an issue, and considers what the right course of action will be before taking it. This type of editing is slow, so it makes sense they would have fewer edits than people who engage in a different type of editing. However, this is exactly the type of editing admins need. They need to be slow, considered, and deliberate. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, based almost entirely on the candidate's display of clue throughout their responses here. They get it. I would have no reservations about this editor becoming an admin. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Reading this RFA, I'm reminded that the Peter Principle is still in play. I found GoldenRing's responses to Q5, Q6, Q15, and Q18 suggestive of a person who would make this a better place as an admin. Cinteotl (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm... you do understand that the Peter Principle says that a person is likely to be promoted past the point where he or she is competent to do the job, right? Given that, do you really mean to cite it as a reason to support? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that the Peter Principle is in play among the those who would judge a person's suitability to be an admin based upon their edit count rather than their temperament. Cinteotl (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support I agree that the answers to the questions above, especially the very thoughtful and insightful responses others have mentioned (to Q15 and Q18 especially) demonstrate a level of 'project maturity', if you will. The deliberation behind the responses is evident and suggests this is the kind of admin who will be a positive contributor and can be trusted with the tools. The edit count is not relevant. Geoff | Who, me? 18:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support GR is an experienced and positive contributor to the encyclopedia. Based on that activity and their thoughtful, mature answers above he is deserving of an admin role. I am, obviously, not convinced that the "low" edit count is a critical weakness. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Being a net positive is not enough. It is also important that any negatives will not be an undue burden on other users. GoldenRing improves wikipedia for content creators because it allows them (us) to do our work with less drama. GoldenRule's judgement is good, so they are not likely to overreach and create problems. GoldenRule also seems to have more experience than their edit count lets on. They have shown before and during this process a forgiving and broad view of content creation and creators that I appreciate; and it seems to stem from lots of observation rather than lots of creation. This is fine with me. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - I think that they would make a decent admin and agree per JoJo Anthrax and Smmurphy, GoldenRing has more experience then their edit count shows and could do (more) good for Wikipedia with admin rights. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - As Wikipedia begins to grow beyond our teenage years I believe the criteria for adminship must adapt to the times. We have a shortage of quality admins and GoldenRing, who has been around for years and knows the site, has presented a valid reason why he needs the admin tools. GoldenRing appears to be a quality editor and would do good service to Wikipedia. Nothing more should be considered here. --SouthernNights (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - GoldenRing's answers and attitude demonstrate both a good understanding of how Wikipedia works, and a very balanced and reasonable approach to conflict resolution. Finney1234 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Slightly weak support. 2000+ edits over multiple years means he won't break the wiki (I think we've gone way overboard on our check-the-box expectations of admin candidates). Interaction style shows clue, and I value that much more highly than whether he is up on the minutiae of evolving policy. I am not worried by how active he may or may not be as an admin: if he doesn't break stuff, and occasionally helps, that's a net positive. So why is my support slightly weak? I would prefer some sustained involvement in content creation, or failing that in something else (policy? projects?) where one has the experience of getting emotionally invested in building something, disagreeing and yet finding consensus. But am still comfortable supporting as net +. Martinp (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I think admins should be smart people with good judgement. Everything else is optional. The answers make me think that GoldenRing is that sort of person, so I think he would do perfectly fine as an admin. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support to counter some of the silly opposes that speculate about what the candidate's future admin. activity level will be. We have flyby admins making 1 edit every couple of years to retain access. If the candidate is deemed technically and temperamentally suitable he cannot perform any worse than a great number of "sitting" Admins. Leaky Caldron 10:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Thoughtful and informed candidate. Content contributions are almost irrelevant to adminship; that's not what admins qua admins actually do. --Trovatore (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support I'll give him a chance. Despite low participation, it doesn't mean he isnt all bad... Nördic Nightfury 11:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support The naysayers concerns about lack of content contribution are persuasive. On the other hand there are footballers who are elusive for most of the game and when you do see them, they are sticking the ball in the back of the net. My !vote is for quality not quantity because the candidate is clearly capable of being a useful admin. CV9933 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, we need admins who have a personality like GoldenRing. Icebob99 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Weak support, I take into consideration all the point above and the oppose comments, however GoldenRing has been around Wikipedia for years (2004) and with no apparent problems...why not. SethWhales talk 15:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support: I always first value personal temperament in admin candidates and GoldenRing has demonstrated he has balance, patience and knowledge to handle the tasks he encounters. This is one in which I believe "Why Not" is appropriate. I echo Ritchie333's support in entirety and his closing encouragement: So let's give him a go. I see nothing detrimental for Wikipedia if he passes and I do think he will be an asset. Best wishes, Fylbecatulous talk 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: I think it is time to give you a shot. CLCStudent (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, per answer to number five. TJH2018talk 15:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - After extended analysis of this editors posts and the reasoning provided by many other editors on this page, his responses to the questions and my belief that we need to ignore all rules sometimes, I am offering my support. I do not fear they will abuse the tools and I believe they will contribute positively to the project with them. -- Dane talk 15:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - great answers to questions, has demonstrated a good attitude and temperament throughout this RFA as well as in the past. Edits can help display competence, but it is possible to be competent without making the edits - someone who has lurked for a long time and has read all of the highs and lows of the project will have a far better understanding than someone who has only been here for a couple years but has edited prolifically during that time. The latter can be quantified, but the former has great value. I'm not worried about his misusing the tools, so to me giving him the bit is a net positive. We don't have a limit on the number of administrators, so even if he isn't the most active, every contribution helps. PGWG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I started this off firmly neutral and with one leg in 'oppose'; but I am convinced by the WP:IAR perspective. This a perfect opportunity for the community to experiment in two ways. One, we have a ready-made object lesson in whether it is possible to give someone the mop without making them jump through the hoops / tick the usual boxes we usually insist on here. Second, if indeed we get proved wrong, Goldenring goes mad and shreds the logs, we get to 'prove' another of our commonly-uttered but rarely tested mantras- that it is 'easy to take back the mop.' Great. Let's achieve the first or prove the second, people. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Per your answers to the questions above. I started with a neutral vote due to about of contributions but you answers won me over. J36miles (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I really like the answers to some of these questions (particularly no. 5), and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi above well expresses my feelings at this point: let's give a potentially excellent candidate a go and see how needed all these cautionary principles actually are. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support: This is one of the weirdest RfAs I've seen. I would never have expected to land in the support section, but here I am. Apart from the good answers to questions here, I was favourably impressed by their statement in the Michael Hardy case - it struck just the right tone. Which is just a way of me saying that "I thought exactly the same thing myself"; I even cited their timeline in my own similar statement there. The candidate seems to have WP:CLUE. While the non-creation of content is a big worry, I feel it's worth it to give the candidate a try. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - GoldenRing's experience and answers shows that he is a honest and trustworthy person. It will be useful to have him as an admin. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support, I didn't expect to be landing here, but here I am. Edit counts are just a sometimes unreliable heuristic for knowledge and experience. I think GoldenRing has the knowledge, experience, and as importantly, temperament, to be an admin. And this is a volunteer position, so it doesn't matter if someone is the most active admin in the world or not. As long as they use the tools properly when they do take them out, then every contribution helps. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support per WP:VOLUNTEER, WP:TIND, and impressive answers that belie a deeper and more mature understanding of policy and good practice than the editing record suggests. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Candidate has clearly demonstrated thoughtfulness and good judgement. The answers to the question are bold yet on target. I disagree with the editors opposing over lack of edits. Edit counts are only a tenuous proxy for editing experience wherein candidates are judged; they should not be substituted for evaluating the candidate's ability to make the right call. Quality matters more than quantity—GoldenRing excels in this regard and I am confident they would be a fine admin. Altamel (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - GoldenRing has clearly demonstrated intelligence, thoughtfulness, and the right temperament to be an admin. I believe they have also demonstrated more-than-sufficient experience and knowledge of the admin areas they intend to focus on, and they obviously have the wit and clue not to go blundering into other areas. It will clearly be a net positive to have someone like GoldenRing helping to improve wikipedia (meaning the functioning of wikipedia, as distinct from the content) at whatever pace they can contribute. [Exit, stage left, muttering about "...those who think that committing thousands of hasty, relatively unthoughtful edits is good experience for..."] Gpc62 (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - with reservations: The answers to the questions indicate that this is a wise person who could handle the job of administrator well, but the very-low number of edits provides a small sample to demonstrate their skills and temperament and may indicate a person who is not strongly connected with Wikipedia. If this request doesn't pass, I hope the candidate will spend the time and effort to gain more experience in diverse parts of the encyclopedia and apply again.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Despite relative inactivity in the past, answers are exemplary and demonstrative of qualities that one ought to see in an admin. Opposes tend to seem to be based on the editor's low level of editing in general – but adminship is arguably more based on the ability to manage disputes and competence, and there are no indications that they lack either. Mélencron (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support, per above – the stats aren't everything. The candidate displays just the right attitude and judgment to be a net positive. The editor's answers to the questions (especially Q5) are excellent. I especially like his taxonomy of new users as mentioned in Q10 which is more than worth a read. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 00:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Strong support Any user capable of writing the "Taxonomy of new users" and writing these well-considered answers is a net positive in my book. I'm also !voting in order to chastise those in the oppose section who seem to fetishise "learning through copious editing" over GoldenRing's methods, whatever they may be, of learning about the users and processes of Wikipedia. One does not, for instance, fail a student because they fail to use flash cards to prepare for an exam; it is but one way of many. Also, I'm surprised at Chris troutman's vote and subsequent comments given his publicly stated criteria; if RfA is meant to be performative then the candidate's given a damn fine performance in the Q&A section, and if "political buy-in" is important (I personally disagree), then the fact of RfA voters independently bringing up the taxonomy page in the comments counts for a lot. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  133. He doesn't have enough experience, we all agree on that. However, based on his responses and an evaluation of his work, it's enough to say that he's a net positive. Maybe he won't do much, but one good admin action is enough to support. That's way I'm supporting, because I think he has the basic clue needed. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - My sense after reading through the answers to the questions is that this is a user who really understands Wikipedia, a quality that is often independent from edit count. -Danaman5 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. The answers to the questions are stellar, and I find myself agreeing whole-heartedly with the vast majority of the supporters arguments. This candidate is wildly more qualified to be an admin than his edit count would suggest, and I cannot see any argument that their "inexperience" would, in this particular instance, indicate that they would likely be anything other than a net positive. As for their relative lack of activity, well...personally, I consider it healthy for editors to have a life outside of Wikipedia. I can speak from experience when I say that the larger amount of time the average editor invests in Wikipedia, the more likely they are to eventually suffer burnout, and I think that this candidate's Wikipedia-real life balance gives them a higher likelihood to stick around for longer than a not-insignificant amount of !voters at this RfA. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Somewhat low edit count, but it shouldn't prevent GoldenRing from becoming a good admin based on his answers above. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     03:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - some concerns with activity and need, but I doubt they will break anything. Seems like a clueful candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - I don't know edit counts matters that much, but this person seems good enough to handle the mop. ProDuct0339Talk●Project
    Contributions     05:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProDuct0339: Umm ... it's a little weird that you would dismiss other users' concerns about edit counts when your account is only three weeks old, and the majority of your mainspace edits appear to be blanking huge chunks of chemistry articles without explanation.[1][2] Your edit summaries for these edits consisted of counting from "1" to "40", and another edit summary was worse.[3] Sorry, but this looks like vandalism/trolling -- User:Headbomb, am I misreading this? I last heard the word "isotopes" in a junior cert science class thirteen years ago, so it's possible these are good faith edits that I'm misreading, but if I'm right it doesn't look like the above user's !vote should be taken seriously. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: well, first, I'm not a vandal. second, the mass deletion was made in good faith, and I stopped after Headbomb told me to gain consensus first. third, yes, my account is only 3 weeks old, however, this is my third(or fourth) account, I was here since 2011(2009 including edits when I was IP user) I lost the other's password. recently, I found my first(second) account, Albireo93, and to avoid sockpuppetry, I told to Bishonen that I will not going to use that account anymore. hope your question is answered. ProDuct0339Talk●Project
    Contributions     07:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, about edit summary, I kinda mashed my keyboard. I checked 'Remind me when summary is empty' thing so I need to write something, but I was too lazy to write some useful things. ProDuct0339Talk●Project
    Contributions     07:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Okay, I'll accept that. Don't do any more mass blankings or plead insanity in your edit summaries. You might also want to declare your previous accounts' usernames prominently on your user page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I will. but, I forgot the other previous usernames other than Albireo93. I thought I knew, but it was wrong. ProDuct0339Talk●Project
    Contributions     07:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Per Opabinia regalis. Low edit count more than made up for by good answers and understanding of long term issues and disputes.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support – A competent, literate and considerate Wikipedian, with a willingness to help with "boring" duties: I'm sick of seeing notices of backlogs at AN and not being able to do anything about it. The project need more admins like GoldenRing. — JFG talk 12:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support – While I find it odd that the candidate mentions having little time for straight-out vandals in their nomination statement yet is willing to entertain an RFA question from an obvious vandal, I think the questions and current editing history make it clear that GoldenRing is fit for the admin job. Trying to meet an arbitrary edit count is silly, and even if GoldenRing is not very active there are plenty of admins who only appear once a year to make a pointless edit and hang on to the bit for no reason. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  143. SupportGoldRing has one of the more important qualifications in my book -- the ability to write good answers without putting one's foot in their mouth. GoldRing has also been around enough to have a decent grasp on important policies. Dolotta (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - I was on the fence about this RFA when I first looked at GoldenRing's stats. But his statements and answers demonstrate a calm nature and a reflective, common sense approach to Wikipedia -- and that is what I most hope to see in any administrator. Yes, he could go off for six months to gain more experience. But, in the end, we all learn this stuff (and are still learning it) on the job. I would support GoldenRing being an administrator in six months, so I don't have a concern with him being one today. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support I'm satisfied with the candidate's answers to the questions. Most of the opposers seem to be pointing at the lack of content creation by the candidate. While I will not write you a novel about whether or not content creation is necessary for adminship, let's not forget that my content creation was pretty mediocre when I ran for adminship (and passed). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Good answers, looks like a net positive. Edit count / activity is fairly irrelevant. —Kusma (t·c) 16:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support (edit conflict) I'm going to address the most common oppose !votes.
    (1) By far the most common oppose rationale is "low edit count", or something similar--i.e. perceived lack of experience. I understand that many of the opposers have individual RfA standards--3000+, 5000+, 10000+, etc. edits. Here's the thing. If the candidate is made an admin, what counts is not how many times he has previously clicked the "Save changes" button, but how well he understands what he was doing in those edits. I'm not saying that edit count standards are always bad, but edit count is not the only factor that determines experience. I'm not asking those opposers to do away with those standards, just apply them through the lens of the candidate's contributions and answers to the questions. Clue > edit count.
    (2) Then there are those who say that if the candidate is given admin tools, that they will be used infrequently. However, let's look at this from a utilitarian perspective. Should the admin tools be used at any time in a beneficial way by the candidate, Wikipedia has benefited. Should the admin tools never be used by the candidate, Wikipedia is, in regards to those tools, unaffected. In other words, if there is a non-zero probability that GoldenRing will use the tools beneficially, and if we assume, as I have argued above, that said candidate is qualified to wield the tools, then the tools should be given.
    (3) This seems to be coming up more and more frequently--lack of content creation. Basically, according to the opposers, since content creation is what Wikipedia is about, content creation should be required to be an admin. But while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is also the community, the people working to build and protect that encyclopedia. CSD and AfD aren't about creating good pages, but they are about deleting bad ones. AIV isn't about adding good content, but it is about protecting Wikipedia from bad content. The guards of a museum are just as important as the curators.
    Either way, GoldenRing, know this: Admin or not, you are a valued member of the Wikipedian community. (On a side note, given the unusual circumstances of this RfA, I think that a crat-chat would be very helpful.) --Joshualouie711talk 17:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support The low edit count is consistent with his listing of time-consuming real-life duties. It is a VOLUNTEER position, and if a busy person can find some time to contribute, we benefit. Seems to be here asking for the bit with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. I don't see a red flag Edison (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Very weak support. I was in the "neutral" section, but I'm moving up here since ... and I have no shame in admitting this ... that since the requirements for an RFA to go into bureaucrat discussion are a bit of a numbers game teetering on a 65–75% requirement and since at this moment, the nominee is at 64% 66%, I'm very interested to see how a nomination such as this one will play out in a "crat chat", given my comment regarding "drive, but lack of recent proof" (paraphrasing) in my "neutral" comment. My interest in seeing such a discussion overpowers my neutral stance, so now, I'm here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, the percentage is at 66% now. If it gets much higher, I may have to move back to "neutral"! (Ha!) Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially you're trying to keep the candidate in suspense by making it close? --Joshualouie711talk 19:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. My previous comment was a joke. (Notice the "Ha!".) RFAs can be stressful enough as they are; I have absolutely no desire to change my vote again. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. (Although the support percentage has actually been at 66% for several hours now, so I'm pretty sure you misread the 64%.) --Joshualouie711talk 19:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. Then, I cannot say I have any idea where I recently saw "64%" then. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Competent, good answers, and variety in admins is needed. Dalliance (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - I'm unconvinced by the opposes (no file uploads, start editing more, on and off editing periods, being an administrator is time consuming ...). DexDor (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DexDor: I won't say I'm a prolific file uploader, but some of them do seem to have forgotten to check commons. GoldenRing (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support -- Per Joshua and Laser Brain above, opposes are unconvincing. -- Shudde talk 20:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support per answers. J3Mrs (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support The answers to the questions give me enough confidence that this user will be a fine admin. Most of the opposes are quoting a lack of experience, which is fair, but I am not seeing enough examples of bad edits, poor judgement or any other reasons why they would not be a decent admin. AIRcorn (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I like the answers to the questions, and welcome the promise to clear backlogs. Daithidebarra (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support per nomination statement, answers to questions, and above comments. Swarm ♠ 04:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Edit counts be damned. The statements above and contributions in difficult areas clearly demonstrate cluefulness and consideration towards other editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Answers to questions, specially #5, plus the intuitive support !vote #148 coupled with the desire to work on backlogs and the gutsy self-nomination (almost makes me want to run again) make it clear to me that GoldenRing would be one of the stronger and more helpful administrators.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  10:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support While I haven't interacted all that much with GoldenRing I do see them during my own wanders on ANI and have generally found their comments to be well thought out and reasonable. It's easy to be balked by low edit count, but then there are editors who have enormous edit counts but would certainly not be admin material. Low edit count would be an issue if GoldenRing had indicated they would admin in content areas but working in the back end admin areas, one needs good judgement and a level head, especially hornets nests like ANI. Blackmane (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Nothing in the Q+A makes me think the candidate will be anything other than a careful and thoughtful admin. Net positive. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support, mainly as per FIM and other thoughtful comments. GABgab 14:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  162. (edit conflict) Joshualouie711 et. al. have covered all the bases, really. I'm not convinced that the low edit count or activity rate are issues here. The well-thought-out answers to the questions indicate sufficient knowledge of policy. I see a calm, rational demeanor and a keen sense of judgment, both of which are essential qualities in an administrator, and I think that GoldenRing's promotion would benefit Wikipedia. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 14:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support, normally don't put in my input but this candidate seems a net positive. Main concern in opposes seems to be edit count, but I see sufficient constructive edits to trust the candidate - opposes solely such as "low activity" are unconvincing. Some discussion of CSD issues, but the candidate's CSD discussion seems consistent with a reasonable interpretation of policy and consensus. Appable (talk | contributions) 14:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support, good answers to the questions and a gnome-work record that clearly demonstrates that creating umpteen articles and a bunch of GAs are not the only way to gain sufficient clue to be able to drive a mop. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support When I !voted neutral down below, I didn't have enough evidence about Golden Ring to be here, though there were no red flags. Their stellar answers to questions (many of which are far better than I could write) provide this evidence. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support on the basis of the answers to the questions (except perhaps for that to question 10—the situation described seems a pretty clear violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST, and I know I've seen such bogus games blanked or deleted in the past). Seems to have sufficient clue not to run amok with the tools. Deor (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deor: Thanks for the support. Several people have misunderstood my meaning with Q10 and I should have been clearer — I get that the situation described is a violation of NOTWEBHOST and could be spanked straight to MfD; nevertheless I'm in favour of a lot of latitude in this area when it comes to new users. It interacts with concerns that others have expressed in other contexts here; if an editor's first interaction with WP is creating a shiny article they really like, even though they've made it up, and someone comes along and invokes some arcane process to delete it, taking no notice of their cries, what's the chance they'll stick around? Pretty small, in my view. Better to let it go. It's not harming anyone in their sandbox. As I said in my answer, if it's been sitting there for months, I'd want to take a closer look. Have they moved on to more constructive edits? If not, then is the time to send it to MfD. And if they have moved on to better things, it'd be better to start off with a gentle message on their talk page: "Hey, I see that draft article you created when you first joined us is still kicking around. Did you know you can request deletion under WP:U1?" But until it reaches that point, in my view, the fact they were considerate to do this in their sandbox and not in article space, or template, or WP:, says to me they've got definite potential to be a productive editor and I don't want to snuff that out. GoldenRing (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support --Enos733 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support(edit conflict) After having read through this RfA candidate's answers, I'll give them my support. Plus, they had the guts to self-nom and to do it at only 2500 or so edits (including deleted edits, according to SuperCount). While that last bit alone would definitely not be enough for a support vote, it, in my opinion, adds to it when the editor appears to be humble, as this one does here. — Gestrid (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Though I would've liked to see some WP:PERMs attached to the user, especially since being an admin adds a bunch of the ones listed there to their account. Too late to ask if they've ever requested some permissions before, I guess. There's only fourteen hours left in this RfA. — Gestrid (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support per Gamall Wednesday Ida. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support User seems dedicated, no harbingers of tool misuse, great answers to questions. Can only be a net positive to the project - we can debate the magnitude of the effect, but given the shortage of admins, any net positive is good. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support --Pudeo (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support. In his answers to the questions and his various remarks in this RfA, GoldenRing has shown a subtler understanding of how this project works than almost all editors (admins or not) that I've so far had dealings with. As for the issue many of the opposers have with the edit count – although I understand their concerns in the general case (and edit count might be a proxy for something else), I don't see the relevance here – if what it's is a proxy for is plainly visible, the it becomes irrelevant. – Uanfala (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Weak support My neutral stance was really more of a weak support, so, for the same reasons. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support I like GoldenRing's desire to manage and settle conflicts outside of sanctions and the related noticeboards, and his clear sense of the tangle of issues and consequences around high-profile sanctions. Seren_Dept 03:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Wikipedia has changed a lot since his account was created 13 years ago. It all comes down to whether this editor has judgment, clue and temperament. Given the answers to the questions, it looks like he has all three of those qualities, and therefore I'm convinced that he can cope with these changes and use the tools wisely. Minima© (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support There are many users in your boat - reasonable, responsible casual editors with loads of experience, just not all at once. Most of them would make excellent administrators. HiDrNick! 08:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support I don't see that creating large numbers of articles is a prerequisite for being an administrator. GoldenRing's answers clearly demonstrate an understanding of what's required and that's good enough for me. Absconded Northerner (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support - Good candidate, good answers to questions, excellent temperament, and a clear net positive.--John Cline (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
edit
  1. Oppose I'm sorry but your activity levels are simply far too low for me to be comfortable supporting at this time. 2370 edits overall and only 13 this month, none at all in November don't suggest to me someone who is going to be an active admin. Worst of all, you seem to have little interest in adding any content, I had to go back to 14 February to find an edit to an article and back to 11 January to find an article edit which wasn't a revert, indicating a serious lack of experience if it ever comes to content disputes. Lack of any articles created and apparent lack of understanding of speedy deletion processes as recently as January also make it a no. Valenciano (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I don't have access to the article in question any more, but I'd like to point out, as I did to KGirlTrucker81 at the time, that that article qualified, in my view, for CSD under at least four of the criteria and it was the third time the same article had been deleted under CSD in less than two weeks. The original creation, two years earlier, was deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user evading their block or ban. In such situations, despite the consensus that creators should be given a good-faith-assuming chance to improve their articles, it seem unlikely in the extreme to me that it would actually be constructively improved. I happened to pick a CSD criterion to tag it with that technically required a brief pause first, but the speedy deletion was never in doubt and my conscience is not particularly troubled - I don't think there's any question that I was improving the encyclopaedia. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with the latter point. Previous deletion history is relevant although not binding. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 11:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know at least three people in real life who will never, ever, edit Wikipedia again because their first article was deleted per A7 within minutes. We can argue over whether the deletion was correct or not, but that's not really the point - these people's first impression of Wikipedia was so bad they will never contribute again. It is always worth putting that at the front of your mind when doing NPP, and making sure you can put yourself in the other person's shoes. However, in this specific case, the article in question was (as far as I can tell) about a website advertising pirated software and cracks, and there are certain topics I am more lenient about saving than others - that's not one of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not totally clear what crime the candidate is being accused of with regard to "apparent lack of understanding of speedy deletion processes", but I believe that it was this edit to the re-created article Caleb Walker (note that the entire deleted history of that has been restored, and it now redirects to Paul Walker, which is totally appropriate, as our bio on Paul actually mentions his brother by name). So the problem is that the edit of the one-edit drive-by wonder Martinezhugo155, the entire content of which was jo puta did not qualify to be tagged with a {{db-nocontext}} template?? It's not reasonable for anyone to expect the candidate to know that the "not notable" Caleb Walker was Paul's brother. Certainly creating a redirect to Paul Walker would also be an appropriate response, as we have three articles linking to Caleb Walker, but the {{db-nocontext}} template is by no reasonable view inappropriate. I find this rationale for opposition without merit. wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    question: How was Martinezhugo155 able to (re)create Caleb Walker using VisualEditor as their very first edit?? I thought they needed to be autoconfirmed to do that. I don't see any deleted contributions from that user in the logs. wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose At this point there has been insufficient practice using the different Wikipedia facilities. The first few things I checked for, were not done yet. That is I saw no page moves, no file uploads (I am also looking for fair use uploads), and no creation of an article. I did however see patrolling and tagging of new pages, and automated user talk notices. Also I see successful sockpuppet investigation proposals, and AFD's and prods. So this is not a permanent oppose, just that you may need to explore more Wikipedia functions so that you know how they work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I don't mind the low edit count or the lack of content creation. Any editor who can help a little bit as an admin should be one. What I do find problematic though is your speedy deletion work. Yes, your taggings were deleted, but they were deleted in error and I can't in good conscience support giving someone access to the delete button who believes that A11 applies to people, tags pages within minutes of creation for lack of context or content or tags an article with multiple RS as A7. We have enough admins who don't care about the restrictions the speedy deletion policy stipulates; we don't need another. As you said, you have not many edits, so I had to check the few that you had. And those didn't inspire me with confidence. That said, do come back here when you have some more experience in the areas you want to work in. Regards SoWhy 10:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: "Yes, your taggings were deleted, but they were deleted in error" - in whose opinion? Doctor Donald Ratajkowsk is not A11, but @Deb: deleted it as A7, which is fair enough. James Uberti starts off "James Uberti (born January 29, 1965) is an entrepreneur, inventor, anti-aging author, motivational speaker and wellness advocate" and that immediately makes me think "G11", particularly when the sources are all trivial passing mentions - and presumably @RickinBaltimore: deleted per A7 for the same reason. I might just about be persuaded to commute it down to AfD, at which point I would expect it to be deleted. If these articles are deleted in error - go and moan at the admins who deleted them - don't take it out on somebody else who isn't an admin and can be afforded a little more give and take. Yes, I'm fed up of admins deleting articles I can salvage, but I'm more fed up of the community who don't actually do anything about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Knowing what A11 applies to and what not, is something I can expect from a candidate for adminship. As for Mr. Uberti, the article contained not only sources but multiple claims of significance. Yes, I, too, am fed up with admins who delete articles which can (and per WP:ATD should) be fixed instead but I don't think the solution should be to add another admin like that and absent any actual deletions, the candidate's taggings are the only indication we have of how they will handle the delete button. That said, you know that I'd love to be proven wrong and if he demonstrates that he has actually understood the policy and those were honest mistakes, I'd be the first to support another RfA. The answer 4 is a good start. As some might remember, I once helped "derail" an RfA for a user I then ended up nominating (successfully) the second time around, so I really mean it when I say that I will support someone once they have demonstrated better knowledge. Regards SoWhy 11:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with anything you've said; my point was more that just as much as vetting and educating new admin candidates, we should make sure existing administrators understand what the right thing to do is, and don't inadvertently create poor role models for admin wannabes. I personally am less concerned about an admin deleting something incorrectly, as to how they manage the situation when somebody (usually the article creator) complains about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoWhy: As others have pointed out, Doctor Donald Ratajkowsk was deleted as A7 - but I remain of the opinion that he is the invention of the author, not a real person with no credible claim to significance. Yes, I tagged Caleb Walker as A1 very shortly after creation; as it was the third attempt at creating the article in two weeks, it didn't look like a credible attempt to create a viable article to me. As the creator has made no contributions whatsoever that haven't been deleted, I think my judgement here was borne out. As for James Umberti, RickinBaltimore agreed that there was no credible claim to significance and deleted it. Citing an RS in an article doesn't mean that those RSes provide significant coverage (or indeed any coverage at all) of the subject. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Uberti's article looks like a stereotypical paid editing piece, and on that account I can think of at least one prominent admin would rain fires of hell if it wasn't deleted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha ha, I Googled "Donald Ratajkowsk" to see whether there was any evidence that this is a real person, and all that came up was a ton of Emily Ratajkowski's social media comments about Donald Trump! I think GoldenRing is onto something there. This nitpicking about whether the "correct" speedy tags were used on obvious speedies isn't gonna sway me to oppose; I need to see something more serious than this... wbm1058 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Doesn't seem to have ever created anything in article space; not even so much as a redirect. I have reviewed all the edits which have been made and they indicate a general lack of experience and commitment. The candidate only seems motivated in cases of controversy – topics like Jeremy Corbyn and Gamergate or internal drama like Arbcom and ANI. Their suggestion that Wikipedia's enfants terrible can be persuaded to behave by a quiet talk seems remarkably naïve and, whether it might work or not, they don't need admin tools to try it out. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I normally don't like opposes for edit count, but you don't have enough edits, and there's no point in giving you the mop if you aren't active. I have more edits in the past 3 months than you have had in 12 years. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Moved to Support[reply]
  5. Oppose As I can see, this user has almost as much edits done in 13 years, as I do in 4 months. Also the 0.5 edits per day mean a lot. I think it was said somewhere, that an admin applicant should have at least 3000 edits Maybe content creation is not everything, but 0 pages created in 13 years? 17.4% of AfD votes from this user were wrong. It might not be safe to give this user deletion tools. I do not want to discourage a candidate and I believe, that he would become a great admin, but maybe it is too early. Cheers, FriyMan talk 12:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we really need to go in that hard? This RfA has little chance of passing and will probably be closed as NOTNOW or withdrawn. Also, for those of us who were barely around, but kinda, in the mid-to-late 2000s, life often got in the way of editing for several years after you signed up for this really cool website that anyone can edit. I'm not supporting, but I think this oppose is somewhat harsh. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, TonyBallioni, but this is my personal opinion on Admins. An inactive admin is no help for the project. The editor made 1720 contributions in previous 3 years (his most active years so far) and this is a clear sign of inactivity. Why am I going harsh? Because admin have a lot of tools, that need to be used actively. An inactive user, who does not have time to use the tools, might just be fine without them. Cheers, FriyMan talk 14:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying just saying bolding edit counts and getting into the average edits a day over a 13 year period that included long breaks is a bit less than charitable of an oppose for a good faith contributor. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @FriyMan: a quick glance at WP:BN would indicate the rest of the community does not think as you: inactive admins can have ?years of inacitivity before their toolbag is withdrawn- and even then they get it back on the nod, very often. Please base your !vote on policy issues and not misunderstandings. Many thanks. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To put this in perspective, I count just 49 edits in their first nine years here; that's just five edits per year. I'd focus on the most recent three years: 630 (2014) + 839 (2015) + 251 (2016) = 1720 or about 570 per year. With 428 for the first three months of 2017, they're on pace to exceed their three-year average. This RfA brought to my mind this recent discussion thread – this one is certainly an interesting test... the sentiment was to "lower the bar" somewhat to reverse the trend of declining numbers of successful RfAs, wasn't it? I'd advise the candidate to move a page or two, and create a redirect or two, in the next day or two, just to prove that they're competent at performing these relatively trivial tasks. I disagree with the concept that any AfD vote can be "wrong"... such votes are simply minority opinions. wbm1058 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Question on this comment regarding the 17.4% figure. Are you saying that admin candidates should not engage in contentious AFDs? I've seen well-thought out opinions from the "losing" sides of AFDs in the past. South Nashua (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether this q. is addressed to me, but my thought is that 17.4% seems like a totally reasonable figure. We shouldn't expect all admins to be 100% in sync with majority opinion on everything. A more persuasive argument would be to cite examples among those 17.4% where his rationale was blatantly counter to a well-established policy; I don't expect you will find any examples like that, but I haven't taken the time to look. Of course admin candidates may engage in contentious AFDs that they take an interest in, but I don't feel extensive engagement in AfD discussions is necessary to be considered a qualified candidate. wbm1058 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about prerequisites to being a qualified candidate though, it sounds like you're putting it as an impediment to being a qualified candidate. Having a rate that low will have a chilling effect on potential admins when they think about participating in AFDs that might need additional insights from neutral third parties. South Nashua (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Per WP:NOTNOW - you have little edits and have no experience in content creation. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I don't quite think GoldenRing has enough experience. I'm not concerned about the low activity level, but GR has fewer than 600 article edits. The 82.6% AfD vote match rate is not in itself a dealbreaker (to me, it's about a C or C+), but when combined with the low edit count and lack of creation of a single page in mainspace (article or redirect), overall I don't think GR is experienced enough. However, GR, you're doing a good job; keep it up and I'd be happy to support in a year or two. YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 13:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Struck at 15:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose because of a very low number of edits. Need more work, especially in content creation. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – Not enough experience just yet. With more work on content creation and if the concerns about speedy deletion judgement are addressed, then I would certainly consider supporting candidacy in future. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Insufficient editing experience, including no article creation experience whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose with regret. I see an up and coming editor who may well make a good admin at some point in the future, but I can't support with less than 5000 edits as there is not enough of a record to judge them on. Beyond which, while I don't obsess about content creation, I like to see at least some. Come back in a year preferably with closer to 10,000 edits and something to look at in the mainspace. Don't take this too hard. I am not seeing any real red flags. You just need a bit more experience and meat on your resume before coming back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose also with regret and a note that I would support with more experience. I hate arbitrary numbers, but we at least need a substantial track record. I agree with Ad Orientem that 5,000 edits is around the floor that I'd use. I could be persuaded at 4,000, maybe. 670 edits over the year and a half make this tough, though, because policies and guidelines change rapidly enough that we don't have evidence of understanding current policy. ~ Rob13Talk 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Nominee seems to only be semi-active at most and has little to no experience in creation of articles. Come back when you are more active and have at least created a couple of new articles. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Moved to support[reply]
  12. Oppose per the extremely low edit count, I don't expect editors to make thousands of edits a month however I do expect editors to make more than 100 which for the most part you haven't, You don't seem to participate much at AIV, UFAA or AFD either so in short I don't see the point in giving the mop to someone who's barely even here, Sure you've been here 13 years and counting however without being harsh you don't have much to show for it unfortunately, My best (and kindest) advice is to start editing more (alot more!) and retry in 5-10 years time. –Davey2010Talk 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose 0 content creation.--Catlemur (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Very low edit count and seems to have these on and off editing periods. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose You admit you're not a preferred admin candidate and self-nom anyway. You fail my criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Only ~500 article edits, zero creation, little activity elsewhere. The candidate made ~300 edits in January, his busiest month ever, but his activity has since returned to almost zero (9 edits in March, excluding this RfA). Sorry, we need to see a bit more commitment than that. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Chris troutman: Sorry, you've only have 500+ mainspace edits and very little activity. You may want to back after you've start editing a lot of time. Fails my criteria. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose There is zero content creation and a low edit count. An admin needs a little experience with everything. However, this person has been helpful to the project so I hope will continue to help no matter the outcome. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose GoldenRing honestly seems great, but I've been recently reminded (by events totally unrelated to GR) that command of current consensus on content policies by those wielding the tools is really important, not just for the internal functioning of WP but also for its reputation in the world at large. Only 537 mainspace edits ever and only six AfDs in the last two years are not enough to assure me GR is sufficiently up to date, I'm afraid. If they feel inclined to do more of that sort of work and come back to RfA, I'll enthusiastically support, but I also understand if that's just not the kind of editing that interests them: there are plenty of ways to make valuable contributions to the site and I really appreciate their work and excellent outlook, in whatever form they choose to share it with the site. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I'm pretty liberal about standards for granting adminship, but I can't see my way clear to supporting a candidate with less than 1,000 article edits regardless of how long they've had an account, espescially when coupled with the above concerns about speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Warning signs here are only 537 total edits in main space 2004, and of those, 51% percent have been automated edits (Twinkle, Undo and Curation). That means you've only made 263 main space edits in 13 years, which would average out to some 20 edits per year. Zero article creation. There's just nothing there that says this editor has enough experience and understanding of policy and guidelines. We have a closet full of admins who have the tools but don't do much with them. If he's only made 537 edits in 13 years, how much need would he have of the tools? — Maile (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Experience comes from practical application. While you have long since been a registered editor, I do not believe that you have enough activity within the past two years to reasonably demonstrate you have a thorough understanding of the current policies and guidelines. Mkdw talk 23:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Per Mkdw. Anyone can create an account and leave it for years and years. Experience comes from actual editing which you have done minimal of. There is no way to actually know if you are trustworthy for the tools. To be frank, we also don't need anymore admins that do nothing. The vast majority of administrative tasks are handled by a very small group. Your editing history does not give me any confidence that you would actually use the tools once given them. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose moving here from neutral. While I stand by all the positive things I had said in neutral and in the general discussion, and I view this as a positive turn for RfA where people are giving a candidate a chance rather than pile-on opposing, I am currently uncomfortable !voting support. GoldenRing has given great answers, but their editing history does not give us enough of a view of how they would act under pressure or in conflict situations. It also doesn't show us that they have a good understanding of current Wikipedia policy. I do expect a user, to have enough recent experience that the community can reasonably judge that they know the general mens of current consensus on the Wiki. With 474 edits in the last six months, I don't feel comfortable saying we can make that judgement. I want to support, and I generally go out of the way to find NETPOSITIVE. As much as I want to, I honestly have no idea one way or the other whether the tools at this time would be a net positive, and because of that, I can't support. TonyBallioni (talk)
  25. Oppose. Less than 2,500 edits is simply insufficient Wikipedia experience in a candidate for me to be comfortable !voting to give the tools to. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - After full examination of this nominee's history and qualification, I'm sorry to say that I cannot endorse their nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per above. Concerns with experience. -FASTILY 03:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - Sorry but just not enough activity over that much time (esp. in mainspace). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose just strong enough to not be a weak oppose, mostly agreeing with the comments above. —JJBers 04:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose – I'm sorry, but: No articles created. No page moves. No files uploaded. I just can't do it at the moment. Laurdecl talk 06:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - While there are signs of some positive work, there is just not enough experience or even activity to warrant the need to be an admin. Kosack (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - sorry, but simply not active enough to have a feel of how things work. GiantSnowman 08:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - I'd like to support almost anyone these days with our current work load... but, this is pushing the limits of my generosity. You do not have remotely close to enough experience to be given any of the unbundled rights, let alone all of them and then some. — Tea // have a ☕️ // leaves // 09:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - no so much for the low edit rate as for the delete/revert-before-collaborate approach which is the biggest impediment WP faces to retaining and attracting new editors, as per Ritchie, SoWhy and others MapReader (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Though I don't like to base my votes on numbers, just over 2000 edits is nowhere near enough to be an admin. To make it worse, you've made less than 30 this month. Sorry, I'm just not comfortable with someone with so little contributions having the tools. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. I'm less worried by the low edit rate/activity levels, but the lack of experience in most areas, including content creation, doesn't really give me a sense of how they'll act as an admin. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Completely unprepared for the job at hand. Would you employ this user if he was applying for a position in your firm. Of course not. Complete lack of experience, even in basic content creation, which is the foundation of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: I suggest you reconsider your job interview analogy, given the principle of voluntarism which is part of Wikipedia's core philosophy. Airbornemihir (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Insufficient editing experience.  Sandstein  13:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. There's no reason to think this user would have any appreciable effect on our backlogs as an admin when he hasn't had any as a non-admin. —Cryptic 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose I don't support too much of difficulty level for current RFA candidates, but 2385 edits with 570 semi-automated, since 2004? Marvellous Spider-Man 14:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Experience and distribution. I need to see more. Glrx (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of good here, but there's too little activity. A Q1 that says CSD really should have substantial content experience behind it (and a CSD log). I'm worried about the candidate's reserve and apparent focus. Little content, but an essay about classifying new users into good, bad, and ugly? Lots of edits to ANI suggest the candidate is drawn to controversy; I want strong credentials for such candidates. I need more history. I'm not happy with the Q3/conflict answer, either. Glrx (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Sorry, although actions and answers are commendable, amount of activity does not support the trust required for the tools.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose, regretfully, after answers to questions, and the answer to question 15 in particular. I think you're getting there, but I think the, "I have to go away and think about this for a day or so," responses to too many of these questions, while admittedly better than making a rash and incorrect move while on the job, show that you simply are not ready. You need more experience interacting with editors who are invested in the content here, especially when those editors are in states of conflict and high stress. Even if you are not a content creator, admins have to be able to handle interactions with invested content creators. Wikipedia needs different types of admins, and I do think that if you increase your involvement and commitment to the encyclopedia and the people who write and maintain it, you'll most likely make a good admin eventually. Just not yet. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Crikey, I sometimes leave "why did u delete my article u nazi" type replies on my talk page for 24 hours. In fact, I'd rather editors waiting more before replying - how many bunfights on ANI could we avoid like that where people are going at it hammer and tongs. Less blocks, too. Seriously, the best way to destroy Wikipedia is to spend too much time on it and let it consume all your spare time, particularly if you're not the article writing kind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that saying "I need to think about this" is a sign of good judgement. It shows that an editor knows their limits, and will not go past them and thus hurt the encyclopedia. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that, for regular users involved in a conflict (or anyone in a conflict with another user), knowing when to back off and calm down is a very good thing. Ritchie, the situation you describe is one of being attacked by another user, not one of being asked to step in as an admin. I'm talking about situations where an admin is asked to step in and mediate a conflict, and that admin is not prepared to help the other editors. In that situation, the admin who is being asked to help out will not help the other editors by deciding to take a break for 24 hours while the disruption continues without them. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're opposing "based on the answer to question 15 in particular" when the candidate hasn't even answered the question yet? All GR has done is give the questioner the courtesy of saying, "I am not ignoring your question but will reply in due course." How you can extrapolate from that that he would be an admin not prepared to help out with mediation is beyond me. Will you be striking your oppose if you like his answer when he actually answers the question?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorbieVreccan: - Could I ask you to look at the answer I've provided to question 15? I think it interacts with some of your concerns. If it doesn't change your mind that's fine, but I'd appreciate if you'd do me the courtesy of reading it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly it was a mistake for me to mention an additional, minor example, as all this is tangential to the main issue. My oppose is primarily based on lack of experience. Other opposes have laid this out very clearly, and I concur. When running the RfA gauntlet, it is best to have the time to answer the questions in a timely manner. That's part of preparing for an RfA: choosing a time when you will be available to respond. The fact you were not in a space to do this during your RfA just seemed to be another example of your lack of experience and commitment. Look, I think you're on the right track and have good motives, and have said so. You just need more experience. I suggest you reflect on what people are saying here about that, OK? Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 16:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @CorbieVreccan: - Okay, thanks for thanking the time to come back. GoldenRing (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Not a fan of the low edit count. ActuallyTheFakeJTP (talk • contribs)(April Fools!) 18:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Per Davey2010 and Mkdw. Usually I don't oppose on edit count, but only 2385 edits over 12 years is really low. Sorry, but I don't think you need the tools, and you don't have enough experience either. Less than 30 edits this month is also concerning, as we need active admins. I don't see a point in giving the mop to someone who is mostly inactive. XboxGamer22408talk to me 19:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC) (moved to neutral)[reply]
  45. Oppose In the trenches experience builds trust, as it is the only thing that really comes close to demonstrating the grounds for it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. I've thought about this over the past day or so. On the one hand, I love the answers he is providing to the questions. His answer to Q5 in particular has caused myself to ruminate on my own editing philosophies. Our whole community should be reading them and considering them carefully, because he hits the nail on the head: taking a second, looking at things from the other side, then trying to cordially discuss a behavioral issue with another editor is indeed far more effective than a "cut it out or I'll block you". Such answers demonstrate the perceptiveness of the candidate; he certainly has the right temperament. The concern that regretfully leads me here is, as has been mentioned, the overall lack of experience applying the wonderful principles he holds to his general editing. There is simply not enough information at Special:Contributions/GoldenRing for me to determine whether he can apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (both administrative and content-related) accurately. If he is able to increase and diversify his activity over the next few months, I think the community would warmly welcome him as our newest administrator. Without a doubt, I have extremely high regard for him right now. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To add a bit, my comments here were not based on any kind of arbitrary number of edits. Like many others, I do not see the raw edit count as a meaningful measure of experience. It is easy to inflate an edit count by several thousands in a few months just by using Huggle or a similar semi-automated tool. Additionally, while working on articles, some editors prefer to divide their work across several edits, whereas others prefer to keep the edit window open longer and save what could have been multiple edits as one large edit—same experience, yet different edit count. Instead, I focused on the range of experience here.
    There is certainly evidence of GoldenRing adding sourced content and making general fixes, but I do not think he has a wide enough range of experience to be an administrator. Even something like edit warring, which, though a behavioral policy, is closely linked with both administrator intervention and content actions in the mainspace; knowing when to stop reverting and discuss in the event of a content disagreement is a situation that I'm not sure whether GoldenRing has found himself in before, simply because it hasn't come up. Given his solid answers to the questions, I think GoldenRing has an excellent conceptual understanding of how to respond, but I think it's also important to show that he has applied that understanding in his editing, which I simply do not have enough information to determine at this time. I agree with Nick that GoldenRing would be not desysopped if he is given the tools, but also I think that increased and diversified experience prior to adminship would be immensely beneficial for both him and the project – it'll make the job a lot easier. For this reason, I am respectfully opposing for now. Mz7 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose This editor has a lot of positives and I feel fairly confident that he is capable of contributing positively as an administrator. However, I believe that the lack of significant content creation combined with the very low edit count means that this editor is not yet fully prepared to be an administrator. My suggestion to the nominee is to spend six solid months contributing to the encyclopedia in a much more active way, including far more content creation than previously. I will be happy to support this editor at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - Your answers to the questions and general attitude make me think you would make a good admin, but with such a low level of activity and complete lack of article creation experience I am unable to support at this time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose per Valenciano; not enough experience to have my trust handling the tools. SpencerT♦C 07:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Sorry, just not enough experience IMHO. Six months/one year to up the edit count and perhaps some article creation would make a second run no doubt successful.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose I've been thinking this over the last couple of days and sadly I have to agree with the opposers. The supporters argument stems from how GoldenRing shows great skill with problem solving and a mature approach to dealing with disputes, this cannot be contested, I completely agree. However, community discussion is a secondary function of Wikipedia. The primary function is always to build an encyclopedia (be it through writing, counter-vandalism, cleanup or whatever you like). Yes, ANI and general community discussion is something we need, but mature dispute resolution and being good with words is something administrators should all do on top of building the encyclopedia in some way. —Frosty ☃ 12:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, based on review; needs to engage further in the process and as Frosty states, the "primary function" of why we are all here to begin with. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose the candidate doesn't have enough general editing experience for adminship. I don't particularly care about content creation but GoldenRing has less then 2400 edits, many of which were done through RC patrol (in which it is relatively easy to make larger numbers of edits). I'm sure s/he may become a good admin given some more experience, but it isn't there yet. Hut 8.5 14:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose poor response to Q2 -- Samir 00:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose I try to evaluate RfAs based more on a candidate's body of work and experience than their answers, and unfortunately GoldenRing doesn't have enough of a body of work for me to really do that. There's nothing in his contributions that I find concerning, but that's partly because of how few there are. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose I've said before that edit count does not equal experience, so I'm not going to use that as a reason to oppose. Instead, I'm going to point out that the area the nominee is currently primarily working in - recent changes - does not need Admin tools, and there's no backlog. GoldenRing should just carry on working in the areas they enjoy until such time as they really feel they need the Admin tools. With over 1000 administrators, there's no shortage and therefore no rush. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose If I get a good answer to my question above I will reconsider, but I really can't think of any good explanation off the top of my head for suggesting someone be blocked based on violating an admin's unilateral "No consensus, but in my opinion this might be a good solution so I'm gonna propose this very specific editing restriction for everyone" close. The fact that I was the user in question makes me somewhat biased, so take that for what it's worth. If other users disagree that's fine, but his proposal received no support and was effectively torn down by BU Rob13 (more disclosure: whose input I have sought on the above question, but who has also already !voted in this RFA anyway), so that's also a thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FTR, my opposition is based on my concern that making an admin of someone who has recently demonstrated a poor understanding of what an admin can and can't do is dangerous. I actually disagree with much of the content creation rhetoric from several of my fellow oppose !votes, as bring an admin would actually, if anything, hinder content creation, and seeing an active content creator have to take up the mop is not necessarily a good thing. Much more important is a strong understanding of policy, and edits to the WP: namespace are actually a better indicator thereof than substantial article edits. The view GR appears (per A5) to hold of active content editors does concern me a bit, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: I invite you to take a look at the answer - though I'm not sure you're going to like it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoldenRing: Whether I liked your answer or not, and whether you and I are friends or not, is irrelevant. The problem with your reply is that it didn't answer my question. I asked you about whether you thought BOLD closes made against consensus were enforceable as sanctions, and what you would do to enforce such "sanctions". The specific historical circumstances your answer focused on have nothing to do with whether you are competent to be an administrator. I could go into how your claims about what happened there (instead gave you what you asked for, for example) are wrong, but that's got nothing to do with this RFA. Only your second-to-last paragraph touched on the substance of my question, but again is invalidated as an RFA answer because you frame it exclusively in relation to my problem from two months ago: your having arrived late to that one discussion doesn't matter, because if you had been the admin to make the BOLD close, and a request had been posted on your talk page to block someone, I want to know what you would have done. I'm not all that bothered over what you would have done if you had had the mop when you happened across my ANI thread in January and a bunch of other editors had already commented, and my question was not about whether you think any unilateral admin action at that point [emphasis added] would have been extremely controversial and counter-productive.
    All that said, is it fair to read your response as indicating that you think unilateral BOLD closes are enforceable as sanctions if the sanctioned editors didn't request a formal close review on AN? I don't think that is a very good attitude for an admin to take, since (i) it implies that the sanction in question is only valid based on the consent of the sanctioned (i.e., it is a voluntary self-restriction), and so cannot be effectively enforced by blocks, and (ii) (this is more a personal opinion than a policy-based statement) an informal protest on the closer's talk page (as opposed to a formal close review on AN) is enough to invalidate the voluntary, self-imposed nature of the restriction. This is the only thing I can glean from your response about what GoldenRing-as-admin, and I don't think that's a good sign.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 2500 edits is too low, especially considering they became active in 2013. --Rschen7754 06:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754: How many edits did you have when you passed RfA? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
    @Ritchie333: About 4,000, and about half of those in the article space. But more than that: Rschen's RFA was 11 years ago, it had only 24 supports, and 12 of those are no longer active. (I was actually surprised none of them had since been indeffed, given how that's usually the case when I go back and do check's like this.) The Encyclopedia is a different place than it was back then, so a recent example would support your point much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Rschen7754 had, in his preceding nine months, 1770 mainspace edits, and 3514 total edits, not counting any deleted edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think anyone could deny the place has changed in the last 11 years (BLP is adhered to now, more sourcing is required, more Arbcom cases mean admins are closer vetted) but I don't see how just a simply tally of edits has anything to do with it, and why 3,000 edits was enough 10 years ago, whereas today we want 10,000. I think that's basically what TimothyJosephWood was getting at, above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't subscribe to the 10,000 edits philosophy, but 2500 edits divided over 39 months is about 64 edits a month, or a little over 2 edits a day. I don't think that's enough to demonstrate the familiarity with the site that I would expect from an administrator. --Rschen7754 18:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose per Frosty. I know it's not always seen as fair to oppose for content creation reasons, but I do personally think it's important. If you've never created an article or contributed significantly to creating one, then I don't think you can demonstrate to us that you have the knowledge needed to mediate and administrate the work of those who do write such articles. My advice would be to go and get some experience in main space, find some sources, write some material, (it's really good fun, honest!) and then come back here once you've done so.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose User simply isn't active enough. In addition, I do not believe this nominee, given tools entrusted to police our policies, has enough content experience to have an adequate idea about what it is to be a content creator. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose No significant actual indication of knowledge of WP:BLP policy nor any substantive editing or creation in that area. Reasonable voting at AfD does not move the scales enough, alas. Collect (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak Oppose. Would probably make a good admin in the future, if he can show the community that he will be active enough to deserve the mop. Be active where admins are active, look as doing WP:NAC where possible, show us you commitment to the project, otherwise it can be persevered as "hat collecting". Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. By the supporters' logic, anyone can become admin by contributing 2000+ edits and reverting vandalism. I think the candidate should contribute more by content creation. - TheMagnificentist 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Please do not take this AfD personally, editors here just want you to have more experience is all. I would be happy to support your re-nomination later down the line when you have obtained this goal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA, right? I sincerely hope GoldenRing doesn't get deleted. --Joshualouie711talk 19:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. GR's admin activity if he were promoted is likely to be the same as his editing activity, not very much. There are some who believe that any good use of the tools is a benefit to the project. I'm not one of those. Admins, of course, do not have to be slaves, but they shouldn't be passing through, either, whenever they have a moment to spare. I agree that GR's answers are insightful and well written, but that doesn't help much if that insight is rarely going to be applied as an admin. Based on his very honest answers, I don't see the pattern of his low activity likely to change.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23:"There are some who believe that any good use of the tools is a benefit to the project. I'm not one of those." This seems to defy common sense. This is a voluntary project where people give as much or as little time as they like, and can quit at any time. There is no "quota" of admins with a maximum ceiling; we do not have the situation that McDonalds or Costa have that once you reach a limit of people there is neither the money nor the space to add any more. That isn't an issue here. So this stance of wanting to keep unpaid and sometimes tricky work all to yourself seems arse-backwards. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Certainly everyone's level of activity varies according to their availability and interest, but if you start off with someone whose history indicates a low level of activity, it's likely that if they are made an admin that is going to continue. The admin tools, if misused by someone with a lesser level of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and social mores, can be quite disruptive and damaging to the Wikipedia careers of rank-and-file editors, so I think we owe it to the community to give the bit to people who have shown by their own history that they understand what's going on and will wield their powers beneficially. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any relationship between activity and how "difficult" an admin ends up being - I think Biblio did a study a while back. Anyway, the candidate himself has said "I'm sure we're all aware of the admin who's had a long term grudge who jumps on an AE report to issue a long block, or the admin who makes a false accusation and then continually doubles down on it, or the admin who takes a thread with a lot of back-and-forth and issues the maximum possible block within the letter of an arbcom remedy, or the admin who treats an ANI request about themselves as vandalism and edit-wars it closed.". Now either he is perfectly aware of what traps not to fall into, or he's the biggest troll RfA has ever seen. I'm convinced it's not the latter of those. From my experience, if you delete something, and then restore it with an apology in response to a complaint, people tend to go away satisfied - after all, you've told them they were right and you were wrong. I'm sure you can think of admins that don't do that! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly I can, and I absolutely don't mean to imply in any way that GoldenRing is trolling us, but I do think that this is a relationship between how much time one puts in here, and how familiar one is with the culture. Specifically -- and this is something I've mentioned in many RfAs -- I think that for the most part we need new admins who are intimately familiar with the problems faced by content workers (not just content creators), and that really only comes with the experience of working with content, the kind of experience GoldenRing is pretty light on. I don't have any particular reservations about GR's personality or demeanor as seen here and in their editing, but I am concerned about the paucity of their contribution levels, especially spread over a longish period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose I'm sorry, but... A lack of participation makes it hard to hold an advanced position. it undermines reliability, and- nothing against you- trust. Being an administrator is time consuming and the decisions one has to make in that position are important. If the phone rings, but you're not there to answer, what's the point of calling in the first place? Again, nothing against you, but truly, I want leadership that is there to answer the call of duty. Sincerely, Nikolai Petrenko Blakovich. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - it's been months but seeing this edit still makes me wince. George Ho wasn't the person who said he wasn't pinging Thryduulf / Tone / Masem / 331dot, that was actually me (as pointed out by GorillaWarfare one day later). Getting accused of doing something you didn't do is aggravating, as is the fact that GoldenRing evidently didn't pay close enough attention to the case before making the edit. I can't believe in an administrator who does this. It is one thing to think TRM should not have been blocked (that is subjective after all); it is another to make factually inaccurate accusations of bad faith. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banedon: What can I say? Mea culpa - a clear mistake. I don't feel too sorry for George Ho, though, and if anyone is wondering why, I encourage them to read that workshop page in full, paying particular attention to his contributions - they really speak for themselves. I don't hold any grudge against George - I've not really interacted with him a lot - but that's no way to conduct yourself at arb. GoldenRing (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention finding of fact #9 in that case. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I give you props for the courage to say "mea culpa", but I still can't support. Even if George Ho's behavior was less than ideal, he's still human (see also WP:HUMAN). This kind of bashing is inappropriate. Banedon (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose - it's kinda like WP:NotJustYet. I think "Admin Specialists" wouldn't be a bad idea - ones who have tools for specific tasks only, like vandals and PP, or moves/merges/deletion, or AN/I and drama boards only, etc. That way, termperament vetting won't be a big deal with applicants that haven't done much article creation, and the rest of us are spared from getting hit with a wet mop some day because we voted for an inexperienced content editor with a bad temperament we couldn't possibly know about because they lacked exposure....or something along that line. Atsme📞📧 04:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Moved from neutral Whether or not the mop seem appropriate at this stage is anyone's guess, in my opinion however the user comes across as not needing them at this stage. Apologies. Nördic Nightfury 10:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Dweller's managed to convince me... Moved to support Nördic Nightfury 11:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose - I'm with those saying the lack of edit history is the deal breaker here. Jusdafax 10:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose - Admins need to have a lot more experience than you have demonstrated. You need to contribute more to the project before getting the mop. Polyamorph (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose The main goal of the project and their contributors is to build an encyclopedia. To me, no article creation and low edit count conspire against the goal. Sorry.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Low activity counts. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose - others have said it better, but basically lack of experience and activity does not inspire confidence. ansh666 06:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Insufficient experience with content creation. Low number of overall edits, and this editor only contributed 12 edits to their most edited article, so they lack experience both with general editing and with focused, high-quality content creation. Gamaliel (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Unsuited by temperament and history. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MarkBernstein, could you please provide diffs showing an unsuitable temperament? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ONUnicorn:I won't second-guess what he's referring to, but you should probably be at least aware of this. I'm posting this here as MB has an indefinite topic ban which he would arguably be breaching if he were to answer your question directly. GoldenRing (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose based on CSD issues, basically per SoWhy's oppose, but I will develop a bit. Per Q1, the candidate intends to work in that area. In Q12, they write A7 seems to me to be a way of telling authors that (...) they need to give us at least some hint about why [their article] should be there. In practice, this is often very similar to A1, because once you've identified [the topic], their claim to notability usually becomes obvious. This shows a misunderstanding of the criteria: if I give the full name and address of Mr. Foo, that person is completely identifiable and does not fall under WP:A1, but it will not create a credible claim of significance. Let me hasten to add that I strongly disagree with the "edit count" comments, or with the "content creation needed" comments: I will support at RfA anyone who can demonstrate sufficient competence and minimal risk of abuse in their intended work area, because that is what is needed to have a good probability that the candidate will be a net positive. For instance, I am convinced that GoldenRing would do a fine job of vandal-smacking, and would have supported had they answered Q1 with only AIV. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've misunderstood what GoldenRing was talking about. Where the similarity comes into play for A1 and A7 is you just need the bare minimum to allow you to improve an article further. In the case of Mr. Foo, an article that just gives his address might meet A7, but it might be that Mr Foo is all over the local news having just defeated Sir Bufton Tufton in the Lymeswold by election yesterday and the creator hasn't had time to add that because an over-eager NPP tagger popped {{db-person}} two minutes after the article was created (and missed the article had already been deleted per BLPPROD twice last year). This is why I try to ask NPP related questions at RfA that refer to actual real potential articles, because the trouble with a hypothetical question is you only get a hypothetical answer. Anyway, just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan: Ritchie333 has it - this was an attempt to explain by example, not from first principles - obviously it was not universally successful. The prior discussion on this page of A1 and A7 was in regard to Caleb Walker. I tagged it as A1 and it was deleted as A7. The sole content of the article was "jo puta." This was not enough for me to identify the subject of the article (he's an actor who's stood in as a body double for his own brother and is not regarded as notable for an article) so A1 was appropriate (if technically too soon to use that tag by about ten minutes). If the content had been, "He's an actor who was in Furious 7," then neither A1 nor A7 would be entirely appropriate, in my view; there is now enough context to identify exactly who they're talking about and at least an implicit claim to notability. It'd still be on the edge of A7, but do you see what I mean? Once you've got enough information to identify someone with a credible claim to significance, you've usually got enough information to at least begin assessing whether they meet WP:N, and at that point there's a fair chance they're also over the bar for A7. GoldenRing (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral per that answer. I still disagree with the interpretation of a "credible claim of significance" (I would say "<actor> played in <film with its own Wikipedia article>" always constitutes a CCS), but I am admittedly among A7 hardliners, so on that point it is just splitting hairs. However, SoWhy's oppose raises other dubious CSDs, so I cannot support (again, when CSD is in the answer to Q1) - I cannot check the diffs, but Ritchie's answer makes me think SoWhy did not misrepresent the situation. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Weak Oppose, I haven't commented on RfA for some time, however, even though the individual in question does not have any significant negatives, the individual doesn't appear to have any significant positives either. While the individual wants to fight vandals, which is good, one doesn't need the mop for the majority of anti-vandal tasks. Keep up the fight against vandals, and maybe sometime in the future, I can move out of the oppose side.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Weak Oppose, regretfully, largely echoing the concerns of Mz7 and Bbb23. Good responses to questions, but not enough evidence to compare them against. I haven't seen anything egregious as I go through diffs, but having GG and other contentious areas be a major focus is mildly concerning. That wouldn't be nearly enough to push me to oppose in most cases, especially because what constitutes "major focus" in this case wouldn't be so noticeable in the histories of most other candidates, but again, there's just not enough experience on which to base a "bigger picture" opinion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose regretfully. I think you are a decent editor, but your edit count is rather low for an RFA candidate. Your editing patterns also appear unlikely to change - but I do appreciate your careful answers to all the questions, as well as your honesty. Should this RFA fail and your activity increase, I would be likely to support next time. Patient Zerotalk 09:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Your relatively low amount of contributions across all aspects of the project do not provide enough historical information for me to make a determination of your capabilities to be an administrator at this time. You mention working with patrolling of edit by new users, but I notice you have not really been involved in patrolling new pages (barely any patrols or page curations in recent years logged). You mention working with anti vandalism, but have very little actual vandalism cleanup logged. Tools creation is admirable, but without participating in these areas I don't think you will be able to relate with the editors that do sufficiently as an administrator. Regarding Q10, your response tells me you don't have much experience dealing with these types of deletions - which would be at MFD - and that would be OK, but you didn't call out that it is something you are not ready to deal. Should this RfA not pass, I encourage you to stay engaged and active at least at the rate you have been in 2017 (~2000 edits/year) and reapply in a year. — xaosflux Talk 12:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose this time: need to see more article work. May well support a future RfA, but not yet. Jonathunder (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose Only 278 non-automated mainspace edits, only 23% of total edits are to mainspace, and no article creation – this is the core of what Wikipedia is about and sours the deal for me. Mojoworker (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose Concerns that the editor does not have the temperament to be trusted with these tools. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify your concerns. Irondome (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Irondome: Self-nom, seems drawn to controversial editing areas in their (somewhat limited?) editing experience - this seems indicative of a temperament not suited to having the mop, but that is just my opinion. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose !vote Not enough experience with Wikipedia to be a successful administrator. EditSafe (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose For now: simply not enough mainspace experience to be an admin yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose - I'm not in the camp that every admin should have to have an FA or something ludicrous like that, but there is a minimum threshold of mainspace article writing and editing experience an admin should have, and right now, this candidate doesn't reach that level. This oppose is without prejudice to a future RFA after significantly more mainspace experience is gained. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose, regretfully - After looking through your edits, content creation etc. It seems like you have a very low edit count, and also you does not have any experirence in content creation. If you can participate in at least some article creation or be more active throughout the year, I may be supporting you at the distant future. NgYShung huh? 08:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose I've gone back and forth on this and struggled to make my mind up. There's no doubt that the candidate does a good job of answering the questions posed to them, and is quite knowledgable about the community and its rules. However I believe that practical experience is important for an administrator, that there are some things you can only fully understand through experience of being involved, and this users edit count does not fill me with confidence that they have that experience. If nothing else, we've turned down far more experienced candidates over trivialities, and that the community has been so supportive of this user surprises me greatly. Sam Walton (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else, we've turned down far more experienced candidates over trivialities, and that the community has been so supportive of this user surprises me greatly. - methinks the "RfA has turned to hell" trope, fuelled by some ridiculous opposes on each new RfA, has swung the median voter towards giving the mop more liberally, somewhere around the end of 2016; either because new people have come and are more mop-giving, or because the moderates flee the "always-oppose" faction. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Sorry but I can't support you yet. Being able to answers questions well and make some fashionable statements, does not make up for a lack of experience. I am also concerned about poor CSD judgements. Will be happy to support after a period of more sustained editing with a better track record of following the deletion criteria. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
edit
I don't think I can support; there just isn't enough solid of evidence of good judgement and tact that is required in adminship, as much discussed at User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. However, your answer in Q4 is thinking along the right lines, and your reason for wanting the tools ("I'm fed up with the backlogs on AN") and general feeling you just put this RfA up to see what would happen is the correct way to go about it. Get some experience under your belt with content, and some more NPP work, and then consider filing a poll at WP:ORCP about this time next year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC) (moved to support)[reply]
Moral support. I don't think there's any question that you are here to build the encyclopedia, and all evidence I have as to your temperament is encouraging. That's not a substitute for experience, though, so I'd suggest chugging along for a little while longer (how long that is depends mostly on you). I'd happily support at some point in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Moving to support. Vanamonde (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Vanamonde. I want to support but don't think the experience is there. I'll expand now that more questions have been answered: I would love nothing more than to support, but I agree with Rob and Ad Orientem. We need a track record with the current labyrinth of policy and guidelines that is the English Wikipedia. I can't bring myself to oppose because as I mentioned below, I think GoldenRing's good attitude and approach to RfA is sorely needed. I can't bring myself to support because as I also mentioned below, I feel I would be !voting to make a point rather than to actually express support in this particular candidate If this ends up being a 'crat chat, I do want to express my desire for the 'crats to weight less arbitrary not enough edits votes. There are valid reasons to think this, but I see some pile ons in addition to the very well thought out opposes of Rob and Ad whom I am sympathetic towards. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC) moved to oppose TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what has been said above. You seem to be a good editor, but you need to get more experience before you can pass here. Lepricavark (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC) moved to support Lepricavark (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with moral support per Vanamonde93. I'll be more than happy to support once you get some more experience under your belt. --Joshualouie711talk 13:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Moved to Support. [reply]
  1. Neutral. Edit count should not be a barrier. Rather, understanding Wikipedia's policies and having respect for other's contributions should be deciding factors -- especially those editors who are new to Wikipedia. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TeriEmbrey: Nobody has called either of those two aspects of the candidate's work into question! — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I agree with you. I was trying to make the point that we should be looking at how one interacts with others over edit counts and "experience on Wikipedia". TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @TeriEmbrey: Ah, I see- thing is- funnily enough!- that's what all the 'support' !votes are doing  ;) cheers, — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 17:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - I can't support because of the fact that the areas that this editor wants to go in to are areas where this editor has gotten a recent warning. But, I can't oppose either because of the fact that this editor seems to be willing to learn. In the future, this editor could make a great admin. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC) move to support[reply]
    Neutral for now - I'm still looking over contribs. User seems dedicated in the areas of personal interest, but low participation level and lack of content creation concerns me. Also waiting on question responses. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC) move to oppose, per answer to question 15. sorry :( [reply]
  2. Neutral, I'm afraid I can't support because of lack of activity over the years, but I find your temperament and judgement to be satisfactory. Don't be discouraged! --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral: Don't want to oppose the candidate, but can not support either too. ~500 mainspace edits is not good, please create and expand content. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Titodutta: Thanks for the reasoning you stated, which I feel people are missing in this discussion and others at RfA. "Cannot support" does not mean "must oppose." Airbornemihir (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I would encourage the candidate to increase their level of activity, while maintaining the quality of editing they've already displayed and perhaps branching out into other areas of the project, then return here after waiting at least a year. That should consist of, at the very least, doubling their current edit count. Actions (i.e. editing and experience) speak much louder than words (i.e. answers to RfA questions) for me. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, in principle I have no problem with a candidate not crossing an arbitrary threshold of experience, but at the same time I don't think this particular candidate has enough. I wish you the best of luck, and hope you can be successful in the next year or so. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Moved to support Kharkiv07 (T) 02:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Moral Support, I wish I could fully support you but your lack of experience makes it hard to fully support you. That being said, I would fully support you in the future once you have more experience, and I wish you the best of luck with your endeavors. XboxGamer22408talk to me 22:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Moved to support [reply]
  5. Neutral. You're almost there, and you have the temperament and judgment to be a good admin, which is the most important thing. If you get your mainspace count up, I'm sure your next RfA attempt will be successful. Werónika (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral Support/Weak Oppose (so basically neutral). While I am satisfied with the answers to GoldenRing's questions and I am sure he understands policy, he also has a very low recent edit count. This doesn't indicate that he'll be very active in admin tasks. However, I am willing to support him in a future RFA if he can provide proof of increased activity level. epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. The nominee has the drive to get things done ... but just hasn't done so lately. This brave self-nomination is a bit WP:NOTYET, though I can't believe I'm saying that about a candidate that has been registered on Wikipedia for 13 years. I have to give the nominee props for jumping head-first into this process, and they have my moral support for sure, but I can't throw myself into the "support" section due to lack of recent evidence of work in admin-related fields. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to support. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral: I believe we lack sufficient information to deliver an adequate opinion as to whether this editor would be a good fit for the toolset. I admit that twelve years ago, GoldenRing possibly could have been granted the mop without much fanfare, but times have changed. Answers to RfA questions are a poor surrogate for past performance given how standardized the RfA questions have become. I wish we had a mechanism to give people a trial run at using the tools, like we do for BRFA, after which we would hold the RfA proper, which would ideally focus on performance and demeanor within the trial window. I would have no problem letting GoldenRing have such a trial run, and in fact, would likely have no issue with most of the RfA candidates who I have opposed in the past being given such a trial run. But I'm getting off-topic. My point is that we simply do not have enough information to predict performance to a level where I would feel comfortable granting effectively lifetime access to the tools (and given how notoriously difficult deadminning is in situations where there has been no vandalism, it effectively lifetime appointment). I choose not to oppose, however, because I simply do not have the information necessary to justify that action either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - I disagree with the commenters regarding content creation. The English Wikipedia already has millions of articles, there are only so many notable articles that can be created. I also think a complete focus on article space work isn't a prerequisite either, this is a diverse community with a diverse set of strengths.What worries me is the lack of editing. Not as much in this case for a lack of knowledge, but for a lack of commitment, which is important when it comes to adminship. South Nashua (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @South Nashua: I think you've misunderstood what "content creation" means, it's basically writing and supplying sources, which is just as much improving existing articles than starting new ones. There are only so many important articles one can create, granted, but there are also over 200,000 articles without any sources including 51 that have been unreferenced for over ten years. So there's plenty to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: 49 now, for what it's worth. GoldenRing (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Perhaps, but I think it's not a precise term, the word "creation" connotes a beginning of something. While that could technically be applied to "creating" updates to article space items, I think more precise terminology such as "article space work" or something like that would be more valuable to identify the concept being communicated. I do agree that there is plenty to do. South Nashua (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly why I used the expressions "content work" or "content worker", which covers not only the creation of new articles ex nihilo and the addition of new content to existing articles, but also the various forms of copy editing, visual adjustments such as the selection and layout of images, finding or expanding references and so on. It is this work which is the backbone of the project, because the encyclopedia would not exist without it. That is why I consider it key that new admins understand the problems and needs of editors who do that work. (Obviously, we also need all the other types of involvement, or we would have, for instance, an encyclopedia full of vandalized articles, but the articles need to be there in the first place to have an encyclopedia.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral From all this discussion I've seen, there's not much I can say, But most likely support once you have more edits.The garmine (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answer to question. Moved to oppose support. Nördic Nightfury 09:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - In my opinion, edit count is not a good predictor of facility with the mop. As someone who has spent way more time reading Wikipedia than editing it, I can relate to anyone who has been here a while and knows the ropes but doesn't have the numbers to show for it. Your case is a little extreme, however, and to me it invites not the pronouncement "Not yet" but rather the question "Why now?" I have little doubt you'd be a competent and diligent admin, and I base this not only on my own check of your contributions and talk-page history but on the "support" votes of various Wikipedians whose judgment I value highly. Also, your answers are generally impressive. But the same would be true a year from now, and in that interval you could (with some effort) rack up enough quality edits to sail through RfA with way less opposition, picking up support not only from people with an unhealthy fixation on the numbers but from those who just haven't seen you shine in enough contexts yet. Count me among the latter. If this were a binary poll I'd be in the "support" section, and if this passes, I certainly won't be disappointed. If it fails, I sincerely hope you'll come back and try again. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral Honestly, it's refreshing to see such an unique candidate, I would have surely asked a question if I was a bit earlier. Not many people would take the plunge with this edit count, especially after you're aware how the entire procedure is and how the community goes about it. I agree with my fellows here who praise some of his answers, I think I find them a tad bit better than the rest (not saying I liked all of his answers) but again, I need to appreciate his tenacity for sticking through. While I have no doubt, that you'd not misuse the tools, I still do not see a need for its use. I'd appreciate it if you would work more on the administrative side and prove your worth, rather than making us believe you are a net positive, which you surely are. Again, this was not meant to be demeaning in any way, I apologize if it does seem like it. Edit count/time on the wiki does factor into my RfA standards but if any user can surpass it with something else, it's not really a problem. Although you have the ideal temperament and proper civility, I guess you're lacking the depth. --QEDK (愛) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral, moved from oppose; see rationale in the oppose section. Basically, I am not comfortable with the CSD stuff. TigraanClick here to contact me 11:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral One of the examples you give as a content contribution is nearly a BLP violation. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Support - You have my provisional support for unique-ish answer to #10. We need admins who know when not to burn a new user for want of a few kilobytes. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark Schierbecker, to be clear, a BLP violation months after we declared TDM as unreliable, but not more than a year before the fact. TimothyJosephWood 23:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you rephrase, Timothyjosephwood? I don't understand what you said. The Daily Mail was always unpermitted on BLPs. Months ago an RFC determined to blacklist it entirely. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mark Schierbecker: I'm sorry to have lost your support over this. It's a curious case, and I wish I'd remembered it during the recent RFC on using TDM as a source. Is it contentious or controversial that Blatter was married in 2002 and divorced in 2004? Not in the least. Is it easy to find a reliable source to support it? Well... no. It turns out to be rather difficult to source a date for the divorce, and as far as I can tell TDM is the only English-language source that's even close to WP:RS. There are then a variety of non-English-language sources but I'm not sure many of them are a whole lot better. Perhaps, on reflection, it'd be better to just remove the date as unsourceable — but, bearing in mind this was before the RFC, it seemed ridiculous not to use a source that was available for a basic fact like this. GoldenRing (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I wanted to flat out support but the lack of overall edits does give me pause. I realize it isn't everything but I think that 2k (when this RfA started) just isn't enough to be well rounded in Wikipedia and demonstrate the ability to work in some areas. I think based on the answers you'd do fine but I'm just not sure what the point of giving the mop to a user who averages ~1-2 edits/daily would be. And I can't clarify this enough- I think you have a great head on your shoulders, the temperament and tact to be an admin, I just think the lack of overall experience is concerning but I also have to say, bravo to you for braving RfA. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)moved to support[reply]
  14. Neutral. I like the tact and thoughtfulness shown by the candidate, but can it be maintained while editing expeditiously? That is something that a higher edit count might show, as well as commitment; and there are plenty of non-admin backlogs that need attention with which to build that edit count, if you are really concerned about backlogs. Also, I think that to self-nominate, when it brings on such a problematic RfA, doesn't show great judgment and isn't something to be encouraged. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
edit
I think his answer to Q5 is brilliant, personally. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 from me. What an excellent, thoughtful answer to Q5. Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm bordering on saying the hell with it and moving my neutral moral support to full support because I think GoldenRing's forthrightness with the answers and attitude through this process are actually the exact type of antidote needed to some of the worst parts of RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There would be a certain nobility to it, wouldn't there Tony... a bit like Leicester winning the Cup, the little guy vs The Man™ (and apologies to GoldenRing for miniaturising you!), David and Goliath, Jack the Giant Killer, etc etc... ;) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I look at my waistline and think, "Ah, if only..." GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, FIM, it would be great, but also a bit WP:POINTy IMHO. I agree too much with Ad's most recent oppose vote re: track record. Though, if this gets to a 'crat chat, I do hope my comments about how useless a metric average daily edit count is for a sleeper account from 2004 that reactivated. My official daily average is 1.6 for similar reasons. GoldRing, have a beer!TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the feedback so far. Please note that, for my sins, I'm appearing in a pantomime in about an hour and so will be less responsive to questions, probably until tomorrow AM in the UK. GoldenRing (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behind you!!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, all right, we've done that bit.GoldenRing (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no you haven't! Mortee (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On with the Saturday matinee...GoldenRing (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kudpung :-). It may surprise you, but this was the answer I was wanting and that I was hoping for when I asked it -- I spent good time formulating these questions (and yes, I have many more). I felt that Question 5 would be a good addition, as it deals with a very controversial area in the realm of adminship. Getting GoldenRing's thoughts on this area in general, as well as how to deal with it in the right manner -- would be a question that would really "make or break" confidence to voters. Answering the question properly requires a high degree of knowledge, experience, and a thought process that reflects a high understanding of such. I'm happy that the question turned out such a great answer :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this RfA is a half-slick scheme to get the mop and do nothing to earn it. Think about it: You want to be an admin but you don't want to do the work. Show up at RfA, tell everyone all the backlogs bother you and you'd be great for the job, regardless. The clueless among us agree, the backlogs are out of control, a vote for candidate is a vote to control the backlogs. Candidate gets mop while we've turned away many better-qualified candidates. The lie that there's an admin shortage really has gained traction. Wikipedia's revealed preference is that not only is there no shortage, there's probably a glut. If we as an aggregate really believed there was a shortage we'd elect more admins without consideration of merit and I don't think the statistics show that. I think that's the key reason to have objective criteria for stuff like RfA. Making these decisions subjectively (as some Wikipedians clearly do) allows for cognitive biases to play a role. I can only assume the move last year to advertise active RfAs was a hope to override the votes of practiced hands with a bunch of drive-by editors fully expecting these sorts of runs. I don't have anything personal against this candidate or their apparent plot. I just refuse to play this game. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you were "not playing the game" you wouldn't be participating in RfAs, full stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are trying to badger the oppose voters. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Instead of editing, editors should prepare themselves for question-answer tests to pass RFA? Marvellous Spider-Man 14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I am opposing this RfA, I would be a liar if I did not admit to a certain admiration for the candidates "Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!" spirit. Very few candidates with similar numbers would not have withdrawn by now. I look forward to their next RfA (assuming this one fails which though likely, is not a given). -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree, and it is very admirable that they are ready to accept it and move on if they fail here. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1, Ad's comment along with GoldenRing's (very truthful and transparent) answer to my comment is why I moved from neutral to oppose, and I think this comment here sums up my views on this RFA. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'd be surprised the other way. People withdraw on even higher support percentages than this if something comes out in the RFA and the discussion starts to swing against them. They also withdraw if the support percentage is stabilising at a figure well below the discretionary zone. On the rare occasions when someone withdraws with over 60% support I tend to wonder why. This RFA is only a little below the discretionary zone and it wouldn't take much for it to rise into it. My own first RFA ran the whole 7 days fairly consistently just below GoldenRing's support percentage, and that was when the discretionary range was 70-75% not the current 65-75%. Things are tough enough on those with majority support but who don't have consensus it would seem odd if we were encouraging people to with draw when they clearly have majority support. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To those in opposition based on the rationale, "low activity is unlikely to change; inappropriate to grant tools to someone who doesn't intend to use them frequently enough to make a difference" – does that mean we should raise the bar on activity levels required to retain the admin bit? Surely we can expect this candidate to use the tools more than once per year! wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should put Giano's "Campaign for less bull more writing" into action. :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to give props to the nominee for not withdrawing this nomination. even though numerically at the present time (64%), this nomination will probably fail. I think this nomination will set up a foundation for other nominees who are willing to "test the waters", so to speak and see how the community reacts to someone with quite a bit of drive, but as somewhat mentioned above, lack of proof of the drive. In fact, even though the numbers say otherwise, I'd really be interested to see what happens if this discussion goes to bureaucrat discussion, just to get bureaucrats' take on this nomination and results. (But, per procedure right now, it probably won't go to "crat chat", but I'd still be interested.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Updated my comment. I forgot that the bottom part of the threshold for no consensus is now 65%, so there's now a chance that may go to bureaucratic discussion, considering that I noticed that the percentage went up 3% during the past few days. Good luck GoldenRing!) Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I am curious, how is that number calculated? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: I believe the equation is (Support) / (Support + Oppose) . From my understanding, "neutral" votes aren't used in the calculation. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Thanks for the response! It is now a 66% approval rating roughly by the calculation you gave (as in directions on how to make it). Wonder if this one will get discussed by the bureaucrats. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: If you look at WP:RfA the summary has the percentage calculated for you (not that I've look at that at all over the past six days...) It is indeed as TheSandDoctor says, S / (S + O). If neutrals were counted, making it S / (S + O + N), then they would have exactly the same effect as opposes. The number also appears to be rounded to the nearest integer. If you're interested in the nuts and bolts, the calculation is done by User:Cyberbot_I and the result pasted into User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report, which is included in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header. GoldenRing (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: I think you meant to ping TheSandDoctor... Steel1943 (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: Thanks for the info! Looks like you are now at 67% approval rating. @Steel1943: Thanks for tagging me back in the convo! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347: A lot of people are saying that edit count and content creation is irrelevant. Well.. is it really? Those two things show experience in an editor, and GoldenRing is lacking those two- therefore lacking experience. Some of the things I have seen referred to in the oppose sections also tell me I don't think he is trustworthy. I am brand new to Wikipedia, and I always clock in some substantial time every day (because I like to help others physically understand things, thus the purpose of wikipedia). I cannot, and will not say that I am experienced on wikipedia, but I do know that the rate of GR's activity is... well, frankly, very poor. It shows me that they just don't care enough. I do understand that GR may have a very busy life outside of wikipedia, but if that is the case, why in the world would you ask for a nomination of a position you won't be able to be active in? Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, I must say that content creation isn't a huge issue for me, and edit count isn't an issue either. I just don't see why GR needs to be an Admin. If they expressed a need, that'd be different and they'd get my support (not that I expect them or anyone else to care about that!) Exemplo347 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this wasn't essentially a lifetime appointment, revocable only by repeated, extreme misuse of tools or other serious offenses like socking, then I think that it would be justified to "take a chance" on an ambitious, worthy editor with a low edit count. But we haven't reached that point. Coretheapple (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a bea. reviews Gold's RFA in the first place, It's looking like they'll probably see the amount of issues about his actual experience, and that will certainly break the deal. In my own personal opinion, I feel he is a bit... untrustworthy? We need admins we can trust and who will be there to answer the call, and I don't know if I can say that GR is the right fit for the job. He isn't at all a dedicated editor. (I won't even broach the subject of his lack of content creation.) Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, User:Nikolaiblakovich. — O Fortuna velut luna... 16:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my apologies. Just worries, is all. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) From what I can see you are not in any position to make derogatory comments. I would trust him considerably more than I would trust you. If you think someone is "a bit untrusworthy" you need to be justifying that. It is clear personal attack. No one needs to answer "the call" as you put it, but hopefully someone will answer my call to put you on notice about your highly dubious claims. Leaky Caldron 16:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaky caldron: I hope you weren't thinking... knowledgeable RfA commentary after 2.5 weeks tenure...? ;) — O Fortuna velut luna... 17:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. I give GR my respect, but from all of the information that has been presented to me I am slightly suspect. I do not have to elaborate on the matter, and I will not elaborate, because it is still on the table. Nikolaiblakovich (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now folks, this isn't a place for arguments. Personally I prefer to argue while drunk at family occasions - the more formal, the better - but that's just me. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my point is that there is insufficient evidence to say much of anything about this editor, positive or negative. He seems OK. But since these are lifetime positions, and since the barriers for removal are so high, we need more substance. That's all. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaky caldron: @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: - Alright, chaps. If I could be indulged with a little WP:OWN on my own RfA, let's leave it at that. No need to start a bun fight or get drunk at this family gathering. If people don't trust me, they don't trust me, and that's what we're here to make a judgement on. GoldenRing (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it's not about trust- just upholding NPA. O to be a guardian of Truth at this family bash :) — O Fortuna velut luna... 18:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this will end in the discretionary zone, and I suspect a crat chat. Interesting questions arise for the crats such as what if any weight one can give arguments based on zero new articles or even zero file uploads. The arguments claiming zero content contributions are disproved by q17, the argument boils down to Sufficient v Insufficient content creation and experience plus some speedy tagging issues. But if you discard the "zero content contributions" arguments as mistaken or exaggerated to make a fellow editor look bad, then I'm not sure if it is still in the discretionary zone. ϢereSpielChequers 07:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for ignoring empty arguments like that. I'd also support ignoring the "You won't win, but have my support !vote as some sort of virtual hug" arguments. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a 'crat chat is the only sensible way forward. What I find particularly unusual about the discussion here is that there are few to none of the typical "per nom" or "I thought he was an admin already" comments we normally find in the "support" section. Therefore somebody's got to go through the support and oppose rationales carefully and see what weight applies to each. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to pose a problem, I'm sure! GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GoldenRing&oldid=1146518514"