Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hmwith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:36, 30 May 2007

hmwith

Voice your opinion (30/11/11); Scheduled to end 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

hmwith (talk · contribs) - I regularly participate in WikiProjects, combat vandalism, make substantial edits as well as minor, tedious fixes, participate in AFD discussions, and upload free images. Plus, I always assume good faith. Also, note that I contributed for several years before creating an account, so I have no simply been participating here for 2.5 months. hmwith talk 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend on doing a lot of routine maintenance, such as deleting legit speedy delete pages, editing protected pages when it is needed, blocking IP addresses that have gotten several recent "last warnings", and other tasks. I would love to help Wikipedia reach its fullest potential.

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

A: I create a great deal of needed templates, upload my own, free images, and fix grammar and such on articles. Everyday, I revert a great deal of vandalism on my watched articles as well as recent changes. I particularly enjoy fixing improperly cited references, as one can see in my edit summaries. I also regularly take part in AFD and other similar discussions, as well as provide third opinions.

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: There have been one of two good faith users who didn't know Wikipedia policy. I tried to educate them, used a third opinion, and we reached a compromise. If no one will compromise, I simply take the page or template off of my watchlist, and let it go. In the future, I will always assume good faith, and try to reach a compromise.

Optional question by User:Sefringle

4 What articles have you made a lot of contributions to? Briefly describe your contributions to those articles. What exactly is your bias?

A: My most edited articles include Gesu School and Hayley, both of which I fully created, as well as completely rewriting St. Ursula Academy (Toledo, Ohio), Kings (drinking game), NERF, Beer pong, Asshole (game), and Drinking game to the highest quality with available resources/references, as well as adding a great deal of information to Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Roman Catholic Diocese of Toledo, and Toledo, Ohio. I've also created many templates, including my most edited Guster, Toledo, Spaniels, Mobile phones, and Toy dogs.

5 As you are still a new user, only two months old[1], do you think you fully understand Wikipedia policies? Explain. Do you think your lack of experience editing wikipedia may put you at a disadvantage when it comes to the work you would do if you were to become an admin?

A: I have taken in a lot during these months. I've edited Wikipedia for years, and I feel that I am completely ready to be an admin. I feel that I took in as much information in these months as most would over at least a year, as I've spent more hours on the site since I've been a member than most would in about that long.

5B Clarification question. You say you have edited wikipedia for years, however the log of your account (which I linked above), says you have only been a user for the last two months. Could you please explain?

A: I apologize for poorly wording my response. I edited under IP address for years before making an account, and that is to what I was referring.

Optional question from User:Anthony.bradbury

6 Would you be willing to indicate under which IP address(es) you edited befor getting an account?

A: Oh, geez. I have no idea. I wasn't a regular editor, but, rather, mostly made changes only when I saw errors, such as grammar, misspellings, typos, etc. when researching on here for schoolwork and such. I have no idea what the IPs are. No significant edits, just little things. I'm just saying that I've been on here, familiar with the process for a while.

Optional question from Anynobody

7. Let's assume you are granted sysop status, and you turn out to be wrong about question 5 above. Lets further assume you make many mistakes which cause others much disruption and work. Do you resign and try again later, keep going till you figure out what is lacking, or do something else? (I don't want to lock you into a two choice option hence the something else option)

A: First off, I wouldn't make any reckless changes, but since I'm obviously not faultless, as no one is, let's say, hypothetically, I accidentally, for any reason, caused others much disruption and work. In this situation, I would sincerely apologize and consider resigning out of embarrassment. However, I would opt to instead help with cleaning up my mess, possibly take a Wikibreak after that to clear my head, and press on after getting advice and help from others and learning from my mistakes, working my best to regain the trust of the community.

Optional question from Abu badali

8.: A question regarding your knowledge about the policies you'll be helping to enforce: Suppose you find a picture in some photographer's website that you believe can be useful for a given Wikipedia article. Describe the steps should you take to try have this image used in the article (from contacting the photographer to tagging the image). --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I would rather go and take one myself, as I have done for several articles. However, if that was impossible, I would email the copyright owner and ask for their permission to release it under the GFDL adapting the permission requests, as I have done for several images used in the articles Ottawa Hills, Ohio, Ottawa River (Lake Erie), and Sculpture in the Park.

General comments

See hmwith's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for hmwith: Hmwith (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/hmwith before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Moral support This looks like a lost cause because I (like other users) abide by a somewhat arbitrary standard of 3+ months experience for admin candidates. The distribution of edits is not a problem - every little bit helps. Yechiel Man 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the experience thing doesn't bother me much. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely looks good... shame about edit counters and people with arbitary cut off times. Someone doesn't magically become experienced on their three month anniversary. Majorly (talk | meet) 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Experience doesn't just have to be gained with time on the project, it can be gained with experience editing, looking over Hmwiths contribs, I think the user is more than capable to use the tools wisely - hence my Support. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. With respect, I have no idea what the opposers are talking about. 332 edits in the WP namespace is plenty, and 8000 edits is around twice as many as I had when I passed RfA. Even discounting the sandbox and userspace edits, this user has at least 6500-7000 edits. Walton^Assistance! 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Tons of good contributions. Plus my previous interaction with this editor has been all positive. PeaceNT 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a fierce enemy of editcountitis and timecountitis, I can't help but to voice my sadness at the use of this criteria to reject a great candidate. I personally had just above 5,000 edits when my RfA passed, and I still have less edits than Hmwith. Seeing that this RfA is unlike to pass at this point, don't feel bad if that happens; your excellent work is much appreciated and valued, and you can count on my support as many times as you need. Love, Phaedriel - 16:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. You don't need to have written 27 featured articles to become an admin. --Mschel 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support-I never seen nobody with 5000 edits in 1 months and it looks like she is very active on wikipedia.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~support support with a caveat~~ From her edits, I see nothing to suggest that she would misuse the tools. - TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 18:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too did not like the tone of her comment on Clamster5's RfA which seemed a bit confrontational (whether she meant it that way or not). But of course, I don't think this alone is reason enough to oppose and certainly hope that she words her statements better in future. - TwoOars 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to neutral. - TwoOars 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The admins that concentrate on maintenance issues are precisely the ones we lack now. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seeing how she has handled this RfA has made me change my mind. She is a very fine diplomat and has kept her head high throughout the process. She will make a fine admin. --wpktsfs 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Gutworth. —Alde Baer 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed, though. Gutworth 02:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons you give are reasons to support. Or maybe comment neutrally, but not enough to oppose. —Alde Baer 10:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Gutworth 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above -Lεmσηflαsh ^(t)/_(c) 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I see we have several editors here suffering from editcountitis (among other things). Experience comes not with time but with contribution to Wikipedia. --Latish redone (formerly All in) 01:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Never mind my oppose, good article edits in addition anti-vandal work. --Whs itc hy 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ryan Postlethwaite. Contributions look good; I despise "time" arguments. --Spike Wilbury 03:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terence 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't honestly believe you are going to run into difficulties completing the tasks you mention in Q1 and the backlogs need clearing. Addhoc 10:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support. You seem like you will do a good job, but only 2.5 months is slightly unsettling. Ab e g92contribs 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Not insane. Will not grow magical fairy wings on 3 month anniversary. Riana ⁂ 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no she won't... but wouldn't that be beautiful to see? ;) Phaedriel - 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems like a good user to me. Acalamari 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brevity of time could be concerning except there are really no events that suggest she will do anything other than a good job. Absent such evidence I support. JodyB_talk 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per above, Unless convinced otherwise. Good answers to my questions.--Sefringle 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Humility is a good quality. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support, though I do have some concerns (unrelated to those already raised). — CharlotteWebb 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please enable an e-mail address. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am much more likely to respond to a talk page comment. If anyone has anything to let me know, my talk page should provide a sufficient place to say anything. If it's personal, and anyone really wanted an email address, I would provide one. Would you like one to send me a personal comment? hmwith talk 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll almost definitely receive e-mail from people you've blocked/who articles you've deleted/etc, so you really should enable e-mail in preparation for that :) Riana ⁂ 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to once I became an admin, but I will do it now. It's been done. Thanks! hmwith talk 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Per the candidates increase in Wikipedia space edits. --Тλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr 14:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Contribs look good, and the quality of someone's work far outweighs arbitrary metrics. User has shown good understanding in the short period of time and no reason to suspect they'd abuse the tools. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support- I strongly support hmwith, as I am her first adoptee, and as her adoptee, I don't think anyone could have helped me better. - Groovydude777 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Though user has only been on Wikipedia for a few months, this user had 5000 edits in a single month. With that kind of editing, knowledge of Wikipedia will come very quickly. Captain panda 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Changed from neutral. I think she will do well if given the tools, and I like her answers, including the one to my optional question.--Anthony.bradbury 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose for the moment. You only have 332 edits in the Project namespace, but otherwise you seem like a fine nomination. I urge you to try again later. Gutworth 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll ask. I'm dying to know - what is the magic number that suddenly makes you experienced? What would you have said if the number was 333? Or what about 444? Please inform the community of this special number of project space edits that candidates must have before applying to be an admin. Majorly (talk | meet) 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, this oppose does seem somewhat arbitrary - a good case for the {{shrubbery}} template, I think. Walton^Assistance! 15:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "magic number" question comes up a lot in RFAs and I'm sorry to say I have no magic number. I instead try to look at it in context. I could support a RFA with this many Project namespace edits, but most of this user's Project namespace edits have been in the sandbox. Gutworth 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of your contribs seem to be vandal reverts. But... there are some with actual content. But... personally, edit count doesn't matter, it's the quality. Most of your edits being vandal reverts, combined with your time here makes me say oppose for now. --Whs itc hy 22:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Creationlaw's comments, I still can't support...RfA's with less then 3 months experience never pass, you just can't prove your knowledge of policy in that time. Do more work in the Wikipedia space...more useful edits - word association makes up about half of your low number of project space edits, something that is NOT good...and come back in two months. You should breeze through then. G1 gg y ! 00:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Per Gutworth. Dfrg.msc 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - with only 2 months of experience (from March 29 to May 28), and only 8190 edits (of these, about 1000 in a sandbox), I don't think this user is really ready to be an admin. (If you had over 10,000 edits, then even with 2 months you may be worth considering; With around 7000 edits, I think you need at least half a year before applying.) Od Mishehu 08:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? 8,000 edits isn't enough? I became an admin with 4,000 edits and around 4 months experience. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Please note that the only sandbox edits are games. hmwith talk 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd - I had nearly 8000 edits when I was promoted, but only about 4 months experience. I'm an admin. Is it wrong that I became one without the arbitary cut off times? Majorly (talk | meet) 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to concerns above and amount of experience, except for that: Great! The Sunshine Man 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, you are canvassing your RfA on your userpage, I suggest removing this. The Sunshine Man 13:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Canvassing would involve spamming users talk pages, this is simply stating on her userpage that she is running for adminship. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: [Copy/pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate]: "While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfAs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{Rfa-notice}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed." Thanks! hmwith talk 15:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the same thing. Nick 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient experience in project-space -- this objection is not based on an arbitrary number, but a legitimate expectation that an admin candidate should have some seasoning in admin-related tasks before being given the mop. If the candidate knows of no other alternative, I suggest commenting regularly at XfDs for a few weeks -- that will demonstrate the sort of knowledge I'm looking for. Xoloz 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - well I believe experience is more important then edit counts and you have been here for just over 2 months which is still too low for my liking but you have 8000 plus edits which is very good but I believe if you had waited fro another 3 months before applying..I would have supported you no questions asked..--Comet styles 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your contributions, and the opinions of those who have supported, but I count myself among those who are uneasy with only 2 months on this account. Your answer to Q3 is very brief; either enticingly so or worryingly so. If you haven't yet been so damn frustrated with Wikipedia that you just want to scream, I'd like to wait until you have. ;-) 2 months is still the honeymoon. ··coel acan 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time. There are some things that just take time to learn, and two months is much too short a time to become truly familiar with the arcane intricacies of Wikipedia. I do not distrust the user, but I do not yet trust them with the sysop tools. Please keep working and editing and learning, however, and I will be glad to support at a future time. -- nae'blis 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't managed to say why you don't trust her. What is your arbitary cut off time? Majorly (talk | meet) 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; my standards can be found here. I prefer six months experience (three bare minimum for an exceptional candidate), substantial edits as compared with me-too-ism and gnomish fixing of typos and redirects, and more experience with project space than this user has. In addition, this oppose seems overly confrontational, and I don't like the attitude expressed therein (plus itns not based in policy or encyclopedic consideration). -- nae'blis 18:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no policy for your deadlines for opposing me, there is no policy for my opinion of who would make a good admin. It's all the vibe that one gets from the editor, and what those casting their opinions' personal standards are for admins. Everyone has different opinions. I also went back and completely reworded the statement, still with the same meaning, but less confrontational, I believe. After sleeping on it, I also decided to move my vote to neutral, as that would not as much be a reason to oppose, but, rather, a reason to not support. On a different note, those basic tasks that you claim that I do a great deal of proves that I could be a great admin, as I would take care of built up maintenance tasks, which is just the type of admin needed right now, in my opinion. Cheers. hmwith talk 22:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I could have worded that better. But I still see a world of difference between non-policy "I don't see enough evidence of experience from this user" and non-policy "I don't like that you asked another user to nominate you in this one process". Per your comment on my talk page, I see you've reworded to Neutral there, so everyone here should be aware of your willingness to accept criticism with aplomb, and act on it when you agree. -- nae'blis 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. While Hmwith has been very polite and friendly during our interactions and has handled constructive criticism well, I cannot in good faith support any editor's RfA when just last month they were moving articles via cut-and-paste or did not know how fair use rationale worked. Additionally, while Hmwith's 8100 edits are most impressive at first blush, I admit to being more than a little disquieted by the fact that over 3300 of them (or about 40%) are to her own userspace. Once Hmwith has had a few more months of experience with the nuances of Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and procedures (and a while lot fewer userspace edits), I look forward to casting a support vote in her next RfA. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious lack of experience, and concerns that user is a little too keen to get the mop. TigerShark 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you figure that I am too keen? I would only love the be an admin this summer, as I have a great deal more free time in the summer to edit Wikipedia, since I don't have classes. However, I haven't previously said that, so what did I do to make you feel this way? I'll be positive to fix anything that gives off that vibe! hmwith talk 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hmwith that this oppose seems rather unfair. Given the immense backlogs that build up at CAT:CSD and elsewhere, being "keen to get the mop" is hardly a bad thing. Walton^Assistance! 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a lot of users apply for adminship when they have very little experience and are keen for the wrong reasons. The backlogs are not a big problem and one extra admin is not going to make a whole lot of difference. We need to be careful that users don't want to be admins because they feel that it gives them status, an ego boost etc and this leads to problems later. Not every one that applies has these reasons but it is common enought to raise a red flag. However, the fundamental problem here is lack of experience, backlogs are irrelevant. TigerShark 21:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bet a lot of users do want it for status or ego boosts, and I suppose you do have to be careful. hmwith talk 21:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You say that you want to be involved in blocking users, but I see no history of AIV activity. You say that you are interested in deletion, but I see very little XFD activity. You do have a ton of edits, but it is hard to filter out what your project contribution really is because it appears that at least half of your edits are to your own user space or to Sandbox/Word Association, etc. I really don't see a strong need for the tools and I don't feel that you have been here long enough for me to have a true picture of how you will interact with other users. —comment added by After Midnight^(t/c) 10:35, May 30, 2007
I'm very involved in reverting vandalism and warning those users, and I've reported several who had gotten many "last warnings". I've nominated a bunch of articles for speedy delete and several for AfD. However, I could have made more edits to XfD discussions, and I have been. Please also note that most of the edits to my userspace are due to the fact that I use it to edit/create articles, templates, and tables. hmwith talk 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Wow, a fantastic body of contributions in just two months time. But... in just two months time. Personally, I'm extremely hesitant to promote someone so quickly after joining the project. I see very little involvement in project areas where I could see that you've got a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The few XfD discussions I've found and read don't really suggest that you're basing your opinions on policy (such as !voting to keep a template because "I like having these" [2]). I'd suggest coming back in a few months, and getting involved in XfD and the like in the meantime. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Thanks for you constructive criticism. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to go through my edits. However, for the record, in that edit about a userbox for deletion, I later retracted my comment, rewording it, presenting that the edit count userboxes are positive to the community. hmwith talk 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. That withstanding, I feel that my other concerns are valid, though. You're a great candidate, but it's just too soon. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good effort for two months of effort on the project. Get some more experience in the project space and reference the policies and guidelines in XfD/WikiTalk debates when you contribute and I will probably support in a few months' time. (aeropagitica) 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's cute in real life. If that makes a difference Creationlaw 23:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be a young male, but hopefully my RfA standards aren't quite that shallow... :-) Walton^Assistance! 19:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Just too new to the project...otherwise, looks pretty decent. Try again in a few months. Jmlk 1 7 00:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is hard for me to be neutral on, since I adopted her. However, I personally do not feel that she is fully ready to be an admin. I do not doubt her ability to be an admin, but I do feel that there are a few things that can be improved. Just as a child does not stop learning when he reaches adulthood, a new editor does not stop learning things after adoption. I think this is a quick jump of the gun, and I recommend having Hmwith go through editor review first. I have 100% faith that she will become an admin one day, and I look forward to the day when I can give her a strong support. --wpktsfs 01:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would like to see more contributions and constructive activity from this editor before I would support an adminship. I opine that this RfA is rather premature. --Fahrenheit451 04:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed To Support #Neutral, I'm very impressed by the number of edits, but the lack of experience bothers me. Also the fact that you have only 330 something edits on "Wikipedia" space. Otherwise, I like what I see. Try in three months and I will support.
--Random ^{Say it here!} 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is 8,000 edits a lack of experience? Surely we should be judging the candidate on the ability to use the tools correctly. My experience shows that this user can be trusted. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict yourself so badly :) Impressed by the edit count, but find him inexperienced... then you say only 330 Wikipedia edits. Then you like what you see, so you suggest come back in three months... good grief... Majorly (talk | meet) 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I was saying was that I feel that an editor needs around 4 months experience before I like to vote for them. There is no reason to jump on me. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, per above, and per Gutworth (talk · contribs) and Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs). This might be a good candidate later, but give it some more time and experience. Smee 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral We do need more admins, and I believe it is possible to be prepared for this in the amount of time you've been here. My main concern is that if I'm wrong you could create a lot of work, whereas admins are supposed to reduce the overall amount of work. I was hoping you'd answer my question by saying something like "If I turn out to be a disaster because of inexperience I'd resign and try again later." Anynobody 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like your strong stance on civility. I'm kind of worried about your length of time here. Is there a way to see your edits as an anonymous editor? Or am I not allowed? Why would you stay anonymous for an extended period of time? It could push me to strongly support. Orangemarlin 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't been consistently editing, but simply here and there, while at school, usually. hmwith talk 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs to moderate her responses. (like for example, the comments that Nae'blis mentioned and the response to TigerShark above).- TwoOars 06:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the wording. If you go through my contribs, you will find that I don't have a history of defensive wording. It's difficult not to get flustered here, obviously, and I must remain cool and levelheaded, thus, after sleeping on it, I reworded my comments. I hope that they are okay now. hmwith talk 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Both in your reply to my question, as in the images you asked for permission, you failed to remember to change the email with the permission to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (as explained in WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed), so that the permission can be documented and analyzed by others. Make sure to add the OTRS number to the images you mentioned. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to change to support, but would like first to see some sort of answer to question 6. Chasnged to support--Anthony.bradbury 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I'm completely on the fence here. I'd like not to be biased against a candidate on the basis of time, but a two-month span does seem rather short. I see no evidence of the requisite understanding of Wikipedia's policies, but then neither do I see ignorance. Your answer to question #5 is reassuring, if unsupported. I see no reason to trust or mistrust you. Just my two cents. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 #:I fixed the wording. If you go through my contribs, you will find that I don't have a history of defensive wording. It's difficult not to get flustered here, obviously, and I must remain cool and levelheaded, thus, after sleeping on it, I reworded my comments. I hope that they are okay now. <font face="tahoma small cap"><span style="border: 1px solid #828282; padding: 1px;">[[User:hmwith|<span style="background: #FFFFFF; color: #828282; font-weight: bold; ">hmwith</span>]][[User_talk:hmwith|<span style="background: #828282; color: #FFFFFF;">talk</span>]]</span></font> 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Neutral''' - Both in your reply to my question, as in the images you asked for permission, you failed to remember to change the email with the permission to '''permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org''' (as explained in [[WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed]]), so that the permission can be documented and analyzed by others. Make sure to add the OTRS number to the images you mentioned. --''[[User:Abu badali|Abu badali]] <sup>([[User_talk:Abu badali|talk]])</sup>'' 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
-#<strike>'''Neutral''' I want to change to support, but would like first to see some sort of answer to question 6.</strike> Chasnged to '''support'''--[[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]] 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
+#:<strike>'''Neutral''' I want to change to support, but would like first to see some sort of answer to question 6.</strike> Chasnged to '''support'''--[[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]] 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 #'''Neutral''' &ndash; I'm completely on the fence here.  I'd like not to be biased against a candidate on the basis of time, but a two-month span ''does'' seem rather short.  I see no evidence of the requisite understanding of Wikipedia's policies, but then neither do I see ignorance.  Your answer to question #5 is reassuring, if unsupported.  I see no reason to trust or mistrust you.  Just my two cents.  &mdash; [[User:Madman bum and angel|Madman bum and angel]] ([[User talk:Madman bum and angel|talk]] &ndash; [[User:Madman bum and angel/Desk|desk]]) 20:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)