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

Hit bull, win steak[edit]

Final (128/0/1); Originally scheduled to end 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit bull, win steak (talk · contribs) - I think this may be my first RFA nomination in a long time here... I first interacted with Hit bull, win steak in May 2006, making an award of a surreal barnstar for the username. Hb,ws has been, in my opinion, an excellent editor as well as contributing to AFDs, mediating between users (most recently at Talk:Dano (Korean festival)), and dealing with other miscellaneous problems at places as diverse as WP:AIVU, WP:RFD, WP:FPC, WP:UA, and WP:ANI, which shows a wealth of experience in both maintenance and encyclopedia-building. I have no hesitation in placing Hit bull, win steak before you as an admin candidate. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks for taking an interest in this RFA. If I'm promoted, I'll try to do a good job, and if I'm not, I won't take it personally. Any questions, please feel free to add them below, or drop a note on my talk page. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm largely a generalist in my regular editing, and if this nomination is successful, I would probably continue to do so with administrative tasks. I have noticed backlogs at places like AFD, CSD, and AIAV in the past, for example, and been frustrated that I was unable to do anything to clear them. I'll direct my efforts toward whatever areas seem to need them at that moment; there certainly isn't any shortage of tasks to be performed. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Unlike a lot of RFA nominees, I don't have a FA or a GA under my belt. A lot of my article-space edits involve more low-level work, where I'm trying to turn a short, unreferenced stub into a viable starter article. A few typical examples of that type of work: The Fifty-three Stations of the Tōkaidō (which I took from this to this), Terror 2000, Michael Oher, Lama Foundation, and Pep Harris. I do a little bit of everything here, but those are the types of edits of which I'm most proud. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Is there anyone who can honestly answer "No" to the first part of that question? I've been involved in all kinds of contentious situations in the past. Policy page discussions, deletion requests/reviews, RFA nominations, content disputes, ANI drama... I've tried to be reasonable and sensible in disagreements that involve me, and I think that I am more often than I'm not (though I'm definitely not as often as I'd like to be - for an example of the bad me, I called User:Kaldari a dick on ANI during the course of this dispute back in January). In general, I've found that it's more enjoyable to not be angry at people on Wikipedia. Even when they're in the wrong, they usually aren't doing it out of malice, so it's best to keep smiling while you try to break the issue down into small, non-controversial pieces. When all else fails, there's no law that says that you can't go watch a movie or take a walk in the woods if you need to cool down for a while. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Acalamari

4. Why do you think adminship is a position of authority? Acalamari 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, in the literal sense, the dictionary on my desk (Webster's New World, 3rd College Ed.) defines "authority" as "the power or right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions; jurisdiction". During the course of their duties, administrators are often required to give commands and enforce obedience (when interacting with users that are in violation of site policies and guidelines like NPA and VAND), take action (when deleting copyright violations or protecting pages during edit wars), and make final decisions (when closing xFDs). When I said that I did not trust the user in question with a position of authority at that time, I was trying to convey that I did not have confidence in his ability to perform those sorts of tasks without incident, due to his past history. I apologize if this was unclear.
The idea of adminship as a position of authority is also true in a more general and philosophical sense, however. In that type of usage, adminship is a position of authority because good administrators largely operate along the general principles of policing by consent: They rely upon the respect of the community in order to successfully accomplish their tasks, they are selected by common consent rather than imposed upon the community by an external body, they initially respond with persuasion and logic when possible during interactions with editors (as opposed to the immediate use of force, i.e. blocks), they derive authority from the impartial nature of their application of policies and guidelines, they acknowledge and respect appropriate limits on their own behavior, and so forth. Administrators have only as much authority as their peers are willing to give them, and they earn that type of authority more with their actions and attitudes than with system flags and buttons. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Optional Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

5. What is wheel warring, and how would you try to avoid this?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:Wheel warring is the state in which two admins allow the lines of communication to break down between them, such that they blindly reverse each others' administrative actions, in the manner of an edit war between editors. The pattern starts as action, reaction, second reaction, and the situation can be classified as a true wheel war only when all three have come to pass. In general, it seems best to follow a few simple guidelines to prevent wheel warring (barring an obvious breakdown of order like the template vandalism from compromised accounts a few months back, or Robdurbar/Wonderfool's explosive decompression): Don't revert another administrator's action without first discussing it and the reasons behind it with him, unless this is impossible for logistical reasons, and there is both a broad consensus to do so and a pressing need to do so. Never re-impose an administrative action for the second time (whether the initial action was yours or not) without posting about it on AN or ANI to get more eyeballs on the situation and hash out a thorough consensus about the proper course to take. If the other admin is acting wrongly, but without malice, it'll be a lot easier to convince him of that if five other admins are all pointing to the same policy. If it turns out instead that they all disagree with you, then you just learned a valuable lesson about policy as it applies to whatever situation sparked the whole thing. Basically, it should be easy enough to avoid wheel wars if you generally assume that other administrators are acting in good faith, and respond accordingly. Measure twice, cut once. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 07:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A:As I understand it, the proper response depends on the nature of my disagreement. If it looks like a simple clerical-type mistake (announced a block of 12 hours but actually blocked for 112, didn't notice an impersonator and blocked the account they were impersonating instead, blocked account creation when levying a username block on an account with an inappropriate name that was created in good faith, etc.), then I can just make the necessary change to the block myself. If it's a judgement call (like whether a block duration is appropriate, or whether a user's actions qualify as disruptive), then according to WP:BLOCK I should talk with the blocking admin first to make sure that there isn't more to the story, or if he's unavailable, I should take it to ANI for discussion before acting unilaterally, and then only act if there is a consensus to do so. If promoted, I intend to follow the policy; investigating a situation before going off half-cocked is a good idea in all situations, not just administrative ones. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question by --Hdt83 Chat 07:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. What is your views on letting anons/IPs create pages without registering?
A.In general, I'm not crazy about the idea, given the potential for large amounts of casual, malicious vandalism. That said, I'll go with community consensus on the issue.
8 What would you do if you encounter an article that is a dictionary definition with the following tag:


A.In general treatments of the situation, "not a dictionary" isn't one of the viable reasons for deletion listed on WP:CSD. As such, I'd start by checking logs and past versions to see whether it's a vandalized page or a repost, and if it is, I'd handle it in the appropriate fashion (by reverting the former and G4-ing the latter). If it IS just an unambiguous dictdef, I'd probably check Wiktionary to see whether they have an entry for it, and if they don't, I'd go ahead and transwiki it. If it's ambiguous as to whether it's a pure dictdef, I'd remove the CSD tag and (procedurally) nominate it for AFD. If it's a pure dictdef but Wiktionary already has an entry for it, and it's not a recreation of a previously deleted/transwikied page, and it doesn't fall under any of the other CSD categories (like A1)... I'd probably ask another admin for help, because I'm honestly not sure whether those go to AFD, or get turned into soft redirects, or what. In all cases, I'd try to drop the tagger a line about CSD categories. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hit bull, win steak before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Oh, sure... Nice to have someone else doing the thankless bulk minor edits through a weird mix of semi-random articles trawl. — iridescent 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ((subst:eh? what? thought you were....oh never mind...)) Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support without reservation. Does the work. Sam Blacketer 22:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ρх₥α 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support, excellent member of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs)
  8. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, good vandal fighter. NawlinWiki 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support does some great work around here and I'm sure will do more with the mop --Pumpmeup 00:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beat me to it I was going to offer a nomination tomorrow. How cruel. I remember when I first ran across the user well over a year ago, during an AfD debate. Level headed, knowledgeable, and a fantastic username to boot. Keegantalk 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Great user. Nice username, by the way.   jj137 (Talk) 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Thought he was already an admin. Also, way to break WP:BN/R :D east.718 at 01:50, 10/31/2007
  14. Support - Per nom! Will do good work with the mop. Tiptoety 01:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I've seen Hb,ws around and know they make a good contribution.-gadfium 02:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WODUP 02:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, figured this had to be coming at some point. I've been impressed every time I've seen this editor around, and an inventive username is an added bonus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per amusing username, err, per good work against vandals and the like. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. You got my support. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Wish I had nommed Support. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You said you were going to on his talk page, but never did :P Stifle (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I know "thought he already was one" is a cliché, but I really did. Good member of the community. Raymond Arritt 04:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support After checking Track and as per Seraphimblade. Pharaoh of the Wizards 04:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Based on nothing but username. :) Dfrg.msc 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support From the interactions I've seen, a nice calm user and contributor. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. support has always seemed a sane and reasonable person to me. Pete.Hurd 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. This editor knows what he's doing, has quite a bit of experience, and has been contributing for a long time. Useight 06:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --MONGO 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. No major concerns here as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, we need more hearty folks taking care of the backlog at AFD, CSD, and AIAV. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  30. Absolutely the best username ever (except mine). — H2O —  08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Good work all-round in numerous areas. Responsible adminship predicted here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Jmlk17 09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Thought he already was, &c.... Coemgenus 10:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support Can't wait until this user becomes an admin. NHRHS2010 talk 11:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - overdue. Addhoc 12:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, very much. Neil ☎ 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Pile on. I was especially impressed by the answer to #3. Dppowell 14:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per positive past experiences with this user. Dekimasuよ! 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support Wow. If I had any idea that the user wasn't already an admin, I'd have nominated him a year ago. Marvelous, funny, good-natured person with keen judgment. Excellent candidate. Xoloz 14:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Lots of edits overall and at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrator intervention against vandalism, and recently at Articles for deletion. While we do not always agree (see AFD), this editor can be trusted. Bearian 15:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support absolutely. This is way overdue. Neranei (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Moo. Surprised to find this editor wasn't already an admin - works well with others, does good work, and can certainly be trusted with the tools. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I too am surprised that s/he's not an admin; always assumed s/he was. Good editor from my interactions. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support I'm familiar with this editor; excellent work, awesome username. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support (as if another !vote was necessary). I've seen many comments and contributions from this editor, but never a bad one. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support His interactions with others look mature enough for an admin. 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC) — The preceding, dated but unsigned, comment was added by User:Mikkalai. diff
  47. — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. support - based purely on the discussion comment above. --Rocksanddirt 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Yurp. He's been here long enough to know how things work, and I doubt he's going to break something. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations, you won the steak! :o)Duja► 13:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support good editor. --Bradeos Graphon 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Strong candidate with a history of good work and solid interaction. Likely to make a fine admin, especially with the intention of helping clear backlogs out. PS: I know what "Hit bull, win steak" is a reference to. Just sayin'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - not that it's needed. Jauerback 19:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. The answer to my question was satisfactory. I saw that edit, and wanted to clarify it in an answer to a question rather than oppose directly over it, and end up opposing for a misunderstanding. I have no concerns and am happy to support this nomination. Acalamari 20:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Yep. --DarkFalls talk 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support <clichè> I thought you were one, pile-on support </clichè>. Mr.Z-man 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Give them the mop Just goes to show that you don't need even a GA to become an admin, as long as you make great edits and continue to help improve the encyclopaedia. Being an admin will only help you do that more. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 21:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Moo, while we almost never agree with each other, that's no indication that he would abuse the tools. Jbeach sup 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Give them the mop like what I've seen from him. Sumoeagle179 23:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Although it seems clear that this is going to pass, I have to throw my hat in if only to say that this user has the second best username I've come across, second only to this fella. :) faithless (speak) 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Seems pretty Good Astroview120mm 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Having seen his long term efforts on AN/I, I admit to thinking he already was an admin. As such, I'd rather change reality to meet my expectations, than change my expectations. (it's advice i read in Stephen Colbert's new book.) ThuranX 00:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I seriously thought you were an admin, hence why I didn't nom you myself. The last person who I thought was an admin went 147/0/0, so I'm sure this will do great. Strong (edit conflict) support. Wizardman 00:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support that's definitely not because he used to have a huge picture of Hillary Clinton on his userpage. :D. Seriously, great user, good enough to make me actually want to make an edit. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support A fine editor that has made great contributions. Captain panda 02:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Everything I've seen from this editor inspires confidence. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support A trusted editor whom I often bump into at ANI and other venues. --ElKevbo 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, excellent, level-headed editor with great contributions. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support– I really wanted to oppose just to screw up the 100%... but I can't do that for you =D Ksy92003(talk) 04:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Has always had intelligent comments in administrative discussions (WP:AN and WP:AN/I), and the answer to question 4 is great. I wish every admin candidate had this attitude. --Elkman (Elkspeak)
  72. I'm familiar with HTWS's username (which is hilarious, by the way), and I was surprised to learn that he wasn't already an admin when I saw this RfA pop up. Editors who strike me as already being administrators generally make good real admins. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Will make a great admin. No bull. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I find his comments at various noticeboards well thought out, should be fine. James086Talk | Email 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - I don't see why not. Rudget Contributions 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. I've wondered for a while why he wasn't an admin... I've been impressed with his comments everywhere I've seen them. And like everyone else said, best username ever. Pinball22 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Yep. Ronnotel 13:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 'Support. --Isotope23 talk 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. No-brainer. —Cryptic 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I'd have to say many people have experience in problem solving, fact finding, working with other editors as peers, as a mentor and also as a learner, and never went anywhere near an article, FA or not. --Kbdank71 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Hell ya 1 != 2 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Moo! Friendly and cooperative. - Jehochman Talk 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support giving HBWS the authority of adminship. Through prior experience, I trust him with the authority to block users and other admin functions. Argyriou (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. WP:ITHOUGHTHEWASALREADYANADMIN. - Merzbow 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Good contribs and thoughtful answers. From what I've seen of HBWS, I think the mop will be well used. (That and you can add me to the THOUGHTEDITORWASADMINALREADY category). --Bfigura (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Good answers, solid editor. Lara❤Love 00:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Pile on support :D Phgao 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Hit save, support RFA. Yes. --Coredesat 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with deletion backlogs – Gurch 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Looks good, thought this guy was an admin already! Give him the mop! GlassCobra 13:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. More pile-on support I thought he had the mop already! Blueboy96 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Looking like a clear case of WP:100 here. High-quality contributor, thoughtful, civil. JavaTenor 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. There are no real reasons for me not to support. Good luck!--SJP 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support - I believe that you'll use the tools well. Nihiltres(t.l) 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - a user with great understanding of policy - will be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support John254 23:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. He isnt? --Carnildo 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Moo. Great editor. Damn, I was hoping to be the 100th... >.< CattleGirl talk 02:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Absolutely. - Philippe | Talk 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Looks good to me. Grandmasterka 02:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Has edited a wide range, from Wikipedia related talk to mainspace to anti-vandalism. Sorry to ruin your 100 supports! — jacĸrм (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support bah was supposed to be 101 lol. Dureo 10:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Geogre 12:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Jump on top of the pile Support. K. Scott Bailey 13:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support no beefs with handing this editor the mop. LessHeard vanU 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. AbsolutSupport from someone who normally just lurks around WP:RFA. I've seen HBWS plenty of times over at WP:AFD and have no problem giving him the sysop bit. Salut! /Blaxthos 15:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Super Strong Support. I was just "wowed" by looking at your contributions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. I'm not Mailer Diablo but I approve this message!--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Great contributor. —Moondyne 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. No problems here. Good contributor. Good answers to questions. Will make a good admin. Carcharoth 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. My experience with this editor and my look at his contributions tells me that he'll be a great and hardworking administrator who will shortly have hand-cramps from writing thank-you notes... Accounting4Taste 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - I hate to use the "I thought you were..." cliche, but... um... Tijuana Brass 00:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Joining the lovefest -- Y not? 12:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. support JoshuaZ 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. He isn't one already?–Crazytales talk/desk 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong Support – I won't say it. But I will say that this user's modesty blows me away. In a good way.  ;) "[A]nd if I'm not, I won't take it personally..." Heh... — madman bum and angel 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. El_C 01:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Maser (Talk!) 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support I see no problems with this solid contributor. — Wenli (reply here) 02:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Nice work with the bulk minor edits. Much needed, much appreciated. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support: It's a pile on, but so what? I'm familiar with him from AfD, where he's a cogent and thoughtful commentator.  RGTraynor  08:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - totally! - Alison ❤ 08:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. USDA Prime Support. A long-time dedicated member of the community, who'll make a great admin. --krimpet⟲ 09:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Obviously a great candidate.  Folic_Acid | talk  14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support A home-run.--chaser - t 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support I'm highly impressed with the answers to all the questions, especially the honesty the candidate shows. I personally feel that to not support because a candidate has not done 50+ edits to a Featured Article Candidate is focusing unnecessarily on one specific area of the project; encyclopedia-building is more than featured articles, for every FA there are thousands of articles that need major improvements just to keep them from being deleted, or from violating NPOV or BLP policies, and those are just as, if not more important, than doing small edits to get an already excellent article up to FA status. This is not to say I don't think FAs are great, I think they are wonderful, but for example, my personal style of editing would be unlikely to ever "bag me" an FA credit. I make extensive use of the preview button, and the edit summary, and I sometimes do in one edit, what other editors do in 10-20 edits, especially when I'm formatting references for standardization and readability. When I do copy-editing, normally I do it in one fell swoop, not one section at a time, as many do. This means that I don't have huge numbers of individual edits to articles, even though I've improved them quite a bit. I think to try to pin a requirement of an FA onto an editor goes against the style of many editors (Wiki-Elves, Gnomes, Fairies). Others simply do other areas, and it doesn't mean they cannot write excellent content, nor does it mean they don't think FAs are important (again, this is simply my own personal opinion). This candidate has a cool head, a good grasp of the project's infrastructure and policies/guidelines, a solid history of content building and writing articles, and works well with other editors. I see absolutely no reason not to add this excellent editor to the current administrative group. Ariel♥Gold 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support – I particularly like the answer to the "CSD" tag containing "per WP:NOT". Hit's answer to that clearly shows he knows his stuff, and this is somebody I think can be trusted to use the tools wisely and within policy. Anthøny 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Great contributor with good understanding of policy. Answers are above reproach. -- Chris.B • talk 19:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - I'm sorry to break the streak. I'm uncertain that Adminship is going to be the most appropriate step for you. You have strong edits and your work is commendable, but I do see the importance of building up an article to Featured status as being a must-have for Adminship: it shows a great deal more problem solving skills in breaking the barriers of fact finding, working with other editors as peers, as a mentor and also as a learner (all three roles are important for anybodywanting to improve and allow others to also). I do appreciate your hard work improving stubs to starters and low end B-class, but I'm wary without a single article promoted to even Good article status. That said, I could be wrong with this judgement because of the quality of the work you have done. For this, I can't give you my support, but I'm not going to oppose your RfA. If you're successful or not (and at a glance, it looks like you will be) I'd suggest familiarising yourself with WP:GAC and assess a handful (say 15-20) articles in there (Lord knows, the help would be appreciated) and then also look at some Featured articles and provide contributions there. I believe you would have good feedback, and following these efforts, I'd suggest picking an article and sticking with it until it's a Featured item (I don't care if it's an article, list, group or whatever. Not a featured picture, because to me, that's just not the same). --lincalinca 05:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do admins need to have experience writing articles? I agree it demonstrates the requirements for adminship but it is not the only way. I would see it as sufficient but not necessary. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my position is clearly articulated. I'm not going to withdraw my position in light of an overwhelmingly positive response. It's pretty obvious he's going to pass. Articlespace contributions are an important thing and without the capacity to scour all of hbws' contributions, I have gone through some and reviewed the comments here. There are some users who consider that contributing to make an article into a Featured article as the only criterion, irrespective of all other things, (though of course these people would withdraw support in circumstances where it's obvious that the editor isn't capable). I'm not quite in the same bucket, but as explained by hbws himself, it's not something he's focused on. I understand that we need all types and that he'll probably make an excellent Admin, but I don't feel his full capacity as an admin will be reached until he does this, as he's expressed that he hasn't even brought an article to GA, letalone FA. To make it a cleansweep here, I'm sure changing my vote to support will turn a lot of frowns upsidedown, butI'm not going to because I believe firmly in the position I have here. Why is this such a problem that I'm of this opinion? I'm entitled, yet it seems people don't want me to be able to express that this is an area of concern that I have. --lincalinca 04:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are like any other contributor, there are things that their talents allow them to do better than others. A good admin wouldn't force themselves into areas where their competence will prove unhelpful, a good admin defers to experience and skill - even where the other contributor is not as experienced or knowledgable - and uses what abilities they have to assist the other contributor. I think HB,WS will likely note your concerns, and use it to become a more effective admin - which is why I supported the application. Different people have different ideas on what is best for Wikipedia, and very few are wrong. LessHeard vanU 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree mainspace editing is necessary, but I've never built an article up to FA, and I have no particular plans to do so--I concentrate on getting a few of the lousy ones up to acceptable. There are lots of things that need doing in mainspace, and I don't see the point of an arbitrary criterion like this. DGG (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, but my opinion here is not arbitrary. It's specific and not unreasonable to think that - among other things - an editor should move into this area. I believe equally that building up stubs into moderate strength articles to be equally important. This is something I've challenged myself with. I haven't had any trouble getting articles started, and moving them up to start, B class and the occasional Good article class. I'm still working towards a Featured article myself, though I have three featured lists. Again, I'm not exclusively referring to featured articles, but featured articlespace content (i.e. featured group, list, article or portal: WP:FC, but not sounds nor pictures, because they're not article-creation based). --lincalinca 00:44, 5 November 2007 (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.
Category