Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HickoryOughtShirt?4

HickoryOughtShirt?4

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (108/13/7); Scheduled to end 01:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination

HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs) – HickoryOughtShirt?4 is one of those rare combinations - a user who is comfortable with both writing content and fighting vandalism. As a Canadian, their specialist subject is, as you might expect, ice hockey, and they've made significant contributions in this area, including the good article Quinn Hughes and numerous Did you know? nominations hitting the main page. But look elsewhere, and you'll see them making numerous intelligent reports at the anti vandalism noticeboard; easily enough to determine (along with their track record of content) they know exactly what's vandalism and what isn't.

I first discovered HickoryOughtShirt?4 was interested in adminship about six months ago, around the time they got the New page reviewer right. At the time, they were concerned about the perpetual backlog at AIV and really thought they ought to be able to do something about it, but equally they were concerned that they needed to work more on content and get a bit more experience in debates. I'm pleased to see they've done exactly what I hoped, and I can now see several editors thinking it really is time they had a go at asking for the old mop and bucket. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Co-nom by TonyBallioni

I am pleased to present HickoryOughtShirt?4 for consideration for adminship. HickoryOughtShirt?4 registered in November 2017, and is one of those users who in a short time, was able to fully grasp why we are here as a project. They do their absolute best to make Wikipedia better, and while they make mistakes like everyone else, they are fully willing to discuss them with anyone who asks and are one of the single most pleasant users I have met on any Wikimedia project. When I first approached them about adminship in October, their first response was to say they didn't think they were ready and that they wanted to become more familiar with other areas of Wikipedia first. Having been active in the RfA area for a while, I can tell you that a good sign of a candidate and someone who will serve the community properly is someone who knows their own limitations and is willing to take a step back to assess whether it is right for them to do something. HickoryOughtShirt?4 gets this, and it is one of the most important traits in any administrator.

As some of you may know, I am generally skeptical of a vandalism focus in admin candidates: we often get editors who miss the forest for the trees in this area, but HickoryOughtShirt?4 is not one of them. You can tell by their actions that they fully understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, and view any administrative or backend role in the light of furthering that goal. I think HickoryOughtShirt?4 has what it takes to be one of the best administrators that we have, and I am trilled to support them in this RfA. I hope you all will join me. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I also want to specify I have never edited for pay. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The administrative work I intend to take part in would be in Administrator intervention against vandalism (AiV) and Request for Page Protection (RPP). I am an active Recent Changes Patroller and my main area of focus on Wikipedia have, and will remain, revolved around vandalism. In my experience, there is a continual backlog at AiV and RPP which I intend to help reduce. In many instances, one can wait hours for a page protection request and many have taken to posting to ANI to alert admins. My main editing area of focus is typically sports related, which is constantly experiencing vandalism (see the ridiculousness at Wesley Johnson (basketball) in March 2018 or NFL Honors (where I seemed to be the only editor fighting vandalism in January 2019) for example) and few admins are really focused in this area. I have stayed up many hours fighting vandalism as I waited for an admin to respond to my request for protection. Being given the tool to block and protect would be very helpful.

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

A: I would have to say my best contributions to Wikipedia is my article creations (of which I have 67). Of these 67, I have 6 (at the moment) DYKs (2 are coming up) and 1 GA for Quinn Hughes. Despite these DYKs and GA, I am particularly proud of the collaborative work I have done with Flibirigit on List of members of the IIHF Hall of Fame. Starting from a list of redlinks, we collaborated together over a few months to fix these links (of which there were 28) and nominated several for DYK (such as Philippe Lacarrière). Besides working in my own article space, I also help out in New Page Reviewer (NPR). This also relates to my vandalism work, as one can see through my Speedy Deletion log. However, NPR has a similar problem to AiV and RPP which is a lack of involvement. If given the tools, I also intend to help with Speedy Deletion reviewing and continue with New Page Patrol.

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: Of course, naturally, I have encountered conflict and disagreed with editors, especially in contentious areas. I have helped form, and will always go with, consensus and try to focus on the edits, not the editor. For example, as you can see here I was under the impression we are not supposed to use first names after the lede, so I reverted an editor on Elsa G. Vilmundardóttir. They came to my talk page and explained how I was mistaken due to Icelandic tradition (which I was unfamiliar with). I thanked them for explaining it to me, self reverted, and it taught me to move cautiously in areas I'm not familiar with. Due to my adherence to conflict resolution, I have not been taken to ANI/ArbCom etc. over problematic editing. This is also because I know when to walk away from the conflict. However, I consider all disputes I have been involved with to be in the past and prefer to move on from them.

---

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 SkyGazer 512

4. First of all, thank you for being willing to run for adminship! I've seen you around a lot (I'm watching your talk page, fyi :)) and you seem to be a clueful, kind editor who does an excellent job creating content, tagging pages for deletion, and fighting vandalism. Because you mentioned that RfPP would be one of the primary areas you would use your mop in, I looked into your contributions to that page. As I understand it, extended-confirmed protection should only be used when multiple autoconfirmed users have recently and persistently vandalized a page and semi-protection has proved to be ineffective (aside from "special cases", like the whole Arab-Israeli conflict thing); in most cases of simple vandalism or BLP vios on an article, semi-protection should be used instead. After taking a look at your edits to RfPP, I noticed that in your last 20 reports, you requested ECP for over half of them. After taking a closer look, I saw that out of your last 20 reports suggesting ECP, 19 of them received only semi-protection or no protection at all; only one of the pages actually got extended-confirmed protection for any duration. I took an even closer look at two random pages of that sample: I noticed that Jake Gardiner had zero disruptive edits from any autoconfirmed user in all of 2019 and only one disruptive registered user edit since February (who was not autoconfirmed, so ECP would have been no different than semi for them). Benoît Bastien had zero disruptive edits from any confirmed user in its whole existence. Would you maybe care to share why you suggested ECP for all these pages instead of semi, and whether you would have ECP'd them yourself if you were an admin? Do note that I am leaning towards supporting, because I believe that adminship is no big deal and all that, and you clearly have a need for the tools. Much thanks, --SkyGazer 512 ^{My talk page} 02:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A: Hi SkyGazer 512 and thanks for your question. That is a very good, thoughtful, and thorough question which I can appreciate. To begin, I am extra cautious around BLPs (as one should be). In my experience with vandalism, I've seen several autoconfirmed users go unnoticed/be sleeping before vandalising after protection is added (take this or this COI edit from an 11 year dormant account for example). You are right that I should be more cautious when it comes to requesting protection, especially to avoid WP:BEANS, but in my experience this an all too common occurrence (especially if the BLP is in the news). As an admin, I would have to carefully assess each situation as each one is different. I hope this helps. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Followup: @Ferret: thank you for your comment. I will reiterate that I should be more cautious when it comes to requesting protection, but still agree that in my experience this is an all too common occurrence. As an admin, I will, of course, follow Wikipedia policy that ECP should not be used preemptively. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Reyk

5. In your opinion, what is the most important policy on Wikipedia and why?

A: You know, that's a hard one. I understand the importance of all of our policies and I think everyone would have mixed replies based on their circumstances. People who don't see the inner workings of Wikipedia (our readers) don't see the benefit they get from policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Without any of these policies, I don't think this encyclopedia works. Those who just use Wikipedia for reading get the benefit of these policies without seeing them in action but that doesn't make them less important. Similarly, for those editing Wikipedia on the inside, policies like WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Consensus are important in the continual production of Wikipedia content. I can't say principles like WP:AGF aren't important, but this is not the only policy/principle that helps Wikipedia run its course and be successful. In my experience, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Consensus, and WP:V have all played important roles in my everyday life on this website, but to others who work in different areas, this may not be the case. Without WP:V, there is no determining that our neutrally worded content on a biography of living people is correct, which defeats the purpose of the encyclopedia. The same can be said vice versa for the others. All of our policies tend to work in conjuncture with each other. I am sorry for this roundabout answer but trying to determine which is most important seems a bit like trying to find a needle in a haystack. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

6. Your account name is quite intriguing. In trying to puzzle it out, I learnt that hickory is a type of fabric that might be used for a tough shirt and I suppose that sports shirts have numbers on. But I reckon I'm still missing bits like the meaning of the question mark. Please explain.

A: Hahah, I can promise you it is nothing at all what you are thinking about. Back in high school, every student was given a unique password as their school login. This was mine. I chose to use it because of its anonymity. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from GiantSnowman

7. Please can you explain why you felt you needed to clarify that you have never undertaken paid editing?

A: That was advice given to me by my nominators but I think that it is always a good thing to make note of. I am an active participant at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Recent Changes Patrol so I tend to encounter a lot of COI editors. I fully understand the policies I would need to undertake if I ever became involved in such a circumstance myself. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from GeneralizationsAreBad

8. Again, thank you for deciding to throw your hat into the ring. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block an IP or account when it has not received talkpage warnings?

A: Well besides the obvious reasons of sock puppetry, if they were engaged in racist and anti-Semitic edits, posting threats, spamming, or clearly just here to vandalize especially with a troubling name. I would never block without warning except in extreme cases. Basically, if they were conducting actions that could lead to immediate harm of the encyclopedia and its users (such as threatening or repeatedly showing hateful content), I would block without warning. However I do want to stress that users should be warned before being blocked in most circumstances. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

9. What is your opinion on {{school block}}s for IPs?

A: I would generally be conservative and evaluate each instance case-by-case, doing what I feel is best for the encyclopedia in that specific case.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Andrew D.

10. It's said that you're active at WP:UAA so I looked through your recent contributions. These indicate that you typically use Twinkle to log entries there but that you don't discuss the issue with the user first, as recommended by the instructions. For example, one recent case was User:CoastalMountainSpotter. You reported them as a promotional user but their account name and upload (right) indicate that they are a plane spotter. Please explain. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

A: Hi Andrew D. I want to clarify something. The instructions say borderline cases should be discussed with the users and to not discuss and report at the same time. This case was clearly a user who wanted to promote their Instagram. Their username matched their promotional (now deleted) edits (as the admins on their page also acknowledge). However, in retrospect, that was a mistake and I probably shouldn't have reported. I will resolve to do better next time. I also agree with the admins on their talk page to move forward to manage the situation.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional questions from RhinosF1

11. You didn't join that long ago, What would be your advice to someone starting out?

A: I would suggest starting slow and picking an area that interests you. As well as not to be afraid to ask questions. Without the positive interactions and support I got from admins and experienced users, I don't think I would have lasted long.

12. You seem to have picked up how Wikipedia works very well, What convinced you to get stuck in so quick?

A: As something I have learnt throughout my time here, WP:BITE is important. While I began editing Wikipedia because I enjoyed my topic of interest, the courtious way I was introduced to the community was very important in convincing me to stay. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Dolotta

13. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?

A: A weakness I can identify on English Wikipedia is that I do not have a technological background. I can handle basic coding knowledge but I am out of my depth regarding bots and script creation. Therefore, I don't plan on running any bots or applying for a BRFA. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SteveStrummer

14. You're a vandalism fighter and I like that. But how deep should an administrator get in these waters? It's great to revert childish scribble and random deletions, but what about the more insidious vandalism of deliberate wrong information? I don't mean "fake news", but false information that's added by IPs to sabotage Wikipedia. This is more common than it may seem: I've encountered numerous instances where names, dates, and other hard facts were quietly changed by IPs for no apparent reason other than vandalism. I've even seen an IP return after days to make the same kind of change. My question to you is: Do you think it's an admin responsibility to watch for and vet unsourced IP edits, or is it something for the editors?

A: My answer would be that we all should be responsible for keeping Wikipedia accurate. While some editors randomly change articles for disruptive reasons (such as the Cause of death vandal or the Dog and rapper vandal), sometimes people make good faith but wrong edits continuously; the best thing to do is make sure everything is sourced, ideally to something that's easy to verify. Then, if a random IP makes a change contradicting that, you can simply say "the source doesn't say that". If the problem is chronic, semi-protection may be needed (such as with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Catcreekcitycouncil). In all cases, AGF is best. While administrators might have different tools, in order to keep Wikipedia running, everyone should do their fair share of vetting edits and checking accuracy. This shouldn't be a job for a few people but a goal for the website. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from SteveStrummer

15. Since you say you don't have a technology background and won't be using bots, how would you fight vandalism differently from the standard Twinkle user?

A: As an admin, I can view hidden content (such as accounts that trigger specific filters) that I cannot see now. Since I can see the hidden content, it will make it easier for me to find vandals and socks. For example, if I could have seen that previous versions of Mohamad Tiregar had been deleted due to G5, I could have blocked that user instead of wasting time engaging in a discussion with a sock. As an admin, I can also evaluate G4 instances as well. Another way I can fight vandalism is through CSD. Right now all I can do is tag articles and wait. As an admin, I can delete articles at CSD to help prevent a backlog, though of course not ones I tag myself. As has already been brought up, I can also help clear the backlog at AIV and RFPP. I hope this helps. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from Feminist

16. In what situations would you apply pending changes protection to a page?

A:I would use pending changes protection on articles with a low rate of editing, typically from autoconfirmed users, and the occasional bad edits by IPs and new users. It must be manageable enough to be dealt with one at a time. If too much influx of vandalism is coming in, such as four or more instances of vandalism from non-autoconfirmed users per day, I would semi-protect. A good example I can think of is Phil Kessel who was given pending changes protection in 2013 that lasted until 2018. Semi protection was occasionally added in 2015 when the vandalism got too much for pending changes to handle. This would be a good example of when pending changes protection should be used. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional question from PaleCloudedWhite

17. Your earliest edits seem quite unlike the ones I made as a newbie, which is not necessarily significant, but I'm wondering if you edited Wikipedia before you opened this account?

A: I previously edited as an IP for about a month before creating an account. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Links for HickoryOughtShirt?4: HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for HickoryOughtShirt?4 can be found here.

---

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

Support

1. Support as co-nom. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Support No major problems, net positive. SemiHypercube 01:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
3. ’Bout time.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Enthusiastic Support I rarely jump into newly posted RfAs but am making an exception here. Numerous interactions with this editor leave no doubt about their qualifications for the bit. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
5. Support: I run into Hickory frequently, and I don't think I've ever had cause to doubt their reports and assessments. I also happened upon a big fat article they wrote the other day; I didn't know Hickory did that too. So yeah, I support. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Support This individual is an asset to this website. I am happy to lend my support. Capt. Milokan (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Support I’m glad to see this nomination. I have been aware of HickoryOughtShirt?4 for some time as a person who contributes helpfully all over the ‘pedia. Their experience meets all my criteria, and more importantly they seem to consistently show the type of temperament we look for in an administrator: calm, courteous, patient, and always focused on Wikipedia policy. I feel sure they will be an asset to the admin corps. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
8. Good luck. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (alt) (talk to me) 01:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
9. Support Hickory is a pretty dedicated vandalism fighter and it is always nice to have more help at AIV. I do hope they will try to not stay up too late and over-exhaust themselves in editing Wikipedia. – XYZt (talk  |  contribs) – 01:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
10. Support Per Richie and the glimpses I have seen of this editor and theri work. I expect some opposition over shortness of tenure but I dont care ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
11. Support. Consistent contributor with a good attitude in dealing with other editors. Many positives in background support (counter-vandalism, NPR etc). Loopy30 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
12. Support, solid work on the mundane with sound judgement and patience. Really, just for mopping up the ankle nonsense at Wesley Johnson (basketball) alone. Kuru (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
13. Support, an asset to the project. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
14. Support because why the hell not? CoolSkittle (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
15. Support. This is the first time I hear about this editor, but now that I look into Hickory's work the candidate is clearly a strong net positive deserving of adminship. Biblio (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
16. Support as a fellow Canadian, but his edits and contributions seem solid. Two thumbs up from me. QueerFilmNerd^talk 02:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
17. Support, even though he's a Leafs fan. He'll be an asset. schetm (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
18. Support, adminship is not a big deal. Anybody can perform most of the admin actions. ~SS49~ {talk} 03:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
19. Support Specialist at hockey player articles. Generates content. Looks good to me. Also sorry about your team tonight Samir 03:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
20. Support likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
21. Support with enthusiasm. Diligent, conscientious, good judgment, helpful, good demeanor and positive interactions with others. Works on content as well as in other areas. I have interacted with Hickory on several occasions. Has established trustworthiness. Definitely a net positive. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
22. Absolutely. Though I do wish I understood the username. — 🦊 04:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
23. Support it will be good to have an admin focused on working in these areas. Mccapra (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

    Support - I see no problems with this RfA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AurumPower (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

    !Vote of obviously someone's sock indented. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

24. Support per above. Solid, respected editor. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
25. Strong support - The candidate both contributes content and is an experienced editor. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
26. Support - I don't often vote at RFA's, but Hickory is a user I see often at AIV and UAA and I think they would be valuable addition for administrating those. Agent00x (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
27. Support - Can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
28. Support as nominator Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
29. Support wholeheartedly. I often see them at UAA and they would be immensely helpful there, and I believe in other areas. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
30. Support- good answer to my question, decent AfD work, good article content creation. I really see no downsides. Reyk _YO! 08:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
31. Support - Thanks for volunteering! Vermont (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
32. Support- Great answers to all the questions :)—NØ 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
33. Support. The nomination is convincing and the candidate has adequate experience. Deryck C. 11:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
34. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
35. Support - I haven't yet looked in detail but if Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni are vouching for the candidate, admins I respect and trust, then that's a powerful argument. Per nom! Per nom! Also, the user has good solid content creation and the oppose/neutrals so far don't look like show-stoppers. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
36. Support good candidate. Jianhui67 ^T★C 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
37. Support – I don't see any problems. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
38. Support. Well beyond any reasonable minimal criteria, also pleasant and thoughtful in their discussions. Ifnord (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
39. Support The RfPP mistakes are reasonable in an editor's learning curve. Trustworthy and will learn. Lourdes 15:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
40. Support Looks goods and will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
41. Support The issues raised WRT question 4 are valid, but I don't think it's a big enough deal to make me oppose an experienced and otherwise excellent contributor. Hickory has noted the concerns, and promised to be more cautious with ECP in future - I'm happy to take that at face value and support. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
42. Support. A dedicated vandalism fighter. --Miaow 16:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
43. Support. My interactions with this editor lead me to trust them. They have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Undoubtedly they will make mistakes, but show that they will learn and improve. Will be glad to have you as an admin!Jacona (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
44. Support. Thank you for stepping forward and wanting to take on more responsibility. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
45. Support. As Ritchie333 has nominated this Wikipedian, I trust his judgement. SethWhales ^talk 17:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
46. Support A quality contributor in multiple areas. The project could use more admins who have personal experience starting out as an editor in today's Wikipedia. Bakazaka (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
47. Support I'd thought of asking them about RFA myself as they make a ton of valid reports at UAA. I'm not finding the opposes that compelling, admins don't have to be perfect, or have 500,000 edits, just a decent understanding of when to use the tools and I'm confident that is the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
48. I'm not wildly keen on people who request adminship on the basis of vandalfighting, as historically we've had a longstanding problem of people who take RFA as a license to play WikiCop, cause a bunch of problems, and prove very difficult to rein in. However, I'm not really seeing that kind of issue here. HOS appears to be someone who's willing to admit they don't know everything and to listen to other people, which is something we could do with more of. I don't find any of the opposes remotely concerning in this particular case. ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
49. Support though I've had limited interactions with this user, they've all been positive. Good admin temperament and vouching from respected members of community. Enwebb (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
50. Support number of edits is fine, but tenure length is bleeding edge for me, albeit on the right side of bleeding edge. Does not strike me as a hat collector. I have seen him around and been positively impressed. Could do better regarding semi-vs-ECP, but I think the candidate will take it on board. Regarding conflict resolution, not every admin frequents our most contentious areas, nor do they need to, to be a net positive for the project. I don't get any sense that the project will be harmed if candidate accesses the tools, and I see many areas that will be improved. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
51. I've seen HOS?4 around at AIV/RfPP/UAA a bunch, they always make good reports and they make a lot of reports; it'd definitely be a net gain having them on the janitor team. Autopatrolled user with a fine CSD log suggests good understanding of inclusion and content policies. I think the concerns about over-requesting ECP are valid, but it is a very recent shift. Per XTools, HOS has made roughly 411 RfPP requests since the beginning of 2018; 36 (~9%) were for ECP, and all but five of those were made in the past three months. I'd like to know from HickoryOughtShirt?4 what, if anything, prompted the change, but I'm not too concerned about it after this. Were it a longer ongoing issue maybe, but the many editors (correctly) telling HOS that it's not appropriate should be sufficient to set HOS straight. Answers to some questions could be a better, in particular to question 9, but they're approaching milquetoast, not alarum; indeed, some indicate that HOS should occasionally be more confident in their actions. Concerns over tenure are not warranted here, user has a more-than-sufficient track record on which to measure their judgment. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

    Also, I support more sysops with annoying characters in their username, on the off-chance that any malicious attacker/compromise script gets borked by not appropriate sanitizing its inputs. (I'm half-joking, but which half I'm not sure!) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

    ​❤️.....❤️ 04:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

52. Support. In just a few years, this editor was able to accomplish what others with much more tenure have failed to do. HickoryOughtShirt?4 is passionate and has a purpose. I support nominees who have a clue and want to take on more responsibilities. MX (✉ • ✎) 18:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
53. Support. We don't need perfection in admin candidates; we need competence in one or more admin areas, a willingness to learn, and the ability to communicate constructively. I'm seeing all of those things, and that's enough for me. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
54. Strong support. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

    Support Without a doubt! I fought vandalism with this user for quite a long time. INeedSupport ^:3 18:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

    Moved to Neutral INeedSupport ^:3 16:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

55. Support, precisely what Vanamonde93 said just above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
56. Support This user has been a huge help in fighting vandalism. I often try to report users at AIV only to find that this user has beaten me to the punch! I've long admired this user's diligence, patience, civility, and fairness. Giving them the admin tools will be a huge net positive for the project. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
57. Support with enthusiasm. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
58. Support, I see the candidate quite a lot requesting protection at RFPP, and their requests are typically sufficiently justified.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
59. Support I've seen them around doing a lot of vandal-fighting. I think they can be trusted with the mop.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
60. Has more than enough experience and exhibits sounds judgement, with no indications that they'd abuse or flagrantly misuse the tools. Most admins go their entire careers here without any major confrontations or disputes, so I'm not convinced by the opposes demanding to see combat scars before they'd reconsider. I'll grant that concerns about the candidate's trigger-happiness do have merit; there are a handful of overzealous RFPP and UAA reports to be found, if one digs deep enough (per Andrew D., "CoastalMountainSpotter" was a bad report and a bad block). That said, the vast majority are within policy and collectively helping to keep the project clean. Like I always say, adminship is not a "perfect editor" award. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
61. Support per Vanamonde93. Tenure is a bit short for me, but that's certainly not a deal-breaker. GAB^gab 21:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
62. Support Although I haven't crossed paths with the candidate yet, their noms are trustworthy and answers to the questions are good. Suitable temperament for adminship and a willingness to learn from mistakes (which we all make) enable me to overlook the opposes. Definite net positive. Miniapolis 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
63. Support – Like Aoi, I have often tried to revert vandalism / report vandals to AIV only to find that HickoryOughtShirt?4 was faster . I find them to be clueful and have no reason to believe they will abuse the mop. –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
64. Support HickoryOughtShirt?4 is a competent editor who will make good use of the tools. Also, I think 18 months and 50,000+ edits is enough to meet basic tenure requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
65. Support I've seen this user actively cleaning up vandalism and being an active recent changes patroller. Although I don't know how much information he may or may not know regarding this project, I am inclined to support them to become an admin. As others have mentioned, since the user is considered fairly new I have my faith that he is a quick learner in admin-ship and undoubtedly will be an asset as an admin. --Wikiemirati (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
66. Support I met the candidate at an edit-a-thon, found them impressively helpful and remember thinking: "You're going to make a good admin some day". Vexations (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
67. Support Competent and hard-working vandal fighter. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
68. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
69. I don't see anything to suggest that this editor would abuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 03:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
70. Support. Seems like a fine candidate. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
71. Support 18mo is long enough for me, vandal fighting supported by AIV stats, and what Vanamonde said. Leviv ich 05:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
72. Support - meets my criteria. Clearly a net positive. A decade of tenure or religious participation at the drama boards should not be a prerequisite for adminship in my opinion. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 06:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
73. Weak Support candidate has a nice mix of content contributions and anti vandalism work. There have been a couple of comments in the Oppose section about tenure, but the candidate has been active since late 2017, about 18 months, easily long enough for a first run at RFA. Weak because of the Extended confirmed issue raised in Q4, support because of their assurance of learning from that criticism in their answer to Q4. Having read some of their articles created I would also bring the candidate's attention to their use of the word "currently". ϢereSpielChequers 07:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
74. Support personally I'd like to see more content creation and development to GA at least, but what I've seen of HickoryOughtShirt?4 has been positive, and I'm minded to support, provided they take on board the ECP vs. semi feedback. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
75. HickoryOughtShirt?4 hasn't been here all that long, but he's got enough experience and will help with backlogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
76. Cautious support. As their response to Q4 show, the nominee still needs to learn more about page protection policies (and perhaps many more rules). However, in all honesty, this is not something that can't be done over an evening or two. For now, I don't see any signals that the candidate cannot be trusted. I also keep in mind that desysopping always exists as an option. So, for now, my cautious support. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
77. Support I don't see an issue with the months of experience. HickoryOughtShirt?4 has demonstrated good content creation, sufficient understanding of our policies and a commitment to fight vandalism. I see no indication whatsoever that the user may abuse or misuse the tools, so I thank him for his commitment to undertake this new responsibility and I am happy to support his nomination. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
78. Support, meets my RFA criteria. Tenure is a stupid reason to oppose a perfectly good candidate. Like some of the other supporters above, I'm happy to see the response to constructive criticism about which levels of protection to use and when Iffy★Chat -- 10:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
79. Support I like the answer to Q5, which is a common enough question founded on the weird premise that someone might like, for instance, WP:RS over WP:NPA. I mean, a thoughtful editor might have observations on which policies have had unintended consequences in the 15+ years of enwiki's existence, but that's not what the question is asking for. Anyway, the candidate answered it thoughtfully, as they did with Q6 and Q7 which shouldn't have appeared in this RfA either. I'll also note the weirdness of opposers who apparently want RfA candidates, who edit for free like everyone else, to get into bunfights they have no appetite for as evidenced by comments like "These days admins must have experience in handling any and all kinds of contention." Sigh. Let's just have a better RfA for whoever the next candidate is. Airbornemihir (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
80. Support. Shows the WP acumen to use tools (both content and non-admin rights), the enthusiam for WP to be impactful with the tools (we need that), and demonstrates the temperment to resolve and learn from the inevitable mistakes that comes with getting any new WP rights. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
81. Support Seems to be a good candidate, users I trust support so I'll join in. Abzeronow (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
82. I assume that you've taken into account comments made by other users regarding inappropriate RFPP requests. feminist (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
83. Support Vandal-fighting experience and content contributor. 18 months and 50k+ edits is plenty of experience to establish a track record. Candidate is reacting well to concerns about some of his answers, and I'm confident he'll continue to do so. Thanks for stepping up. MarginalCost (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
84. Support as a net positive. I'm not convinced by any of the opposing rationale. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
85. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
86. Support Although Q4 was slightly troubling, they are an all round good editor and I see no reason why they are not suited to the mop. I would suggest that the editor considers it (like they have done in their answer), however, this isn't a big deal and we are all human (so mistakes can be made). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
87. Weak Support - The tenure and the answer to Q4 are both a concern for me however I have to agree with Vanamonde there is no perfect candidate and as long as they don't delete the main page then I don't see why they shouldn't generally be granted the tools. –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
88. Support - seldom have I seen an editor who has developed as complete and nuanced understanding of Wikipedia as fast as Hickory has. He will not delete the mainpage. John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    I like that for a quick and simple guide to RFA voting. Will the candidate delete the main page if given the tools? (y/n) –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

89. Support I don’t see why not. Nothing wrong with having experience in a smaller number of areas, and experience will always continue to be gained. Aiken D 18:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
90. Support per nom. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
91. Support - civilized, pleasant, clued-up editor with good skills and excellent commitment. DBaK (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
92. Support Their length of tenure did give me pause but they have enough of a track record for me to trust them with the tools. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
93. Support Clearly a capable all-rounder. We need people like him. Moriori (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
94. Hickory has earned my support, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
95. Will make a fine addition. El_C 23:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
96. Heck Yea Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
97. Support Can certainly be trusted; I've come across his edits in numerous areas in the past and he has thanked me for numerous edits, and I his. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 00:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
98. Support - Although tenure and some of the answers gave me pause, there is nothing concerning enough to put me in the oppose camp and the candidate seems open to feedback. No reason not to trust them with the tools. -- Dane ^talk 00:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
99. Support - Fine candidate. Looks like a mistake was made in the answer to the protection question, but that's fine. So long as the candidate can learn, they will do fine with access to a few extra buttons. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
100. Support per nom and per questionable opposes. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
101. Support - Competent user who can be trusted to make good use of the admin tools. utcursch | talk 02:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
102. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
103. Support. After a very thorough, exhaustive investigation of this user's editing history I've come to the conclusion that he's Canadian and can do no wrong. ;) -- œ^™ 03:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
104. Support per OlEnglish. Also, Hickory has done good work at NPP, which I hope continues. – bradv🍁 04:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
105. Support Per œ.... Here's to another member of the Canadian Cabal. You fellas editors up north (don't want to leave out the rest & best!) are spectacular. But honestly, any green-ness from the candidate ought to wear off in no time.  Spintendo  04:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
106. Support Per others--BoothSift 05:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
107. Support. I'm not looking for millions of edits or decades of tenure, just someone who has been here long enough and done enough to show they know how things work and will use the admin tools well. HickoryOughtShirt?4 passes that test easily, and I don't find any of the opposes remotely convincing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
108. Support Seems to be helpful and a net positive to the project, at least from the editor's history. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 06:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Editor for the past year and a half, wanted the tools six months ago? right after they'd received NPR? That alone gives me pause. Being given the tool to block and protect would be very helpful - Mmm... blocking is a tool of last resort. It should not be the first thing in your "arsenal". Moreover, I took a look at your RfPPs in light of Skygazer's question. You requested ECP for Jake Gardiner today. The article has been edited disruptively by some IPs. The same is true of Nikita Kucherov, Andrei Svechnikov, Nazem Kadri and Benoît Bastien where you've requested ECP over the past week or so. You appear to regularly ask for ECP to combat disruptive IPs, this is not what ECP is for. Pressingly though, your other main tool request is to enact page protection. I don't think you have the knowledge to be trusted with that tool. In the case of Enes Kanter, which I skipped over in the above list, well at least one of the editors is AC. Of course, naturally, I have encountered conflict and disagreed with editors, especially in contentious areas - Perfect, except the example of conflict you give is to a page with less than 50 edits total and isn't really a conflict. That's unconvincing. If that's the best example of conflict resolution you have, then you don't have any experience dealing with conflict. If it's not, then why bring it up? And it's from six months ago to boot. In sum, I don't think this user is ready to use the tools they are requesting. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   On the first point, I was the person who approached them 6 months ago to urge them to think about RfA down the line and pinged Ritchie333 about it to make him aware. If you read the full conversation, you’ll see I preemptively gave them NPR, and that they are one of the single most humble and authentic users on the project, who actually was not trying to set a campaign up for RfA, but was approached being told after 11 months that they had the potential to be a good admin in the future.

   Speaking as one of the more conservative people when it comes to reviewing RfPP, I can get why the question was asked/the concern. At the same time, something that I’ve come to realize over time is that sports bios in particular tend to attract a lot of disruption around specific sporting events, and that you do get woodwork autoconfirmed accounts coming out to vandalize, etc. it’s not an excuse for pre-emotive protection, but I certainly get why sports editors are frustrated with it and read the response as explaining the past actions rather than being indicative of future performance, especially as they already have explained that they have no intent of protecting preemptively. People are allowed to be frustrated with policy based on experience. What matters is the commitment to follow consensus and policy, even if frustrated. I see nothing in any of their actions or responses that suggests they would do otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose per the Rnd dude analysis. The answer to Q4 is indeed troubling: Wants to work in RFPP but pre-emptively ECP's pages against IP users? No thanks; there's enough of that kind of thing already, and promising to follow policy after becoming an admin isn't worth much when one has failed to do so before. More nuance is clearly required; not an insurmountable problem, I assume. ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Chope. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   @Lugnuts: I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying this candidate hasn't been sufficiently scrutinized without saying what specific problem you have? Or that there is a procedural irregularity with the nomination? Or that you have some generic opposition to RfA in general? Just trying to understand, thanks. MarginalCost (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Rnd dude. The requests for page protections were plainly bad. More importantly, I want to see more examples of his being in conflict and how he wades across them. The one mentioned does not remotely seem to be a conflict and that I don't support the linked method of gaining the tools, I choose to oppose. I also wish to emphasize that I have no personal qualms against his editorial behavior, till date and remain willing to shift camps, shall my concern be satisfied. ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   Since it’s been commented on twice, the use of the new user in Q3 is likely my fault. We were discussing the nom and I said the example could even be something small as what people care about is seeing the interactions with others. When they mentioned that example, I thought it was great as they’d mainly be interacting with new users, and it showed how they’re always willing to discuss things, even with new users, which is often ignored in RfA. Not trying to badger, but I think it’s worth pointing out when my advice is the cause of concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   Behavior with new users is worth a point, emphasizing upon but to quote Guy:-...Spend one or maybe two years never disagreeing with anyone on anything..... but never ever on anything where there is the slightest chance that there will anything other than overwhelming agreement with you......

   I don't believe that Hickory is running for RFA with such a grand scale of pre-planned staging but the concerns are valid, (at-least to me). When you protect an article in the wrong version and it's legacy maintainer screams at you, you need to have served in the trenches to understand his perspective and to resolve that, in a competent and least-drama manner. ∯WBG^converse 14:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   Also, as to Tony's comment:- and you'll see them making numerous intelligent reports at the anti vandalism noticeboard, I note that after about a month of the RFA-chat with Tony, he resigned from AIV-reporting and his last edit over there was on 27 November. (Assuming SQL's stats are correct.) There's virtually nil AfD participation, prior to this year. A single PROD, all along. CSD-log is enabled from January, 2019 and is quite-restricted to user-space and/or R8 et al; though that's understandable post-ACTRIAL. The page-curation log documents reviews of sure-shot stuff, mostly about basketball/ice-hockey team sessions and surnames. The more I look, the more I believe that he is the best-fit for Guy's supposedly hypothetical way to mop and I seek for the passage of about a year. ∯WBG^converse 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   @Winged Blades of Godric: SQL's stats are incorrect. According to xtools, they've made 745 edits to AIV this year alone. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose for now. Not enough experience in contentious areas. These days admins must have experience in handling any and all kinds of contention. I was also surprised to see favourite policies did not include WP:RS which is fundamental to writing articles. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Regretful oppose - a good and enthusiastic editor, but too new for me to be comfortable handing out the tools. Sorry. GiantSnowman 15:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose. With all due respect for the work so far, I have no problems with that at all, but I'd like to see a little more staying power before handing out a mop. I'd be happy to support in another year or so. In short: WP:NOTQUITEYET. Yintan  19:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I have to agree with Mr rnddude. I don't think Hickory will be responsible with the tools. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   Additional note. One of the general comments down below mentioned how it appears the candidate has only voted in one RfA in the past. Wouldn't it be a good idea if they had more experience in RfA? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose: the ECP requests concern me, as RFPP is a place where admins use discretion about what sort of protection to apply. It's already incredibly hard for new editors to start out on Wikipedia and we don't need to put up more barriers. ECP is a sledgehammer used to crack a nut and in my opinion, it is absolutely insane to apply in any non-Arbcom instance (semi and PC are much, much better). The answer to question #4 just isn't firm enough to make me confident that the candidate won't go over the top with protections. I don't see any civility issues with the candidate, which I think is far and away the most important trait in an admin, so that's why my oppose is weak. I do like their response to question #10, as admitting mistakes and changing your behaviour, rather than digging further, is important. I'd like to vehemently disagree with editors saying that 18 months is not enough experience, and point out that some of the questions posed to the candidate (#5, #7, #12) are ridiculous. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 23:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you don't understand the point of question 5. All the candidates that I have asked it have understood its relevance, and nobody's ever described it as ridiculous before. Reyk _YO! 09:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   It’s certainly more relevant than ″what does your username mean” which it appears we must now have at every RfA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose for now, but might support in the future. They joined just few years ago and I'm concerned about their lack of experience. I think it is just a bit too soon. Whatever happens, I wish them all the best.Tamsier (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose. (Moved from "Neutral".) After giving this some more thought, and reading other editors' comments, I'm in this camp. Almost everything I'm seeing regarding the nominee's work that supports them getting the administrative rights is in regards to WP:AIV and WP:UAA. For an administrative candidate, I would have at least expected some work in other admin-related areas such as WP:RFPP, performing non-admin closes on any of the WP:XFD forums, drama prevention at WP:ANI, WP:SPI ... just anything else in addition to WP:AIV. In other words, I feel as though the nominee is too green in regards to their knowledge of places where administrators tend to be needed, with the exceptions of WP:AIV and WP:UAA. So, I oppose on the basis of not enough experience working in additional forums on Wikipedia where administrators are needed. Too much risk of human error for me to be comfortable with supporting at this time. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    Also, the nominee fails my minimum RfA criteria. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    Steel: Just curious, any reason why you left "autopatrolled" off the list? (BTW I would have failed your criteria.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    @MelanieN: Oh snap, I did, and I know what happened: I must have thought it said "autoconfirmed" when I first read it. Well, time to update that list (and may have to up the minimum number by one; I left it at that number for reasons I hope to have time to further explain one day.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    Not to bludgeon but just to point out: In addition to their 2,144 edits at AIV and 964 at UAA, Hickory has 555 edits at RFPP and 78 at ANI. [1] -- MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    @MelanieN: Fair enough, I'll strike out the bit I said about WP:RFPP. I'm not going to strike out the WP:ANI part (yet) though since I'm unaware what the content of their WP:ANI edits consist of. (But, on a related note, this RfA motivated me to finally create a start for my own RfA criteria, and this candidate fails it.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    Having few edits at ANI should be a good thing! ANI is bad. Honestly, 78 is higher than I'd like! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

12. Oppose. I think candidates, particularly relatively new members, who say their primary goal is anti-vandalism should be scrutinized very closely: It's rather like a police cadet whose primary goal is to make arrests. I was very disappointed by HOS's lack of enthusiasm for the detective work I described in my Q14. I see a far greater danger to WP in data saboteurs (not to mention hoaxers, publicists, plagiarists, and others) than garden variety vandalism. The Q15 response was also disappointing: I was hoping for some distinct areas of concentration, not just helping with simple tasks like G4 and G5 Speedy Deletions. I also don't approve of the answers to Q9 (call me crazy but I think school blocks are always wrong) and Q4 which speaks to the usefulness at RfPP. Lastly I see very few Support votes that say more than "Net gain, good chap, why not?" and that is inappropriate for a lifetime appointment. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    SteveStrummer, to be fair, Q15 is very high on my list of “silliest RfA questions ever asked” and I don’t think the candidate should have even answered it. I jokingly call adminship “advanced twinkle” because from a practical standpoint, that’s all it is. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    TonyBallioni I bet you get a lot of laughs with that joke. I simply wanted to know what the candidate would focus on beyond reverting. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

    What more would you be looking for? HOS could've said merely "I can block and delete instead of reporting, and can block and delete that which others have nominated" and it would have been wholly helpful. G4 and G5 were given as examples relevant to recent areas of work, but every user blocked and every page deleted is one another sysop doesn't have to spend time reviewing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Per admin criteria. The candidate is partway there, with one GA, and with additional time and another GA (or one FA) I could support. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Too new Borderline fails my criteria but I'm not decided, yet. Since the 'crats won't count my vote I guess it doesn't matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
2. Neutral Tentatively, but hoping to be persuaded. The answer given for Q4 is somewhat concerning, as I feel the answer suggests the candidate did not pause to read the protection policy before forming a response. I really suggest they go reread WP:ECP and perhaps amend the answer with a follow up. -- ferret (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
3. The RFPP concerns give me pause because the first thing you learn there is that you shouldn't request protection preemptively. Additionally, as Mr rnddude pointed out, rushing to block someone isn't the first port of call either. Suggests a degree of over-eagerness, but I hope future questions can persuade me to support. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
4. Neutral - They're a bit too soon for me but they seem to be doing pretty well. Others have expressed some concerns that given the areas they want to work in are concerning but I can't see anything concerning enough to oppose although I'm not convinced enough to support. Maybe try again in 9 months to a year. See my RfA Criteria for what I've based it on. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

   It is strange that you would link to WP:TOOSOON, since that essay is totally about notability of article subjects, and makes no reference to RfA.--rogerd (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning oppose. (Moved to "Oppose"). I really feel like it's WP:TOOSOON WP:NOTNOW, and surprisingly to me, given that I tend to be everywhere on Wikipedia, I've never heard of this editor. (Seriously, I originally thought this RFA was for an alternative account of Shirt58.) May be sitting this one out, but I don't see myself hovering to the "Support" column. Steel1943 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   It is strange that you would link to WP:TOOSOON, since that essay is totally about notability of article subjects, and makes no reference to RfA.--rogerd (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   @Rogerd: Almost everyone does that at some point when commenting on RFA when they mean to link WP:NOTNOW. Corrected. Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   To add to the confusion, you probably meant WP:NOTQUITEYET, for intermediate users who are just a bit too inexperienced. WP:NOTNOW is the "sysop is not for n00bs" essay. And of course there is an essay about this distinction, WP:NOTNOTNOW. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

5. Neutral Response to Q4 makes me wary because technical restriction on editing should be a last resort to prevent abuse. The preemptive requests for ECP worry me because of that, but the user seems to have enough clue that I take them at their word that they'll do better going forward. However like SerialNumber54129 I'd want to see some indication of that before saying I fully trust them with the tools. I'll think about it over the coming days but I think I'm firmly neutral. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
6. Neutral I originally voted support in this request. However, now when I think about it (with the influence of the general comment section), I think having only 1.5 years of experience is not quite enough just yet. Having around 2-3 years of experience would be best for the user. I worried that with just 1.5 years of experience, the user would cause some questionable actions. This happens to me sometimes, even though I have around 1.5 years of experience. Also, I would realize that I have more things to learn after other users told me about things I was obvious too. Although I definitely think that this user has a lot more experience than me, I feared that the user would do things like I did earlier. I do feel remorseful that I have to change my vote from support to neutral, but I thought it's important that I have to be earnest. INeedSupport ^:3 16:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   A more appropriate homage to The Importance of Being Earnest would be to create two accounts, one taking on the role of well-respected admin Jack Worthing, the other taking on the more forthright and less civil content creator Ernest .... "Gwendolen, it is a terrible thing for an admin to find out suddenly that all his life he has been speaking nothing but Wikipedia policy. Can you forgive me?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

   "When one is a sysop one amuses other people. It is excessively boring." Or maybe "This RfA candidate is quite perfect." "Oh! I hope they are not that. It would leave no room for developments, and I expect them to develop in many directions." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

7. Neutral Tough one. Mostly per answer to Q4. Normally this wouldn't be a concern, but since the candidate has expressed interest in RfPP work, I can't support in good conscious. -FASTILY 08:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

General comments

Take the general comments about RfA elsewhere, they are not relevant to this RfA. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's pointless voting: the 'crats will change the guidelines at will to make a mockery of the system anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Oh stop whining. We know you weren't happy, the matter is over. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Making a valid comment is not "whining", so pop it up your smoke and pipe it, will you. While it's fecking obvious that the matter of the last RfA is over, the overall system is not "over", and is still open to the same underhand machinations as to the last one. Please don't try to poke me further - it's not big or clever. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC) No, it is whining - please feel free to do it elsewhere and leave this RFA alone. GiantSnowman 08:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC) Goodness me: two admins unable to stomach valid criticism in a fractured system. Please feel free to ignore the comment, do something useful somewhere else (I don't know - do something most admins can't do: write a decent article or something) and don't try poking me. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: Since this RfC, candidates are required to disclose if they have edited for pay. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)@GiantSnowman Per policy, this is required (Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay) and is usually done in the acceptance to preempt a question asking the same. (And, full disclosure, I nudged the nom to nudge the candidate) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amorymeltzer and L235: thanks for confirming! GiantSnowman 10:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• Seeing this theme of "here only 18 months" makes me a bit sad. That seems like more than sufficient of a tenure to become a sysop. Heck 12 good months (and yes I mean good not great or does nothing but edit Wikipedia 24/7/365) should be more than sufficient in terms of background. Of course not everyone is ready after 12 months or 18 months or 120 months but that readiness (or not) seems to have less to do with the length of tenure than other factors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that people’s expectation of admin tenure is getting kind of ridiculous. “Only” 18 months’ tenure is now considered “too new”? Or a recent RfA where a candidate was dinged for having “only” 25,000 edits? It used to be that a year of solid, quality editing and 10,000 to 15,000 edits was considered sufficient for RfA, and IMO that is still a good baseline. In this case, Hickory has over 50,000 edits - more than many long-established admins, and way more than most successful RfA candidates. Can we please evaluate someone like this on the basis of their history and their contributions and their temperament, rather than raising the bar higher and higher on tenure? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Please be aware that the prevalent qualifications have risen since each of you joined. This isn't 2007 and we don't run RfAs that way, anymore. You can disagree with popular expectations if you like but Wikipedia has changed. We have many more rules across a considerable number of fora and niche communities. The project reaches more broadly than it used to. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      • • @Chris troutman: Please be aware that the prevalent qualifications have risen since each of you joined. This isn't 2007 and we don't run RfAs that way, anymore. Please don’t assume. I became an admin in 2015; RfA had high standards then, and still does, and should. As I said, a minimum tenure, minimum number of edits, and experience in various admin areas are all expected now. For a long time the minimum tenure was a year; I don’t think there is any real justification for the recent escalation that says even a year-and-a-half is too short. What is the requirement now? Two years? Five? Based on what? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Even in 2007, no candidate could reasonably be expected to know all the rules. Shouldn't the baseline be (in any "era") that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient clue in their previous interactions and edits that one can expect them to be able to follow and enforce even those rules they are not yet familiar with? Regards SoWhy 17:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
        • This. It's why looking for particular metrics frequently isn't helpful, whether here or at WP:PERM, but looking for a track record that shows a user is clueful is. Maybe 8,000 edits in a year could do that, and maybe 80,000 in eight couldn't; not all edits are the same. If you get people who have a good sense of what they know and what they don't know, and how to proceed, if at all, in the latter cases, you're better off than with someone who looks great on paper but won't handle a new scenario well. To make an analogy to statistics, it's better to have a model that is reasonably good on past data and works well going forward than one that works 100% historically but is overfit and doesn't work well in the future. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
          • To put things into perspective, edit count and tenure is a stickly precedent to entertain, at any time. For example, GoldenRing made an administrator with a long tenure but relatively less edits to show for it, on the other hand, BU Rob13 did probably the opposite and both of them are adminstrators in good standing now (former is an AC clerk and the latter, a member). It's always apples and oranges, that's my entire point. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• I have frequently found it useful to examine a candidates own !votes at previous RFAs. In trying to do so today, I find the tool isn't working for me. Is it working for anyone else? Is anyone aware of another method of obtaining these, or perhaps of the contributions this candidate has made at previous RfAs? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93: The tool does not work for me either but you can use quarry:35404 to generate that list. But it's a very small list, as far as I can tell they only participated in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2. Regards SoWhy 12:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

---

• I have to wonder, what is the generally accepted amount of experience it takes in order to gain the adminship rights? Is one and a half years of experience enough? This user joined in November 2017. I joined in June 2017, yet I don't think I'm as experienced as HickoryOughtShirt?4. As of April 24, the user is very likely to gain the right, which probably makes the user one of the fastest ever to gain it. INeedSupport ^:3 21:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is a "generally accepted amount of experience". It varies by editor, and several editors have an "RFA standards" page, but in only applies to their own criteria. At the beginning of the project, a couple months and a thousand edits was sufficient, but how could have been otherwise? About 5 years ago I would have said the general consensus is 1 year and 10,000 edits. Now I'd say 18 months and 20,000 edits. I think for almost everyone context matters. For instance, I'd much rather see 3 years and 15,000 edits than 9 months and 50,000 edits. The type of edits also matter. I just made a hash of a move attempt of a portal and subpages, which resulted in more than 800 "edits." I'm also working on a new article for Lanor Records, for which I have precisely two edits to account for over the last week. Guess which one involved far more time and effort? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• • I still think a year and 10,000 is the brightline for most people. You’ll some opposes over it, but by that point it’s not enough to sink an RfA if there are no other issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Edit Conflict @INeedSupport I very much doubt that this candidate is in the running to be one of the 100 admins with shortest tenure when they passed RFA, let alone the least tenure of any new admin ever. 18 months is relatively short for recent years, but not the shortest of the modern era. In the 2003-2008 era when the vast majority of admins were appointed the expected minimum tenure steadily grew from a few weeks, to several months until stabilising at about a year close to a decade ago. A year seems like a long time, but there was a theory that it pretty much guaranteed that a new admin wasn't one of certain problem users returning. I don't know why anyone would think that more than 12 months was necessary, let alone 18 months. ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In 2007, having a tenure of one year meant you were here for one sixth of Wikipedia's existence. In 2019, a tenure of one year translates only into 1/18th of Wikipedia's total existence. Hence, some might (subconsciously) require longer tenure now than in the "good old days"™ because the same absolute length no longer corresponds with a significant relative length. So I can somewhat understand that some people don't feel like one year nowadays is the same as it was when Wikipedia was comparatively young. I mean when I ran for admin, Wikipe-tan was barely in elementary school, now she is old enough to vote. Regards SoWhy 13:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• For a blast from the past, my RFA standards page has remained untouched for a decade. It says 9 months experience and 2,000 edits. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

---