Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hmwith 2

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

Final (79/0/0); Ended Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:41:58 (UTC)

hmwith (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you hmwith (aka. Hayley)! Hayley is one of our great, hard working Encyclopedia editors, with over 3500 edits to the mainspace. But wait, there's more; she also does great work keeping images inline with fair use policies (we ALWAYS need more fair use admins), a kicks ass in the template namespace.

Hayley is active in project space areas include TfD, AfD, and AN - so she certainly has the experience required to be a highly successful bearer of the mop. Did I mention her WikiProject and Adopt-a-User work? Probably not, which is why I'm mentioning it now. Finally, as the icing on the cake, she uses Mozilla Firefox and Windows XP - what more could we want from an editor? Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hayley, who you may know as hmwith! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Hayley has been a bit inactive recently, because she is still recovering from surgery. Please don't hold this against her; she'll be back to her full editing capacity soon. See her talk page for more details. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nomination from Walton: I have little to add to Giggy's excellent nomination statement. Hayley is a truly great candidate, always civil and polite even when under stress. She has experience in numerous admin-related areas - XfDs, speedy deletions, vandal fighting - and is very well-informed about all our policies and guidelines (even the arcane fair use policy). Beyond that, Hayley is also a hardworking article-writer; she's worked tirelessly to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drinking games and Ohio-related topics. Overall, it would be no exaggeration to state that Hayley is one of the best Wikipedians I have ever encountered, and has the potential to be a truly great administrator. Walton^{alternate account} 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nomination II from Acalamari: I wish to be Hmwith's second co-nominator for this RfA of hers. As well as agreeing with everything Giggy and Walton One have said, I'd like to add my own facts about her. For one thing, Hmwith is a calm user; I believe she handled the opposition in that RfA reasonably well, and as there's been a decent length of time between this RfA and that one, I believe that she can handle criticism and other problems even better now than then. With her editing, as mentioned above, she is a fine article-writer, but she has done quite a lot of work to templates, and with images (over 400 edits in those namespaces combined). With discussions, Hmwith is not only civil, but she is good at communicating. For these reasons, and the ones listed above me, I am honored to be able to co-nominate Hmwith. Acalamari 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-nomination III from IronGargoyle: I am pretty stingy in my RfA nominations, so I hope you will take that into account in my co-nomination of Hmwith. Echoing my esteemed colleagues above, Hmwith is an excellent user and have I have been impressed with her judgment in various XfD discussions, particularly MfD. She has a sound knowledge of policy, and viewing her edit history shows a steady trajectory of increasing excellence, judgment and dedication to the project. She is a civil and level-headed user, and I feel she will wield the mop with care. IronGargoyle 23:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept this... wow... quadruple nomination. Thank you very much to each of my nominators. I also apologize for the amount of time it took me to accept the nomination. This is due to surgery and then waiting until I moved down (and got settled into) my new apartment at college. I feel that I have addressed each of the individual concerns in my first RfA, and I am looking forward to this one.  hmwith  talk 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: I intend on doing a lot of routine maintenance, such as deleting legit speedy delete pages, editing protected pages when it is needed, blocking IP addresses that have gotten several recent "last warnings" from WP:AIV, and other typically mundane (or possibly elvish) tasks that I, personally, find enjoyable (maybe I'm just odd). I'll try my best to help with the admin backlog, trying to switch between different tasks depending oyn my mood and motivation of the particular day.

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

A: I create a great deal of needed templates, upload my own, free images, and fix grammar and such on articles. Everyday, I revert a great deal of vandalism on my watched articles as well as recent changes. I particularly enjoy fixing improperly cited references and wikifying, as one can see in my edit summaries. I also regularly take part in WP:XFD, as well as provide third opinions from time to time, when I feel like my opinion would help the situation.

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: Providing a few third opinions, some users have disagreed with what I've said. However, once I direct the usually newer users to the policies, they usually agree. On political articles, WP:NPOV is also usually an issue. I've worked with editors with conflicting opinions to work toward a fully unbiased article. If editors refuse to compromise, I simply take the page or template off of my watchlist, and let it go (unless it's obvious vandalism).

4. How'd you make 4000 edits in one month? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant April 2007, when she made 3868? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was over 5000 in April ... if you count all the edits that were deleted when she had several of her userspace pages deleted. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've made 5700 edits this month and still have six days to go... When BHG AWB-split Category:British MPs into regional subcategories, she racked up 60,000 edits in a couple of months — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Haha, I actually fractured a bone in my foot, so I was sitting at home, bored all day. That's when I first got into editing Wikipedia.  hmwith  talk 16:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. How have you changed and improved since your previous unsuccessful RFAs? Stifle (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Yes, my previous RfA was mostly opposed based on lack of time/experience here. Several months and a great deal of editing have taken place since then. A few editors mentioned that I hadn't made quite enough namespace edits, which I feel that I have adequately addressed.  hmwith  talk 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• That took quite a long time, but better late than never :) Melsaran (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I know, but I wanted to make sure I was able to put the time and effort into this, especially being able to quickly respond to queries.  hmwith  talk 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Signatures with that many span tags should be banned outright. 68.219.123.110 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm concerned that the userpage reference to "Islamofascism" won't sit well if you ever get in the middle of editing disputes regarding Israel, for example, but I don't see that as a problem for blocking IPs at AIV.--Chaser - T 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support. Experienced and trustworthy editor who seems to have a fair knowledge of policy. Melsaran (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support Great user - dedicated, fine knowledge of policy, polite and a nice person. Should do well. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose ((support)) Too many nominators undermine the value that this editor has given to Wikipedia, and the civility and calmness they have used in doing so.</WP:POINT> Pedro |  Chat  20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't really see how this directly affects my ability to be a helpful, positive administrator, but I would like to invite you to make your judgment based on my actions and contributions to the project if you're interested. Thanks! =)  hmwith  talk 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmwith - view the blue link to my RfA. I was being pointy, and this is not an oppose - it's an outright support. 4 noms = 4 editors who prefer to give more than just a strong support, and indicates (IMHO) that some members of the community are particularly keen for you to get the tools to help out.Pedro |  Chat  20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Haha, I did go to the RfA link, and I thought you were being serious at first anyways. However, I was crossing out that comment and edit conflicted with you when you responded. It took me a second to figure out if you were joking or being serious. I must need more sleep. =) Sorry about that, Pedro! Thanks for keeping me on my toes... haha.  hmwith  talk 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah sarcasm is not really a good thing, and I apologise. Best Wishes Pedro |  Chat  20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, I was actually the first person to nominate (see the edit history and the timestamp on my nom statement). For some reason H₂0 demoted me to the status of a co-nom, but I'm too tired to grumble about it. Walton^One 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Strong Support, good editor. What I've seen I've liked. Changed to strong after seeing that you're an OSU student. Wizardman 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Qualified the last time around, I think you did a great job of addressing any concerns voiced previously. Clearly a well respected, and trusted editor. Good luck! Hiberniantears 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. I strongly support this nomianation, being a co-nominator. Regarding the number of nominations, I did not know there was going to be four nominators; I thought it was only going to be two. I was surprised by the other two. Acalamari 20:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, experience, trustworthy. You will be a good admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support After reading the other comments and your answers, I feel that you will make a great admin. MasterXC 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Can I ask how a relatively new user (about 20 edits) came to this RFA? 64.126.24.12 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm, I hadn't looked into it. Thanks for pointing that out. The closing 'crat will likely take that into consideration.  hmwith  talk 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   (to the IP) How did you? :-) --Agüeybaná 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's probably a regular who doesn't want to get into any trouble for whatever reason. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Seems so, it appears she doesn't log in from work anymore. Dureo 02:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support without reservation. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Titanium Support - Of Course, she deserves it since she is hardworking and the nomination was excellent and we need more nice admins.. Good Luck Hayley.. :D....--Cometstyles 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support — excellent participation in both the mainspace and Wikipedia namespace. --Agüeybaná 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. SupportAs per Melasan and Riana and is also very active.Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Exactly the type of person that should get admin powers. Liempt 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Of course. Absolutely no reason not to trust this user. I feel that hmwith has a good understanding of policy. GDonato (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support has a wide range of experience, and works with images; always a plus. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. My previous interactions with hmwith left me with the impression that she was already an administrator (...completely forgetting the fact that I'd participated in her first RfA...). I'm confident she'll do well with the tools. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. D_arkF_alls ^talk 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. SupportRlevse 21:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Have seen a good deal of her work and am impressed by it. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Absolutely. Will make a fine admin. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. Very odd edit history - what's with all the drinking games? Seems otherwise perfectly fine, lots of edits, has learned to use edit summaries, and no complaints. Bearian 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Sure thing. Jmlk17 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support I supported Hmwith's first RfA; I see no reason to withdraw my support now. --Latish redone (formerly All in) 22:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support a fabulous editor, good luck! :) Majorly (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support definently Yahel Guhan 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Sif transclude when the lead nom is sleeping. I should oppose for that. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Yep. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support, it would be insane not to. This editor is a hard worker, for which she has been praised.--wpktsfs 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. (ec)Support - I see no problems here. Has experience in all the major (XfD participation, policy knowledge, vandal fighting, civility, article space contributions, etc.) and minor areas (edit summary usage, edit count, wiki-gnoming, etc.).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. the_undertow ^talk 00:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Absolute Support - Wow, I've seen examples of how she can keep her cool, and she has a good amount of mainspace edits which are great as well. A well-rounded editor. Cheers! IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support it's about damn time! VanTucky ^Talk 00:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - yup. Good knowledge of policy, experience, etc. No problems here - Alison ^❤ 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support per PPG κaτaʟaveno^T_C 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Great user. Will make a good admin. Recurring dreams 02:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - A well versed editor who is unlikely to abuse the tools. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support as nom... And there are already 38 ahead of me? Wow... I need to check my watchlist more often. IronGargoyle 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Dureo 02:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support no reason to not. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. A great editor, will make a great admin. Useight 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support without any qualms this time.- TwoOars (Rev) 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong Support I offered to nominate, but was too far down the queue! A strong editor with an excellent grasp of all aspects of the project, she will make a superb admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 06:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support She is a good editor. It is time to give her the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Why not? --Chris  G  10:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Strong support - Hmwith is a great wikipedian and she's taken in concerns of her last RfA and shown that she has a great understanding of policy. She's a great girl as well, always friendly even in the face of adversity. Not bad looking either, but guess that doesn't mean she'll make a good admin...... Ryan Postlethwaite 11:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - absolutely - a great Wikipedian. You've achieved such a lot in your time here. Well done! Lradrama 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support – She's not already one? It took long enough.  ;) — madman bum and angel 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Anyone who actually understands the fair use policy is obviously far more intelligent than me... — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Hmwith is a great user with comprehensive knowledge of image policy. --Mschel 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Strong SupportHmwith shows no sign of misusing the tools and she understands the Wikipedia policies well.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Passionate Support as nominator. Hayley, we love you! :-) Walton^One 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - The way I see it, there's a point where this becomes a no brainer. This rfa has passed that point. :) -WarthogDemon 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shhhh! Yeesh, haven't you ever read WP:BEANS? Some people... :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I have. O_o If you're saying I'm voting support simply because the majority is, it's not that simple. (And can change; I've seen that happen.) -WarthogDemon 22:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

56. Support No problems :) -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 22:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. WjBscribe 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Qualified. --Sharkface217 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support although she has little experience in the WP:CSD area she intends to work, I think she more than makes up for it elsewhere and she'll pick it up in due course. Carlossuarez46 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I see hmwith around the wiki doing good things and think she'll be an excellent admin.--Chaser - T 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Seems qualified, competent and nice to boot. Good luck.--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support per above + noms. nat^tang 09:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support - fabulous editor and really a friendly person. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Looks good, don't think she'll abuse the tools. We need more admins on WP:AIV, WP:RPP, WP:UAA, etc. Wait... uses Mozilla Frefox and WHAT??? —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, did I say that? :)  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65. Support. Last time I said you were not ready. I think that now you are.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Wow okay, we've never met in this microcosm but you appear to have every checkbox ticked. Go for it, good luck. The Rambling Man 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Qualified, looks like a good editor. bibliomaniac15 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Seems a very bright spark. Nick mallory 03:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Looks good. Daniel 09:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Strong support A great editor and very friendly, helpful person. I'm glad I got back online in time to vote in this RfA! umdrums 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support About time? Good editor, I trust her with the tools. — i ^said 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, Holy Crap, I haven't seen so many co-nominators in a long time, so she "must" be good! I guess she deserves a "Golden Mop" (smile). I have a feeling that you will be one of the great ones, Good luck! Tony the Marine 06:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Looks good. θnce θn this island ^Speak! 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. Just what I like to see. An addicted (3000+ edits in 1 month) editor. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support per all the above--JForget 01:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. I like what I see. Support :) ~ Sebi _[talk] 01:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Nothing to say, great editor! Phgao 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support per above comments. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support but with a strong recommendation to remove the amount of HTML in your signature. Stifle (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With the help of EVula, I cut out 11 characters in response to your suggestion, if that makes any difference. =) hmwith talk 18:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.