Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haham Hanuka (3)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Haham hanuka

Final (1/7/0) ended 18:49 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've canceled my nomination, thank you very much people! --Haham hanuka 18:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Haham hanuka (talk • contribs)[1]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. Looks good to me. The Neokid talk 15:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - has not answered the questions just as in his second rfa (see the comments section for the relevant links). borders on WP:POINT, imo. Also, this rfa should probably have been titled Requests for adminship/Haham hanuka (3) rather than ..../Haham Hanuka (3). However, I assume good faith here and am willing to believe that it is a genuine mistake. Does not have adequate knowledge of WP policies, only 106 contribs to WP namespace, most of them to afd/vfds and his rfas. no contribs to WP talk namespace. He may be a fine editor, but doesn't appear to be good admin material yet. --Gurubrahma 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Gurubrahma. That the adminship nomination isn't up to standard in a third attempt is not a good sign. Kusma (討論) 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

   So I failed in previous nominations, what is your point? --Haham hanuka 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

   I don't oppose you because you failed before, but because I can't really see an improvement from previous attempts. You still haven't written a nomination statement as it is used in other people's RfA's, for example. Kusma (討論) 17:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

   What you want me to write here? I've more than 4000 edits and I spent most of my free time to make Wikipedia better. Very disappointed :( --Haham hanuka 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose I don't particularly like his answers to the admin questions. Communicates somewhat with other users but not a whole lot. Not quite sure if he has any working knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Moe ε 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I've got to say it was a tough call. I get the feeling you're not really interested- you've not exactly spent much time answering the questions below, your edit summary usage is very low... I get the feeling you're not really "in it to win it", so to speak. Deskana (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

   I've already answered the questions here, just because I write shortly I should not be an admin here? --Haham hanuka 17:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose. I'm concerned about the editcountitis displayed, more than 1000 edits in 5 months, more than 1400 edits in 6 months, I've more than 4000 edits, and the lack of edit summaries. Also, this user has been blocked multiple times for violating 3RR. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Given the lack of a nomination statement, and the brevity of the candidate's answers to questions, I don't believe he has taken the RfA process seriously. Please try again in a few months, with a full nomination. Xoloz 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, been blocked 4 times, twice in the last month. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka doesn't give a very good indication of his actions (although that one's 9 months old). The statement is nonexistant and the answers to the questions too terse to really determine why he wants to be an admin or what he's planning on doing if his request is successful. And he hasn't really addressed the concerns voiced in the previous rfas (where he even opposed himself). - Bobet 18:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose - responses to questions and comments here indicate no understanding of what's required of potential admins. Worldtraveller 18:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Does more damage than good as a user and he wants to be an admin? gidonb 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• This is the 3rd rfa from the user - previous nominations are 1 and 2. --Gurubrahma 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Edit summary usage: 40% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 15:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Haham hanuka's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

What you want me to write here? I've more than 4000 edits and I spent most of my free time to make Wikipedia better. Very disappointed :( --Haham hanuka 17:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship is not a reward for a job well done, nor a promotion, it is about permforming janatorial tasks on wikipedia, parts of that gives access to "sensitive" tools such as blocking and deletion, people expect your "application" to reflect that role, demonstrate you understand the appropriate policies and practices so you will use the tools appropriately. Your terse answers and lack of nomination statement give people very little to go on when trying to judge if you would make a good admin. --pgk^(talk) 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Dealing with Vandalism or with NPOV disputes, Copyright problems.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I mainly contribute on Israeli-related\Judaism-related articles and porn-related articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. Nothing serious I guess.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.