Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Just H

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

[edit] Just H

Final (2/8/1); Ended 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just H (talk • contribs) – Hi, i've been mulling going for adminship for awhile now, and I got a push from a friend of mine today. I have over 5,000 edits, varied throughout all spaces, and 5 months of experience. Just H 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Just H 00:48, 3 January 2007 (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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Mostly closing afds, and keeping watch on vandals on RC patrol and block them if they continue after being given a warning. I'm on RC alot, but I don't talk to the vandals or revert because whenever I do, I get into an edit conflict with a bot nowadays.

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

A: So far, that'd have to be 2006 New England Patriots season, I have nearly 200 edits on that article alone. Somebody deleted the {{promotional}} pics on there for some reason(haven't checked yet), so it's looking a little sparse right now. Just H 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A: Nothing huge, although the biggest one was with Jimbo Wales, who seemed to be insulting me and my opinion. I agreed to disagree and dropped the subject.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support. A solid contributor who won't misuse the sysop bit. Jay(Talk) 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support. In the time I've known you, you've been nothing but helpful and friendly. --Tlim7882 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry, I must oppose. The vast majority of your edits were made last month, and most of them consisted of welcoming users/tagging talk pages with templates. That really does not convince me that you are currently experienced enough to be entrusted with the tools. By the way, could you please provide a link to your disagreement with Jimbo Wales? --Húsönd 01:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Here's the penultimate. We went back and forth. Just H 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) I believe this is a reference to a disagreement starting on Talk:Marc Lemire and continuing on User talk:Just H and User talk:Jimbo Wales. —bbatsell ¿? 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks. Just H, maybe you just picked the wrong words to express your disagreement, but after this diff I see very little chances of this RFA succeeding. Consider withdrawing if opposition builds, and allow some time until this incident has been forgotten before attempting a new RFA.--Húsönd 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose per the views of the candidate revealed in the debate with Jimbo Wales. At best it is a complete misunderstanding of WP:LIVING, at worst an attempt to disregard the policy entirely. The addition of tags to controversial comments about living people can never be a substitute for reliable references. If these cannot be found, controversial comments have no place on such pages. The problem is not merely a legal one but a moral one- reputations can be fragile things and the info contained on Wikipedia is widely and rapidly disseminated. An editor who does not accept such an essential policy to the creation of an encyclopedia is in my view an unsuitable candidate for adminship. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   My problem there wasn't in regards to neutrally presenting a source of information, which does not contradict WP:LIVING, but not allowing a potentially good source of information to be allowed into an article, contradicting the censorship portion of WP:NOT. Just H 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not sure there can ever be such a thing as a potentially good source of information in this context. Either a controversial claim can be referenced to a reliable source or it can not. If there is no source to support it, I don't think the information can ever by definition be neutrally presented. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 01:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose for a number of reasons. Conversation with Jimbo reveals total lack of understanding of WP:LIVING, and lack of appreciation for the motivation behind the policy. This user has apparently been talking to a lot of other newish users about his readiness for adminship (see his talk page), and all the conversations are bloated with editcountitis. See especially this thread where he sets specific edit-count goals for an individual day. No substantive article contributions, and the bulk of his edits are in user talk space, pasting welcome templates - which he seems to have latched onto as a high-yield, low-effort way of boosting his edit count. Sorry, there's a lot more experience and acculturation needed here. Opabinia regalis 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Personal goals are bad? I can not have ambition towards anything if you'd like.Just H 02:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

4. The conversation with Jimbo is really troublesome. And the fact that you claim to participate in RC patrol, but specify that you never revert nor warn vandals, tips me over to a strong oppose Stronger oppose. This most certainly does not help. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Changed to stronger oppose due to user talk edits. I didn't realize that was half of your edit count... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   From now on, I will place warnings on top of the warnings the bots put in before I get a chance to(see question #3), but thank you for the feedback. Just H 02:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   My issue is not that you don't give warnings. I couldn't care less about reverting vandalism. My issue is that you said you do RC patrol, except for the parts where you actually edit. That's really, really, misleading. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Excuse me? How else could I have gotten over 1,000 welcomes that fast other than keeping watch to recent changes? I haven't misled anyone. Just H 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   Hmm... just in case it might be unclear, Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol generally refers to checking recent changes for vandalism, not for new users. That may be where the confusion is coming from. —bbatsell ¿? 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   When I deal with vandalism on the pages I have watchlisted, sometimes I find that a bot (or a user with a script, or someone who just noticed the vandalism 30 seconds earlier) has already reverted and warned–but often enough, I'm the one who gets to it, and it's definitely worth following through. Also, I think there's a difference between a user getting a note that a bot suspected an edit might be vandalism, and a warning that an editor spotted it and is keeping an eye out. Just my opinion. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Over half your edits are user talk... if it's mostly welcoming, then that's certainly nice, but you're not convincing me of adminship at all. --Wizardman 02:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Before today, I was only able to find one instance of warning vandals in the past, which is important so that other users know what's happened in the past on those accounts/IPs. See your talk page for a couple of suggestions in that vein. Also, your participation in AFDs in the past hasn't had any citation of policy or guidelines (WP:V, WP:NOT, etc), which are important as they give strong justifications to your decisions. I'm with you in spirit, Just H, I just think a little more time and exposure to policy would be good. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

   You're incorrect, just today there was citation of policy in afd [1](WP:NN), but from now on, I will provide links. I assumed it was well known enough of an acronym. Just H 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose (edit conflict twice) I'm sorry, I seem well meaning, but I would suggest withdraw. You need use a good bit more experience and more consistent editing over several months. Your conversation with Jimbo indications a lack of policy experience, particularly WP:BLP, thus indicating you need much more time and experience to understand the norms of Wikipedian community.-- danntm ^T _C 02:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per reasons stated above. G.He 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now, reluctantly. You're definitely on the fast track. :) Most of your edits have been very recently, and a good portion are from welcoming users (not a knock, just saying that I don't really consider those as something indicative of admin potential). Looks like lots of activity on AfD and moderate activity on VP, which is great. Not a lot of activity in the Wikipedia talk namespace yet. I ran across you recently with this post on AN/I and I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:CIVIL (at least in that instance; just one time, nothing big). Also in the minor conflict over Marc Lemire, I wasn't entirely sure what your position was, but I don't think it was in line with WP:BLP; calling someone reactionary because they removed unsourced negative information from an article on a living person isn't a good position to take in my view (no matter WHO the editor is, the fact that it was Jimbo was irrelevant; in fact, I think every admin needs to have at least one fight with JW, it builds character :)). Basically, I think this is a touch too soon. Keep contributing like you are now, keep studying and applying and discussing policy and I think you'll be a shoe-in in no time. —bbatsell ¿? 01:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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.