Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DerHexer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] DerHexer

Ended (108/7/5); Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DerHexer (talk · contribs) - This user has been a model Wikipedian and vandal-whacker - from edit one, he's been whacking vandals. I also am confident in nominating him for the mop - he's unlikely to abuse it, being a sysop on de. I therefore hope the community will grant him the tools to block the vandals which pester him so. Will (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom by Evilclown93
I've seen this user around quite a bit. He is, as Will said, basically a vandal-whacker, and also, he is very fast at his "job". I've offered to nominate him before, but he's finally close to accepting. I strongly believe that vandal-whackers like DerHexer ought to be granted the tools because, frankly, they are responsible a big portion of the time for filling up AIV. Granting him the tools will just help him and help the project by eliminating said vandalism. Finally, he is easily trusted, as he is a sysop on the second-biggest Wikipedia, de:. Клоун 14:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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 want to fight vandalism as I did in the last months, block vandals and delete nonsense. I intend to participate in AIV since I have been reporting lots of vandals there and think that I know how it works. ;) … Basically the things I do at the German wikipedia, too.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution to Wikipedia is the latin language portal on German Wikipedia, which I have started here as well. I've spent dozens of hours extracting the content of de:Kategorie:Latein (Category:Latin language). It was not possible for me to finish it yet here because I've had exams at the university. … One of my favourite articles is de:Ich weiß, dass ich nichts weiß! which I've translated: I know that I know nothing.
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: Though I've not mentioned a phone number anywhere on wikipedia I've gotten two phone calls. That was a bit scary because I wasn't expecting it. But I was able to help both of them and I explained why we do not accept copyvios or people removing content or adding advertising. ;)

Optional question by AldeBaer

4. Many new users don't understand what Wikipedia is about when they first begin to edit and some may appear like the next vandal, when in fact they can be convinced to discuss and contribute sensibly. With all your anti-vandalism efforts, I wonder if you have ever come across IPs or new users who were trolling and/or vandalising, but whom you managed to convince to join reasonable debate.
A: I don't really know what's your question. ;) If you want to know if I managed IPs or new users to join reasonable debate, I have to say "yes". Lots of misunderstandings are caused by not using the edit summary if they remove content. If you friendly explain them (e.g. using IRC, ICQ, mails or [user] talk pages) how to avoid any misunderstandings, almost all are willing to learn it. … Or you explain them how to work with the GNU FDL if they had commited a copyvio. Not all IPs or new users are vandals. ;) That's why I take part in a mentorship programm.
The question was aimed at your understanding of the depth of the decision process involved in handling new users and the possibly reversible ineptitude of their edits. You see, a volume of more than 11,000 edits per month, most of them related to fighting vandalism, made me wonder whether you'd think twice before blocking an IP or a new user. Having taken a more in-depth look at your contribs and since you provided a sufficient answer, I'm now reinstating my support.

Optional question by Jhfireboy

5. Is good faith an ideal every editor should believe in, and assume with every edit, or is it something that hinders vandal fighting?
A: Especially for a vandal fighter it's important to assume good faith: New users and IPs don't always know how to operate with e. g. the edit summary, the GNU FDL or moving an article. But it's even more important to be able to beg to be excused if you've made a mistake! That's in my opinion the most important attribute for a vandal fighter.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • If I were to "vote" in this, I would probably oppose on the same basis as Slim and Kamryn (and Everyking and Jaranda too — what an unlikely crowd). It's okay (due to certain circumstantial evidence) to accuse me of making a misleading total of trivial edits and not writing enough "quality content", but at least I did try to. Here's a user who made more edits in one month than I did in the year that I did regularly edit. While it is nice (and ironic to say the least) that the bunch of us can all see each other eye to eye about something like this, even if it is too late, it's completely unsurprising that the rest of the community thinks we are completely nuts for sharing these concerns, like it's some sort of half-baked conspiracy. —CharlotteWebb 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Beat both co-noms support - good luck! The Rambling Man 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Perfectly good candidate! —YourEyesOnly 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Yes - I've been very impressed with DH - he's been popping up all over and I trust him to make a good admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support A very impressive user. Majorly (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. The nominator didn't support first because he was busy watching Scrubs clips support. Will (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    That's such a lame excuse. :P —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  20:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support -- Gogo Dodo 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Good user, seems to be a good admin at de, will be a good admin here. VirtualDelight 16:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - I was almost going to nominate him, but he already was. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Past sysop experience a major plus, and solid vandal-fighting experience. IronGargoyle 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong support he should be an administrator. I see his name at AIV a lot too. :) Acalamari 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Strong support. Great editor who will make use make good use of tools. utcursch | talk 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Wow, I found that site casually. Really yes to this Request for adminship :-). -- Ra'ike talk de-user 17:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support <cliché> -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support I've edit conflicted with DH many times recently on RC patrol. He's ready for and could really use a mop. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support ➪HiDrNick! 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I'm pretty sure that he's the type of guy we want, especially since Will nominated him. ;) —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support A helpful and civil user. If he can be a good admin on de. why can't he be a good admin here? Obvious support. GDonato (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - Trustworthy, civil, ready. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support- I seem to run into this user a lot-- and he serves the community well and is well suited for the admin tools. Good luck! —Curran (talk | contibs | random) 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support (NB: Candidate is already admin on de.wikipedia and one of the best vandalfighters we have there.) --PvQ Mailbox 18:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. support actually, en: doesn't really deserve our best vandalfighting admin, but, hey, lets take over this company ;) --Felix Stember 18:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. support Do you know: DerHexer means TheWarlock.--sугсго.PEDIA 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support --Caltas (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong support --Harald Krichel 18:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support as co-nom. --Клоун 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support I've also had a few edit conflicts at RC patrol. He is indeed very fast, even reverting vandalism on my userpage without me realising it was vandalised. Spellcast 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support I see no problems with this editor using the admin tools. (aeropagitica) 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - A very active vandal fighter, who has beat me to reversions numerous times. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - my only gripe is all those edit conflicts he gives me while I'm trying to revert vandalism. Keep up the good work! - Philippe | Talk 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Strong support, when I think prolific vandal fighters this is one of the first names that comes into my head. Can he handle two mops at once? I think so. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - Bit difficult - on the one hand I do know him very well from de.wikipedia and he does a great job there and he would do so here too but on the other hand I hope he wont forget de completely since we need him there too ;) - But I'm sure he'll do it --C-M ?! 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Uber Support Yeah... —Anas talk? 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support - A very able editor that will do well with admin tools. Jhfireboy Talk 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support --Olei 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Time for the mop! Politics rule 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support About time! Jmlk17 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. I-thought-he-was-one-support —« ANIMUM » 21:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support 1) Interaction 2) Contribution 3) We do need more clear up admins 4) Civility 5) Super quick delivery and as described AAA+++ Trusted e-bayer Wikipedian - would buy again..... Pedro |  Chat  21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Actually, I'm fairly unimpressed with what this user does. Granted, he reverts a lot of vandalism, but he doesn't contribute content, and he practically doesn't interact with others beyond handing out warning templates. On the other hand, he certainly won't misuse the tools, also erteile ich hiermit meinen Segen. —AldeBaer (c) 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Reinstated following answer to !Q4. —AldeBaer (c) 09:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support. I was just wondering the other day why this user has never been made a sysop. He is an incredible anti-vandal who beats me to the punch far more often than I'm willing to admit. Always civil, always helpful. Basically...If he doesn't have the qualifications to be an admin, nobody does. Trusilver 22:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Excellent activity. Could use the tools. the_undertow talk 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Uh-oh, does this mean that DerHexer will be even quicker at catching vandals? Puts me out of a job! (Support anyway!) :) -- Stwalkerster talk 22:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. I see no reason not too. Nice vandal fighting. --Mschel 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support- Per above + Good edit count, great contributions, good weight of activity and wikipedia would benefit from this individual having extra editing capabilities. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Titanium Support - The question should be why isn't he an admin and I don't believe you need to contribute to encyclopedic content to request for adminship. Admins should be familiar with all the Wiki policies and that's all that matters and TheWizard has proved that time and again..Good Luck... ..--Cometstyles 04:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Been more active in one month than I have in nine...Will definitely help removing Wikipedia's backlogs. --Dark Falls talk 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Strong Oppose – user will make a great administrator :) Sebi [talk] 05:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I do realise I wrote "Strong Oppose" and not "Strong Support". It was intended to be a joke. Sebi [talk] 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support - One of the best players in the whack-a-vandal circuit. Only suggestion I have would be for this user to take a much-deserved vacation before assuming admin duties :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Number 50. Good luck! Dfrg.msc 08:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  52. Oh, it's running already. Ther will be a time the people will say about me "He's the one who nominated the Hexer the first time for Adminship" (at de:WP) - and then I can die with pride ;). There's not ny question, Hexer is the best Admin if ou want a "Admin at the Front". strong support. The only sad thing - I couldn't nominate him here at en:WP. Marcus Cyron 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  53. Strong Support als Mitleser^^ Julius1990 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - It's good to see a mature editor on Wikipedia. Many have strengths, and for DerHexer it's fighting vandals. --HBow3 16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support per nom, notwithstanding my respect for Riana's oppose. I know this editor's work and trust him implicitly. --John 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. Deutsche Gründlichkeit, German thoroughness, as well as cross-project experience is always needed here. Sandstein 16:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  57. Strong support. Given his strong dedication to vandal fighting, I find it highly unlikely he would abuse the admin tools. Plus, we need more admins patrolling AIV, during some times of the day it is possible to send a report and have it sit there for several minutes while the user continues to go on a vandalism spree. --Android Mouse 18:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  58. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  59. Strong Support This user is a great vandal fighter who will not abuse the tools. Also there is no real reason to oppose him.--†Sir James Paul† 19:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support He needs the tools. I thought he was an -en admin until I saw an angry vandal hammering his userpage, and all he could do about it was wait and revert. While I think experience in editing is important in an admin, I'm willing to cut some slack to non-native speakers of English who might not be so comfortable editing English. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support I had the idea of noming him once XD. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support --Polarlys 21:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support for reverting vandalism on pages including my user page NHRHS2010 Talk 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  64. Very strong support and I would have co-nommed if I wasn't slacking away on holiday. He has proven both in his time as an admin at the German Wikipedia and his time editing here that he will make an extremely capable admin and will be a true asset as one. He is fully qualified in my view with huge experience in reverting vandalism here, as well as some article writing, plus a lot more article writing over at de. I am extremely happy to give my wholehearted support and apologies for the delay! Will (aka Wimt) 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  65. Strong support he is really needed here. --Complex (de) 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support. An admin at de, thats more than enough to meet my criteria. Someone willing to take on AIV, gets my definate support. Two amazing admin traits in one candidate is more than enough. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Great vandal-fighter. Would make a good admin. -Lemonflashtalk 23:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  68. Strong support of course. --Callipides 01:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support. No doubt. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. --Gilliam 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support per noms Peacent 03:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support Vandal fighting is a good thing - Need somebody to clean up the massive amount of vandalism on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
  73. Support with some reluctance. I would very much like to see some sort of article building or use of discussion. Vandal whacking is one of the most needed skills, but what about other backlogs like deletions? I can't do anything to change what the candidate does, but I hope that they will read their opposes and neutrals and expand their reach. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 06:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support. Know him as an excellent, trustworthy user on German Wikipedia and also appreciate his work here. — Pill (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  75. Strongly Support I'd say strongly support. DerHexer has been fighting vandalism for the last several months, contributed to the Latin Language portal, and leaving warning message to vandals. He has never blocked a user before, so not only warning others and fighting vandalism. Blocking vandals if they don't listen. --Willy, your mate 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  76. Strongly support I always see him on RC and he usually beats me to the punch, allowing him the admin tools can only be good for the project. We could do with another five like him. Bfp (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  77. +1. Does a very good job in de.wp and will not abuse the powers. --Thogo (Talk) 12:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  78. Pro DerHexer. Definitely. Neil ╦ 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support Grade-A candidate. ~ Infrangible 15:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support It's editors vandal-fighters like DerHexer that keep WikiPedia a usable source of information. —Travistalk 18:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support Excellent vandal fighter with admin experience. Ali (t)(c) 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support I don't see any problems. Hirohisat Talk 23:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support Awesome vandal fighter who will by no means abuse the tools. --Oxymoron83 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support seen him on both dewiki and enwiki. Trackrecord on dewiki shows he can trusted and current level of activity here shows the tools are needed. Just a little note to DerHexer: There are slight differences between the two wikis in policy and practice, so take it slow when taking new actions as admin here and do a bit of research first. Agathoclea 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    I read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and its subpages. ;) —DerHexer (Talk) 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support no reason to suspect abuse of tools, which is all that matters, right? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  86. Big Fat Support He's been reverting vandalim as long as I can remember. I think he deserves the mop. Go ahead, let him be an admin! JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  87. Strong Support Wikipedia needs more vandalism fighters, and I'm all in favor of handing the mop to a veteran and prolific vandalism reverter. I only wish I could be as active as he is in counter-vandalism. --Wingsandsword 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support It seems rather clear that one may, on the whole and inasmuch as the nature and quality of one's contributions to mainspace, except perhaps to the extent they evidence the soundness of one's judgment and the amiability of his/her demeanor (each of which can be borne out in other ways; one may not think either to be shown with any clarity here, of course, such that the points of Everyking and Riana are, IMHO, not unmeritorious), demonstrate almost nothing about his/her fitness for adminship, conclude with some confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 04:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support Tim Q. Wells 05:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  90. Stongest Support Do I have to say more?? Go revert those vandals and better yet get them out of here! SLSB 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  91. How could I possibly do anything but strongly support someone who has defended my Talk page with so much zeal? ;) Thank you so much, dear DerHexer! Phaedriel - 18:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  92. Support See no evidence to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  93. Support Dust Filter 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  94. Support --Schwalbe 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  95. Support will be good admin --rogerd 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support as above (Anyone mention patience as a virtue yet?) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  97. Support obviously trustworthy but equally in part as a protest. The idea that not giving a vandal fighter vandal fighting tools will in some way benefit en wp does amuse me. Sure there have to be some other contributions - there are --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  98. Support What's taking so much time, admin him already! Greswik 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  99. Support An experienced admin in the German WP. Jón talk / contribs 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  100. WP:100. Wizardman 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  101. Support 100%. I hate that I'm coming into this late, coming off Wikibreak, and I had actually planned to nominate this user if a nomination was not forthcoming. It is, so yes. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  102. Support. WjBscribe 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  103. Support we need more admins, and this guy seems to be very experienced. No problems here. SalaSkan 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  104. Strong support — PDD 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  105. support a good vandal fighter whom I've never seen losing his temper and doing something inconsiderate. --Elian Talk 20:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  106. Support Whoo!!!! RuneWiki777 20:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  107. Support, great! @pple 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  108. Support I see no reason to oppose simply because the candidate has fought vandals instead of written articles. Captain panda 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose not much real editing experience beyond vandal fighting - no experience in project space beyond AIV; no real communication with other users beyond templated warnings; no evidence of decision-making abilities or good communication skills. I realise I am a lone voice here but even MER-C, who is in my opinion our very best vandalfighter, takes part in areas like WP:FPC and XfDs. You probably won't abuse the tools, but I cannot support a pure vandalfighter. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC) What a dumb reason to oppose. People who oppose like that should be tarred and feathered ~ Riana ⁂ 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why would he need experience beyond vandal fighting, if he has stated he will primarily contribute to further helping vandal fighting as an admin? --Android Mouse 18:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Plesae let her. It's OK. It's democratic to have an other opinion without a need to explain this. Marcus Cyron 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Marcus Cyron. I do disagree with Riana however. Politics rule 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. You must write content on some kind of substantial level to be a good admin. Without that, you don't have the perspective and experience to hold the authority and responsibility; you're just mashing buttons, basically, apparently in some kind of semi-automated way. Moreover, what do we know about how you interact with people? An admin candidate should have a record of interacting with people on various issues without losing his or her cool, and ideally should have demonstrated some skill at negotiation and de-escalating disputes. I don't know anything about you except that you fight vandals a lot. We need to see your attitudes and views (on display in normal editing, not here), and we need to see that you have a well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia. Everyking 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please read my talk page—where I've never lost my coolness but de-escalated a few times—to see how I interact with people. Furthermore, please read it to see my "well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia" defendind e. g. the GNU FDL. If you tell me that I don't have a "well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia" you insult me and my work since two years ago. I think that's not fair! —DerHexer (Talk) 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    You may have a well-rounded understanding of Wikipedia; the problem is that your very limited range of editing does not provide you sufficient opportunity to demonstrate it if you have it. Everyking 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. It is pure hypocrisy to promote an editor to sysop if he has not written any articles. I don't really see how he can comment on whether articles are worthy enough for inclusion when he hasn't written any himself. Furthermore, I don't see how he can block editors for violating 3RR and suchlike when he himself has not collaborated on an article and seen how frustrating it is when you have a dispute and come to an impasse. I'm tired of seeing policeman admins pass, people who just revert vandalism for a couple of months and then request adminship. Reverting vandals requires no thought, no intellect, no particular good judgement. You see a diff where someone has replaced the page with "FUCK YOU!!" and you hit 'revert'. Rinse, repeat. Does this show thoughtfulness? No. Does it show any kind of thought at all? No, it does not. It's impossible to judge whether this editor is a thoughtful, clueful kind of guy and therefore I don't trust him with the tools. I also note that once he was promoted at de wikipedia his vandal 'fighting' slowed down hugely. Kamryn · Talk 00:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    if he has not written any articles - This is simply not true and if you had read here all, you could have realized it. Your Oppose is OK - but not with false arguments, please. Marcus Cyron 10:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Please read WP:NPA. … As Marcus said before, I wrote articles on de:wp and en:wp. The first thing I did after I became a sysop on de:wp was that I stopped an edit war—funny, but true. … If you say that reverting vandalism requires no thought you've never fought vandalism: Read my talk page to see me e. g. defending the GNU FDL, removing advertising and so on—I think this shows thoughtfulness. … Finally it's humbug that I slowed down fighting vandalism: I was promoted in October 2006 and increased my edits to 20,000 in 20 days in March 2007 (more than 50 % deletions and protections and more than 40 % reverts). On April I started to work on en:wp where I did more than 10,000 edit in half a month. Afterwards my vacations stopped and I went to university—I think it's normal to slow down therefor a bit. … I did on average 3,000 edits per month (e. g. 800 blockings per month) to de:wp (even more on en:wp), wrote an admin monobook [1] [2], warning scripts [3] and so on [4] [5] for those who has more time than me. … If you tell me that 3,000 to 20,000 edits per month are a few I'm shocked. Greetings, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider translating articles here to be writing. I don't care about what edits you've made on de, it's a different project and things work differently there. Reverting vandalism does indeed require no thought. Thank you. Kamryn · Talk 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Kamryn, do you trust DerHexer to be a sysop? Evilclown93 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Rather obviously not. What is there to trust? I could go and make two or three sockpuppets right now and rack up a few thousand vandal reverts and become sysop several times over by these standards. Kamryn · Talk 05:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    In my opinion it's unimportant what somebody but important what wikipedia considers—that an article is an article. … It will always be a translation for me because English is not my first language. I wrote it on de:wp and I translated it for this project. What seems to be the trouble? —DerHexer (Talk) 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'd have to disagree. Vandal fighting does require more thought than you attributing to it. You must force yourself to make snap judgements wether a questionable edit was or wasn't made in good faith and wether or not to revert it. Not all vandalism is the blatant page replacement of "FUK UR MUM". --Android Mouse 02:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I think you just proved my point for me. I don't want an admin that makes 'snap judgements'. This is exactly the problem I have here. I'm sick of self-appointed policeman admins who 'patrol' and 'vandal fight' and 'force themselves to make decisions' (what the fuck? if it's not a clear cut case, you investigate, discuss, contact other people.. check the sources. you certainly don't make a 'snap judgement' that you've forced yourself to decide. who died and made recent changes 'patrollers' the sole surveyors of wikipedia content?). I realise this is not coming from the nominated editor, but your comment is sooooo far off base that you're doing more to hurt him rather than help. See Miranda and AldeBaer's comments in the neutral sections below; they have put it in far better terms than I have. Kamryn · Talk 05:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    According to his answer to question one, he primarily wants to work on more vandal fighting, which is just about always a clear cut case and requires quick snap judgements. You appear to think that being an admin requires extensive knowledge, wisdom and expert descision making. That couldn't be more far from the truth, and you're kidding yourself if you think that's the case. --Android Mouse 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. There's nothing wrong with focusing on vandalism fighting, but when that's all there is, it's not enough for adminship. The account racked up 11,000 edits in April alone, and the 20,000 edits overall include only 399 to article talk. There needs to be some content contribution and evidence of community interaction. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Apparently an AI construct. --MichaelLinnear 07:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Vandalism fighting does only part of an admin make; also, as mentioned above, doing 800 blocks per month seems, at least IMHO. excessive; it points to a certain trigger-happiness in reaction to vandalism which may not always be the right course. As a bythought: the ones amongst you who know a bit about de-wiki, mind that there is a different underlying culture there. I keep watching it from afar, but can not bring myself to contribute much. Lectonar 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Slim, article writing is an important part of wikipedia and it helps understand key policy, like WP:N and WP:OR better, and same with vandal fighting, as sometimes a person can't tell if the edit is vandalism or not. You could still vandal fight without the tools. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Be careful not to misrepresent WP:N as actual policy when it isn't (and even if it was, it certainly wouldn't be a "key" policy). Other than that I agree with what you are meaning to say. —CharlotteWebb 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose per KM. With 20,000 edits, you're highest article mainspace is 15 to Scooby Do? Those 15 edits were probably all done fighting vandals! With almost 10,000 mainspace edits, though, it's quite obvious that all you ever do on Wikipedia is fight vandalism, talk, and comment here and there on AFD, RFA, and AIV. You are quite the opposite of a model Wikipedian, and while I do not mean to convey any anger, you are not good for the job. I fight Vandalism here and there, and I know for a fact that it is mindless, and requires little attention. Writing articles...now there's something that takes more focus then masturbation. NSR77 TC 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but please remain civil. DerHexer is a human and has feelings, there is no need to be rude as well as opposing. Thanks! GDonato (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. This user does a really good job in reverting vandalism. However, this user hasn't contributed encyclopedia content, such as creating pages. My vote stands as neutral. Miranda 23:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't see your point. He has stated he wants to further help out fighting vandalism, if he becomes an admin. How would him writing encyclopedia articles help him with this task? --Android Mouse 18:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Read Alde's point on neutral 4. Maybe that should clear things up. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Miranda 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    This is not the place to determine whether users should be promoted, that's the crat's job. Our job is to make sure these candidates can be trusted. Do you trust DerHexer, or not? —« ANIMUM » 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    Animum, re-read what I said above. Nowhere did I mention in my neutral vote the words bureaucrat and promotion. I have been respectful to you so far, and I suggest you to do the same for me and others as well in this RFA and in future RFAs. I really don't want to get in a dispute over this vote with anyone. However, if anyone has a problem with me, they can make a note on my talk page or file an RFC. My vote stands as neutral due to my above reasoning. Miranda 05:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect to RfA, the people who constructed it, yourself, and WMF, article-writing is absolutely fantastic — that's what we're here for — however, trust can be based on many other things than article-writing. Trust is what we — the RFA voters — are to determine. —« ANIMUM » 05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. What else do you do with your life!?! You made 11,393 edits in just one month, made at least 1,000 edits a month since then! Do yourself a favour and take a Wikibreak!  Tcrow777  talk  03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    So you are not supporting this candidate because he is too good? Please make comments on the discussion pages, or in the comments section. I'm not sure that not taking a Wikibreak and making many edits is a grounds for not giving support. Dfrg.msc 08:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    11,000 mostly script-assisted edits is not good or too good - it's simply 11,000 mostly script-assisted edits. Tcrow777 could have put his comment more civil, but I agree that such a number is most certainly not sustainable and since it's one of the reasons some are supporting, it's certainly ok to annotate it in a neutral comment. Vandal fighters with a more average activity are often rejected on the grounds of zero article writing and/or lack of interaction (if either is the case). —AldeBaer (c) 10:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    What's the problem? It's a funny thing if people don't know a person but know exactly, what's good for them... ;) Marcus Cyron 12:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I stand by my statement. This user has got to be an unauthorized bot.  Tcrow777  talk  19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      11,392 edits in a month seems perfectly possible. This amounts to an average of 380 edits per day; assuming all these are vandalism reverts, warnings and reports for the sake of argument, this is something like 170 vandalism reverts per day (with warnings and reports included). These really don't take very long when using automated tools, so say he managed 2 reverts per minute, this would only amount to 1.5 hours of editing per day. Assuming DerHexer is an unauthorised bot seems a tad farfetched, also I'm sure there are ways of checking this if you really believe it? - Zeibura (Talk) 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      I'm not a bot. ;) It might looks so because 1772 edits on one day or about 4500 on four are a lot, but there is a flood of vandalism. I'm fast and I had vacations so that I often could revert… Greetings, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Miranda above. We need people to build the encyclopedia, not just maintain it. reverting vandalism is good, but not everything. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Impressive vandal fighting record. That's also why I'm not supporting: while I love thwacking vandals, you should have more writing experience than you do. J-stan Talk 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    How would extra writing experience help him on his stated goal of continuing to fight vandals? --Android Mouse 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Writing teaches you a lot of important things directly or indirectly related to vandalism, for example to distinguish cases of reformable newbies from ordinary vandals, or cases of long term abuse from good contributions. DerHexer's contribs on the German Wikipedia however include article writing on a level that easily meets my demands. —AldeBaer (c) 20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oh. This topic again. Lets intensify discussion of this topic here then shall we? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oh dear. I never knew I was that contentious... —« ANIMUM » 23:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Whilst I appreciate the editor's commitment to vandal fighting, I'm worried by the lack of any evidence of encylopedia building on the English encyclopedia, as well as by the lack of consensus building discussion with other users. Neutral because of admin work and encyclopedia building on the German wiki, which my German is unfortunately inadequate to assess. Espresso Addict 03:45, 16 July 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.