Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 2

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.

Contents

[edit] Hdt83

Final: (24/23/6); ended 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 (talk · contribs) - Hello, my name is Hdt83. This is my 2nd rfa after the first one which failed [1]. I am nominating myself for adminship to help out Wikipedia more than what I'm doing now as a regular editor. I joined Wikipedia after learning of it though search results on the web and joined around September 2006. I really got stated editing around January and have since been very active on Wikipedia. Since my last rfa, I have improved greatly and addressed many of the concerns. My main contributions are towards WP:AFC and vandal-fighting but I also help out at the help desk and voice my opinions at afds. I have almost 10000 edits on Wikipedia per edit counter and I am knowledgeable in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Hdt83 Chat 00:31, 19 June 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 intend to help out at WP:AIV to block vandals espeacially if it is backlogged. Another area I would help out in is CAT:CSD which is continuously backlogged and is in need of help. In addition to these tasks, I would also close afds and the other proposed deletion categories as well as protect articles needing protection at WP:RFPP and remove protection from articles that don't need it.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It would be hard to say which of my contributions to Wikipedia are considred my best as all of them benefit Wikipedia in one way or another. I would say that vandalism reverting and helping out at WP:AFC would be the best contributions I have made. Without both the creation of new articles and reverting the muck that tends to come on them, Wikipedia would cease to exist.
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: I have been in conflicts in the past but not too recently. I deal with conflicts by backing off and letting the conflict cool down before discussing it to come to a compromise. If tensions do rise, I would request the opinions of others before taking action. These actions are what I would do in any future conflicts or disagreements.
Optional question from EVula
4. Your last RfA failed (apparently) primarily due to concerns about civility. How do you feel that you've addressed those concerns in the few weeks since your withdrawal?
A: I understand that civility is a very important part of being an admin and that the specific civility concern in my last rfa was due to a single comment that I have since regretted saying. Since my last rfa I have addressed those concerns by being nice to others and welcoming new users to Wikipedia as well as helping out other editors.
Optional question by AldeBaer
5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: There are many pages on Wikipedia that I would consider to be my favorites but since I have to narrow it down to three, here they are: WP:IAR. Ignore all rules interprets one of the major points of Wikipedia in that it allows users to fix things that are not working or not right within Wikipedia even if it was against poilicy. WP:BJAODN (Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense) is another favorite simply because it's funny to see all the silly things others have done on Wikipedia in the past. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo because it shows how Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia as stated in WP:NOT and how many topics not covered in traditional encyclopedias are on Wikipedia. The sentence is also grammatically correct which makes it cooler! --Hdt83 Chat 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Hdt83 Requests for adminship/Hdt83 2 Requests for adminship/Hdt83 3
Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4 Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hdt83 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Can you please point towards the diffs that demonstrate the contribtutions that you have made in the last three weeks that allowed you to realise that you are now ready for adminship? (aeropagitica) 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe... maybe this should be closed per WP:SNOW? Things arent looking too good are they? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:42, 19 June 2007 UTC)
      • This is the second time I've seen you suggest we close an RfA early, and this is the second time I'll say this is not a snowball case. Majorly (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok ok then. I'll stop saying that. But it does seem to be going downhill. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 09:22, 19 June 2007 UTC)
          • It seems to be picking up now. Good luck Hdt! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 09:54, 19 June 2007 UTC)
            • I know I've seen your user name before... have we met in an article?--LtWinters 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Regaring aeropagitica's comments, the main concern from the last rfa was regarding a single edit that was a civility issue. I feel that I have resolved this because I have since then been plite and never bite other users. Some diffs to show how I have improved: [2] I helped another editor regarding a misinterpretation of civility issues, [3] helped to clear backlogs from WP:AFC, [4], [5], [6], created several articles, along with helping out at the help desk [7], [8] and participating at proposed deletion categories (afds, mfds, etc.) [9], [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdt83 (talk • contribs)

Support

Support, seen him around, nice chap. Would certainly take the burden off AIV. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Support removed for now - a couple of weeks is not enough time between RfA's to show you have relieved concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Very strong and serious support A good faith editor who is very nice to people. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Moral support based on my editor review of the candidate. YechielMan 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I'm not worried about him going crazy, and you can't opposed solely based on the last RfA being less then a month ago. ~ Wikihermit 04:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    On the contrary, several editors have concerns that with such a short period between RfAs, nothing has been learned. Opposing solely based on the time between RfA runs is perfectly valid, in my opinion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    I can see your point, having a Rfa within a month isn't a big enough reason to oppose for me. I personally won't tried again at Rfa for another 2 or 3 months after a failed rfa, but hey what the heck. This user has no other problems that I can see, so for now, they have support. ~ Wikihermit 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support - The oppose reasons don't look that "big"..and as per Jimbo Wales..--Cometstyles 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - Per above.Wikidudeman (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Maybe a little keen, but so what. I think the main concern regarding civility from last time has been fixed, and otherwise seems a productive editor. Majorly (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support -- even though it is only a short time between his last RFA, I feel he may well have changed his ways and considered the opposes in the last RFA. (changed from neutral) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:05, 19 June 2007 UTC)
  8. Support per Ryan Postlethwaite. The opposes seem to centre on the short time elapsed since the last RfA, which is indeed a problem but isn't serious on its own to oppose, IMO. And I totally disagree with Daniel's statement that "for a vandal-fighter, 10,000 edits isn't enough." 10,000 edits is twice what I had when I passed RfA, and although I do have some article contribs, my focus has always been on maintenance work. Waltonalternate account 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    I also totally disagree with with that statement, and am rather surprised someone like Daniel would write such a thing. Majorly (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I find it odd that the candidate would attempt another RfA so soon after the last one, but that won't stop me from supporting. As for Hdt83 not having enough edits...I can think of some administrators that don't even 5000. Acalamari 16:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support This candidate's work on AFC shows a willingness to tackle even the most daunting of backlogs. Other concerns seem to have been addressed and will no doubt continue to be addressed in the future.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - I think it would have been better of you waited a little longer before re-running - but the previous issues seem to have been resolved and I am ready to move on if you are. You have been a good contributer overall and could help in a lot of tasks as an admin. Good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, the previous issues were not horrible, and you seems to have grown beyond them. I would trust you with the mop. Coren 23:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support per significant improvement since last RfA and good work at AFC and HD. Peacent 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Nothing to suggest that the editor will misuse tools. PGWG 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Per PGWG, and there is nothing wrong with canvassing at all. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    Other than the fact that it blatantly contradicts WP:CANVASS. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:18, 21 June 2007 UTC)
    Even for WP:CANVAS standards, I am not entirely sure it is blatant violation. According to WP:CANVAS, the accepted type of canvassing would be:
    • Limited posting Does not look like he spammed over 2000000 messages on people's talk pages.
    • NeutralI don't see him saying "Please support me"
    • NonpartisanNot too sure about this though, since I'm not too sure about the viewpoints of those people myself. It is still canvassing, but I do not think it is blatant enough to warrant any sort of oppose, in fact, I think canvassing should just be TOTALLY allowed. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 14:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support My interactions with this user have been positive. I have looked over both the support votes and the oppose votes and I do not feel as if there are any big reasons to oppose him.--†Sir James Paul† 11:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support No reason why he shouldn't be an admin. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good user, I have dealt with him previously and he will become a good admin. It doesn't matter how long, since last RFA, you can learn a lot in a short time. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I'm confident he whould do a good job. -Flubeca (t) 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Dont see any red flags Corpx 16:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Changed from oppose, then neutral. Nothing suggests he would misuse the tools and that's all that matters. —AldeBaer 17:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Hdt83. He/she will make a fine administrator. Oppose canvassing, but as I see it is not promoting any one side, it's fine. WTF is up with all the opposes about "canvassing" (per se) that isn't even biased toward one side?! « ANIMUM » 23:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support I know this is a losing cause but let's think about it. Only one example of incivility - just one - that I see documented. Plus, only one example of alleged canvassing. I know it's soon after his first RfA but it went down over the one remark. Now, I respect the consensus of the community and its collective wisdom but I think we may be just a bit over the top here.JodyB talk 10:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - I don't consider a low edit count an issue (quality not quantity) and I am tired of users concerned only with edit counts. Answers to questions were strong and the user has a high use of the edit summary. --Bryson 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose This user's last RfA was less than a month ago. That is far too soon. Captain panda 01:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Far too soon since last RfA (closed May 27). —AldeBaer 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Unfortunately I must agree with the other users, it is far too short a time in between RfAs. I have looked over the user, and I do believe that he/she will make a good admin in time. He should do another RfA, but perhaps wait a couple of months, to prove without a doubt that the concerns from the previous RfA have been relieved. --HAL2008 talk 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Too little time since last RfA, and canvassing for support never looks good. Sorry, maybe in a few months' time? You're a good vandal fighter and would be a boon over at AIV, but I'm not sure the issues since the last RfA have been completely resolved. Riana ⁂ 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    To my knowledge, Hdt83 only told one user about his RfA. I wouldn't call that canvassing. ~ Wikihermit 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    A user I talk to almost everyday off-wiki recently passed RfA. I didn't even know the thing was running until 2 days in. You don't have to tell people at all. Riana (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. (ec)Canvassing is bad. Don't do it. On another note, I really see very little improvement since your last RfA. You're a good vandal fighter, but you just need to give it some more time. G1ggy Talk/Contribs 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - previous RfA was much too recent. It's hard to show that any concerns raised in the previous RfA have been addressed and any issues resolved after just a few weeks of them being raised—arf! 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Previous RfA was just last month and the account focuses on reverting vandalism. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    If I may respond to your comments, how am I just an account focusing on "reverting vandalism"? I have been active at WP:AFC for a while and have participated in other areas of Wikipedia as shown under my contributions. --Hdt83 Chat 03:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    When you say you've been active at WP:AFC, can you say in what way? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have been reviewing and continue to review new article submissions everyday. I have also created several articles from AFC like Braco,_Scotland and others along with trying to clear out backlogs like here Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-02-27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdt83 (talk • contribs)
  7. Strong Oppose - Too little time between RfAs as well as canvassing, which is ALWAYS bad. --tennisman 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Too soon since the last RfA. Try again after three months. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Hdt83's edits to date haven't demonstrated, for my liking, the ability to apply discretion sufficiently. In addition, I don't believe his last RfA was long enough ago. (note) Daniel 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Give it some time. Explore. You seem to be a productive user, and you will pass RfA in time. Sr13 08:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose You have less than 10000 edits, and I agree above give it time! Politics rule 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    Even with the original quote of Daniel, this oppose sounded silly but now that Daniel has updated his statement it seems like you're saying: "I'll never support anyone with less than 10000 edits". That of course is completely insane and I'm sure you would agree yourself since you've supported the RfAs of the "under-10000 edits club" Crazytales, Max Naylor, CloudNine, Spartaz, Richardshusr (and these are only the ones I've noticed from the active RfAs). Pascal.Tesson 04:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Moderately strong Oppose I have concerns about your canvassing. And as others have stated, your first RfA was closed as unsuccessful 25 days ago. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    In the interest of fairness, Hdt83 withdrew; the RfA didn't run its full course. Minor detail, yes, but I'm just trying to make sure everyone's on the same page about it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    So are you implying that if it had run its course, it would have been successful? Or that since it was withdrawn it doesn't count? Irregardless of whether it was withdrawn or not, it was still unsuccessful, and if the first one had ended when originally scheduled to (6/2/07) this new RfA would be starting only 17 days from then. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Personally, I consider a failed (ful-running) RfA to be different than an RfA where the editor withdrew; that's my personal distinction, however, and is completely moot when the two happen practically back-to-back (such as now). So, the short version... I'm not implying anything, I was just clarifying. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just to make it clear, I don't see a difference between a failed RfA that runs in full, or a withdrawn that would seemingly fail (some have been withdrawn for other reasons). However, I think withdrawing an RfA that is likely to fail is a nice gesture to the community. I also think nominated yourself twice within a month borders on a bad faith move. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak Oppose While I do not feel giving you the mop would be an error, I do feel it is too soon for another RFA. Three months is a comfortable (it gives you a quarter of a year to re-establish yourself and prove you have taken into account any issues or concerns brought up in your previous RFA). --Ozgod 02:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose wait a little while longer and try not to self-nominate next time. -N 02:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - I do not associate canvassing as per the other contributors. Not only however that your first RfA was created in May 26 but you do not have the potential to gain adminship consensus. — N96 01:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This user joined Wikipedia on 9th June, about 15 days ago. Majorly (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Sorry, but I must oppose per Daniel Bryant in your first RfA. Civility is very important for administrators, and I can't allow that all civility concerns have been addressed sufficiently in just three weeks' time. Dekimasuよ! 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Perhaps you should try again in 5 months. Hanoi Girl → Please sign! 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This user has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bryson 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "blocked indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet"? The last block she got was an autoblock, and she's off that now. Sr13 08:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. It's difficult to improve yourself and address concerns if your last RfA was only three weeks ago. Sr13 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you already voted on this RfA. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, sorry about that. Sr13 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. I dont think you have taken the time to address the concerns in your previous RfA as it was only a short time ago. The Sunshine Man 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Reluctant Oppose I've dealt with Hdt83 on a few occasions, and believe he's a good editor. I was actually ready to support--but after finding out he was canvassing, I can't support this nomination in good consience. Blueboy96 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, too soon from previous RFA. Try again in a few months time. Terence 04:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I will probably end up supporting in the future at a different Rfa, but this is not the right time...far too early from your last Rfa for me to support; time will help alleviate the concerns. Best of luck! Jmlk17 05:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. One of this editor's supporters in the first RfA suggested leaving it for 'a few months' before trying again. I think this was good advice and would repeat it: less than 4 weeks is not enough time to demonstrate a substantive change. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Like 9/11 jokes and Steve Irwin jokes. Too soon. SakotGrimshine 07:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Neutral. You've been doing some good work recently, and I liked the way you handled your last RfA, but it's still a little too soon for me to support. I'd suggest maybe writing some articles or something and coming back in a couple months. - Zeibura(talk) 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral- To little time has passed since your last RfA. Keep on working on the problems pointed out on your last RfA and wait a couple of months more before trying again. Eddie 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'm sorry, I just can't quite get behind this RfA. Barely any time has passed since your last RfA, and while I have no doubt that someone can immediately turn their attentions to their own limitations, only time can tell if their attempts will actually bear fruit; without this time having elapsed, the complaints in your first RfA still stand (in my opinion). The canvassing bit that tennisman pointed out is also mildly disturbing; unless you've worked with that editor in a training capacity (for example, Husond provided me solid advice in my editor review, and so I dropped him a note when my RfA took flight), I don't think it was proper. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral -- I cant possibly tell whether you have addressed the concerns of your previous rfa in just three weks approx. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 06:03, 19 June 2007 UTC)
    changed to support
  4. Neutral in this case as I do still believe and agree with some of the opposing voters about how close it is since your last failed RfA, but I do believe you're a great editor here on Wikipedia with a passion to do some extra stuff here and there to build a productive encyclopedia - keep that up and if this RfA doesn't go anywhere, try again in another year or two when you've learnt a bit more and gained more edits. I wish you good luck Hdt83 :) E talk 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral First time I've ever voted neutral. I have a lot of respect for this editor, and will certainly be willing to support in a couple of months. However I will be willing to help this editor in the short term, in any way they feel necessary to gain greater experience and to resolve any issues raised here. Khukri 08:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral leaning quite a lot towards support - This RfA is a bit close to the previous one and you canvassed a bit (just 1 user, but still), but you seem tp have fixed some of your previos mistakes and you have gathered nearly 10000 edits (your mainspace edits are about the same number as my entire edits in total, for instance). Also, I´m a bit concerned about the civility issues of your previous RfA; since this one is close to the previos one, I´m not very sure if those issues are to never happen again, but that isn´t that much of a problem, since I haven´t seen any editor oppose per civility issueas in this RfA, meaning that you must have improved. Try again after sometime and I´ll certainly support. ♠TomasBat 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    Changed from oppose. Per TomasBat: It's a bit early, but you're getting there. Just give it some time and I may readily support. —AldeBaer 14:35, 23 June 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.