Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83

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 (6/16/5); Ended 02:43, Sunday May 27, 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 (talk · contribs) - Hi, my name is Hdt83. I am nominating myself for adminship because I really want to help the community in more ways than what is currently possible as a regular editor. I have been on Wikipedia since November 2006 but I really got in to editing around January 2007. My main contributions are toward fighting vandalism and reporting vandals. I also welcome new users to Wikipedia. I have over 3000 main space edits so far and it is still growing. I also like to help people and try to answer their questions. I have a good understanding of how Wikipedia works and I believe that I can help Wikipedia more by becoming an administrator. -- Hdt83 Chat 05:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my request for adminship. From the comments below, I realize that I am still not ready handle the challenges of becoming admin and I still need to have more experience on Wikipedia. Thanks you to everyone who gave me feedback on where I went wrong and what I need to work on. I'll try again later, perhaps. -- Hdt83 Chat 01:17, 27 May 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: There are many places on Wikipedia that I can help out as an admin. One would be AIV. All too often there is a backlog of vandals causing havoc on WIkipedia. With extra tools, I can block users as soon as they vandalize after being sufficiently warned and not have to wait while they are still disrupting Wikipedia. I would also help out at CAT:CSD which has had a huge backlog since when I can remember. WP:RFPP is another place where I would help out at to protect pages needing protection and remove protection from those who don't need protection.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia overall are my vandalism reverts. Vandalism can destroy the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia which is why I consider it to be the most important contribution I have made to Wikipedia.
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: Yes I have been in conflicts before in the past and will inevitably be involved in another one in the future. They have not caused me much stress because I deal with it in a calm and orderly way. If the conflict escalates I will disengage from the conflict to let it "cool down" before discussing it again. If the conflict still cannot be solved than I will seek the advice and views of other editors on Wikipedia to deal with the problem.
4. - optional question; When is it okay to ignore all rules and how do you interpret this? - Alison ☺ 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A: There will come certain times when one must bend a few rules to help improve Wikipedia. This policy is not to be taken lightly or used as an excuse to cause disruption on Wikipedia. I think that this policy should be interpreted in that it should only be used as a reason for a certain action if it does more good for Wikipedia than the current policies will allow. In a nutshell, IAR if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

I'm all for vandal-fighters getting mops. I have no concerns if the user's mainspace contributions aren't quite up to snuff (an idea I disagree with), as Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia (I know, heretical opinion to have, but it's the truth). EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Changing !vote to "Neutral" per diffs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support Fully qualified.--Brownlee 11:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. SupportSeems like a good editor, but I doubt this RfA will succeed. I think you need some more experiance on Wikipedia before running for Adminship. The way how you talk to vandals is worrying, although this is not a policy, see WP:INSULT. I suggest you apply again in a few months. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 16:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support He wants to fight vandalism, well lets provide him with the appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct vandals.--William Henry Harrison 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Per Harrison, but with the same caveats voiced by Yamamato Ichiro. As a vandal fighter, I too would like to see less backlog on AIV.—Gaff ταλκ 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Moral support - I look forward to seeing you back here once you've corrected the objects of the concerns presented below. You'll do fine. The Transhumanist    22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Support, I'm a little concerned by the comments below, but as many of us know, the pressure of vandal fighting gets to you after awhile. --Random Say it here! 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. If I may speak directly to the candidate, while I appreciate your vandalism reversion efforts, I am leery of supporting your request, as I believe administrators should be well-rounded and play a role in adding content to the encyclopedia (admittedly, this is more for ideological than technical reasons). Admins who live to revert vandalism are not what we need at the moment. gaillimhConas tá tú? 06:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Response: There are many ways to help contribute to Wikipedia and adding content is one of them. Reverting vandalism and blocking the offending users is another way. Vandalism can cause Wikipedia to lose its integrity and while you may think that Admins reverting vandalism is not needed, they are in fact in desperate need of administrative support. All too often AIV is backlogged with a list of vandals who if not blocked are still going around disrupting Wikipedia. With more admins reverting and blocking, less vandalism makes it on to the pages of Wikipedia. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Hdt83! I appreciate your response, but I fear that you have misread my comments. Reverting and handling vandalism is obviously quite necessary, and we do need administrators to spend time dealing with this. However, we most certainly do not need administrators who only warn vandals and deal with vandalism. In my experience, this leads to needlessly lengthy blocks, poor communication with newcomers ("biting", as it's colloquially known), and a complete lack of realisation as to what this project's goals are about. I am inherently leery of anyone who gets involved with Wikipedia to warn "vandals" and revert vandalism and eschews any sort of article writing. I'm not saying that one needs to write Pulitzer-quality articles, but one certainly does need to embrace our goals if one wants added responsibilities gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Also, comments like this one from the other day illustrate why I am a bit concerned about allowing you to block users. You already appear a bit stressed out due to your time warning people, and you do not appear to possess the necessary maturity or candor to deal with some of the more severe instances of vandalism that you wish to begin taking a more "hands on" role with gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose per this comment, which further emphasises the point that you lack understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia, how it works, and what administrators are meant to act like. Only four days ago, you a) don't use proper English when conversing with another user; b) threaten to "report them"; c) use "moderator" erroneously; and d) use "deleting pages" erroneously. That, and per Gaillimh, we need administrators who go beyond simple click-revert functions; you have failed to demonstrate that you have good analytical skills (which administrators need, when making a decision) in your time on Wikipedia. "My best contributions to Wikipedia overall are my vandalism reverts" is also worrying, as I believe administrators need to know how to handle disputes that arise around mainspace articles. Daniel 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    So in view of the grammatical and spelling errors above, is Daniel saying that he himself should not be an admin?--Brownlee 10:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Incorrect spelling is fine. Deliberately speaking to someone using 'SMS-speak' isn't. And beyond accidentally leaving out an "e" in "erroneously", what was wrong with the above? Daniel 11:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. After seeing this, I oppose. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per the above diff. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The diffs provided are a worry, it shows a lack of understanding of how to handle difficult situations and being unable to remain civil in your comments. — The Sunshine Man 11:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, unfortunately. Administrators (and admin candidates) ought to know how to handle themselves better than how you did in such a stressful situation. Honestly, I doubt if you can remain civil and not bite others when you see yourself in any tough situation, which you definitely will as an admin. Sorry. —Anas talk? 12:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, I'm afraid, per the above diff. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 12:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, sorry, but the diff provided above is just too recent and what Daniel calls SMS-speak doesn't demonstrate a full grasp of what adminship is about, either. —AldeBaer 12:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Daniel's diff... Even if they are a Vandal-only account, WP:CIVIL still applies. I can't imagine wanting an Admin who might block people using phrases like "Why don't you get a life?" Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 13:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - User does not have a grasp of the scope of WP, nor does the user seem to know to use templates as opposed to, shall we say, "personalized messages" when warning vandals. If this pattern of action is in the user's best area, I am worried about how the rest of the areas are. MSJapan 13:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, lacks of experience, per the diff. Terence 13:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - I started reading this thinking "why not do the vandal bit and learn some more as you go". However reading what is here and the diffs & comments above I cannot support this RfA --Herby talk thyme 13:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - You wrote this just 4 days ago, blasting one of the most respected admins around here. You clearly don't understand the need for civility and you don't understand why pages get deleted. And just what "moderator" did you report her to? A mop may be a mop, but it can do a lot of damage, too. Sorry, but this is not the action of someone I want to see wielding one. Work around here a lot more, write a lot more, study how admins do their job, read, read, read the policies and guidelines and become intimately familiar with them to the point you respect them, then come back. AKRadecki 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have no interest in this RfA, but I do want to say, where did he "blast one of the most respected admins around here"? That diff was clearly addressed at a vandalism-only account, which was blocked shortly thereafter by User:Riana. Grandmasterka 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    (Writing as I scrape egg off my face) You are indeed correct, Grandmasterka...I mistook his blast of the vandal for a blast at Riana, who had made the edit just prior to that diff. Bad mistake on my part, apologies offered all around. AKRadecki 21:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per the above, as well as this edit. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: I know that what I said there was not appropriate especially because it could be seen as a form of a personal attack against others but I had a bad day that time and lost my temper. I am usually not like that and I try to avoid scathing comments like those. Everybody has a day where stress can cause you to "overload" and do things which you would not do had you been thinking clearly. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to insult the admin who blocked the guy. -- Hdt83 Chat 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Also I understand that a lot of editors here are concerned about WP:BITE. I welcome new users and always try to help out others whenever possible. The above comment was not meant to "bite" a new user but to get the point across that vandalism is bad and that vandalizing pages will get you in to trouble. -- Hdt83 Chat 22:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Civility and no personal attacks are extremely important policies for an editor, especially an admin. Sorry but I have to oppose per the above diff. --DarkFalls talk 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose Per Daniel's given address, here. It sounds like you have no clue what's going on inside of Wikipedia. If you can't call administrators by the right name, why should we give you the tools of one? Cool Bluetalk to me 00:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - You seem like a good editor, fair amount of experience, good mainspace edit level and Wikipedia-space, but what concerns me is your block log. Can you please explain what was going on here? –Sebi ~ 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    This appears to have been an accident on the part of the blocking administrator; see this diff for details. JavaTenor 06:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yep - accidental. I like the way the Hdt kept his cool throughout the block, too. - Alison ☺ 06:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, well, good luck Hdt! :) –Sebi ~ 06:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I was going to vote support but the comment just disturbed me a little to much --St.daniel Talk 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - The diff provided by the oppose voters concerned me; although the use of SMS speak, the slightly flippant attitude and the erroneous use of "moderator" are not individually serious concerns, together they are enough to prevent me from supporting. However, one diff isn't enough to make me oppose. WaltonAssistance! 16:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. After looking at some of the comments that Hdt83 has made, I have to change my RfA response. Vandal fighters are crucial to the project, and I still don't believe in opposing RfAs on a strict basis of "not enough mainspace edits", but the incivility is an issue. I suggest withdrawing, working on your cool, and re-applying in a few months. I'd be happy to work with you outside this RfA, Hdt83, if you want. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Seems like a relatively good editor, but while it isn't exactly excusable for a regular editor to lose their cool, it is quite unacceptable for an admin to. As stated above, work on the cooling down for a bit, then try again. Good luck! Jmlk17 21:34, 26 May 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.