Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Heah

Final (41/10/2) ended 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Heah (talk · contribs) – I've been editing here for just over a year now, with a bit over 3,600 edits. I am often frustrated by things I am unable to do, eg page moves to an existing target, things like that, and would like sysop priveleges. I occasionally peruse newpages, am a member of the vandalism and spam projects, and help out with such things where I can, although there isn't much I can do with limited priveleges. so I'd like to get my mop and bucket and expand my participation in maintenance etc. issues. He:ah? 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept my own self nomination. --He:ah? 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. First Support Moe ε 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Seems fair. Steiger 01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support You seem to be in the same scenario as me, I have an edit count similar to yours, and am often frustrated with the same things as you. Although I do not yet feel obliged to seek adminship, you have been here for quite at time longer than me, so you have my support. Good Luck! Weatherman90 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Good faith support. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Jay(Reply) 01:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - I thought I recognized this user from somewhere. Contribs show a decent spread in areas touching on admin-ish things with specialization in a topic area in which the user is knowledgeable and discussions look friendly and constructive. - BanyanTree 02:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - good clarifications in response to JoshuaZ. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support --Terence Ong 03:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support good candidate --rogerd 03:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. JoshuaZ 06:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC).
  11. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support meets criteria, excellent user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Could we just stop the editcountitis, people? 3600 edits spread across multiple namespaces is more than enough for him to learn how wikipedia works. Would he make a good admin? The answer is 'yes'! - Richardcavell 11:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, as per Richard. Petros471 13:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per Richard. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per Richard TigerShark 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Seems alright to me. Have a mop. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Edits in the "Talk" namespace suggest a good understanding of consensus building. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. support William M. Connolley 19:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. support. good work. pschemp | talk 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Excellent candidate. Good luck. Covington 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. David | Talk 18:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Hmmm... project space edits a little lower than optimal, but long tenure. Anarchist, but thoughtful answer to question regarding his personal beliefs. Hmmm... Cantabridgian by birth! Well, that tips the scales... enjoy the mop! :) Xoloz 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Seems like a worthy candidate. Give him the mop. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Any person who spends a month in South America running guns for General Delagando gets MY vote! TruthCrusader 12:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - Sufficient experience and seems solid. --CBDunkerson 13:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support--Jusjih 15:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support for fellow new pages patroller. --Rory096 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:34, 3 April 2006]
  32. Support this user can easily be trusted. Jedi6-(need help?) 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Good admin candidate. _-M o P-_ 22:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support seems good.  Grue  15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. aye give that man a mop & a beer. Derex 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. he has my support StabiloBoss 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support to counter extreme editcountitis. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Been around long enough.—thames 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, seems good. Hiding talk 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support -- JamesTeterenko 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support What's the worst that can happen? Sceptre (Talk) 12:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Not enough project edits, and not active enough with the Wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose after making so many edits in April, 2004, there is significant decline in activeness here. Shyam (T/C) 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Assuming you meant April 2005, as I wasn't here yet in April 2004- I spent the summer in South America, and as the nearest internet cafe was a 45 minute walk through the jungle and cost a dollar an hour, my editing dropped off majorly. For the month of June my whopping 20 edits were almost all in getting the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants off the ground, which I had put together right before leaving. When I returned I was doing the good student thing (for once) and lacked access to the school network because my comp didn't meet their microsoft-centric security regulations, so I wasn't spending so much time here. The last four months I've made between 205 and 539 edits per month, for an average of 375.5- which isn't by any means an extraordinarily high number, but at an average of over ten edits a day I wouldn't say I've been all that inactive. Actively editing or not, I spend a decent chunk of each day on the computer, all the while keeping an eye on the 1,300 pages on my watchlist for vandalism and etc. If I were given a mop I would expect it to increase greatly as I engage in routine admin duties, keeping up with admin intervention against vandalism, speedy deletes, and so on. Hope this helps clarify that decline in activity somewhat. --He:ah? 07:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not right now... Expect admins to be more active and have more experience in the project.--Looper5920 08:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, due to lack of edits in Wikipedia namespace I would conclude that Heah has insufficient knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Stifle 21:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose -- I like to see more project involvement. Get your hands dirty and come back in a few months. John Reid 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I want more wikiname space edits, especially for a self-nom, maybe in a few months --Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose sorry. I like your article contributions but project is just too low for an admin candidate. If this doesn't pass, I would support next time if you get involved and project and policy. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I have no fear of anarchism, unless it is the kind that leads to starting sentences in lower case, dropping punctuation, and otherwise breaking conventions which help readers. Thumbelina 17:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    Please point me to any article where I have done these things and I will gladly correct it, as it was certainly not purposeful. I personally find it odd to oppose based solely on a lower case k, several improperly capitalized instances of "i", and the lack of periods in the three occasions of "eg", as doing so fails to take into account any of the work I have actually done here at wikipedia; but, of course, your decision is your prerogative. --He:ah? 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: degree of care taken in writing is like body language in live communication. Jonathunder 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose attention to detail is very important for an admin - not seeing that - experience seems to be sufficient so no problem there - but not persuaded over the last week to change my initial impression from oppose. Trödel 11:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Has much of the right stuff, but the very idea that there is not much that one can do if he or she is not an admin is distasteful to me. I can't say for certain that this user has an appreciation of all that can be done on the project. --Danaman5 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I intended that more in spam/vandal/troll fighting areas, eg the slow response at the 3rr noticeboard, blocking a vandal when they've gotten all of their warnings and are in the process of vandalizing, rather than having to report them to admins and then wait sometimes two hours for them to be blocked- as they continue to vandalize. But I certainly understand your sentiment, and I'm sure there are a million things I could be doing here that I am not. Thanks for your comments. --He:ah? 20:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, just for now. — Rebelguys2 talk 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 83% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Heah's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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: keeping an eye on the notice board, for starters; other than that, i'm looking forward to helping out with general maintenance issues where ever i can be of assistance- helping out with the speedy deletion cat, protection requests, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I started the WikiProject on Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants and have edited a lot in that area- categorizing, cleaning up, expanding and etc, which is probably what i am most pleased with. It was an area sorely lacking attention when i first showed up. I rewrote the Symposium recently, and i'm fairly pleased with that, and plan on doing more similar work with other articles on Plato's dialogues, which is also an area that is surprisingly under-attended.
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: I've been in two, one with Chuck0 on Lifestyle anarchism. I made my arguments, cited my sources on talk. That was some time ago and if something happens like this again I will make sure and bring it to wider community attention quickly, avoiding back and forth arguing and etc, as well as keeping a cooler head. Chuck was calling me and others vandals and so on and I didn't react stellarly, although I don't think it was that bad, imo. There's also been an on-going dispute on the Alkyl nitrites page with a spammer from one of the leading manufacturors of Alkyl nitrites who quickly began calling us names. I avoided getting upset there and brought it to the attention of the community, filing an rfc, putting a note on the spam project page, etc. The talk page and history should give a pretty good idea of what went on there.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 Could you please expand on your answer to question 1 above?
Well, as I said, I will begin by keeping up with the speedy deletions category, watching the noticeboard and following up on requests made there, following up on protection/unprotection requests, simple things of that nature. Other things? I will watch admin requests for attention for anyone who needs assistance, assist those with a helpme tag, follow up on afd/cfd/tfd/mfd discussions- though for the time being I will only work there when the consensus (or lack of it) is very clear cut, leaving trickier issues to those wiser and more experienced than I am. This isn't because I don't feel I have the requisite experience necessary to be an admin, but rather because I've never been one to jump into the deep end. I am familiar with the processes and guidelines, but not being an admin I have not placed myself in a position of authority or action by carrying out such tasks as closing afd discussions; I plan on starting slowly until I have first-hand experience of the effects, reactions, and consequences of my administrative actions rather than only having watched others work and having essentially theoretical rather than practical knowledge/experience of policies, procedures, and etc. I want to become a better swimmer and more comfortable in the water before I venture into the deep end, with its eddies and currents.
(Right now, for instance, there are seven alerts on admin intervention against vandalism. Some have been there for a good two and a half hours. It is with things of that nature that I intend to help out with in the immediate future.)
2 Interiot's tool shows you having almost 200 deleted edits. Could you explain why the number is so high?
Virtually all are speedy deletion or afd notices; although I haven't done it much recently, I have spent some amount of time on new page patrol. One article I've created was afd'd and merged, and one was afd'd and deleted; I imagine that any deleted edits not from deletion notices are from that one deleted article or articles I may have edited and were then deleted. (None of these come to mind right now, but I'm sure they exist.)
Okay, I have another explanation. In addition to newpage patrol, on several occasions I've written and rewritten articles in userspace and then had the work page deleted- I just rewrote Phaedrus (dialogue) this evening, which alone will be a good 20 deleted edits. --He:ah? 09:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
3 Your nomination summary contains multiple spelling errors and/or typos. Can you please explain how this is not an indication that you are not taking your nomination seriously enough?
Apologies for this. Although I did look it over several times before saving, I have always found it more difficult to copy edit my own work than that of others, and the three spelling errors, one typo, and six lower case "i"s have been corrected. "maintenance" and "privelege", the two mis-spelled words, are ones I often have trouble with. "I"s I generally avoid capitalizing as a policy, outside of articles/papers for school/things of that nature. I do take this nomination seriously, and have considered it in the past, but did not feel that I had enough experience to nominate myself. This was not done on a whim or without consideration.
4 Under what circumstances will you block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?
You mean, without an arbcom decision that a particular user should be blocked for his/her actions? Without a ruling from arbcom, I would follow the blocking guidelines, generally restricting myself to following up on 3rr notices at the admin's noticeboard and following up on vandalism notices at the noticeboard, blocking if the editor in question has been properly warned and then continued to vandalize. In extreme situations I would block an editor who is making threats to others or posting sensitive personal information about others, but I hope that this will be a quite rare occurance.
If I come across editors who have been given their vandalism warnings or have broken 3rr, I will of course be willing to block without it being brought to the noticeboard, although I don't intend to seek out such situations. However, if I have been involved in conflict with the editor in question, eg one of his/her reverts was of an edit of mine or I have reverted their edits, I will not block but instead allow fully neutral parties to determine what should be done. If the situation requires immediate action I will act despite my involvement, and promptly bring it to the attention of the community for review.
4a I'm sorry 4 was supposed to read "Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without prior direction from the Arb Com?" (I suppose I really shouldn't be making comments about your spelling errors if I am missing critical words).
Okay, that makes more sense as a question. Well, most of the situations involving indefinite blocks that I foresee would involve arbcom or standard policy fair. (Definite) socks used to evade a ban or block, that sort of thing, enforcement of arbcom decisions and policy. Beyond arbcom, I don't really think that I have the authority to tell someone they can never edit here again.
With clear community consensus I may be willing to block indefinitely, i.e. with a history of similar response by other admins. But I can't see this applying to much more than absolutely atrocious anons or socks violating an arbcom ruling, as such non-anon repeat offenders most likely are. Without arbcom, essentially for the anons, I would be much more likely to use a long-term block in such a situation.
In the case of a constant vandal who has not yet been brought before arbcom, I would be willing to use an indefinite block- with "indefinite" meaning not permanent, but rather "until arbcom rules or someone else unblocks". If arbcom rejected the case, I would accordingly change the block to some set amount of time in accordance with the editor's actions and the severity of such. But again, I don't really think that it is my place to unilaterally and permanently block.

Q. You self-describe as an 'anarchist', how do you square that with an admin's role of enforcing policy in a well-ordered encyclopedia?--Doc ask? 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems with things being "well-ordered", with policy being enforced, etc. These things are necessary for any project such as this, (or society, for that matter.) My political beliefs, without getting into it to deep, have more to do with methods of organization and decision making. I by no means believe that people have some sort of absolute freedom to do whatever they want- I mean, perhaps we've all got free will and can act on that, but the society (or project) we're living/working in also has the right to enforce its own customs and taboos. Wikipedia, although it can be a bit cliquey at times, (just like anything else,) generally makes and enforces its rules and policies through community input, on something just about as close to a full consensus system that I've seen in action. The enforcement and actions themselves require direct action, that people act independently and on their own perceptions and intitiative, rather than from the top down; this, of course, within a framework of checks, balances, and policy.
So self-describing as an "anarchist" shouldn't be seen as me endorsing chaos, disorder, being anti-communitarian, or anything like that. Contrary to popular belief, most anarchists love organization and order just like the next guy. The question is, how do we build up that organization, how do we maintain that order? And wikipedia, while not being an experiment in anarchism or democracy, does pretty well in my book. I don't see any conflicts at all between my political beliefs and an admin's duties of enforcing policy.
A further note- yes, I do have that one little political userbox on my page, and understand that userboxes are a contentious issue. As an individual I do have my own, personal point of view, but I believe my edit history and my lack of past conflict over pov issues should allay any fears that I edit as a political extremist. I try and avoid areas where I cannot edit neutrally- eg, I stay the heck away from the anarchism article, as it is difficult for me to neutrally engage in the controversy between the libertarian socialists and the anarcho-capitalists over what anarchism is. So again, my edit history should satisfactorily demonstrate my ability to neutrally enforce policy as an admin.
FWIW I didn' accuse you of bias, as you say, there is no editing evidence of that. My question was about your attitude to policy and community regulation, and you have satisfactorily answered that (for me). I will not oppose your nomination. --Doc ask? 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.