Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hiberniantears

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] Hiberniantears

Final: (21/10/6); ended 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) - This is a self nomination. I have been an editor here since March 2005. My interests mainly fall in the realm of history related topics, though I enjoy branching into various areas beyond my purview as an exercise in NPOV editing. I also spend a great deal of time on the Recent Changes page reverting blatant vandalism. I believe my time here has been constructive, and it has certainly been intellectually stimulating. I am pursuing adminship at this point because I want to move to the next level of my "wikiwalk" journey in an effort to give back to a project I believe in very deeply, and gain considerable intellectual enjoyment from participating in. Hiberniantears 00:57, 28 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: Primarily, I see myself participating in vandalism patrol, something I already do as an editor. I am interested less in blocking users, so much as trying to bring editors into the fold of constructive editing. Failing that, I would certainly be looking to block in a constructive manner. Additionally, arbitrating disputes would be of particular interest to me. I feel that as an editor I am unable to do this constructively, as joining a dispute can be viewed negatively by other parties involved, whereas in the capacity of admin, I would be able to calm those involved, and hopefully bring everyone to an objective consensus.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that two of my best contributions actually came in the form of disputes with two other editors who I initially locked horns with, and even lost my temper with. First, in a number of reverts, and talk page conversations, User:Gene_Poole and I managed to go from overt hostility toward each other, to an eventual agreement on how best to present links on a number of pyramid related pages (notably Bosnian Pyramid and Egyptian Pyramid amongst others.
Additionally, User:Flavius Belisarius and I locked horns over the past month across what I felt was a nationalist tone added to a variety of Turkish Armed Forces related pages. Flavius was himself a sockpuppet of banned User:Shuppiluliuma. In this case, the editor got the better of me, and I lost my temper when I realized this was a known sock of a banned user. That said, several admins already aware of the situation agreed that Flavius was an otherwise constructive editor with a habit of antagonizing other editors. While I did not agree with the way Flavius was dealt with, I did learn to appreciate the constructive data added by this user, and on many pages we came to a consensus that worked for both of us. I feel that this series of edits was particularly useful because Flavius was by far the more knowledgeable editor on the topic at hand, while I felt I was the more NPOV editor. By combining our strengths, despite our antagonism, we managed to put Flavius's superior expertise into a more objective format, thus preserving the core of what each of us intended to achieve.
I raise both of these examples as "best contributions" not because I think they represent my most academic contributions, but rather because they represent my ability to work with editors even when there is a negative environment between us. In both of these cases I managed to glean constructive editing collaborations with editors who have been banned multiple times, and who have even had sockpuppets banned. I would like to think that at any point in the future that I could engage either of these editors and contribute further constructive collaboration, even though neither of these two editors are examples of what I would hope the greater Wikipedia community aspires to emulate. I feel that this ability to reach through even an angry debate, and still work constructively is an important quality for an administrator. Our fellow editor rely on admins not so much to act in the capacity of police officers, but often just to give an opportunity for cooler heads to prevail, and get us all back to building an encyclopedia.
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: Please see my response to 2. As noted, I believe both of these instances expose that: A) I am indeed human; B) I can work constructively with an editor even when I have been involved in an angry dispute with them.
4. How does being an admin help to resolve disputes? How does it help to "calm those involved" and "bring everyone to an objective consensus."?--Chaser - T 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A: 1) How does being an admin help to resolve disputes: In the role of admin, rather than as an editor, I would seek to approach disputes in the context of bringing disputing editors together, rather than first trying to take a side. As an admin, you are in a position of trust, wherein editors count on you to enter a situation and treat those involved fairly. Whether you are entering an edit war between two editors with a history of problem causing, or are simply asked to offer your thoughts, I believe it is critical to put your personal views aside, and view any given situation in a neutral fashion, based on the merits. If you treat all editors in a dispute fairly, and with respect, then those editors should be able to deescalate knowing someone is there looking out for everyone's best interest.
A: 2) How does it help to calm those involved and bring everyone to an objective consensus: While I cannot promise that everyone will come to an objective consensus, I believe that if I, as an admin, can show the various editors involved in a dispute that I am there to help everyone present all sides of an argument... then it is my hope that those editors who are truly looking to contribute will recognize that I can help them build consensus, which often involves fostering discussion leading to compromise and cooperation between users of different viewpoints.
That said, I realize that not all editors are willing to engage in such debate. I can only offer that as an admin I would make every effort to reach out individually to editors who may be caught up in the heat of the moment, and try to convince them through respectful dialog that they are welcome in Wikipedia. Hiberniantears 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem to differentiate between entering a dispute as a mediator (your word is "admin") and entering as a partisan ("editor"), but my experience is that both sysops and editors can serve as mediators or as partisans in a good-faith debate over content where no one is violating our behavioral policies (NPA, CIVIL, 3RR, etc.). That said, sysop tools are sometimes necessary to stop problematic behavior with protection, blocks, or credible warnings thereof. This can be quite helpful in that it allows other editors to return to business. But if you expect that being a sysop will help you mediate discussion with parties that are calmly disagreeing in good faith, I think you will be disappointed.--Chaser - T 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Protest Support contra Black Harry Support Enough of this ridiculous editcountitis. He's commented in a few AfD's, but what I appreciate is that he has 24 reports/comments to WP:AIV. The articles that have the most edits among his mainspace contrbtions are B-Class and GA-class. Not bad for 2000 edits. Secondly, I'm in support of giving vandal-whackers the tools. To me, quality of edits is also important. Unwillingly repeating myself, he's got 24 reports/comments to AIV. If he wold have the tools, that'd be 24 less vandals, and being a vandal-whacker myself, the project will not be hurt by Hiberniantears, nor do I believe he/she will abuse the tools. Is it such a big deal? --Evilclown93(talk) 01:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps I shall protest drop my support for your RFA. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    What I mean by that is that I really disagree with your reasoning for opposing Hiberniantears. --Evilclown93(talk) 01:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    There's no reason to threaten personal sanctions for RfA comments. Look at the contribs for the RfA, leave it at that. Leebo T/C 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    In general, when one says protest vote contra (against) someone, they mean they only voted that because the other person voted a different way. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 02:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry I offended in this way, Black Harry. It wasn't the point of my comments. --Evilclown93(talk) 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - After flicking through Hiberniantears contribs, I feel he demonstrates a good understanding of policy with his edits. His contributions to AIV show a need for the tools - In short, he will be fine as an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support This users edit count is pretty low, but that does not matter. He has been around wikipedia for a while (but not very active the whole time), and has shown that he is trustworthy. Good luck!:)--†Sir James Paul† 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. This editor's edit count is only 15% lower than mine when I ran for adminship almost one year ago, and my nom was pretty uncontroversial (83%). A user who can edit articles for this length of time shows me that he/she can be trusted with the admin tools, especially when the nominating statement claims they don't intend to use the tools extensively. As long as we're making outlandish statements (which is what opposing adminship requests is - by opposing, one states that the candidate is so woefully inexperienced or otherwise unsuitable that admin tools will be actively abused in such a manner that a helpful talk page note won't be able to correct), assume that Hiberniantears, because his edit count is 15% lower than mine when I was promoted, will make precisely 15% more mistakes. I would characterize ~50 of my tool usages (out of about 2,250) as a mistake in even the slightest sense. 15% more than 50 is... in the neighborhood of 65. So we might have to leave a few talk page messages saying "Hey, dummy, it's done this way..." over the next few months. Is that really a reason to oppose? Does this candidate really seem like the type to abuse the deletion process, ban prominent contributors, reveal personal information, wheel war incessantly, or do something which would get them emergency desysopped? If the answer to those questions is no, and I don't see any way to argue that it isn't, it makes no sense to oppose for edit count. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support an overview of the user contributions shows that they contribute widely -- something which is indispensable. It also shows that their anti-vandal activities demonstrate a need for tools, and that they have the responsibility to use them effectively. --Haemo 06:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong support per RyanGerbil. Editcount is not a good reason to oppose. Waltontalk 12:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, not put off enough by the oppose reasons, although the edit summary given in Addhoc's diff is a bit over the top, I don't believe this user will go insane with the tools. Editcountitis is no issue for me here as his edits are pretty substantial. - Zeibura (Talk) 14:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, 'cause edits don't mean a thing when they can handle the tools and use them in the correct manner. ~EdBoy[c] 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Wikipedia space edits are a little thin but what I can see looks good. Answers look good too. I'll support. Arkyan • (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support the above. Acalamari 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Despite my giving the candidate a hard-time in Q4, I think he is well-prepared and has a clear need (counter-vandalism) to block and trust him to use the other tools carefully. I don't think being a sysop will help resolve or mediate disputes in the way Hiberniantears imagines, but also don't see a reason that should disqualify him.--Chaser - T 00:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support You are good as to give you a chance--LucasBunchi 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    Probable SPA, if you look at xyr edits. Majorly (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'd say so. He also calls himself Tomasbat's Friend in his first edit (1), then he voted neutral leaning towards support in Tomasbot's RFA as his third edit (2). Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Moral support Few of the opposers have some good points (minus the random -titus), but I feel the guy can be trusted. Kwsn(Ni!) 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Weak Support Low edit count, but cause still exists for supporting. Captain panda 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support Good luck! MAJ5 (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Sockpuppet of banned user Bugman94. Majorly (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Majorly. This opens up an opportunity for me to point out that my less-than-mature edit summary cited below by a couple of those who opposed was really just an expression of my frustration that no action was taken in regards to a banned user, such as the one who's vote was removed above. While I would obviously love to have a vote counted in my favor, I would also rather know that this nomination succeeds in a legitimate fashion. Based on the thoughtful responses of a number of those in opposition below, I realize that I am at least on the cusp of earning wider respect, and know that I can return here in a short period of time and earn a successful request for adminship. Hiberniantears 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. I think it is ridicules to say the tools will not help with Vandal Fighting. And I try to judge a users contributions more on quality then quantity. --Mschel 15:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support No major concerns here, looks good. Majorly (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support No significant reasons to oppose. The edit summary shows a bit of immaturity but it was only once. A good candidate overall. Good luck. - TwoOars 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. The opposes have some valid issues. I am not passing judgment on everything the candidate has done, just on how he will use the tools and I think it is unlikely that Hiberniantears will misuse them. -- DS1953 talk 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Per above. ~ Wikihermit 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Plenty of experience, lots of friendly and diplomatic interaction with the community. I especially like this response User_talk:Hiberniantears#Re:_vandal_warning. I see no reason to believe that Hiberniantears would abuse the privileges or cause any problems during a dispute. Definitely the kind of person I like to see stepping up and offering to take on new responsibilities. DOSGuy 11:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Looks fine to me. But you should configure your account to accept people sending you mail through wikipedia, just listing an address on your user page is sometimes not preferable. Shanes 00:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I think your dedication to this project is strong, but unfortunately 1800 edits isn't enough. If you keep up your recent pace for a few more months, you should be able to pass your next RFA. I hope to see you as a candidate again in 3 to 6 months. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Why don't you look over his contribs? Or have you got editcountitus? It seems to me that Hiberniantears has been here long enough to demonstrate a sound understanding of policy to become an administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Let the deluge begin. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 01:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect BH, a deluge is what you deserve. Say this user comes back in 3 months and now has 2100 edits. Will you really treat him any differently? I'm not giving any opinion on the candidate because I haven't taken the time to review his past contributions but by the looks of it you haven't exactly done you research either, unless you consider that consulting the talk page of this RfA is all you need to do. And to boot, you're threatening retaliation against Evilclown93. It's actually a sign of the relative health of RfA that responsible editors are taking the time to tell you how unconstructive your comments are. Pascal.Tesson 04:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah... editcount is such a good determiner of suitability for adminship. I look forward to seeing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HagermanBot. :-) Waltontalk 12:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Well, Mathbot didn't do all that well :D - Zeibura (Talk) 14:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, sorry. Editcountitis aside, adminship means extra responsibilities for this user. So is a responsibility to carefully judge one's preparedness, and that requires more evidence of experience in multiple areas of admin intervention. Personally, I am not convinced that this user is prepared, if among others I am to have in mind such low participation in project space. Adminship is no big deal, but that doesn't mean that it can be treated with levity. Húsönd 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I suggest that if you are interested in conflict resolution you try participating in the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for a while. Admin powers are really not that useful in mediating disputes, interpersonal skills are worth more in that task then a few extra buttons. Tim Vickers 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Part one of this candidates' answer to Q4 shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You don't have to be an administrator to be neutral, and you don't have to be neutral when you're an administrator. Otherwise, mediation would be given by administrators only, and that's all they'd do. This was in addition to the fact that I believe this user does not have enough experience to be obtaining the mop and bucket. Daniel 06:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - sorry, this edit summary implies you aren't quite ready to be given the mop, also your answer to Q1 isn't entirely convincing. Finally, if this attempt doesn't succeed, I would suggest you gain some experience of the deletion process, before reapplying. Addhoc 11:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ach. Candidate seems to be on the right way, but the diff provided by Addhoc really spoils it for me. Sorry, but I suggest waiting a bit more and avoiding edit summaries like that, other user could take great offense and it helps to escalate situations rather than to pacify them. —AldeBaer (c) 13:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to abstention for now. —AldeBaer (c) 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Vandal fighting is always a great help, but one does not need admin tools for that. I honestly don't see any need for the tools. Jmlk17 22:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I base this on a collective review of this RfA. The edit count is fine as far as I am concerned, however the answers in Q4 suggest to me a lack of understanding of the role of an admin. True enough, adminiship is a position of trust, but frequently, 3O's and informal mediation is the best way to go. Also, the relatively low talk page numbers (as compared to mainspace edits) suggests he could be more interactive. I think a 2nd RfA in a few months will sail through. JodyB talk 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Addhoc's diff and the answer to Q4 clearly show that the candidate needs more experience, and more opportunities to perfect a calm demeanor. Xoloz 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber 18:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Kurt has opposed on this criterion a lot and no one has been able to dissuade him otherwise. Trying to do so is probably counter-productive.--Chaser - T 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    It doesnt mean nothing should be done about it. It is the weakest reason to oppose I have ever encountered, and I tihnk it should given the weight of a feather. Isnt there anything to possibly convince Kurt to please stop? Surely it can be considered trolling? Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Per the diff provided by Addhoc, I can't help but feel this user will escalate a dispute rather than help resolve it.--Bryson 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. You would make a good admin, and edit count doesn't matter at all (well within reason, somone with 2 edits wont pass), however you haven't specifically stated anything you are planning on doing that requires admin abilities. Vandalism reverting, mediating, and trying to help users are great things, and I try to do them as well, however you need to demonstrate the need for the sysop bit. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    In A1, he indicated blocking vandals. After reviewing AIV reports, I think say he's well-prepared. His reports are solid, with recent ones always followed by blocks, sometimes for six months. [1] [2] [3] [4] --Chaser - T 02:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral Per above (Q1) ~ Wikihermit 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (changing to support ~ Wikihermit 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
  2. Neutral. Candidate is a bit light on experience but has the makings of a fine admin. Majoreditor 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after three months and you will get my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Per Daniel in oppose. My main concern is that wading into a mediation with "It's okay I'm an admin" is more likely to inflame rather than resolve issues. Contrary to what you may believe I'm afraid adminship does not confer automatic respect - sadly often the reverse in some editors eyes. However 1) Vandal Fighting 2) Reasonable amount of experience 3) Civility cause me to stay neutral rather than oppose. Pedro |  Chat  08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I think the candidate is on the right track, and will benefit from a bit more experience. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - good editor, civil and kind. However, you need more experience of WP policy, I feel. A few more months editing + maybe get involved in AfD evaluations and some policy discussions and you'll be ready for the mop. Definitely on the right track - Alison ☺ 12:04, 30 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.