Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello 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.

[edit] HighwayCello

Final (14/27/14) Ended 11:16, July 29 2006 (UTC)

Note: Closed at the request of the nominee [1] TigerShark 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Nomination

HighwayCello (talk · contribs) – HighwayCello is a Wikipedia editor who would be a great admin because he help users, write articles and refer to himself in the third person. ;) I'm Highway, and I've been a frequent (at some times incessant) contrbutor to Wikipedia, since the end of January 2006. I've wrote, and helped to write, several Good articles, including Golduck, Combusken, Princess Peach and Eevee, and in June, finally getting Torchic to featured article status. I also moved around various projects, which include the Pokémon Collaborative Project, Good article nominations and Did you know.

I have many friends in the project, and have a healthy amount of communication on user talk pages, and article talk. I have healthily spread edits across the template, article, image and WP namespaces, readily willing to help new users and verterans alike. With my admins tools, I would help other users and try to cut down on the backlogs that are now building up quickly, as well as trying to bust the admin urban legend (who am I kidding, we all know what the problem is).

Thank you for reading my introduction, and if you have any other further questions about anything I say here, or otherwise, please leave a note at this RfA's talk page, or my own talk page. Happy voting discussing, Highway Return to Oz... 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Prior nomination
Acceptance
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes Highway Return to Oz... 22:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support
  1. May I offer the first !vote to this fine user. Helpful, if a little hot-headed at times. He's worked hard consistently, showing commitment to the project and certainly deserves the powers. Good luck HighwayCello! —Celestianpower háblame 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Everything here has been addressed to my satisfaction. Titoxd(?!?) 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Having seen this user all over the place I believe he would be a useful addition to the admin team. I can't see any evidence that he would abuse or misuse the tools. Kevin 22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support meets my standards —Mets501 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Looks good and no big deal. Ifnord 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Vote changed to oppose. Ifnord 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Rama's arrow - this Fire burns always 22:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Most absolutely support, having often interacted with HighwayCello, I've seen him grow as a Wikipedia editor, both over time and from his last RfA. He has learned to handle conflicts well, and has certainly dealt with his share of them. He puts huge amounts of time into the encyclopedia, and contributes to many things in which having admin powers would allow him to contribute even more. Especially having him seen him request admins to do things that he cannot, I am delighted to suppport. -- Natalya 22:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC) (edit conflicted) — The only thing that matters is whether this candidate would abuse the tools. The answer in this case is "no, they would not."
  8. Support on the condition that you are civil in the future. DarthVader 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support I've found this editor to be only kind and a considerate user who wants to help the community. Thε Halo Θ 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support ~ crazytales56297 -talk- 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. (moral) Consultant Support Imp/: while this one probably won't go through, I suspect you will be an administrator soon enough if you keep up your hard work here. Suggest/: that you reflect a bit on the opposes, as it seems like an easy enough to fix issue -- Samir धर्म 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. — FireFox (talk) 11:07, 28 July '06
  13. Moral support, judging by outcome. Please do not get too distressed by this, and take it as a learning experience. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 04:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose (may change to neutral) You're a good canidate, but as noted here, here, and here, you seem to run into stress on an unusually high basis. I'll remind you that adminship is no easy task, and often you will run into situations with problem users. If you have managed to stress yourself out those many times, I would worry what would happen during your adminship. I applaud you for your WP work, however. --Pilotguy (roger that) 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    I appreciate your concerns PG, but my stress is based on both real life and' Wikipedia, but since RL has simplified recently, my stress should start to decline. If I did become an admin, I would apply the same questioning I use in conflicts as to the tools, "will this benefit me, or benefit the pedia?" Thank you anyway, Highway Return to Oz... 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    If a person opens up on Esperanza about being stressed, I don't see that as a problem. Other users might be equally stressed but there aren't any diffs about it because they let it out somewhere else or aren't involved with Wikipedia communities. What matters is whether that stress results in inappropriate comments or other actions. A candidate should not be penalized for communicating with other Wikipedians about problems they might be having or letting off a little steam in a place specifically designed for that. —Centrx→talk • 23:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose. I have some severe reservations about HighwayCello being given the admin tools. To make this easier for myself, I'll bullet point it.
    • Civility: No. This was brought up in the past and little has changed since then. Edit summaries like i am not redudant mother fucker and kirby is not male for the fucking last time, with comments like you can bog off do not show good civility.
    • HighwayCello's attitude to Wikipedia in general is also not what I would expect from an admin, with comments like this, and his why bother? attitude towards discussing things with other people.
    • My experience of this user is that he does not respond to stressful situations well [2]. The thermometer thing on his userpage is regularly in the red section. HighwayCello will come under even more stressful situations as an admin and I don't think he would respond to them positively.
    • Three of the main areas of Wikipedia which require admins are vandal patrolling (inc. RC patrol}, articles/templates/etc for deletion and page protections. HighwayCello's activity in each of these is almost non existant. As far as I can see, he has never engaged in RC patrol, votes in a couple of xfDs a week, and has never requested a page protection.
    • HighwayCello has shown complete lack of knowledge of policy when he re-added a {{prod}} notice and actually gave the user both a blank1 and test1 warning for it [3]. The original page has since been deleted, but admins can check "Unknown Pokémon (Diff: 64506737). HighwayCello also has a habit of giving users both test1 and blatantvandal warnings for the same act of vandalism.
    • This edit which I think speaks for itself shows completely and utterly the wrong attitude an administrator should have. Registered users have no more authority than IPs over articles and I would worry if someone with this attitude was given the block button.
    So, in essence: Would HighwayCello misuse the admin tools? I would argue yes. -- Steel 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but a lot of this is out of context. You have to look at surrounding edits. Someone called me a redundant mother fucker on my talk page for not noticing the info was there twice. The "bog off" comment was areply to the comment someone made against me, the reason I kept re-adding the prod template was because there was no reason provided, and I'm pretty sure the IP was a vandal. There are just somethings I know about than some editors, like Pokémon grammar, and there was an initial teething problem in implementing the correct grammar. I don't want to go through everything, but this is all taken out of context. I'm sorry, Highway Return to Oz... 22:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    No, HighwayCello. Just because someone makes a personal attack (or whatever it was) towards you does not allow you to respond in a similarly incivil manner. As for the mother fucker comments, rather than using a normal, descriptive edit summary, you used one which was likely to escalate the conflict, rather than resolve it. The IP who removed the prod template removed only the prod template. If he'd removed a bunch of other content too, then fair enough. But he didn't. If I recall correctly you re-added the template two or three times. -- Steel 22:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    All of that may be true, but do you think your response was constructive? If a troll calls you a motherfucker, are you going to call them a motherfucker back and feed their trolling or are you going to respond in a level-headed manner? Also, the attitude that there are "some things that I know [more] about than some editors" doesn't sound like a healthy attitide - especially if it is used as part of a justification for swearing at them. If you know better, explain to them and convince them - don't just attack them. TigerShark 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and as for being pretty sure the IP was a vandal, what happened to assume good faith? -- Steel 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose Judging by the diffs provided above, this user has serious problems with civility, making them unsuitable to act in an admin capacity. TigerShark 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose per Pilotguy and Steel. Emotional maturity and civility are key requirements. Sort those out first please. Your work as an editor is appreciated. Tyrenius 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Enough reasons already given. -- JamesTeterenko 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose per Steel and Pilotguy; it is not okay to meet incivility with incivility. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose per steel. Does not meet my requirement on civility and stress-handling (as seen here). --Tuspm(C | @) 23:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose per Steel. 1ne 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Steel. Sorry, but I see stress-fueled actions and interactions that could become downright destructive if given admin tools. Your hard work is appreciated, but you need to build more trust here. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Incivility is unforgiveable, sorry. Ifnord 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Per all the reasons expressed above, civility is a key trait of admins, and there is simply no excuse for being incivil.--Wisden17 23:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Incivil incivility. Oh and check out all of those user edits. (Over 900) AdamBiswanger1 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Not this time. DS 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. I'm afraid I'll have to oppose at this point. You seem like an excellent editor and your dedication as seen through your number of edits is impressive, but I am turned off by your attitude, language, and temper, as other votes have noted. If you can eliminate these problems over the next few months, I'd be glad to support you then. Fabricationary 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose sorry, but I think it is absolutely essential that admins uphold high standards of civility. Eluchil404 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per incivility issues. Ral315 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - An admin being uncivil has the potential to scare off newbies -- Lost 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - I really have reservations letting anyone using the kind of language Steel brought up assume the admin position. Mo0[talk] 05:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose: stress and confrontation can be infectious. Some people say Fight fire with fire, but I say Fight fire with water. A long period of consistent good humour will help a subsequent RfA. Stephen B Streater 09:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per civility concerns. Robert 13:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Steel. Roy A.A. 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose all too regretfully. Seemed like a good user whenever I saw his sig, but his constant use of the F-bomb (not allowed in WP edit summaries) worries me right now. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 17:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose The lack of civility shown by this user is a major concern for me. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose re issues raised by Steel. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  25. ~ Encephalon 01:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Oppose per Steel. Although the points raised in the comments show the user to be reasonable at times, that raised by Steel overwhelms them. ViridaeTalk 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose I'm really sorry Highway Cello but looking through the discussion and your edits (and a edit summary directed at me) it seems you don't react to sitations well. Maybe in a few more months good luck Æon Insane Ward 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral sadly, I cannot support this user right now because of the numerous things Steel has pointed out above, even if I don't agree with the way they were presented. I strongly suggest the user withdraw their RfA.--Andeh 23:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Just out of pure curiosity, what's wrong with the way they were presented? -- Steel 23:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    Well I felt you described the difs in a way which made the user appear to worse than they actually are. Not that I'm familiar with the user or anything. But I checked out every dif but couldn't see the user abusing admin. Anyway, it's better that it all comes out in one oppose vote than numerous ones pointing to the difs you already mentioned.--Andeh 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    I sympathize with your viewpoint, and I can almost see myself agreeing, but in the end we have to realize that this is a time to dredge up the worst about a candidate, to show them at their worst. If this user can become incivil in times of stress or anger, that should come out in the RfA process. Also, I mean if you have a great admin candidate, even one with 10,000 edits, there's no way that this much dirt would come out, so that in itself is worthy of thought. AdamBiswanger1 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Merovingian - Talk 01:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I had hoped to be able to support HighwayCello this time around. Sadly some of what has been reported above concerns me. Added a question below and waiting for a response before moving away from a neutral recommendation. Gwernol 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per Gwernol. --Guinnog 02:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral nothing personal, but right now I'm concerned with how you'll use the tools due to the points above. I hope you understand. ShaunES 03:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
  6. Neutral There is no doubt that the candidate is both good and productive as an editor and an asset to Wikipedia. However, I feel that he currently lacks the extreme level-headedness necessary to be an administrator on such a large-scale project as Wikipedia. I would potentially support at a later date if the civility issues became a non-factor and if he were able to succesfully mediate some controversial issues via MedCab or a similar venue hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per Gwernol Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I saw him doing some nice work, but the opposers' concerns are not without merit.  Grue  09:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral per opposers' concerns, especially incivility. I don't want to pile on oppose though.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral per the incisive neutrals of Hoopydink and Grue and inasmuch as, having been neutral relative to the last AfD, I don't see that anything significant has happened to exacerbate or allay my concerns. Joe 17:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak neutral use of third person in self-nom :D Computerjoe's talk 18:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral leaning toward support The whole Steel thing doesn't look too well, but I've seen Highway help new users get started, and Natalya brings up good examples of where he is thoughtful. I am willing to discount the negative incidents listed here in your next RFA....I will definately support you if nothing bad happens between now and you next RFA. FWIW, you have improved a lot. I know that Highway made a lot of these comments out of stress and not malicious intent, so to a point Highway is right to say they were taken out of context. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral leaning to oppose. Highway seems to be learning civility with the users he deals with regularly (as indicated in the examples given by Natalya in comments below). But he doesn't deal with little annoyances from strangers calmly enough to inspire confidence. In response to Q1, he says that he wants to use rollback to deal with obscure Pokemon pages, but his recent history indicates he'd use that ability poorly. He revert warred over an article and escalated the conflict into getting the other user blocked over violations of style guides. Even if his interpretation was "correct", disputes over style ought to be taken to talk. He's pretty harsh with the tags: silly vandalism followed by t1 and bv; profane and silly comments followed by another t1 and bv; and here he started with bv and then went up the line, eventually getting an admin to block for warring over verb number (is/are) in Pokemon articles. Still, he is a prolific contributor who could use the tools for some things like page moves and DYK. Hopefully, in a few months, with more admin coaching and experience...--Chaser T 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral due to civility concerns, but I'm not harsh enough to tack on an oppose vote. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • There are an awful lot of oppose votes per Steel and/or Pilotguy, but Natalya made reference (support 6) to Highway handling conflicts well. Could anyone (perhaps Natalya, Fang Aili, the admin coach, or the candidate himself) provide instances where Highway responded well to incivil comments or resolved conflicts well? Some contrasting evidence, if you will?--Chaser T 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be glad to. While many negative examples have been provided, he deserves credit too. Having interacted with HighwayCello throughout his dealings with User:Minun, a user who he often conflicts with, I've seen how he has improved dealing with him and others. Things didn't start out well, but over time he's learned to recognize when he is getting angry and heated. Contrary to popular belief, he can accept that he is wrong, and apologize. During the second Torchic FAC, he was infinitely more polite in the first one, and worked well with all the dissenting editors. Perhaps it's just because I interact with him a lot, but I've seen him grow quite a bit. -- Natalya 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Viewing contribution data for user HighwayCello (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 63 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 27, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 25, May, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.69% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 97.97 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 434 edits): Major article edits: 99.76% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 14 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.5% (25)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 5.8% (290)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 21.34% (1067)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 6.94%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 11 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1128 | Average edits per page: 4.43 | Edits on top: 6.86%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 83.84% (4192 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.8% (140 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 12.98% (649 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 0.38% (19 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 39.08% (1954) | Article talk: 8.74% (437)
User: 5.76% (288) | User talk: 16.54% (827)
Wikipedia: 14.68% (734) | Wikipedia talk: 4% (200)
Image: 7.12% (356)
Template: 1.76% (88)
Category: 0.06% (3)
Portal: 0.28% (14)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.98% (99)
  • See HighwayCello's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
    Edit summary usage for HighwayCello: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
  • Edit count:
Username HighwayCello
Total edits 10256
Distinct pages edited 2008
Average edits/page 5.108
First edit 19:49, January 2, 2006
 
(main) 3992
Talk 746
User 921
User talk 1582
Image 465
Image talk 3
Template 151
Template talk 94
Category 5
Wikipedia 1489
Wikipedia talk 530
Portal 198
Portal talk 80
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: I imagine my admin tasks would follow a similar path to my editing habits, since I've been a few times around that track, I would use all my tools in time, but use particular ones in various times of my Wiki-career. Initially, I see the rollback tool being used to help combat anti-Pokémon vandalism on the quieter pages most watchlists escape, and to help combat it on popular pages, such as Pokémon and Pikachu. I would also use my powers to assist WP:PCP in moves and other adminly tasks, including mediation, which isn't an admin task, in an attempt to help maintain a neutral plain. The other main use of my Admin Powers would be to update T:DYK, which can go for up to 22 hours without being updated, at which point I am forced to go to the Administrator's Noticeboard and ask a knowledgeable admin. DYK has faced new problems recently, being forced to turn down valid nominations because of lack of adminial help. Cheers, Highway Return to Oz... 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, my proudest work is in Pokémon articles, which I have tried to my hardest to elevate them to a standard of notability, credability and quality. The article I am the most proudest of Torchic, a featured article, which went through a much more...intense FAC trip compared to Bulbasaur, which I have also improved on, reference wise. I am also happy about the various GA articles, in Pokémon and Nintendo over all, since the goal WP:PCP is to promote every creature article to at least GA standards. I have also recently turned to article writing, of which YouthBank UK is quite good, and covers a contempary topic in today's youth culture. I have also helped image tagging and sourcing in Pokémon articles, with help from my various self created templates. If you would like to ask about any of my contribs, visit my talk page. Highway Return to Oz... 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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: Nearly all editors will come across a fellow editor with a varied opinion of your own, it's what keeps like interesting, and I try to remain calm in these situations. A few months ago, I came across an editor who was trying to phase out a crucial reference in Pokémon articles, and replace it with his own website, which would result in mass advertising. I had long speculated about a possible sockpuppet circle among four users, and following a check user, it was revealed that the user in question was responsible for one of the sockpuppets (the other two were a seperate sockpuppet pair) and was appropriately dealt with. Unfortunately, the user took offence at me personally for discovering this, and soon began mouthing at me to my face, to other users and in other namespaces. The user was then blocked for copyright violations and incivility, for one week, which he evaded using scores of sockpuppets, causing an extension of his original block, and only ceased when his IP was blocked. Throughout and up-to his block, the user maintained that I was the one harassing him, and I was twisting the evidence, which he proclaimed at his own talk page, his user page, WP:AN and Jimbo's talk page. After a failed RfC, and more harassment an arbitration case was opened, and the user now likely faces a 13-year month block. Throughout this tiresome affair, I have learned not to back bite after someone has a go at you, and you feel like you're going to spring out and fight back, take a deep breath and say, "will what I say benefit me, others or the wiki?" Through this questioning and self reflection, I hope I have cut down on conflicts I may create, and calm heated situations. Cheers, 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Optional questions
4. A week ago, you wrote this. Why do you now believe you need the tools when you didn't then? Do you still stand by these comments? Gwernol 02:05, 28 July 2006 (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.