Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hyacinth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hyacinth

final (46/2/0) ending 03:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since joining the project over 15 months ago, Hyacinth has quietly amassed over 10,000 edits, many to topics related to music. His music contributions have covered essentially all styles from classical to pop, including many forms that are less well known. He has been a prolific biographer of figures who have been involved in music, both in recent times and the distant past. His scholarly writing and nonconfrontational approach could serve as a model to others. He participates occasionally at VfD and has undertaken various minor cleanup tasks, like adding categories to groups of articles. I recommend him for adminship without reservation.

uc 03:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

  1. uc 03:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I'm going to assume that uc wants this here. If not, please remove it. -- Grunt   ҈  03:08, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC))
  2. You! Of course! -- Grunt   ҈  03:08, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
  3. Hyacinth is a model editor: productive, motivated, and imperturbable no matter how noxious the provocation. - Nunh-huh 03:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  4. Excellent hardworking editor. Shane King 03:14, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Definitely. —No-One Jones (m) 03:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. 15 months, 10,000 edits, and isn't widely reviled? Well, I'd say he's a sure bet for adminship, then. Everyking 03:21, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Will make a great admin, methinks. -- Schnee 03:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Musicians of the world, unite! --Michael Snow 03:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Yes!!! --Node 03:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. One of the things I like about Hyacinth is that he makes his biases clear on his personal page, and he goes to lengths NOT to push them in articles. This shows great integrity. Excellent editor; I don't agree with him about a lot of things, but respect him immensely. In addition, he's amazingly even-tempered when attacked. I believe he would be a superb admin. Antandrus 04:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  11. Markalexander100 04:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  12. Geogre 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Willingly to learn and graciously to teach. Geogre 04:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  13. Andre (talk) 04:46, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Dori | Talk 04:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Tuf-Kat 05:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Fantastic user, would be a great addition to the admin community. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 06:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  17. Huh? I always assumed Hyacinth was already an admin. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  18. I also thought Hyacinth was an admin. Strong Support. utcursch 09:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  19. Gzornenplatz 12:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  20. Whaddayamean he's not an admin already? --Conti|✉ 15:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  21. Certainly. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  22. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  23. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:48, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  24. Sarge Baldy 01:45, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  25. I thought Hyacinth already was an admin. SWAdair | Talk 04:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  26. Mike H 04:09, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  27. Hyacinth was the first person who greeted me on my homepage, and ever since I seem to find his edits wherever I go on Wikipedia. I've been hoping that he'd becomes an admin. He's even handed and open minded. His rigorous scholarship is an inspiration. --Samuel Wantman 04:18, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  28. Chris 73 Talk 05:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  29. I'll just jump on the bandwagon here. --Slowking Man 07:30, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  30. 10,000? Wow... Fire Star 18:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  31. Infrogmation 19:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  32. Yep! Rhobite 19:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  33. Sure, Hyacinth deserves it. -- user:zanimum
  34. Make it so. RickK 23:25, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  35. Seems very neutral and amiable, often a voice of balance. Sam [Spade] 01:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  36. Like he said. Herschelkrustofsky 02:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  37. Band wagon jumping. Good history. func(talk) 14:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  38. Definately support. Hyacinth is a great editor with a lot of specialized knowledge, and would make a superb admin. -Seth Mahoney 20:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  39. Wow. --Lst27 (talk) 00:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  40. I don't think Steven Zenith's concerns are likely to cause Hyacinth to be a bad admin, though perhaps I am a bit too optimistic. I am slightly concerned about the fact that this user has not explained why ey wants admin powers, but I'll support anyway. Adminship should be no big deal, after all. anthony 警告 03:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  41. I support.WHEELER 18:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  42. Yes and yes. +sj+ 19:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  43. Support. Jayjg 17:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  44. Pardon the cliche, but...you mean he's not an admin with over 10,000 edits under his belt while managing to stay out of harm's way? Everyking said it best further up the page.  :) Way overdue. Support. - Lucky 6.9 20:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  45. Duh. Snowspinner 03:58, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
  46. Good work. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 10:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Steven Zenith 19:17, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC) NO. NO. NO. Hyacinth has demonstrated a basic failure to adhere to Wikipedia principles of bias free editing. He readily makes accusations of homophobia and in the case of semeiotics, at least, demonstrated a bias toward gay propaganda.
    This would be a fascinating point, if there was any such thing as "gay propaganda". Please provide examples of Hyacinth making (inaccurate and/or inappropriate) accusations of homophobia. func(talk) 19:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    All my comments refer to the discussion in semeiotics - referenced above. Steven Zenith 01:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    I can point out that I delt with Hyacinth on some pages dealing with controversial homosexual matters, and found him to be a peace maker. I ended up removing most of these sorts of pages from my watchlist due to some of the offensive POV-warrior tactics and agenda pushing of others, but Hyacinth in my experience strove for balance and civility, not the advancement of POV. The closest thing I found to a problem were some communication issues Hyacinth had w User:WHEELER, (who isn't always the easiest person to understand, he's rather an antiquarian). That ended fairly amiably as well, with Wheeler creating a Classical definition of effeminacy page for his non-modernist interpretations. Sam [Spade] 20:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Which I believe supports my contention that he is, in fact, a propagandist - this is exactly what propagandists do to be effective ... they play to the goodwill of others. The bottomline result is that the encyclopedia contains a disproportionate representation of the propangandized subject. Steven Zenith 07:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    So you're saying that if we find someone's well liked, it shows that they have influenced us with propaganda and hence we should vote against them? That's absurd, if we followed that standard we'd never have any admin candidates get voted in. Shane King 07:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
    I disagree; I think his theorem would have us voting in only disagreeable candidates ;). For what its worth I agree that the wikipedia contains an excess of info (and POV) from a variety of special interest groups, the homosexual community being just one of them. There are lots of others, communists, anarchists, atheists, to name a few. That’s because we are online, and online demographics are strange. Frankly I'd like to do some sociological research regarding online demographics, but I think we can all agree that the wikipedia has rather different demographics than say... our hometowns ;) The only cure for that in my eyes is recruiting new users, and not biting nube's (esp. not nube's w unpopular backgrounds). Real diversity is a good thing. That said, regardless of what you can say about Hyacinth's background or POV, he relates to others in an amiable and civil manner, and to content in a reasonably neutral one. Sure, he's not a robot, maybe he has interests and stuff, but I don't see him forcing thru a POV agenda. Sam [Spade] 11:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Well, let me also point out that I have had to undo a number of edits by Hyacinth that demonstrated a lack of competence. He changes content where he only has a partial understanding. I think he's dangerous to the Wikipedia endeavor - perhaps my expectations are too high? Steven Zenith 21:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Woefully short answers in the "Questions for the candidate" section. Ignoring the most important one completely. -- Netoholic @ 17:15, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

Ooh geez, what is it that makes me suspect this zenith guy is a troll? There there Hyacinth, we love you even if he doesn't. *pats back* --Node 00:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I accept. Hyacinth 03:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was my understanding that "this should be no big deal." Hyacinth 19:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. It would be convenient to be able to delete pages I had created myself. I would willingly revert edits by vandals of music related pages. I would continue to consider myself an editor or regular contributor and that this would still be my benefit if any to Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. User:Hyacinth/Portfolio
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 will deal with it in the future?
A. Talk:Classical music#On the "Development" paragraph, User talk:Hyacinth/Words of wisdom from someone who's actually SANE, Talk:Effeminacy.