Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PrimeHunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[edit] PrimeHunter

(71/0/0); Scheduled to end 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

PrimeHunter (talk · contribs) - I present PrimeHunter. All those who visit the WP:HELPDESK will have seen his name. He is doing excellent work there, welcoming and helping users, always assuming good faith, and even tending to them if they might have been bitten. I will not give you a specific diff for this work, because just looking at the helpdesk at any given time will give you a good idea. It will soon become clear that this user has extensive knowledge of wikipedia policy and guidelines, is very assisting, and understands what makes Wikipedia tick. His mainspace edits reflect his knowledge of prime numbers, and if he is too closely related to the subject, he is very carefull to avoid conflicts of interest. For example: [1]. I have no doubt that giving this user the mop will make him even better at improving Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the kind nomination. Thank you. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I contribute a lot to Wikipedia:Help desk. I like helping the often new users who will hopefully stick around and become happy and good editors. Digging around for a good answer to a hard or unclear question is also an interesting challenge. Many people don't know the right terminology and give unclear descriptions of their problem. Seeing their contributions often help to identify it, and seeing their deleted contributions could help more. In August 2007 I declined a nomination offer from Tbo 157 because I didn't feel I needed the admin tools for the work I wanted to do. But I now believe that some of the tools could improve my contribution to Wikipedia.

Note: In the past I have added uncontroversial computer verified prime number records by myself to Wikipedia, sometimes with my own prime record website [2] as reference. None of these additions have been removed or questioned but I thought some users might like to know before voting. I have not done it for a long time and will not do it again, except maybe to update already listed but obsolete records. I may instead make talk page suggestions like at Talk:Emirp. Examples of earlier undiscussed additions are primarily in Cunningham chain (original diff), and the creation of Primes in arithmetic progression, commented at Talk:Primes in arithmetic progression.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would especially like access to certain admin tools to improve my help desk work in some situations. Some administrators contribute there but they are not always around and I think I could make a difference with the mop. Many questions involve deleted pages. Knowing relevant policies and links is one thing, but seeing the page would enable a better explanation of why it was deleted and what, if anything, could be done about it. Being able to userfy deleted pages would also be good. Many users at the help desk are very new to Wikipedia and sometimes upset after just having their first work deleted. It would be nice to give them a positive experience with help on the spot instead of directing them to other places that are foreign and sometimes unfriendly to them.
I also expect to do some CSD and AfD work. I don't have current plans to seek out blocking and protection work.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't create or greatly improve many articles but I make many small fixes, especially in articles about prime numbers which I also work with outside Wikipedia. I think my best and most satisfying contributions are in my daily help desk work where I can hopefully enable others to improve their own work.
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: I'm not temperamental. I rarely get in serious conflicts and think I manage to stay calm, assume good faith when at all possible, keep to the issue, and refer to policies and guidelines instead of bickering. I hope and expect to continue that. If I had to mention a couple situations with mild stress then: 1) I was disappointed to not get support in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive237#Death threat again, but I let it go after a couple of posts which may indicate a little frustration. 2) It was annoying to deal with Brian Reddyb and his sockpuppets at Talk:Rednex and elsewhere, but I kept my calm and didn't resort to incivility when he provoked.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 08:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I knew there was a lot of controvercy about undeletion of the article. I knew WP:BLP#Disputed deletions but don't recall reading the decision at [3]. I understand and completely agree that articles which were deleted for alleged BLP violation should not be restored just because somebody disagrees that BLP was violated. BLP violations can cause serious harm to the subject (and to the reputation of Wikipedia), and should not be taken lightly. Some administrators may think the deletion was unneeded but then the matter should be discussed in a responsible way and a consensus secured before restoring material. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
5. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: This is hypothetical and some details depend on the situation, for example whether there is too sensitive material for public discussion. If OTRS is involved then I would first email an OTRS member (the person originally taking action if possible) and see what happens. Otherwise, if the deletion was without discussion and I couldn't see anything that could possibly be construed as BLP violation then I would first ask the deleting admin. If they said it was simply a mistake and undeleted themselves then I would do no more (I assume the Arbcom decision and BLP policy doesn't apply to admins undoing their own mistakes). If the deleting admin maintains there is reason then I might take it to DRV (I have actually never taken anything to DRV), inform the deleting admin of this, and, depending on the seriousness of the case, possibly alert other admins of the DRV. If the DRV result was endorse deletion then I would respect that and do no more (I don't get obsessed about things). I wouldn't pursue the case beyond one DRV, and I certainly wouldn't undelete on my own. I think the consensus should be stronger than normally required in non-BLP disputes. If somebody else initiated the discussion then I wouldn't close it without having significant admin experience, and then I wouldn't restore without giving the deleting admin a good chance to explain, and getting a strong consensus. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/PrimeHunter before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support. Beat the nom! Good luck. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Candidate looks good, but the quote "I don't think WP:3RR applies to removing death threats" cinched it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Looks good. --Sharkface217 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Prodego talk 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Has always seemed careful and diligent in everything I have seen. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Looks great! Redrocketboy 01:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support A helpful editor! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Good track record of contributions to the project, solid edit count (almost 5000 edits, just under 2000 of which are in the Wikipedia name-space), helpful and courteous. Hand him the mop! Mr Senseless (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strongly. Spebi 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - Per all Above. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. DarkFalls talk 06:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Knowledgeable about the various aspects of Wikipedia as demonstrated with his work at the help desk. --Hdt83 Chat 07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Looks like he knows his stuff, and no evidence he'll abuse the tools. Support! (although I'm tempted to renumber all votes using prime numbers only) Lankiveil (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, will be fine. Good luck! Neıl ☎ 09:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Per the nom, and the answer to Question 1. Cirt (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
  17. Strong Support. As PrimeHunter should know, I was the first to put up the support vote, even before he answered the questions. Obviously I am going to support him, especially for all the work at the Wikipedia:Help Desk! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 10:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support, based on my experiences with the candidate at various mathematics articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support by nominator. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support - a useful, active editor. I've seen this user's name all over the place. Good candidate. :-) Lradrama 12:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Seems a very good editor. Jhfireboy Talk 13:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Good contributor, helpful and knowledgable. docboat (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, with pleasure. :) I am long familiar with the editor's work and am confident that he will make great use of the tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Deli nk (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. --Agüeybaná 14:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support Helpful and experienced, Good luck! Harland1 (t/c) 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Co-help desk participant support - The work PrimeHunter does there is simply brilliant. Rt. 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - I like how seriously he takes WP:COI when using his expertise to improve the encyclopedia. And he does a great job keeping his cool. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support -- I've seen many intelligent, sympathetic and useful contributions at the help desk from this editor and, as others have noted here, he keeps his cool in difficult situations. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support, no concerns. Not run into him before, but seems to care about WP. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Keeps cool under "pressure" seems to care about the WP community etc. Best of luck to you! F9T 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - PrimeHunter always beats me to answering questions at the help desk. Very good answers to the questions, near perfect edit summary usage, great user overall. Good luck!   jj137 ♠ 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. PrimeHunter assists users greatly with his profound knowledge. He would surely wield the mop as eloquently. -- Mentifisto 22:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Too good a candidate. Too many supports already. Too popular. Too civil. Only a few people need the mop. Adminship shouldn't be given out to everyone just because they are active, and have a solid contribution history. Also not enough contributions to mediawiki interface. Pedro :  Chat  23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
    NB- the above comment is an example of humor. Cheers, Cheers, :) MikeReichold 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, technically, it's probably not humour as it isn't really that funny! :) Thanks Dloh. for clarification though per WT:RFA Pedro :  Chat  00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    I thought User:Mikereichold != User:Dlohcierekim? I saw both of them !vote on WJBscribe's RfB. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 20:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    I checked and see no contributions to that RfB by Dlohcierekim. AvruchTalk 20:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks. If I cannot get prime numbered votes as Lankiveil suggested in number 14, then I would at least like to end with a prime number of total supports. But primes become more and more rare (the discoverer of the largest known prime gap should know), decreasing my odds. I need fewer supports! PrimeHunter (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. —Cronholm144 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Good contributions to the WP pages (which is crucial) and Wiki overall even though the mainspace contribs are a bit low.--JForget 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Looks like an ideal admin candidate. faithless (speak) 08:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Daniel 11:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, strongly. PeaceNT (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support a helpful contributor. RMHED (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Master of Puppets Care to share? 20:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Demonstrates a positive and mature attitude to improving Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. support of course --.snoopy. 22:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Even though mainspace and article work is a little low for me, his work at the help desk shows he has all the right attributes. Woody (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support / Fred-J 01:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support example of an excellent editor. Mbisanz (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Jmlk17 11:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Cheers, LAX 12:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. —Ruud 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support. Looks like the mop will be in good, friendly hands. (And this entry is a prime number -- yeah!)--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support with apologies for making the count go to 54, a composite number. No issues I can see (<bad joke> although I may very well be blind </bad joke>). I seriously thought he was an admin. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 20:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. Strong Support Seen this user around; very constructive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Good all around knowledge and excellent at handling Help Desk work; will be an excellent mop user. Shell babelfish 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support As per track. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support No concerns with this user. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. Strong Support Great activity over the past year, not to mention the fact that I love people who help new comers. Good luck! Sirkadtalksign 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    comment: 59 is prime, so are 61 and 67. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well arnt I lucky? Sirkadtalksign 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support Big net positive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Coredesat 12:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support, trying to push this to 67 exactly. MichelleG (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC).
  64. Support He deserves to be an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. Square-free Support Very civil editor that has an excellent grip of policies shown from his numerous contributions at the help desk and elsewhere. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    For the non-math oriented editors, 65 is a square-free integer (and also a semiprime). Now we just need 66 (a sphenic number) before reaching the next prime. Who would have thought you needed that much math knowledge to follow the voting in an x/0/0 RfA ;-) PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. Of course. Acalamari 23:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support John254 00:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support Shyamal (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support He would be good as an admin SKYNET X7000 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support One of the good guys. Astronaut (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral
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.