Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RMHED

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] RMHED

Final (31/17/5); Closed as consensus not reached by WjBscribe at 00:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RMHED (talk · contribs) - After some consideration I've decided to nominate myself for the mop. It's been almost two years since I first registered at Wikipedia, though it's only relatively recently that I've been a really active editor. Please have a good look over my edits, overall I'm sure my contributions have been of net benefit to the project. I believe I've got a good knowledge of policy and guidelines and I now believe I'm ready to be an administrator and do my janitorial bit for Wikipedia. RMHED (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[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: As an administrator I'd plan on participating in as many areas as possible. I have a good knowledge of policy and guidelines, especially the speedy deletion criteria. I frequently look over the speedy deletion category to check that the CSD tags aren't being misapplied. I have quite a lot of experience at AfD and some at DRV. I'd like to use the admin tools to close the full spectrum of AfD's. I always keep a watch on the administrators noticeboard and the incidents board , I would also envisage helping out on page protection , WP:AIV and anywhere else with a backlog that I can help reduce.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I enjoy a wide variety of Wikipedia areas of activity.There is no single contribution I'm most proud of as I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in lots of ways. I've created quite a few articles User:RMHED/articles, four of which keatured on Did You Know and expanded a fair few too. Overall my contributions to Wikipedia are a fairly varied mixture of article creation, wiki-gnoming and vandal fighting.
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: As can be seen from my block log I have had at least one conflict that resulted in me receiving a 24hr block for a 3R violation. I accept that I was wholly in the wrong and have learned from that experience. Knowing what it is like to be on the receiving end of a block, could well serve as a useful insight as an administrator. Apart from that 3R conflict, I've had a few minor disagreements with other editors but these were resolved amicably. One of my strengths is that I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong and apologise for any transgressions. In my opinion the best way to deal with wiki-stress is to have some time out and not to take yourself too seriously.

Questions from Nousernamesleft

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A. A block is usually imposed to prevent vandalism and can vary in length from 1 second to indefinite, an indefinite block can sometimes be a defacto ban if no administrator is willing to lift it. A ban on the other hand means you are formally prohibited from editing Wikipedia unless the ban is lifted. Bans are usually imposed as a result of dispute resolution, generally because of prolonged inappropriate behaviour. A ban need not be from the whole of Wikipedia but could be just a prohibition from certain articles.
5. What's your opinion on admin recall?
A. Its motives are good and honourable, but in my opinion they need to be formalised. Some kind of official mechanism for recall needs to be laid down and it should apply to all administrators.
To clarify, I'm not adverse to being in the Admin Recall category. I've just had another peruse of the varied recall criteria listed. I'd be happy to have the same process as this one. It seems relatively straight forward which suits me fine.

Questions from User:Lawrence Cohen

6. If an admin adds themselves as available for administrator recall, should this be binding on them? What if they stated during their RFA that they would join the category?
A: Yes I believe it should be binding, it would be rather dishonourable to go against a stated commitment of this kind. An aministrator should be trustworthy, how could you trust somebody who breaks their word.
7. Do you feel that one admin should be able to reverse any one action by another admin once, if he believes in good faith that the reversal is the right decision to improve Wikipedia? If so, why? If not, why?
A:If another administrator's actions seem bizarre then the first thing to do is ask that admin for an explanation. If no adequate answer is received then ideally you should really take your concerns to a wider venue at WP:AN/I. Hopefully then a consensus can be reached on whether to overturn the original admins actions. This is what would happen in an ideal Wikipedia world, but Wikipedia is seldom ideal. Therefore a more realistic answer to the first part of your question would be yes, except in cases with BLP concerns, where caution should be uppermost. In general, a one time reversal in good faith of another admins decision is acceptable (though not ideal), more than once would be wheel-warring.
Follow-up Are there any other exceptions? If i blocked someone, in which cases would you reverse me if i didnt answer your question immediately? If I undeleted an article, would you delete it again? DGG (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A:There are always exceptions, if in doubt better to get a wider input.
I wouldn't expect an immediate reply from you, after a couple of days, then I might consider unblocking. Only if your original block seemed wholly unreasonable or downright odd. I would of course inform you of my actions and my reasoning.
I'd ask you why you deleted the article, and if I thought it wrong I'd ask you to undelete. If you weren't happy to undelete I'd take it to deletion review and see what the consensus is.
Generally though, you should take reasonable steps to avoid unilateral reversals of another administrators decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHED (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from WBOSITG

8. When should you notify the Wikimedia Foundation after blocking an IP?

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Seen RHMED on numerous occasions, and have seen him mainly around the RFAs and the WikiProject namespace always showing that he is able to perform well with difficult users and has good judgement relevant in other areas. 90.194.244.223 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Well I was going to be neutral but perusing his deleted contribs and edit history he has an good grasp of CSD policy - lots of very solid and knowledgeable calls removing improper speedy tags from articles. --W.marsh 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. I think RHMED is a good user, and will do good with the tools. W.Marsh is right about the CSD knowledge also. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC).
    Good users make good editors. No offense to RMHED, but he hasn't shown what it takes to become an administrator. I see no experience in mediation, counter vandalism, etc. Bstone (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've made a few reports to AIV and a couple to WP:RPP a 3R report yesterday as well as regular reverting using rollback. Though not having any automated tools like Twinkle et al. puts one at a disadvantage compared to the real full-time vandal fighters. When it comes to automated tools I'd rather remain Old Skool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMHED (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    I said User as in all around user. Not article builder, editor, writer or anything else. We know that RHMED won't abuse the tools, and that he can be trusted not to screw everything up. Malinaccier (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - Looks trustworthy to me. Gromlakh (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I don't see any possible way that you would abuse the tools. Icestorm815 (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support as experienced Wikipedian. I was surprised that RMHED wasn't already an admin. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. While I did harshly warn him about some improver AFD closes a few months ago, that shows that he is experienced with the deletion policy, and proud to support. Secret account 04:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support: Without hesitation. I am not voting for what this user will do (whether or not you add yourself to CAT:RECALL is your business - although I have my opinions about it), but what this user has done; and this user has done great things. I see no warning flags that this user will abuse the tools, thus I support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Weak support. I was close to going neutral, but decided it wasn't a very strong one. Some of your AfD contributions worry me a little, and I am not convinced that you have serious AIV experience. Still, you seem you know your way around CSD and can be trusted to only make those that truly necessary, and that sounds like an administrator I can trust. I also would like to apologize for furthering the clutter below. At any rate, best of luck and warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Helpful and responsible contributions. Knowledgeable in policy and guidelines. Every reason to believe he will do well with the tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. I have never interacted with RMHED, however he seems to me to have the knowledge in the inter workings of the pedia to make a good administrator. I do not believe that just because a person has not responded that he or she will be willing to place themselves in the Admin Recall is reason enough to determine that said person would not make a good administrator. All administrators are subject to having their powers removed regardless of wheather or not they place their names in the Admin Recall. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support. Looks like a fine editor who will put the tools to good use.Doczilla (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. SupportSince you would not be open to voluntary recall I must vote supported. My apologies but any potential admin who does not accept recall is one I can in good conscience entrust with the mop. Majorly (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Majorly, I'm confused. The candidate has said that he thinks this is acceptable, which looks like a recall process to me. But you are supporting because he won't be open to recall? Pedro :  Chat  10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was attempting to ridicule the ridiculousness below... nevermind. I support this candidate. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oh. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Obviously, per my comments under oppose. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC) - Neutral, per oppose comments. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Know of no reason to oppose. Except for him being wishy-washy on recall, of course. =P Adam Cuerden talk 09:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support. I agree with Bstone that recall is good, and I am always inclined to be more lenient with admin candidates who pledge to be open to recall (since, if they prove to be a poor admin, we can get rid of them). I think Bstone needs to review his oppose in the light of the fact that the candidate has now agreed to be open to recall. WaltonOne 11:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support I agree with User:Walton One. I agree that Bstone should review his oppose. Otherwise, I think this user is up to handling the mop. SpencerT♦C 11:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support. A worthy candidate. Axl (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. Per oppose #1. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Good Luck Dustitalk 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - no reason this editor shouldn't be trusted with the tools.   jj137 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Support Per above, in that there are no issues why we should not grant trust. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Although there have been some problems in the past with this editor, specifically in AfDs in November and Decemeber, I believe the editor has matured enough for adminship. Also, per oppose #1. Timmeh! 23:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support inexperience in some areas is not a great reason to oppose, that can come later if it needs to. And I know as well as anyone else should that recall is entirely voluntary; there are easier ways of dumping incompetent admins, not that I foresee that arising in this case. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Some of the answers are a little iffy, but your contribs look good. VanTucky 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support But please get more AFD and DRV experience before taking on AfD closings. Believe me, there is plenty to do in other areas. Dlohcierekim 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support The AfD's were a little worrying. The interaction about these on the talk page[1] showed a bit too much arrogance. However, more recent non-admin closes [2], [3] seem to me more inline with what I would expect for a non-admin. Perhaphs some WP:ADMINCOACH might be in order. --Salix alba (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support Seems to be a good editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sf46 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  29. east.718 at 22:46, February 1, 2008
  30. Weak support Good user, but weak per the oppose concerns. NHRHS2010 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Quite experienced, I think you will do OK. Polly (Parrot) 00:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. OpposeSince you would not be open to voluntary recall I must vote opposed. My apologies but any potential admin who does not accept recall is not one I can in good conscience entrust with the mop. Bstone (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC) And in addition he removed a CSD tag from an article which I tagged but to my knowledge only admins can remove CSD tags. Little concerning. Bstone (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    (Lengthy and incivil grumping about this "oppose" has been excised to the talkpage.) Neıl ☎ 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    I have to say that this is a bit odd - one user votes support because of recall, another oppose... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, due to a number of incorrect AfD closures and uncooperative response when other editors (including administrators) approach you with concerns regarding your actions. E.g: I find it worrying that you, as a non-administrator, decided to close this AfD as no consensus, after only two days of discussion; this is another no consensus decision on a one-day-long AfD. (AfDs normally run for 5 days, FYI). I noticed you closed an AfD that you'd participated in, and when an administrator advised you not a perform such closure, you responded shorly "I disagree I think I acted perfectly correctly, and would do so again.", and when a second administrator explained to you where you were mistaken, you gave yet another one-sentence answer "I disagree, aznd would act accordingly again." You seemed to keep your words, as I could see a few days later, you closed another AfD as "no consensus" (which was later overturned, unsurprisingly.) I'm not discussing whether such premature closure was correct or not, but the deathly stubborn attitude, combined with the lack of helpful response and a complete disregard for others' opinions, leaves much to be desired. If you believe you are right, at least clarify your position; it is most disturbing when an administrator keeps on thinking they are right but is never able to defend their actions. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    No argument I acted in haste on those AfD's and have learnt from those experiences. As you can see from my old talk page I refactored most of the comments you're referring to a few days after I initially made them. I was over keen that's for sure and I responded to the initial criticism badly, but upon relection I agreed with pretty much all the comments received regarding those AfD closures. RMHED (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    I did look through your archive when I reviewed your RfA, and have read all your comments. If you realized that you were wrong after the myriad incidents in November, how come did you close this AfD in December? - PeaceNT (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay in replying, work commitments took priority. Anyhow to answer your question, I closed that AfD after 7 days of its opening, as a no-consensus. Another editor disagreed with a non-admin closing a no-consensus AfD and reopened it, which was fair enough. After the reopening I participated in the AfD and gave a keep opinion which was followed by one other editor saying keep. A couple of days after the reopening an admin then closed it as a Keep, which by that point it was. Did I err by making a non-admin closure of a no-consensus AfD? Probably yes. RMHED (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Per PeaceNT. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Mostly per PeaceNT (closing AfD's inappropriately, then refusing to accept criticism about it, and continuing to close AfD's inappropriately afterwards. The page pointed out to the candidate several times says "it is best that you only close discussions with unambiguous results.", yet as pointed out above, the candidate subsequently closed yet another AfD as "no consensus".) The candidate's contribs contain much apparently good reversion of vandalism, and other useful work, but I didn't see anything particularly impressive. The following edits are somewhat unimpressive, for example: deletion of a db-inc tag with edit summary "an important UK service," which doesn't explain what's important about the service and leaves the article itself still in a state of not asserting significance or importance; and this delete vote, which simply describes the article and then states "Encylopedic, I think not." without really explaining why the candidate doesn't consider it encyclopedic. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Besides the inablity or unwillingness to follow instructions illustrated above, this edit illustrates a lack of faith in Wikipedia's consensus-building process. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per this AfD comment, which shows a lack of understanding of two key policies. "Currently just scrapes through WP:BIO#Athletes" was incorrect - the guy failed the criteria as he has not competed in a fully professional league. And "quite likely to gain greater notability in the near future" violates WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Adhering to the strict interpretation of WP:BIO#Athletes you are correct as he has only played for the first team in a testimonial. But sometimes commonsense should trump a guideline, I can't see how deleting this article now is a good thing. Sure, if further down the line it turns out that he doesn't play competetively in the Man U first team or another team, then this can be AfD'd again. I hope that helps explain more clearly my keep opinion. My regards to you, RMHED (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose due to self-admitted inappropriate AfD closings. We've turned down other candidates who showed an excessive eagerness to close prior to Adminship AfDs they shouldn't have been closing. I think it shows at best an over-eagerness to take on admin tasks, a feeling that this is an opportunity, rather than a responsibility. DGG (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Very week oppose. Whilst some of these concerns are spurious (this is perfectly reasonable) and non-admins are welcome to close afds, there are just too many iffy actions here. They indicate a general failure to learn from criticism and a certain carelessness. Please keep closing afds, but do it for a few more months, getting it right, and learning from mistakes, and then I will be happy to support. It is, however, good to see an admin candidate who is isn't allergic to improving articles - well done for that!. --Docg 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Very good points made. AfD's are a glaring oversight. Jmlk17 07:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, per DGG. @pple complain 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, sorry, per PeaceNT and Number 57. Húsönd 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Due to the AFD related concerns discussed above. TigerShark (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Closing AfDs early should, in my opinion, be reserved for, in general, unambiguous consensus or when BLP is a serious concern. I think that I am, however, more concerned about the apparent difficulty to take criticism in stride. --Iamunknown 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I think the AfD process can be improved but per the above the nom's actions appear to have exacerbated uncertain situations. -- Iterator12n Talk 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Per PeaceNT, given this user has an interest in closing AfD's. Daniel (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose due to AfD closures noted above: but would support in a couple of months if improvement in judgement shown, per my criteria for RfA. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - per PeaceNT's expertly-put AfD concerns. If there's one area where admins should lean towards policy-wankery, it's deletion, and RMHED seems determined to just wing it. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Whatever else happens in this RfA, I would at least like to set the record straight on my AfD closures. Here's a list of all my AfD closures since early December '07, not one of these was challenged or refuted in any way.
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
    The premature closures I made in November, have never been repeated, but I guess it's your mistakes people remember, not the things you do right. C'est la vie. RMHED (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - no evidence to have reason to support, e.g., user page. See also above. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral (from support) I think I could overlook those AfD issues cited in oppose except that on review your Q1 states you specifically intend to work in that arena. "Dubious" AfD closures are a real risk to creating more workload for other admins, not lightening the load. I won't oppose due to the other good stuff, but I'd prefer to see a couple of months without the "iffy actions" as Doc G rightly calls them. Pedro :  Chat  10:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral pr DocG. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral the afd issue concerns me now, learn more and be more open, maybe later. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I agree with Pedro. Everyone makes mistakes, but since this it your area of interest, it makes me a little bit nervous. However, I would not totally abject to you getting the mop, either, as you could probably do fine. I'm just uncertain... hence, being neutral. нмŵוτнτ 15:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Per hwmith, and awaiting answer to my question. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 19:31, 5 February 2008 (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.