Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4

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

[edit] Hdt83

FINAL (47/23/5); Scheduled to end 03:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 (talk · contribs) - Hi, my name is Hdt83 and I wish to further help out the community by requesting adminship. I have been on Wikipedia since September 2006 and really got active the around the beginning of this year. I have contributed to many different areas of the encyclopedia including articles for creation, the help desk, GA review, articles for deletion and am involved in several wikiprojects. I have created several articles and improved upon many others (including 2 GAs). I am also a good vandal-fighter and am active at AIV and at RFPP. I am quite nice and civil to everybody and I hope to better Wikipedia by becoming an admin. Thanks --Hdt83 ^Chat 03:06, 29 October 2007 (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: I would use the admin tools in severar different areas on Wikipedia. First off, I would help out at AIV and WP:RFPP by blocking vandals and protecting pages since I have a lot of experience in those areas. Second, I would help out with the backlog at CSD which is one of the most persistently backlogged areas on Wikipedia. I also have experience at xfds and would also help out there. In addition, I would also monitor WP:AN and WP:ANI and help out whenever I'm available.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: This is a tough question. I would have to say all of my contributions help further the encyclopedia and because of that, there isn't a "best" one. My favorite would probably be my GA articles (Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park) and (Crater Lake) as creating a good article takes a lot of time and effort. By helping to improve these articles, you feel good in that you not only improved the articles, you also improved Wikipedia.

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 haven't been in any recent conflicts although if I were to get in to one, I would take it by first talking with the editors involved and then trying to come to an agreement. If that doesn't work, than I would consult another person to help mediate the discussion and give suggestions. If it continues, then I would back off from the conflict and wait for it to cool down before discussing again.

Question from T Rex | talk

4. What have you learned from your previous 3 attempts to become an administrator?

A. I have learned several things from my three previous attempts. One is that civility is of the utmost importance in being an admin. If you're not civil, then effective communication between other editors is hampered thus preventing the improvement of the encyclopedia. Another thing I have learned is that you must be able to take constructive criticism and help make it improve upon your editing skills. By listening to other editors and improving yourself based on their observations, you better understand what problems you need to fix and improve upon. These two things among others I have learned the most from my previous rfas.

Optional questions from Krator

5. Which of the following two do you find more important, and why? 1. Freedom for anonymous editors to be able to edit Wikipedia. 2. Wikipedia's articles being vandalism free for the reader.

A. I would have to say freedom for anyone to edit Wikipedia because even though vandalism will occur as a result, the contributions from anons far outweigh the negatives. If the reader however does see mistakes, than they can also edit and remove it themselves or ask for help. By letting everyone edit, mistakes spotted by the reader can be easily reported and anons can contribute easily.

6. Suppose the following situation happens. "Editor 1" edits an article to read "A", and "Editor 2" reverts, so the article reads "B". The two editors go through the whole three revert cycle, with both editors getting blocked, and version "B" as the current version. There was no talk page discussion, and there were no meaningful edit summaries. A third editor requests page protection, which you take up. Which version do you protect?

A. I would protect the current version (the "B" version) since it was the stable version that existed before "Editor 1" edited it to read the "A" version. Once the editors are unblocked, I would help make sure that the two editors discuss the versions they were trying to edit in and to come to a consensus on what should be in the article.

7. An anonymous editor who has previously written half a featured article creates a page that obviously meets the CSD criteria. You know of the editor's previous contributions. What would you do? Would this be different if the editor had not been anonymous?

A. I am slightly confused by this question. If you mean anonymous like in IP address, than IP addresses can't create articles (yet...). However, I would still notify the editor of the problem with his/her article and see if an improvement can be made before deleting the article. If the editor was not anonymous, I would still contact the editor about their article since deleting articles outright without any notice is rude and not very polite. As always, assume good faith.

8. What is your editing motto? This question is more optional than the others, feel free to leave it unanswered.

A. My editing motto is this "To edit Wikipedia is to improve it, even if they are bad edits, as bad edits can help us improve our mistakes".

Optional questions from O (talk)

9. Seeing that you'd like to help out at CSD, what criteria do you believe makes an A7 tagged page subject for deletion? Be specific.

A: Each page that has been tagged for A7 should be carefully reviewed before being deleted. I believe that the page should be deleted only if the subject contains absolutely no trace of being notable and sources cannot be found for the subject. Such pages include "John Doe is a student at Wiki High School", "Jane is the best in the world" and so on. If at least some sources can be found for the subject, then the article should not be speedily deleted but placed at proposed deletion via WP:AFD for the community to decide.

10. Is this article protected properly according to the policy? Explain why.

A: The article is not properly protected under Wikipedia policy. The article history shows very little in the way of anon IP vandalism or . Only a couple of IPs have edited in the past month and even though their edits were reverted, their edits were not vandalism but good faith edits that did not conform to MoS standards. As stated in the protection policy, pages should only be protected when

1. Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses. OR
2. Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions.

None of these conditions have been met and the article should not have been protected.

Question from Carnildo

11. What is your view of Ignore All Rules?

A: IAR is one of the most fundamental aspects of Wikipedia in that it allows the community to decide things based on consensus. Without IAR, the community would be unable to improve Wikipedia to what it is now as the numerous policies and guidelines would get in the way. IAR is basically another way of saying that rules on Wikipedia are not rigid and that if something doesn't work, then one should be able to ignore the rules if it help improve Wikipedia. However this does not mean IAR is an excuse for disrupting Wikipedia as there is a distinction between disrupting and improving Wikipedia.

12. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?

A: According to the blocking policy, if another admin blocks an editor and you do not support this block, than you should first try to contact the blocking admin and talk things over. If the blocking admin is away and can't respond, then I would post a notice on the admin noticeboard and see what other admins and editors think about the block before taking any action. I intend to adhere fully to this policy since going against it could lead to disruptive wheel wars and that would not be beneficial to Wikipedia.

[edit] General comments

• See Hdt83's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Hdt83: Hdt83 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hdt83 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

• I and two other users reviewed this candidate in June. See Wikipedia:Editor review/Hdt83. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Please Note: This page has been semi-protected for the duration of the nomination due to numerous bad-faith accounts being registered solely for the purpose of opposing this candidate. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• It's a sad commentary on RfA that a good editor like this appears to be going down. Do we, or do we not need more good faith editors as admins people? If so, we need to stop demanding that good faith editors meet some arbitrary edit count (or other) standard we construct. If they are a good faith editor, who would not abuse the tools, they should become an admin. K. Scott Bailey 13:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears this nom will be right on the line (currently at 68.18%). Hopefully the 'crats will take into account the canvassing that some editors (and even admins) are doing at RfA, blanketing all with opposes, when they make the final decision on Hdt83. K. Scott Bailey 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

#Very Weak Support You have 14,000+ edits, but there are some doubts in my mind, left from your last RFA. For now, I am supporting. Pat^{Politics rule!} 03:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Strong support ASince his last RfA, he's certainly gained a broader knowledge in the general workings of the project, and there is nothing that leads me to think he will misuse the tools. ^Khukri 08:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Weak Support I doubt you'll misuse the tools although concerns raised below are troubling --Pumpmeup 09:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   The "concerns" raised below are baseless, as many have pointed out. I think you can rest assured will not regret your "support" vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kscottbailey (talk • contribs) 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Strongest support possible Great user who is always nice. Very unlikely to abuse admin tools. NHRHS2010 talk 11:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, we need all the admins we can get, and Hdt looks like he would be willing to get stuck into backlogs - this is good. Neil ☎ 11:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Strong Support, from personal experience. Has helped me out greatly in my wiki-adventures. I feel like I am a better editor thanks to his advise and feel Wikipedia is a better place with his contributions. --Endless Dan 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I and two other editors gave Hdt83 high marks for helping at the help desk and patrolling recent changes in an editor review back in June (linked in "Discussion" above). It's clear to me that the last four-five months have yielded continuing growth, so I think the candidate is ready for adminship. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Support WP needs admins people, and self-noms should NOT affect whether a person supports or opposes the nominee. Neither should the fact that he doesn't get into conflicts. This is clearly a careful editor, who would not misuse the tools, and would do his best to help out where he could. If we turn down every self-nom, or every nominee who hasn't been in enough conflicts for our liking, we'll reject a lot of potentially good admins. K. Scott Bailey 14:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I see no red flags to oppose. Dustihowe 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Hdt83 appears to have addressed the concerns raised in his first RfA, where he was opposed for incivility. Now what is he being opposed for? Not enough article writing (despite doing some to demonstrate he can write), amount of RfAs, roughly over a third of his edits are to the mainspace, the possibility that he "wants to be an admin" (why else would he run?), and the fact this is a self-nomination. None of these issues display that he would be abusive; and in fact, has any evidence to show that he would abuse the tools been provided? No: therefore, I support. Acalamari 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Support unless someone can bring up some real reasons to oppose. I see no evidence that the user would abuse or misuse sysop rights. The "too soon since last RfA" reason had been brought up in the 2nd rfa. Enough time has elapsed since then. And enough improvement. Also agree with above stated reasoning. And the edit count argument mentioned below is beyond all reasonableness. - TwoOars (Rev) 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I am glad you desire to be an admin - something would be wrong if you didn't but still went through all of this. In readind the opposers, I see little real reason to oppose. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll}
12. I was going to write a spiel about how I've seen Hdt83 around and haven't noticed any problems and the reasons for opposition below do not concern me, but Acalamari counters the opposes well, support per Acalamari. WODUP ^(?) 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I have both opposed and gone neutral in previous RFAs, but I think the time has come to give them the mop. Jmlk17 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. "I am opposing this qualified candidate because they ran in the last election." "I am opposing this candidate becuase only 43.7% of his otherwise sufficiently numerous campaign appearances were in states/provinces that I like." If you voted this way in real life people would stare blankly and wordlessly at best. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
15. Support Article writing is not indicative of the potential quality of admin work. Also, 460 edits to AIV? east.718 at 22:01, 10/29/2007

    I disagree. Article writing demonstrates ability to work civilly with others and knowledge of our content policies, which, last time I checked, are enforced by and the point of having admins. --Agüeybaná 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

    I agree that we (sorry for using the royal "we") promote admins for two reasons... to uphold policy while wielding their mops, and to occasionally make difficult decisions while doing so (cf. Daniel Brandt, etc.). While collaboration on a disputed article provides insight on how a candidate will behave when a situation gets heated, to me, their participation in wikispace sheds a lot more light on their behavior and understanding of policy. Some of our best admins have little to no mainspace contributions to their name, and some of our most profilic content writers would have their prospective RfAs shouted down in hours. east.718 at 22:17, 10/29/2007

16. Support. My interactions with you have been positive, and I find the supports more convincing than the opposes.--Kubigula (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. We need more anti-vandal admins, and Hdt83 is perfect (^{don't take that literally})! --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
18. Support no reason to assume s/he'll abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
19. From the answers to the questions and the participation in AFC, there is no evidence that this user will have any judgment issues, as there is sufficient understanding of how Wikipedia works. Being involved in Adopt-A-User shows how an experienced user can effectively deal with a newer contributor. I trust that this user will not mis/abuse the tools, so I support this nomination. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:29, 30 October 2007 (GMT)
20. Support, no reason not to, oppose reasons are frivolous at best. Wizardman 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
21. Support. The candidate appears to be fully qualified for adminship at this time. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' reasons and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
22. Support - S/He has improved since his last RfA. I also feel that s/he will not abuse the tools, and has spent enough time in article-space. I can't oppose based on that alone. Best regards, Neranei (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
23. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
24. Support A very nice user who is also a great editor. I also feel that he is unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
25. support If the user fights vandalism, then yes. Stupid2 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
26. Very Strong support User that fights vandalism. This user is very polite, nice, and respectful to others even if another user is very impolite to this user. Also welcomes new editors to Wikipedia and helps new users. When an user asks him how to certain things in Wikipedia he almost always responds. This is also a very careful editor and nearly impossible to misuse adminstrator tools. LADodgersAngelsfan 08:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
27. In dubio pro reo. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
28. Support -- continued improvement since last time in August, including use of edit summaries. Give him the mop already. Bearian 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
29. Support I wish you had waited for someone to nominate you, but I'm satisfied your contributions are mop-worthy. - KrakatoaKatie 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
30. (edit conflict)Support Excellent vandal fighter who is long overdue for the tools.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
31. Support, I am a little concerned about how soon this RFA is after his last one, but I am still of the opinion that he will not abuse or misuse the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
32. Support; user seems ready for adminship. The short time between this and recent RfAs does not convince me against supporting. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
33. Not for the first time :) — H₂O —  08:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
34. Support, no reason to oppose and with respect to the opposers, the reasoning there seems mostly specious. Stifle (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Adminship isn't a big deal. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong Support – A solid contributor, lots of encyclopaedic edits and strong answers to questions. It seems unfair what is happening here and I see a troubling pattern, no one in oppose has provided a diff that would raise a red flag. Yet many are jumping on the oppose band wagon, merely because it is a self-nom or the answers are not viewed as long enough or the last RfA was too recent. But do not back up these claims with any diffs or valid objections, to state why Hdt83 is currently unqualified for adminship.--Bryson 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Support I really think this editor has leant from his last RfA. Phgao 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with speedy deletion backlogs – Gurch 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
39. I find all of your nominations in such a short period of time to be very annoying, but there is nothing that I see that makes me believe you will be abusive. If you do not get adminship, please wait at least' 6 month before trying again. Then you should be able to get it.--SJP 20:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Support--MONGO 23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
41. Support I haven't seen any substantial or persuasive reasons from the "oppose" camp. Actually, I think they are mostly astonishingly weak arguments. Too many RfAs? I would hope people could look a little deeper than that. Answers above are relatively solid although a few could be stronger. I don't think I've ever seen an RfA with as many as 12 questions. Looks to me like Hdt83 has progressed quite a bit and is trustworthy. (shakes head sadly and mutters inaudible imprecations under breath.) Pigman^what?/trail 01:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
42. Support After careful consideration, I've changed my mind. Three months is enough time to wait, especially while racking up 3,000 more edits while waiting. I disagree with the editcountitis that's happening in the Oppose section, which is why I was neutral, but overall the arguments against are pretty weak. This user has waited long enough to get the mop, let's give it to him. GlassCobra 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Tim Q. Wells 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Support per Newyorkbrad. The oppose votes are not unlike your lower intestine: stinky, and full of danger. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Support per GlassCobra and Pigman. henrik•talk 08:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Support I see no indication that this user would abuse admin commands. kmccoy (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
47. Support Not sure if im allowed 2, but has been bery helpful in adopting me, and dont thhink theyd misuse the rights. Bluegoblin7 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Support After having looked through his contributions, I find that he is the type of user who is perfect for being an admin and shows frequent need for the mop bucket. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Weak oppose. The lack of comprehensive answers to the questions (most are not longer than three or four sentences). In other words (and I may be wrong) this appears to be a throw-off-another-RfA-and-see-if-it-passes case. — Thomas H. Larsen 04:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   I prefer to answer questions in a short, clear, and succinct way as possible. Long and confusing passages of text are just as bad as one word yes/no answers. So I opt for a middle ground where the answers are to the point and not lengthy. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's not how long they are, it's the quality. Pat^{Politics rule!} 14:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2. Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose this. Since very late May 2007 up until now, you have had four RfA's...which shows clear intentions to only become an administrator on Wikipedia. I must also point out the answer to Q3 is not very good, one can only learn how to do deal with conflicts by being in them themselves, you'll learn how to resolve it and how to act, if you were involved in one. My advice is keep editing solidly for 4/5 months including article writing, keep your head up :) Qst 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   So a couple of articles to GA status doesn't count? ^Khukri 15:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   The two good articles are a good thing, but I am mainly opposing because of this user's constant returning for a request for adminship, I have no doubt that Hdt83 would not abuse the tools, but I think the four RfA's within only 5 months is rather a worry. Qst 18:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   So it's a bad thing that he wants to be an admin? As long as he uses the tools correctly and efficiently, I don't see what the problem is; plus you just said yourself that you don't think he will abuse the tools, so if you believe that, why oppose? Acalamari 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3. As above, really. Coming back every time you've clocked up a couple of hundred more edits does not cut it for me. A solid six months of industrious Wikignoming without an RfA, with a nomination by someone else, that would be fine, but repeated self-nominations raise re flags for me. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Just to clarify a couple of hundred more edits is nearly 3000 edits since the last RFA. ^Khukri 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   At the end of the day, becoming an administrator is no big deal. You're treating it like we're electing someone to office. WP needs admins that will be good with the mop, not that meet someone's arbitrary standard of "worthiness." This user clearly does. These oppose votes are rather pointless, I think. K. Scott Bailey 16:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose I am opposing now because of the short time since your last RFA. It is great you have 14,000 edits, but you only have 4,400 mainspace edits. You also have applied 4 time (including this one). In a period of 6 months, this is way to much. You should wait, and let things subside. Keep up the good work, and in due time, it will pass. Pat^{Politics rule!} 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Not criticising, but 4400 mainspace edits is a lot of mainspace edits, and it looks like you're suggesting that isn't enough. Neil ☎ 15:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that is bad, but it is out of 14,000. Pat^{Politics rule!} 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, now I am criticising - that's a truly poor reason to oppose. Are you saying if someone had 5,000 edits with 4400 to the mainspace, you would support? What would be an "acceptable percentage"? Neil ☎ 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neil, I invite you, and all members, to look at his edit count. He has over 6,000 of his 14,000 edits to his talk page and his user page. I find that a huge number. Pat^{Politics rule!} 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   That means he has 8,000 to other areas of the Wiki. And you didn't answer my question. Are you saying if someone had 5,000 edits with 4400 to the mainspace, you would support? What would be an "acceptable percentage"? Neil ☎ 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yes. Pat^{Politics rule!} 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you. I trust the closing bureaucrat will weight your reason for opposition correctly. You may find Wikipedia:Editcountitis interesting reading. Neil ☎ 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   One note. People should at least have to give SOME type of SENSIBLE reason for an oppose. Saying you would support a user for adminship who had 4400/5000 edits to mainspace, but not one who has the same number of edits out of 14,400? That is ludicrous on the face of it, plain and simple. And the above editor is correct in saying (well implying) that your vote will be discarded with the closing bureaucrat tallies the final totals. K. Scott Bailey 16:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Votes can not be discarded because you disagree. Pat^{Politics rule!} 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Bureaucrats can discount ridiculous votes like this, at their discretion. Politics rule has been told about his editcountitis many times, but continues to use it as a rationale. Sadly we have to put up with it, but any sensible bureaucrat will not take it into consideration. Majorly (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note that Politics rule has now expanded his rationale: [1] [2]. Acalamari 17:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   I also note that the expanded reasoning makes equally little sense in light of the drastic needs for new admins that won't abuse the tools, and are willing to work with the mop. Clearly, 14000+ contribs demonstrate he's willing to work. We need to do some SERIOUS thinking about how we do these RfAs, if people can oppose simply because someone is a self-nom, because they want adminship, or because they have only 4,400 mainspace edits (insert eye roll here). We need good admins, people. K. Scott Bailey 18:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Comment discounted as Politics rule has been blocked indef for abusive sockpuppetry. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Oppose Per Guy. Hi264 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note: user's first edit. Acalamari 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   This is nonsense. People giving off-the-wall reasons for oppose... people signing up JUST to oppose ... what the heck?!? K. Scott Bailey 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Please remain civil and respectful. What may look like "nonsense" to you may actually be a pretty good argument to others, and you have no right to deem it invalid. --Agüeybaná 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Account blocked indef as obvious bad-faith account. Vote accordingly indented. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Insufficient level of actual writing of the text. I dont think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Wow. Just wow. How is it that 4400+ mainspace edits equates to an "insufficient level of actual writing of text"? Man, I do hope that the closing bureaucrat discards these without merit opposes. K. Scott Bailey 00:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Yep, editcountitis doesn't reveal the truth. Somebody can improve or create a GA-eligible article in just one edit. I did that once and it got into DYK. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:29, 30 October 2007 (GMT)

   Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Knee-jerk reaction: I don't like that I'm seeing Hdt83 self-nom yet again only three months after his last self-nom, which was a month-and-a-half after his last self-nom, which was a month after his very first self-nom. Now, don't get me wrong; I don't have a problem with self-noms (no de facto balderdash), but ideally, he would have been able to wait for someone else to nominate (which is something that has been mentioned numerous times prior). His answer to Question #4 states "[a]nother thing I have learned is that you must be able to take constructive criticism", but I'm not actually seeing that he's listening to the people who are advising that he not self-nominate. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I opposed last time on similar grounds, so hopefully I don't seem rude in wondering out loud if we should maybe reconsider this time. His initial RFA failed on fairly minor grounds, his second and third RFA failed for not waiting long enough and at the third people said "wait at least two months." He took it in stride, kept working hard, and has now applied after three months. That means it's now been five months since the initial RFA failed (and again it was on fairly minor grounds). I don't know, I'm pretty conservative with my judgment at RFA, but he did what was asked, has done some good article work beyond what was asked, and has raised no flags with his behavior otherwise. --JayHenry 07:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think opposing based on frequency of self-nomination is a valid argument. --wj32 ^t/c 07:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   I do. :P
   Seriously though, please re-read my statement. I make it very clear that I have no problem with self-noms; the frequency is only an issue because it has been an issue for the past RfAs, in which several editors (myself included) suggested that the Hdt83 not only wait a few months before running an RfA, but also wait for someone else to nominate. The fact that the candidate specifically states that constructive criticism is important (which it is) and then turns around and (seemingly) ignores said constructive criticism, is the crux of my opposition. The frequency in and of itself isn't what concerns me most. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

   :# Yet another self nomination soon since your previous RfA makes me doubt your judgement... people want to see solid months of hard work, not a couple of months with a slight increase since last time. ~ Sebi 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Reconsidered my comment, withdrawing it. ~ Sebi 08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

6. Not yet per EVula. This nom is too soon since the last request, making me doubt the user's patience, as well as question his motives for the self-nomination. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Guy and EVula, Hdt83's actions in nominating himself so soon after all of his previous RfA's came to the conclusion that he should wait longer and also for someone else to nominate shows poor judgement and restraint. Daniel 08:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the above. Frequency of self-nominations, together with sparse answers, suggests a candidate who may be eager for adminship for the wrong reasons. Patience, judgment, temperament all called into question. Xoloz 14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per JzG, EVula, Hdt83' and Xoloz. Seems to see adminship as a goal in itself, alarming. Insufficient interest to content writing is another big problem here. While some of non-writing admins are actually good ones, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do (bossy attitude). The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. --Irpen 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per above. 4 requests for adminship should surely show the user in question that they should wait until they are nominated. However, this user is good at fighting vandalism etc. and should be seen from that perspective aswell. But for now, I am going to oppose. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose Im really sorry Hdt83, but your self nomination so soon after a previous failed RfA concerns me that you would also rush at things with the buttons. I'm not enjoying this oppose, and I bet you're not enyjoying the sledge hammer that every oppose brings, but I have to be honest in my feelings after review of the discussion here. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Question. I don't mean to single anyone out or seem angry or anything like that, but I'm curious. Candidates who have failed RfAs are often told to reapply in a couple or a few months. I thought that three months was about right. This RfA comes about a week shy of three months, but there are quite a few who think that this is too soon for Hdt to reapply. I understand that another reason that some are opposing is that it's another self-nomination. Had someone else nominated xem, would this be too soon? How long should xe have waited before nominating xyrself again, if ever? WODUP 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    That's a perfectly good question. From my experience I was nominated for adminship on the 21st June, withdrawing at around 75 / 80% support on the 25th after a number of opposes that pointed out some serious shortfalls. I was offered a number of nominations after that (in early and mid August) but wanted to give it three months out of respect to the process and prove (to myself as well as the community) that I had addressed the concerns. I switched my PC on, on the 10th September, to discover an RfA created with three nominators already (later expanded to six, but we all know that's probably too many!). So I ran the second time about a week short of three months. The key thing (and with the greatest respect to the candidate) was that I was nominated, and indeed nominated by people who had opposed my first application. I have nothing at all aginst self noms - heck they're vital so we don't miss great editors and self nomination is not a reason to oppose. But four RfA's in five months (as we have here) cumulatively looks like rushed judgement. In short there's no hard and fast rule but after a failed RfA or two I think the community would look more "kindly" on a candidate who was then nominated rather than self nominated. Pedro :  Chat  08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thank you for your answer. I kind of disagree about how severe this issue is, but I inderstand your position; it's a judgment call that everyone who cares to comment about it has to make. Again, thanks for your response. WODUP 06:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

12. Strong oppose– This is the fourth RfA in the past five months. I think you should wait much more than a month before making another self-noimnation. You seem a bit too eager to use the extra tools. Ksy92003(talk) 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

    Whats wrong with being eager? If u wern't eager, than you wouldn't have applied for becomin an admin. Also it looks like its been 3 months since his last rfa which is a long time. Stupid2 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Being eager isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hdt83 submitted his first self-nom in May, and now made this one in October. That's four self-nominations in a five-month span. If you try month after month after month, then the odds of them being successful decrease. If you're trying to move a big boulder, and you try for one minute and can't do it, you're not gonna be able to move it if you try a minute later. If you can't move it, then you have to find your weaknesses, put the task aside, and get stronger so you can do it at a much later time. Ksy92003(talk) 04:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

13. Oppose I don't care about the mainspace editing. That is just fine with me. What is concerning is the self nomination after so many RfAs where opposers have suggested that the candidate get someone else to nominate. I am agreeing with Xoloz, Daniel, EVula, and Pedro here that waiting for someone to nominate you would be a good idea. Captain panda 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    oppose This user is obviously trying to get adminship for malicious reasons. I will only support once someone nominates. Jergse2 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Account registered three minutes before vote. Obvious bad faith account, blocked indef and vote indented. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 02:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

14. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Way to assume bad faith. And way to cut and paste that same assumption of bad faith into several different RfAs. Here's hoping the 'crats discard such blatant bad faith assumptions. K. Scott Bailey 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose per answers to my questions and above concerns. The idea behind asking these questions was to find out whether the candidate had an opinion on any of these issues. Apparently that is not the case. This lack of opinion would account of a neutral stance instead of supporting, but above concerns push me into the oppose side. User:Krator (t c) 01:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose 4 self noms in last 6 months seems excessive. Seems like after 3 defeated self nominations, they should probably wait for an admin nomination. Agree with others that this user seems in a "rush" to become an admin. Bjewiki (Talk) 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    There is nothing wrong with having four RfAs within 6 months. If Hdt83 has improved a lot within one month, and is ready to be an admin, then he/she can have an RfA, and there is nothing wrong with that. NHRHS2010 talk 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

17. Oppose per Daniel, Xoloz and Guy. I agree strongly with those in the oppose and neutrals sections who are advising you to hold off coming back to RFA until someone you respect is willing to nominate you. Sarah 02:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Bit unsure here, as I do commend your willingness and desire to take on a bit of extra responsibility to help the project. I also like that you nominated yourself; shows good initiative, and being an administrator is not that big a deal that we need people nominating others. That said, I am a bit put off by your claim that you created those articles you mention in Question 2. It seems that you were neither the creator, much less a primary contributor to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (nice references, but no actual content addition). Also, I don't think you've ever actually edited Crater lake. Your claims seem to be a bit off from what I see in the revision history, so I'm a bit leery here gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    Ah, whoops. Who would have thought that Crater lake and Crater Lake are two completely different articles? Not this guy, hehe. I think I was a bit confused, there! Unfortunately, my opposition remains, as I often like to see significant article writing for potential administrators, and I do think you overstate your contributions to those articles quite a bit. Apologies for the initial confusion there, mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

19. As above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose Per Pedro and EVula above. Dureo 10:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Per EVula and Daniel. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I tried really hard to find something else, but EVula gave you the knockout-punch like the Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. You seem to be giving yourself too much pressure to be an admin. Admin is not a big deal, really! The more effort you put to become admin, you'll find that the harder you will successful becoming one. When it comes, it comes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose per above. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. I'm not keen on you coming back again and again to RFA - wait till someone nominates you. (I'm sure I said that in your last RFA too). No reason to oppose though, but no reason to support either, so neutral. Majorly (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral, mostly per Majorly. You have a great edit count, but coming back again and again to RfA definitely says something about your want for power, and that reflects rather poorly. Sorry. GlassCobra 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. GlassCobra 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

   Disappointed in this, after seeing your RfA previous. Admin work isn't about power, it's about responsibility with the mop. I think this user has clearly shown he'd be good mop-wielder, and the admins I know would ALL agree need more of those. As I said, disappointing. K. Scott Bailey 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   (By the way, that wasn't a veiled threat to switch to oppose on your nom. It was just letting you know in good faith that this neutral is kind of disappointing, that's all.) K. Scott Bailey 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Do you always have to say something if they don't go your way? Pat^{Politics rule!} 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "my way", as I have no dog in this fight, other than what is best for the project. I have never met this potential admin, and never had any interactions with him. I simply looked at the evidence (over 14000 contribs, over 4000 mainspace contribs) and saw a user who was being unfairly opposed for little or no reason at all. As for the note just above, it was not addressed to you, so perhaps--unless you have a comment on the substance of it--you should refrain from posting non sequiturs in response to it. K. Scott Bailey 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   No, Scott, I completely agree with your reasoning that adminship is about wanting to serve the community. However, if judged at an RfA that one is not ready yet, it seems to me that there should be a decent-sized waiting period before coming back and seeing if improvements have been made. Coming back several times like this seems to suggest, at least to me, a different motivation for the tools. I'm sorry if I've disappointed you, but hopefully you've seen that people are actually opposing for this same reasoning, not just neutral. GlassCobra 06:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

2. I totally protest the ridiculous amount of editcountitis here. "Oppose 'cause he doesn't have 1,000,000 edits and doesn't spend 12 hours of his day in front of his computer screen." I think you're a great user; you've got vandal-fighting experience, AfD experience and, most importantly, mainspace experience. However, I don't like impatient people; give it some time if this fails, and if it doesn't, and you get the tools, remember that life is too short to be going at 100 mph all of the time and wanting everything to happen now. Life's a road; enjoy the view ;-) --Agüeybaná 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral, largely per Majorly. Editcountitis is silly, but at the same time waiting for a nom this time would have been better. I'm a little uncomfortable supporting at this time - Alison ^❤ 10:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral Per all above. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral, per a few of the opposes. Give it a bit more time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:40, 31 October 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.