Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NHRHS2010 3

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

NHRHS2010

Final (7/8/2); Ended 04:12 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to present to you all User:NHRHS2010! NHRHS2010 has been with us since March of 2007 and in that time has amassed 10007 edits. I believe that this kind of devotion to wikipedia is important to have as a admin.

Other than being a good vandal fighter, NHRHS2010 has also done some article work, which is a plus. Vandal fighting is important, and article writing more important, but the most important of all is doing both. I am sure that this user will do great as an admin, and will not abuse the tools. Good luck mate!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Thanks, SJP!

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: When I first visited Wikipedia, I saw an edit button, and was very excited about it. But I wanted to make constructive edits, so therefore I created an account. When I get the mop, I will continue to edit articles and revert vandalism. In addition, I am willing to block vandals and inappropriate usernames, so I will often monitor WP:AIV and WP:UAA. I will monitor the user creation logs as well in case an inappropriate username is not reported at WP:UAA. I will also protect pages as well (particularly if requested on WP:RFPP) if a page is being vandalized too frequently or the vandal is changing IPs. I will also delete vanity/nonsense pages as well.

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

A: To me, my best contrubutions to Wikipedia is, of course, mainspace editing. Today, I have been adding the bus transportation onto the transportation section of the articles about towns in New Jersey. I have also added/edited infoboxes on hundreds of Anthroponymy articles, and even added tags as well in certain pages. I've also started page as well, mainly as stubs. The pages I've started are mainly New Jersey related articles, particularly New Jersey Transit stations. When I find a reference to a section on an article on Wikipedia, then I cite that source. Occasionally, I upload pictures that I've taken myself, in Wikimedia Commons and add them to appropriate articles.

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: Yes, I have been in conflicts before, but not many. Opposers kept opposing my previous RfA last summer, which did give me stress. But I have dealt with it by using the opposes as a references to editing. There were times where I was told that I was wrong as well, but not many times. After the 2nd reply to my comment, I felt better. I've also had an experience where I request a page to be protected, but it got declined. From then on, I have been checking the page history more carefully. What's even stressful was when I tried to get all my subpages and archives semi-protected in case of vandals, but User:Steel359 has removed all my request with the edit summary "decline all". I believe that the requests shouldn't simply be removed, so I put my requests back into WP:RFPP. However, Steel359 got rid of my requests again, this time, using the admin rollback button. When I stated my concerns on WP:AN, User:AuburnPilot stated that my requests should not simply be removed, and it would be better if an admin wrote "declined" (if declined) or "semi-protected" (if semi-protected) instead of just simply getting rid of my requests. I found ways to deal with this, until User:Neil actually semi-protected my subpages and my archives. I sometimes get annoyed when I accidentally press the "Block user" button on WP:AIV and seeing the error message saying that this action is limited to administrators. The good news, is that when I get promoted to an admin, I will no longer see the permission error message as often. And finally, when I revert vandalism, when someone beats me to reverting vandalism, I have gotten somehow annoyed when I get stopped mid-revert when someone else reverted vandalism first, and it is mainly the word "Error" that annoyed me. From now on, when reverting vandalism and when someone beats me to reverting, I will pretend that the word "Error" is not even there.

4 Optional question from User:SJP If a new user came up to you and asked "What is the meaning of WP:IAR?" how would you answer?

A If someone new to Wikipedia asked me what the meaning of WP:IAR, then this is how I would answer: This is a policy that states that if someone gives a rule that prevents you from improving/maintaining Wikipedia, then ignore it. Ignore all rules means that you don't need read all the rules before making Wikipedia edits.

Question 4 Follow up Are there some rules that you can never apply IAR to?--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Yes, there can be rules that you can never apply IAR to, like the ones that gets users to make constructive contributions like maintaining or improving Wikipedia.

Question 4 Follow up Follow up. Could you please be more specific? Is there a specific rule to which you think IAR never could apply? Useight 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 Optional question from User:TimVickers, you see a comment on another editor's talk page that seems rude, you go to the editor's talk page, see they have been blocked for 3RR and incivility in the past, so you add a civility warning. They remove the warning from their page and reply that you "think they are stupid" and that you are "trying to bait them". What would you do? Tim Vickers 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6 Optional from Mercury

Will you give an example where you would ignore a rule?

General comments

See NHRHS2010's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for NHRHS2010: NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/NHRHS2010 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Of course! I am the nominator. Good luck.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SupportExcellent vandal fighter.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about time. bibliomaniac 15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the youtube video, and if I'm being honest, I found it quite funny. I trust NHRHS2010 not to abuse the tools. He's a nice guy and I'm sure he'll be fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ρх₥α 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not convinced by the oppose arguments. It would have been safer/wiser to have waited a while after the last one. Unless someone can show me more convincing reasons to oppose, he otherwise has been here long enough and has sufficient edits that I feel comfortable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no objections to [this edit, amongst others? Daniel 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nominated you before. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some mainspace contribs besides vandalism, mostly updating People name boxes, but it is still contributing. T Rex | talk 04:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Gross WP:DENY violations. — H ₂O — 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? NHRHS2010 talk 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you give diffs please? Thanks.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... you know that it's technically impossible to have a "violation" of an essay, right? K. Scott Bailey 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "essay", there is a tag that it is not a policy. Why am I being opposed for? I don't remember violating anything, I just remember when I let one vandal IP know that he will be blocked and vandalism is useless. NHRHS2010 talk 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe:) Good point.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 01:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access YouTube at the moment, but I remember your video where you read out your userpage history. That, to me, is a WP:DENY violation. Essay or no essay, I don’t want to see this sort of thing from a potential admin. If this doesn’t satisfy, I’m happy to dish up another 10 diffs that show reasons why I don’t think you should be sysopped. It’ll just take a while, but I’m happy to do so at some stage tonight. — H ₂O — 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which way I'm going to go on this one (leaning neutral right now). I was just saying that to say someone "violated" an essay sounds a bit odd, is all. K. Scott Bailey 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading my userpage history to tell how well User:Wimt is good at vandal-fighting on userpages and videotaped it to dedicate the video to User:Wimt. The video was not meant for uncivil reasons or a violation. NHRHS2010 talk 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NHRHS2010 2 (from barely two months ago), and the perception that this candidate has insufficient judgement and lacks sufficient maturity to be a decent administrator. Daniel 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger oppose still per this - both the edit summary and the answer don't inspire much confidence. Daniel 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? NHRHS2010 talk 02:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry? Your response had negative connotations that implied opposers were incorrect to be opposing and that we shouldn't be doing this "again", whilst that protection summary was due to more vandalism. Furthermore, your answer to that question was absolutely horrid. Daniel 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness, this is not a good editing practice either, and only reaffirms my perceptions of you. Daniel 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this to your userspace recently doesn't reflect too well on yourself either. Daniel 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't only add admins that supported my RfA. I even added DerHexer in there as well, who didn't even look at my RfA yet. NHRHS2010 talk 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is more you only added them after they supported you (within five minutes), not that you have added some from other sources. That edit reeks immaturity and poor judgement from where I sit. Daniel 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here, something particularily relevant. From two days ago: what's the reason?, general "per", without any reasoning, almost nothing?, stating policy without explaining. This user clearly doesn't understand how consensus works in deletion discussions, and shows he has poor judgement and is unable to apply discretion (something which is bad for an administrator). Daniel 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger again still since this user is unable to comprehend an argument (see here), but rather single something out to attempt to criticise. Users who do this don't make good administrators because closing AfD's, blocking users etc. requires one to look at all the facts, not just ones that further their position. Daniel 02:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, NHRHS2010. Even if there are very strong maturity, temperment, and judgement issues, you can still continue to be a huge help to the project as an ordinary user. Not only by fighting vandals, but by writing articles as well. Adminship is not a trophy, remember.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 03:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose — you have not addressed any of the concerns from your last RfA, which was barely 2 months ago, as Daniel mentioned. Nothing has changed about you, IMO, except that you have a higher edit count. Ignoring others' constructive criticism and requesting adminship once again without addressing previous concerns seems like you have a problem with listening to others. That's a pretty bad quality for an admin candidate. Also, I see nothing in your contribs that you have knowledge of our deletion policies and that you know to collaborate with others to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, as most of your talk space edits are slapping templates to vandals. Finally, I sense that you have a deep hatred towards vandals; that's very unhealthy. Vandals are humans, too, and deserve the same respect as anyone else. Just because they don't know how to respect other people's work, doesn't mean that they are less human than you or any one of us. I feel that you would be too trigger-happy and will block a user who probably just doesn't know how things work around here without thinking it twice, instead of educating and instructing. Today's vandal or troll could be tomorrow's Raul654. If you do not make an effort to help make this true, you're hurting the encyclopedia, and would do more bad than good if given the mop. Sorry. --Agüeybaná 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very rare (for me) Oppose. Serious concerns with how thin-skinned this editor seems to be, as well as with concerns raised by Daniel and Agueybana.K. Scott Bailey 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The evidence presented by Daniel makes it clear to me that this user is not ready to be an admin. I also am troubled with this coming so quickly after the last RfA, especially considering that the issues of the last RfA have not been addressed. While this user has a number of mainspace edits, I would recommend attempting to bring an article to a high level, FA quality if at all possible. As it stands, I do not believe significant knowledge of policy has been exhibited. Similarly, I do not feel as though this user has demonstrated the comprehensive sense of deletion quality to be an admin. I also agree with Agüeybaná that the user's attitude towards vandals is inappropriate. While I appreciate what has been done in terms of vandal fighting and thank you for your efforts in helping the project, I do not feel as though I can trust this user with the tools at this time. SorryGuy 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You did vandal fighting which is good, but are you only doing vandal fighting? Think about it. Try to lighten up a little and build the encyclopedia directly (spelling corrections, referencing, maintainence etc.) ALso I'm concern via DENY issues via this diff. You didn't address the criticism on your last RfA, which is not good at all. Good luck working on that. PrestonH 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow that diff presented above by PrestonH sealed that one pretty easily for me. Metros 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm now withdrawing this RfA. I'm hurt. I'll come back when an administrator nominates me. NHRHS2010 talk 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I'm not on his favorite admins list. Tim Vickers 02:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you support, you will! Who cares about the actual qualities of an administrator - if they support me I'll like them.</sarcastic imitation> Daniel 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they support me, then that doesn't mean that they're my favorite admin. I just happened to see Ryan and Bibliomaniac (and even DerHexer) for a long time as a friendly editor. NHRHS2010 talk 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't read minds to know NHRHS2010's intentions, I'm going to assume good faith on this one. However, I agree that it was poor timing to make the edit to your list of favorite admins. It may not be related, but it kind of looks like it is, just because the edit was made 10 minutes after the support comment. Useight 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I know this user to be good, but I can't help but ignore Daniel and Eddie's concerns, and the concerns raised during your 2nd RfA (which I ironically nominated you for). As of now, I could sway to support or oppose, but I can't decide now. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.