Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hello32020 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SheepLinterBot (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 19 February 2023 (→[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hello32020 2|Hello32020]]: [t. 1] fix font tags linter errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Hello32020

[edit]

Voice your opinion (14/18/4) Ended 16:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello32020 (talk · contribs) – Hello32020 has been with us since July of this year. He had a failed RfA in September, a self-nomination. I am always seeing him on RC patrol, using VandalProof, and I believe he can go the next stage further and block vandals if needed. He also contributes in many XfDs, and can close any in the backlog that occurs there. Hello32020 is also an article writer; he started the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article and has contributed to many hurricane articles. I'm sure he'll make a great admin. --Majorly (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Hello32020 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Hello32020 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I plan to close WP:AFD discussions, or other XFD discussions, after the time needed is done, or if WP:SNOW applies. I also plan to delete articles, images, templates, etc, as an administrator that fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. I also plan to block IP addresses, new or purely vandal, users early on, and I would later, with more experience, be willing to block established users. I would also park my page on WP:AIV to wait for possible vandals to block, after checking all of their contributions to make sure they are indeed vandalizing.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Of course, I am proud of nearly all of my contributions, but some of them I do particularly like. One of my first and largest contributions was to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article, which I created, and is now, with the work with many other users also, a very good, comprehensive, article. I also have contributed to various articles related to the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season and the Atlantic hurricane season itself. I also created the article List of Pennsylvania hurricanes that is fairly well done for a fairly large topic. I also contribute various images, most largely of NEXRAD radar images and damage impacts on tropical cyclone articles. Also recent large contributions, of mine, include Hurricane Erin (1995), Tropical Storm Beryl (1994), and Hurricane Isbell. I am also pleased with my vandal fighting, using VandalProof, and my WP:AFD contributions.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: A few users have complained to me on my talk page about various reverts. I try to assume good faith and try to communicate with them, unless it is very obvious that their contributions were blatant spamming or vandalizing an article. As an administrator, I would have to be even more careful and continue to assume good faith, especially when blocking another user. Personal attacks on me, or other users, can be stressful to deal with also, and resolution or blocking can be hard to determine and decide. I have also had some notability questions on articles that I have created, and these have generally been resolved. In the future and currently, I question the notability of the article before I create it, and I will attempt to enter it into the larger topic's article related to it, before deciding whether it not it needs an article.

Questions from – Chacor, some partially based off my old questions as NSLE:

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    I would first investigate and look into the details of how this editor was using his sockpuppets, to come up with my own view on the matter. If it seemed that the user had intentionally had been using his sockpuppets irresponsibly, but possibly had good faith or if it was minimal, then it would be neccesary to communicate with the user to get their information on the matter, or it may be neccesary to later report the matter to ArbCom. If it was complete vandalism or completing ignoring warnings with sockpuppetry, then an immediate block would be neccesary. Case-by-case bases may have special circumstances, so it I would probably want to wait, until I was experienced, to make tough calls on these areas, and let experienced admins make the descions intially.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    If the article was on the fringe of being speedied or not, then I would most likely not do anything. If the article seemed that it did not fit CSD criteria, then I would have to attempt to resolve the dispute with deleter in question. If that did not resolve it, a request for comment may be neccesary.
  3. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. What do you think would be appropriate?.
    If the editors continued an edit war, and the above circumstances are applied then, a temporary block may be necessary, but special circumstances may apply to some cases. I wouldn't report it to ArbCom intially, but would allow the editors to cool-down. If after the cool-down period, the editors continued an edit-war, then an ArbCom case may be necessary.
  4. Will you make yourself available for recall, and why or why not?
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support I'll support this as Hello32020 has addressed the criticism given at their last RfA - 1000+ vandal warnings issued and a similar number of contributions to XfD discussions. The tools would benefit this sort of participation in the project. (aeropagitica) 23:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. Good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. He seems to have taken the advice from the previous RFA to heart. Good luck. (Radiant) 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. He has my full support hands down! --Deenoe 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - good vandal-shooter, lets give him the red button ST47Talk 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Noooo! Not the red button!!!!! (Radiant) 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support John254 03:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. No reason to believe person would abuse power. Nephron  T|C 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. He seems to know what he needs to, and wouldn't abuse powers. Alex43223 05:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Well, I see RfAs aren't getting any better. Now there's a suggestion that someone shouldn't be an admin because they make spelling errors. Well, that, in my opinion is plain pedantic. There also appears to be some confusion about what the VandalProof tools do. They don't, for instance, help in making edits in the WP namespace. If the user is active on IRC as Hello is, there's often no need to request a block through WP:AIV, there's lots of admins about in the IRC channels and it's often quicker to request a block there than go through AIV. I don't mind the errors either, unless Vandal and RC patrollers are expected to be experts in every single topic that appears on Wiki and know personally every contributor, then occasional errors will happen, poorly written genuine contributions being mistaken for vandalism (remember most genuine edits being reverted have NO edit summary) and very well written vandalism being ignored, stuff that is quite complex and one or two edits removes some vandalism but reintroduces more vandalism. As long as Hello is quite happy to get stuck in, revert himself and grovel to the users effected, I'll be very able and willing to fully support this candidate. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ample spelling and grammar errors would suggest a possible inability, or hindrance to the ability, to communicate important messages properly. – Chacor 12:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not about to change my vote - Wikipedia has users from across the globe, all with varying abilities to speak and write in English. To suggest a perfectly good user be barred from being an admin purely because their English doesn't meet your requirements is, in my opinion, quite insulting if not worse. I do think you should step back and let other editors vote for Hello without you trying to influence their opinions and votes too. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not mischaracterise my actions. That is very inappropriate. – Chacor 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I think Chacor's objection is too vague - perhaps emphasizing that Hello32020 keep a learning attitude for a couple of months more. Addressing previous RfA's points shows an ability to improve. Rama's arrow 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support someone with sense - and we could use more administrators with that, KazakhPol 17:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, this is a wonderful user in my opinion. --SonicChao 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 01:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per Kazakh. Yankee Rajput 02:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. I'm sorry, I'm not yet willing to support. I have a lot of contact with this user, and I would disagree with the nom that he "has contributed to many hurricane articles". If any, they have been below what the tropical cyclones project expects, and are, as pointed out below, often riddled with errors, which is not something an admin should be making. I have yet to see much sound policy reasoning from this user; I've yet to see the user anywhere on major Wikipedia space areas with the admin's board. Unfortunately, I seriously think the tools would not be safe... yet... in this user's hands. I do not believe the user is mature enough to handle any incident which may arise from misuse (either intentional or not) of the tools; indeed his actions which led to me opposing his first RFA are still fresh and in my contact with this user, which is quite a lot thanks to IRC, he has not shown any indication that he's able to handle it. You only learn some things after spending a long time at it, and I think quite a few of the supporters unfortunately might not have had enough contact with Hello to realise what I'm saying here. Hello's behaviour in IRC is a good indicator, I believe, of where he currently stands as a potential admin. XFD is not all there is to adminning. Please don't make me go into the RFA archives to find my rant from earlier this year, I think this applies here quite a lot - a good vandal-fighter (or, in this case, RC patroller) not necessarily = good admin. I'll support when I'm confident this user can handle the tools, related stress, and the shit he'll get when he becomes an admin. Questions have been added. – Chacor 00:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [Note... this oppose has been updated thrice, at 00:54 UTC 18 Nov, 04:07 UTC 18 Nov, and 05:57 UTC 18 Nov. – Chacor 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)][reply]
    Addendum: I cannot find any recent reports to WP:AIV - out of the user's last 150 edits, only one was to AIV. That isn't good for someone who claims to be a vandal fighter and wants to patrol AIV. – Chacor 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Add-on to this: In researching the user's contribs to find the links below, going back to early November I can only find a grand total of two AIV posts. – Chacor 07:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Further addendum: A questionable VandalProof revert: [1] When approached by the user on his talk page, I tried to step in to calm the user down, asking him to cite his sources. However, Hello has been far too rash here with VP, this is not vandalism. I fear he'll be similarly rash with the admin buttons. – Chacor 06:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Another two questionable reverts, too hasty, with VP here and here (and subsequent warning to IPs here and here) which he had to revert himself. Far, far too hasty. Think before you do, please. Not admin material. – Chacor 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - for all intents and purposes the above is a very strong oppose. In short, unwilling to trust with the tools; in long see above. – Chacor 12:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this page log from October 8 on Wikimedia Commons says a lot - admins should NOT be uploading copyvio images. It's far too soon since then for you to try for adminship. – Chacor 13:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Chacor. This user has a lot of potential, and is a good vandal-fighter with experience in XfD, but I don't think he's ready for adminship yet (little experience in other policy-related fields, for instance). Later, perhaps, since he seems working on it. But not now. --Coredesat 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per above. Sorry Hello, but you haven't been here long enough to know everything you need. In my opinion, an admin should be a good editor as well. However, in Hello's article Tropical Storm Beryl (1994), there were at least 19 spelling errors, and several more grammatical errors. He's doing a good job, and has some good qualities of an admin, but for now I oppose him being an admin. Maybe later. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Chacor. Too hasty with VP and started with test4 on this user [2] (though it may be due to confusion of earlier personal attack warnings, even so it would be too rash). Also would like to see more Wikipedia related contributions. I'm not saying absolutely not, just not yet. James086 Talk | Contribs 06:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I feel Hello is a little trigger happy. Certainly a valuable member of Wikipedia and should stick around and try again in a few months. Pursey 08:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, though Hello is a good vandal-fighter (thought a bit trigger happy; consequential from using VP). His understanding of policy issues in general seems somewhat lacking; his answer to Chacor's question 2 seems overly confrontational because of the lack of awareness. Try again, once you have a broader set of policy knowledge.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per question one. "When WP:SNOW applies" sets off about a thousand warning signals in my head, and about a thousand more when other "voters" note your haste in other areas. AfD needs responsible closures, not quick ones. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose It's too soon. You made your first edit on July 12, which means you have around 4 months experience on Wikipedia. You submitted an RfA two months after you made your first edit, and here comes another RfA just about two months after the previous one. I would have expected you would at least wait 1-2 more months before going through the RfA process. Like Pursey said, you seem a bit too "trigger happy". Nishkid64 20:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Chacor. May go Sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Chacor & Nishkid64. He's been here for 5 months, which is not enough to prove himself, regardless of how fabulous his edits might be. (Wikimachine 22:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    I was promoted when my account was 5 months and two days old. In fact, since I only really became active in May/June time, I became an admin when I was only a Wikipedian for 4 months. Yet nobody other than a couple of vandals have called for my desyopping. -- Steel 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Something to add. He self-nominated himself before? When? I guess after around 2 months of editing? I think that this user's too power-hungry and ambitious. (Wikimachine 22:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    Power-hungry? Wikimachine, I asked Hello myself not the other way around. And what's wrong with being ambitious? Surely that's a good thing? --Majorly (Talk) 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to AGF a bit here. Stop accusing people of being power hungry, and start assuming it's because they want to help out. -- Steel 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not necessarily a good thing to be ambitious. When someone wants too badly to become an admin, that can be an indication that they view it as some type of award, which it isn't. Even if it's not a conscious thought that they deserve to be an admin because of their edits, the subconscious view that adminship expresses anything at all but the fact that they can be trusted with the tools is destructive. -Amarkov blahedits 02:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose: Per above. I feel this user has some good edits, however, I do not feel that the user has been around long enough to truly prove themself.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Answers to the questions worry me. I get the impression that this user is not familiar enough with English Wikipedia policies and procedures. I believe the user could benefit from many more months of experience in the areas where he plans to participate as an admin, in addition to taking care of some of these other issues (uploading copyvios to Commons, reverting good faith edits, etc.) Try to take these comments to heart, and maintain a high edit quality, and you'll be well on your way to adminship. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I had something typed up, but I was basically repeating what had already been said. -- Steel 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Chacor. --Terence Ong (C | R) 04:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I know Hello32020 from experience, and, while I think Chacor is overly harsh, his criticisms are true. —Cuiviénen 05:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Chacor. User hasn't been around very long and in that time has done questionable things. --Brad Beattie (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Nishkid64, who pretty much summed up what was going through my mind. There isn't enough to dispel the unease I have about this candidate. Agent 86 10:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Chacor. *drew 13:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Don't know this user from experience. --evrik (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Most things are good (perfect edit summary usage!), but I really think more policy discussion is needed. AfD participation is good, but WP talk edits are really needed, and he only has 5. -Amarkov blahedits 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not impossible to achieve with automated tools like VP. – Chacor 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of that. I might have done a weak support otherwise. -Amarkov blahedits 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral This user is a valuable contributor to this project. Thus I feel that he does not deserve an oppose opinion. However, considering the strong views in opposing this nomination, I have decided that he deserves a neutral opinion. In the meantime, do not feel too disappointed over this potential second RfA failure and try again after three to six months. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per evrik. Sharkface217 02:59, 19 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hello32020_2&oldid=1140388512"