Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hadger

Add links
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.


Hadger

[edit]

Final (11/22/12); Closed per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW at 07:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan!.

Nomination

[edit]

Hadger (talk · contribs) – I have not known this user very long, but he has been a member of Wikipedia for sometime and has made countless contributions to articles such as edits relating the Total Drama series. I think he has the experience needed in a administrator and that is why I am proudly nominating Hadger. Rohedin TALK 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination! Thank you for nominating me! --Hadger 22:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in AfDs and check out ANI and AIV to help people. I also intend to work at SPI. I've checked out some AfDs and seen that some articles have good reasons to be nominated for deletion and that some don't. I will make sure that the AfD is a reasonable one before closing the AfD discussion. In AIV, I will check often to make see if there are any people who have been vandalizing or spamming. I have some experience in seeing things on ANI (trust me, I go there a lot), and I will check to see if there are any problems (and see if they belong at ANI) and try fixing problems the best I can. I have seen some SPI's, and I would like to make sure there are no sockpuppets, so at SPI, I will look at a user's edits to Wikipedia and compare them to the suspected sockpuppet's edits to Wikipedia to see if they seem to have the same editing habits. --Hadger 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add a bit more to my answer: Well, for AfD's, I'll be careful of deleting them and research the article to make sure it's notable. At ANI, well, I'll resolve problems by imagining that the problem is happening to me, and see how I would try fixing it. Then, I would try fixing the problem that way. When blocking a user, I'd do it with good judgment and check the users contributions to make sure he or she was warned correctly. I'd explain to the user what he or she did wrong (because sometimes a warning template isn't enough for a user to know exactly what they are doing wrong). In SPI, I'd imagine me being the one accused of being a sockpuppet. I imagine how I would compare the edits and deny it. Then I'd use that strategy to see if the user is possibly a sockpuppet or not. --Hadger 22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia would probably be when I revert vandalism. These are really good contributions, because they really help Wikipedia not get destroyed. It doesn't just help Wikipedia to revert vandalism. It helps the people viewing Wikipedia and the people editing Wikipedia. My other bests contributions is when I sometimes try talking people out of editing disruptively (for example, once when someone kept putting fan-fictions on an articles talk page, I tried convincing the user to stop by telling the user about fanfiction.net). It really helps Wikipedia to revert vandalism and try convincing people not to disrupt Wikipedia. --Hadger 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reverting vandalism is also important because some people get sad when their work is ruined, so reverting vandalism prevents people from ruining work, and it makes Wikipedia a better place. It lets the user know what they are doing is wrong when they are warned, so they see that they are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia. Hopefully this makes my answer less cheesy. --Hadger 22:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. Once there was a user that insisted on putting predictions about a show based on a picture they saw on a commercial. I tried to convince him to stop, but it just didn't work. My friend even warned him about it, and the user that was warned warned my friend back for "vandalizing Wikipedia" (which was warning the other user). I dealt with it by trying to convince the user (which wasn't really successful...). Then I tried not talking to the user for the day, and eventually, the user was blocked for vandalism. The next time something like that happens, I'll try convincing the user to stop, and if that doesn't work, I'll warn the user, and if the user continues disrupting, I'll either ask an administrator for help or (if I become an administrator) block the user. --Hadger 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
4. Give me an example of when IAR should be implimented
A:

A: Instead of closing it, I'd let it stay open for a bit longer, because a lot of the !votes go against WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The !votes by User2 and User8 fail WP:ITSA (the FBI's terrorist may be notable, but being on it doesn't automatically make it notable). The !vote by User3 and User5 fails WP:INTHENEWS, because it just mentions the fact that it was in the news. !Votes by User4, User6, and User7 fail WP:JUSTAPOLICY, because it just states a policy and not why it goes against or with the policy. The reason for the nomination fails WP:Not notable, because it doesn't stay how it's not notable. The !votes by User5 and User8 fail WP:MAJORITY, because they are saying that they are agreeing with another user's !vote, rather than explaining why they do. Over all, all of the !votes that mention that there are sources for it don't mention the sources. I'd just let the AfD stay open longer. --Hadger 00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for the reader: this (restored) question from was from User:PhantomSteve not me. PhatomSteve reverted the question but the candidate has restored it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • A few comments from me here: I have not yet had time to analyse the candidate, but I want to point out that the oppose over not having 4000 edits is, in my view, absolute rubbish. The candidate has enough edits for us to get a feel of their contributions. Setting arbitary numbers for hoop jumping is not beneficial to future candidates, as it encourages a feel of quantity over quality. Additionally, look at the opposition post times, 3 opposes before the candidate even finished answering the questions, and another 2 minutes afterwards. This was an error on the part of the nominator transcluding, and should not be held against the candidate. RfA lasts 7 days, why rush to oppose right away? Assumption of good faith should lead you to hope the questions would be answered soon. If they were not answered, there is still plenty of time to oppose. --Taelus (Talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like arbitrary edit count requirement numbers either, but it's fairly safe to say that the trend is, only the most exceptional candidates at RfA with less than 4,000 edits will pass. —fetch·comms 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly agree with this. The candidate didn't transclude, and based upon the edit history was in the process of answering questions when it was transcluded. Also, RfA is turning into the editcountitis mecca, although some of the concerns voiced regarding edit count have a bit of validity. I've yet to look through contributions and will !vote when I do. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ya, I'd have to agree that edit counts are not of great importance here. Opposing purely because this user has not made "enough" edits is pointless and doesn't add to the discussion. However, if the user lacks experience, I believe that is a valid reason. Netalarmtalk 05:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much the editcountitis, it's the rush to oppose that concerned me here. We can do better for long-time productive contributors than rush to oppose within 2 minutes of transclusion.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, Mkativerata. I don't have a problem opposing candidates if I think they are not ready or not appropriate candidates. But good faith people who have been long term productive editors but just don't meet most people's RFA standards ought to be treated with a bit more respect and given some useful feedback to take away with them, not instantly dismissed with a wave of the hand. Racing to get the first oppose up as soon as the RFA goes live is not the way we should be treating our editors and it's not in the best interests of anyone, least of all the project and our need to retain such editors. I don't see how you could read the whole page and do even just a superficial review in that time; all you'd be able to do is skim the page, have a quick glance at the edit count and then race to get the edit box open and type a message. A two minute time-frame really doesn't say much about the commenter's approach to RFA... Sarah 02:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This RfA didn't have the time set correctly to begin with, which seems to have caused it to be ignored by SoxBot on User:X!/RfX Report, even though SoxBot was updating it every half hour as usual. That may be part of the reason why participation in this RfA (up till this point) has been so sparse aside from the initial worries about the transclusion. —Soap— 01:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, something's still wrong, and I can't figure it out. User:X!/RfX Report does not include this RfA as of 02:02 GMT June 6th (it even removed it after I had added it). —Soap— 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems SoxBot fixed itself at 8 o'clock. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think it was this edit[1] by Amalthea that fixed the problem with the transclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on his 2nd answer to question #1: "At ANI, well, I'll resolve problems by imagining that the problem is happening to me, and see how I would try fixing it". To Hadger's credit, that is a commendable statement. The ability to 'walk in another's shoes' is a good quality to have in any potential admin. If only everyone at ANI had a little empathy, and remembered the Golden Rule, it would be a much more pleasant place indeed. -- œ™ 18:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support
[edit]
  1. Strong Support as nominator. Rohedin TALK 22:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support I think you were unwise to accept this nomination and the poor transclusion, though not your fault (or anybody else's) is unimpressive. However, having seen you around, I think you're a great editor and you have the potential to become a fine administrator. One day. For the minute, spend some more time getting to know the wiki, get some content work under your belt and establish a reputation as someone who can be trusted an depended upon. With another 6-9 months' experience, I may even be willing to nominate you, but not now. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support for Hadger's continued involvement in Wikipedia and seeking adminship at a future date. However, it is obvious that the candidate does not yet have enough experience to render this RfA likely to pass, so I urge that the candidate consider withdrawing it for now and resubmitting a new RfA later on, after you have more editing experience and have worked in some of the areas where administrators are usually active. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support - for the candidate's good attitude so far in this RfA. I will comment that among more experience, etc, which have been mentioned, you should be more careful about using edit summaries all the time. I look forward to seeing another nomination when you have more experience. PrincessofLlyr royal court 02:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support. If push came to shove on this I would oppose, the primary concern being a lack of experience in the stated areas of activity (in particular, AfD which is a tough job for an admin). But this is a moral support in recognition of three things: (1) the candidate's good record of contributions; (2) the candidate's approach to this RfA and (3) Taelus' and my comments above about the conduct of this RfA being less than optimal, to the candidate's detriment. I really hope to see you around. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support as per above. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Calm and friendly user, and a good number of edits too. I don't think there's a reason why it meets the WP:NOTNOW basis. I do expect him to be a future candidate. Minimac (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral Support. Though this nomination might no succeed, 4,000 edits is enough for my support. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have 4,000 edits.... Oh well. --Hadger 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral Support per HJ :) I'll be loking forward to supporting you fully in the future.--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support for now - I like the answer to Phantomsteve's reverted question, although I think user3 had a compelling point. Also, I'll point out that wp:NOTNOW links to an essay which says: "Once you've been around for 6-12 months and made a few thousand edits." Just sayin'. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Moral Support per NYB and other comments. Look forward to seeing the candidate continue to gain experience, and continue their good approach.  -  Begoon (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose not even 4,000 edits, but I like your enthusiasm toward the project. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that edit count should not be concerned as long as the user has good experience and a good heart. Rohedin TALK 22:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove he has a good heart? Generally speaking, users with less than 4,000 edits do not pass unless they are in extremely good standing with the community. —fetch·comms 22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, I have about 3,460 edits. I think that's kind of close enough to 4,000. Thanks for commenting, though! --Hadger 22:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Probably WP:NOTNOW You haven't answered the questions and the very simple instructions for transcluding an RfA (really, it's copy and paste!) weren't followed. This sounds unduly harsh, I know, I can't have faith in your ability as an administrator if you can't follow such simple instructions. How are we to know you'd be able to handle things like blocking an protecting if you a) can't copy and paste or b) can't follow a series of very simple instructions. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ, the nominator transcluded the RfA, do not fault the candidate on this one. Also, it appears that the nominator transcluded the RfA too quickly and didn't allow the candidate to answers the questions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose per WP:NOTNOW and HJ. —fetch·comms 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think it was a mistake to accept this nom. It makes me feel that you are overeager for the tools, yet you yourself questioned if you were ready earlier. —fetch·comms 22:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I questioned myself because I wasn't sure if I could take the stress (I wasn't sure if being an admin would be stressful). That's what I meant when I questioned myself. I was thinking if I could handle the stress. --Hadger 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And the questions have been answered, which lead me to make this now a strong oppose. Q1 sounds almost cheesy ("I will make sure that the AfD is a reasonable one before closing the AfD discussion"), as well as Q2 ("These are really good contributions, because they really help Wikipedia not get destroyed" and "My other bests contributions is when I sometimes try talking people out of editing disruptively"). Judging by these answers, I'm not sure the candidate even has a full grasp of the entire project. —fetch·comms 22:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should reanswer those questions... is it okay if I do, or is it too late? --Hadger 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You can add on something, but you shouldn't change what you already said. —fetch·comms 22:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more to my answers. Hopefully it's more convincing. --Hadger 22:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - for now at least. You should have answered the questions before this is transcluded. This sort of thing typically ends as unsuccessful per WP:NOTNOW. I wish you the best nonetheless. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel a bit rushed on the questions... I think it was transcluded while I was answering the questions. --Hadger 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, I didn't transclude the page... Either way, thanks for commenting! --Hadger 22:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll forgive the transclusion issue, but I still must oppose on the basis of limited experience. You're a relatively new editor, and I respect your enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the answers to the questions above don't really convince me you have the experience to be an administrator. Consider gaining additional experience and trying again later. Perhaps additional experience at AfD, AIV, NPP, etc. would convince folks that you have the knowledge and skills to be a good admin. Kind regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more to my answer. I hope it made it more convincing. --Hadger 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not convinced that you are ready for the tools. I do think you're a valuable editor, and I hope to see you here again in the future, after you've gained experience in non-content areas. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. It is pretty clear that for the moment the candidate does not have enough experience to be an admin and the answers to the first three questions are rather telling in this regard. The candidate lists closing AfDs as one of the main areas of prospective admin work; yet, looking through the candidate's controb record to date, there is very little (almost none) participation in AfDs there. In fact, the candidate has only 252 edits to Wikipedia+Wikipedia talk namespaces altogether. The answer to Q2 also sounds pretty naive and fairly strange. Looking at the candidate's last 500 edits (since early March 2010), I see almost no vandalism reverts there and no reports to AIV. So how exactly does vandalism reversion qualify as the candidate's best contribution? I am also troubled by the fact that Hadger accepted the RfA nomination from a user who has been editing Wikipedia (at least from their current account) for less than 10 days and in relation to whom suspicions of sockpuppetry have been raised, see User talk:Rohedin#Prior usernames. Accepting such a nomination does not demonstrate the best judgement by the candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. I didn't know he was suspected for sockpuppetry. Also, the reason I wasn't reverting vandalism lately is because I didn't really have time to go Wikipedia (I was really busy). --Hadger 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Even thought, being a unregistered contributor. I don't see very much you will offer the community besides stopping vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.226.139 (talk)
  5. Oppose I expect an admin to utilize edit summaries essentially all of the time. This user has falls below my threshold [2] currently 88% of all major edits have summaries and 91% of the last 150 have edit summaries. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what the edits are. If some of that 10% was self explanatory, it's an acceptable number. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is self explanatory. You can't get an idea of what was done from just looking at the history page without edit summaries. FinalRapture - † ☪ 02:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose – I hate to pile-on on these votes, but this is truly a WP:NOTNOW. The acceptance seems a bit overeager, and the answers to the questions were lacking. I also have concerns about this user's activity. He only has 50 edits last month and 195 edits the previous month. I will consider supporting you in the future when you have more experience in the areas you plan to work in. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose but with moral support. Clearly a well-meaning candidate with a very positive attitude, but just not the right experience yet - I'd need to see more work in the appropriate areas, more specific answers to questions (referring to actual policies and actual courses of action rather than vague generalities), and yes, more edits in general. And if people think that's editcountitis, well, that's just the way it is - experience comes with edits, and I think people with few edits need to be truly exceptional to get the mop. I look forward to being able to Support in a future RfA -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone would regard that reasoned opinion as editcountitis. Opposing within 2 minutes of transclusion and pipelinking "not even 4000 edits" to WP:NOTNOW on the other hand, is a different story.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, fair point Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, sorry, but I would like to give some more feedback to ensure your next RfA gets a better start:
    • Try to follow some other RfA discussions to get a feeling what people are looking for. It is not so much the edit count, that does not worry me at all, but rather the very unspecific answers to the standard questions. Your clarifications made it worse, by the way. To answer a withdrawn question was maybe also not the best decision, and if you are looking for someone nominating you it might be better to wait until a user that is more experienced than you (possibly an admin) is ready to throw his weight in.
    • Make sure you understand many of the policies here, particularly in areas where you intend to work as admin. For instance, deciding on the notability of a subject is not what you're supposed to do when closing a deletion discussion, and the AfD example should either be immediately sourced, otherwise be speedily deleted as unsourced attack page.
    • Try to give a convincing argument why you would want the extra abilities − you don't need them for reverting vandalism, and you don't need them for investigating simple sock puppet cases. Hope this helps, Pgallert (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per above. Lacking in experience and maturity. -Regancy42 (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per WP:NOTNOW. Immunize (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - per WP:NOTNOW. It seems you got caught up in a train reck that's not all your fault, but my oppose is based on not now. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 13:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose and WP:TROUT the nominator for playing games. Putting forward an obviously unsuitable candidate is basically trolling, and I would still like to know Rohedin's prior accounts, as they're clearly not a new user. The candidate shows too many signs of MySpaceitis, has little apparent experience of policies and guidelines, and generally seems to lack the maturity needed to handle the tools well. Fences&Windows 13:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, actually, reading WP:NOASSUMESOCK, this user could've been reading policies and guidelines as an IP. However, it is your opinion, so I don't really have a problem with it. --Hadger 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link, but new users —even if they've been reading policy— don't leap into AN/I, RfCs, RfA nominations etc. etc. like this. Fences&Windows 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The answers seem to have a "what people want to hear" tone about them, and "Well, for AfD's, I'll be careful of deleting them and research the article to make sure it's notable" - that's not how you close AfDs.  f o x  15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose per others. Greatly lacking in non-mainspace experience. Sorry. — CIS (talk | stalk) 18:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I hate to heap on like this, but this has very few edits to the Wikipedia namespace, and almost none to AfD, SPI, ANI, and AIV. I think you could make a good admin someday, but not now. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I’m not sure which is more troubling – the nomination by a editor with less than two weeks experience, or acceptance of a nomination by such an editor. (And those are the AGF scenarios.)SPhilbrickT 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Concerns about experience, edit summary usage. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I have a few concerns, not the least of which is the situation described in question 3. There are serveral possible courses of action there, but posting a few warnings and then ignoring the user is not the best way to handle any situation. If the user was blocked for vandalism, why would you not have posted at AIV once it was clear the user would only continue despite warnings? This being an area you say you would help in, yet not reporting a case there when it seems that would have been best, seems odd to me. I will say that I am only going on your information, and I am sure there is more to the the story that I am not aware of. You seem to be a good editor and certainly a net positive for the project, so I really hope you are not discouraged by this. WP:NOTNOW. I would love to support you in a later RFA, after you have some more experience. :) Avicennasis @ 20:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Oppose Per WP:NOTNOW. I see almost no participation in any of the admin areas you intend to work in. I would suggest participating in more AFD's, DRV's, and perhaps work in CSD. If I saw more work in those areas, I would have no problem supporting. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. per weak nom and concerns with experience, breadth of exposure. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose—Avoid accepting a weak nom from an inexperienced editor (possible sockpuppet), who failed during the copy and paste mission. User does not have the experience needed for being an admin, like making "tough blocks" and such. I find it odd that the user considers their best contributions as vandal fighting, contrary to the expected featured content, while they haven't made an AIV report in the last 500 edits. With some experience, this user could pass a second RfA, but it seems truly WP:NOTNOW, even WP:SNOW. mono 04:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed that the user only uses edit summaries 88% of the time. I expect 98%+; mistakes happen, but not more than 2% of the time. mono 04:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Sorry. Per WP:NOTNOW and oppose, neutral reasons. BejinhanTalk 05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Not opposing for reasons of editcountitis and blaming candidate for the nom's tranclusion.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC) moved to support.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A little too MySpacey. Neutral for now. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MySpacey? From my scan of MySpacey activites, all I can find is that the user spent some time linking their userpage... mono 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, now that I have had time to scan and consider the candidates contributions. Keep up the good work, get some more experience in the project space, and I look forward to seeing you re-apply in a few months with more experience under your belt. I hope this RfA does not discourage you, as you are a good contributor, but perhaps just a teeny bit too soon for adminship. Happy editing to you, --Taelus (Talk) 22:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry. It won't discourage me. If this adminship fails, it just means that I need more experience on Wikipedia, and if it fails, I'll get more experience. --Hadger 00:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral as I don't think that you are ready for adminship yet, per the various reasons given in the support, oppose and neutral sections of this RfA! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have deleted your question. I put that there was a question that involve me figuring that thing out, and I answered it. --Hadger 00:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I removed it as I had made my mind up! Can I just add to what others have said here - I feel that with more experience, you appear to have the right attitude to be an admin. Give it time, and I hope that I can support you at your next RfA! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Edit history shows Hadger is enthusiastic, sensible and eager to help; good traits for a future admin! While I can imagine Support-ing someone with only 3,500 edits, this candidate seems to still be learning, and has little article-building experience outside the field of TV shows (if that's what Total Drama Action is). Would the candidate consider Wikipedia:Admin coaching and perhaps either creating an article or helping build an article in another topic area?
    Either way, great work so far. Best of luck! / edg ☺ ☭ 00:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While this RFA goes on, I guess I'll take admin coaching. --Hadger 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, there are no active coaches that are willing to teach about AfD discussions and stuff like that (well, there are some, but they are all full). --Hadger 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WP:NOTNOW, but wait a few months and I will likely support from initial impression. I may ask a question towards Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hadger 2. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not quite ready, but you are most certainly enthusiastic, and no doubt will have a much better chance of succeeding in a few months. ~~ Hi878 (Come yell at me!) 03:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not going to oppose but I can't support at this time. I feel this nomination is premature and I hope the rather *cough* - unpleasant - experience of a premature run at the RFA gauntlet doesn't affect you negatively or deter you in the long term. I also think it's unwise to accept a nomination from a very new editor - frankly, I would suggest self-nominating rather than accept a two-sentence nomination from a new person, but it's much better to find someone you trust and respect to nominate you. I hope you consider coming back to RFA when you've got a lot more experience (but next time, take your time with writing the RFA and if someone else posts it live before you've finished writing, take it down until you are ready). Sarah 10:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per just about everyone else. You're definitely going in the right direction and you've been handling this RFA well, despite the disappointment I expect you must be feeling. You shouldn't worry too much if it's difficult to find an admin coach. There are advantages, but also disadvantages, to having coaching. All you really need to do is get involved at places like ANI, AfD etc. Read other editors comments, get a feel for how things work, and when you feel ready join in yourself. Sarah's advice about the RFA nomination process - including who nominates you - is well worth remembering for next time. All the best :) EyeSerenetalk 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Well worth reading Sarah's comments carefully - and actually not bothering to respond - just understand that you have some good advice to inwardly ingest and take a deep breath and get back to some active participation in other activities on wikipedia - admin coaching and RFA are not the place to be getting to carried away - get a feel for the rest of the place before jumping again SatuSuro 11:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Netural Good contributions, but this seems to be a case of WP:NOTNOW. Maybe a few months more experience and then come back to RFA again. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Has good potential, just needs a bit more time and edits under his belt. -- Ϫ 18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral per Sarah. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. Has potential tho. Answer to Q3 puzzles me a little. I hope he's not meaning that as an admin he would block a user he was in an edit dispute with. Did I misinterpret?Moriori (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (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/Hadger&oldid=1144596952"