Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NHRHS2010 2

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.

NHRHS2010

[edit]

FINAL (6/10/3); withdrawn by candidate[1] August 29, 2007

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) - I first saw NHRHS2010 at the AIV, when I first joined. I recently checked his contribs, and noticed he was an avid vandal fighter. He participates in AFD's, makes RFPP requests and is a very active contributor to Wikipedia. He has more than 7000 edits, including a a whopping 480 AIV reports, and has been here since March 19th, 2007. Ladies and gentleman, members of our fine Wiki, I present to you NHRHS2010. Cheers,JetLover 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I first became interested in Wikipedia when I first saw the edit button while researching things. I was so excited that I got an account and started making constructive edits. When I become an administrator, I will still revert vandalisms, in addition to protecting pages requested on WP:RFPP and blocking vandals and inappropriate usernames. I will also delete pages that is tagged as speedy deletion as well. I know not to abuse the tools because abusing the tools will cause heavy damage, so I will avoid doing that.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia is that I have started several pages, which is listed here on my userpage. When I start pages, like the pages about the New Jersey Transit stations and Seoul Subway stations, I feel proud of myself to contribute to Wikipedia. I am also a member of Wikiproject New Jersey. I have also sorted the list of administrators as well like on A-F, Wikipedia:List of administrators/G-O, and so on. My other good contributions I've ever made was to upload pictures that I took and add them to several articles. For instance, I uploaded and added the picture of the entrance to Northern Highlands Regional High School to the Northern Highlands Regional High School article.
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: Not much, but before I had TWINKLE, I have ran into edit conflicts many times, which have gave me stress. Now that I have TWINKLE, I don't run into edit conflicts that often, although I occasionally do. Sometimes, I even get stress when I get stopped mid-revert when using TWINKLE when someone else beat me to reverting.

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
Yes they can. they can be nommed unlimited times--Pheonix15 13:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but the maximum amount of RfAs per user I've seen was 3. How do you know that anyone could be nommed unlimited times? NHRHS2010 Talk 13:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
most people either give up or succeed on thier third nom. Theres no rule to stop you continuing of course--Pheonix15 13:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had 5 ;) --ST47Talk·Desk 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, Hey, I'd be a pretty bad nom if I didn't! Cheers,JetLover 02:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support From my interactions with him, I know he is a good editor and can be trusted with the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Even though I never interacted with this user, I don't think this user will cause trouble with the mop. Adminship is not a big deal. --Hirohisat Kiwi 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A good user. The fact that he's a vandal fighter seems to have created many opposes--Pheonix15 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support A very good editor. Reverting vandalism is very important. Czac 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support for the candidate's good attitude shown above and a clear desire to help the project. Should consider withdrawing from consideration for the time being in order to gain some broader experience, but certainly keep up the good work and the attitude :) ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose- per lack of real mainspace contributions. Almost all edits to the mainspace are vandalism reverts. I also see no participation at talk pages, which leads me to think that the user's not interested in collaborating with others to help build the encyclopedia. --Boricuaeddie 02:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fighting vandals is building the encyclopedia, trying to restore what idiots had destroyed. And how would be not be good for Wikipedia? Cheers,JetLover 02:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked a question on Talk:Amos before but no one answered. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never said that vandal-fighting isn't important. It's just not the only thing. And calling people "idiots" isn't exactly good, JetLover. Maybe they were just confused, testing their ability to contribute to world knowledge, or just kidding around. That doesn't make them idiots. --Boricuaeddie 02:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, vandals become good editors, but what vandals had destroyed needs to be fixed. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely agree with you. But vandal fighting alone doesn't prepare you for adminship. --Boricuaeddie 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say "idiots", I'm referring to jerks who go in here just to destroy information that you, me, and everyone else here has worked hard on, and when are warned vandalize your userpage. And vandalizing isn't exactly good, either. Cheers,JetLover 02:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was. I just said that there's no reason to call them "idiots." --Boricuaeddie 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism fighting is not the only thing I do. I've contributed to WP:AfD and WP:RfA before. And I've started pages as well and made constructive edits. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but all of the pages you've created, with the possible exception of Cold Spring Harbor (LIRR station), are unreferenced stubs. That's not exactly mainspace experience. --Boricuaeddie 02:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason for this guy? A lot of these guys are rude, mean jerks. And still, he does make contributions. He is a very good editor and would make a very good sysop. Cheers,JetLover 02:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Boricua and Wikihermit, fighting vandalism is not building the encyclopedia, it's merely cleaning up trash. It's still the same that it was before the vandalism. T Rex | talk 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose Fewer than 100 edits to talk pages, and almost all of them seem to be vandalism reverts? How is an editor that doesn't even collaborate supposed to be able to deal with conflict, outside of edits like Wikihermit's example? Your English seems fairly poor, and combined with the above this leaves me very concerned about your ability to communicate with other editors, and could lead to misunderstandings in a dispute or other situation. In addition, your user page seems to be a bit blaggy, not to mention your userspace smells like beans all around. Your edits are appreciated, but Wikipedia is a community, we work together, and I don't see anything like that from you. Reverting vandalism is important, but showing you know how to interact well with other editors, even when you disagree with them, is far more so. Changed to strong: I read Q3 again, I'd skimmed it the first time, but he seems to seriously think that Edit Conflicts are the same things as Conflicts over editing, I'm not sure if this is a very inappropriate and poorly worded joke, or if he seriously thinks that's what Q3 is about, but such a serious misunderstanding makes me think they are absolutely not able to hold a mop reliably. --lucid 04:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose? No! I think my RfA will fail! NHRHS2010 Talk 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the relative paucity of non-vandal-fighting experience. There is much more to being an admin than perorming this function. Your September 19th deadline set in your first RfA is also still to come. (aeropagitica) 04:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that I could have RfA again in September 19 even though I fail this one? I thought 4 months must pass between RfAs. NHRHS2010 Talk 09:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I have advised the candidate on their talk page of the general length of time that seems acceptable between RFA's. If this input is wrong please feel free to advise the candidate directly. Pedro |  Chat  10:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When you reapply for RfA should not be a date set in stone. It should been when you feel you've properly addressed the concerns brought up in the two RfAs. Pedro's advice is sound. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — Boricuaeddie sums it up perfectly. Matthew 08:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel hurt by all those opposes, especially Lucid's. NHRHS2010 Talk 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really shouldn't. Nobody has said "NHRHS2010 is a horrible human being" or anything similar; they've just been pointing out ways in which you can improve as a Wikipedian editor. Nobody is above such feedback, a statement which is double true for administrators (potential or otherwise). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Adminship is no big deal, RFA is even less of big deal. Candidate is taking this a little too seriously for my taste (BTW, Jaranda had 7 RfAs before getting the mop, so I wouldn't worry). Moreschi Talk 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, edit summaries like this, this, and this are over-the-top. Moreschi Talk 14:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per comments here and my limited interaction with this user through his recent BRFA. --ST47Talk·Desk 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't think you are ready for the unpleasantness that being an administrator entails. I'm also concerned at the intense desire to become an administrator which I don't think is helpful. I would strongly suggest withdrawing for the time being and not setting any arbitrary time limits or scales on future nominations. Nick 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose due to lack of encyclopedia-building experience. Candidate has potential to eventually become an admin; I'd recommend focusing on substantial contributions to some articles. Majoreditor 14:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. ~ Wikihermit 03:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious, do you have a reason? Cheers,JetLover 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This leaves room for concerns. Solid vandal fighting is good, and IMO article writing isn't too important since being an admin gives you technical functions, but vandal fighting leaves little interaction between users other then a template message and I haven't seen interaction of that sort.</runonsentence> ~ Wikihermit 03:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Joseph Simmons edit I did was months ago, and my edit summaries has improved as well. NHRHS2010 Talk 03:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Vandal-fighting is your absolute strong point in Wikipedia (which is widely apperciated) but your lack of non-vandal-fighting contributions need serious consideration. You show most knowledge of policy which is great for RfA. Come back in 3 months times when you rack up some non-vandal fighting edits and I'm sure you'll get my support then.--PrestonH 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Vandal fighting is vital to the long term health of this work. If we never created or expanded another article Wikipedia would be valuable for years, but if no-one kept the assaults on this work at bay it would be useless within weeks. Your incredible throughput at WP:AIV is, to me, more valuable at keeping this place up together for the readership (the most important thing around here IMHO) than churning out thirty stub articles. However consensus has been that at least some solid article writing is important to demonsatrate an understanding of the bigger picture, and you just haven't got that. In addition I have a concern about interaction, and that you answers to the Q's do demonstrate a less than ideal grasp of English. I'm sorry, but admins will be required to interact more than just slapping a vandal warning on to a user talk page and I really can't see evidence of how you would deal with interaction beyond this. I'm sorry, and once again thank you for performing the essential but unglamorous work you do. Pedro |  Chat  07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NHRHS2010_2&oldid=1200000409"