Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 29 October 2007

Hdt83

Voice your opinion (talk page) (8/4/1); 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages by becoming an admin. Thanks --Hdt83 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 creating these articles, you feel good in that you not only improved the articles, you also improved Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages. 2. Misplaced Pages's articles being vandalism free for the reader.

A.

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.

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.

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

A.

General comments

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

• Requests for adminship/Hdt83
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 2
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 3
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5

• Links for Hdt83: Hdt83 (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/Hdt83 before commenting.

Discussion

• I and two other users reviewed this candidate in June. See Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Hdt83. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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 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. 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 06:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   It's not how long they are, it's the quality. Pat 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 Misplaced Pages. 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? 15:08, 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. 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   At the end of the day, just because a user has two good articles under his/her belt, does not improve or change their ability to be an admin responsibly, it merely shows time and dedication to Misplaced Pages, that you are willing to do what all of us are here to do: Build the encyclopedia :) Qst 16:10, 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)

4. 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). You should wait, and let things subside. Keep up the good work, and in due time, it will pass. Pat 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 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 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 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you. I trust the closing bureaucrat will weight your reason for opposition correctly. You may find Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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)