Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 9 July 2008

Happyme22

Voice your opinion (talk page) (14/0/1); Scheduled to end 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22 (talk · contribs) - Shortly before my botched RfA, I accepted the strongest Admin Coachee that I've ever taken. Usually, I would tell somebody as strong as Happyme22 to simply go for it, but I saw a few areas that might have caused him problems. And SandyGeorgia didn't want to see his RfA get butchered, so she asked me to coach him to address some of the gaps I saw. What were those gaps?

First, his talk page was atrocious. There were allegations of POV pushing and even vandalism all over his talk page. In fact, if he didn't have Sandy's seal of approval, I would have stopped looking at his talk page. He had one of those annoying talk pages where he responded to people on their own talk page, thus in order to figure out what was going on, I had to find his responses on the other party's talk page. As Happy deals in a very controversial area, American politics, it shouldn't be a surprise that unfounded (or erroneous---and even libelous) allegations have been leveled against him. As his page read, you never saw his side. Of course, if he was a vandal POV Pusher, he would never get Sandy's support. Second, and the the biggest concern, however, was a large number of images he had deleted around November that showed a lack of knowledge on wikipedia's images policy. Since that time he's uploaded quite a few images and hasn't had any issues. Third, he had virtually no foot print in "adminly" areas. Finally, I was a little worried that since he works in an area with a lot of controversy that he might invoke some drive by opposes and that these drive-by opposes might have some obscure reason to oppose that garnered pile on opposes before he had a real chance.

As to the last point, I still have concerns that somebody might be sitting on some supposed bombshell... but I don't give that risk much credence. While it is entirely possible that somebody might pull something out, I think Happy's record speaks for itself. Happy did the impossible. He doesn't realize it, but we first met about 18 months ago when we both had articles up for FAC. I remember a conversation with Sandy wherein the general consensus was that the subject of Happy's FAC was simply too controversial and would never pass---even if it might be deserving. But that didn't deter Happy, Happy pushed Ronald Reagan through a record FIVE FAC's to get it to FA status. He then pushed Nancy Reagan to FA status as well. Anybody who can navigate those political landmines and emerge unscathe, is just the type of admin we need. In other words, if somebody pulls something out of the air, I encourage you to investigate the entirety of the situation. I think you'll find that Happy has always worked for the best interest of the project. You may not always agree with him, but he does strive for NPOV.

Over the past two months or so, Happy has been busy establishing footprints in "adminly" areas---most notably AFD. While I think he could have passed 6 weeks ago, I am a stronger believer in that fact today. Finally, I think it is really needed that we have somebody like Happy in the ranks of adminship. With this having the potential of being a hostile campaign year, it would be helpful to have an admin who keeps abreast of political issues and has a record of fair play.---Balloonman 05:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom: I'm pleased to co-nominate Happyme22. I'm not a great fan of admin coaching, but in Happyme22, we have a civil, productive editor who assumes good faith and has contributed excellent content in his featured articles, but needed experience outside of his content contributions; with that experience, he will make an excellent admin. As Balloonman said, when the first two Ronald Reagan nominations appeared at FAC (before I was FAC delegate, just a reviewer), I expressed doubt that Happy would have the stamina to see such an article through FAC. He persisted, always polite and cooperative with reviewers, attempting to meet all demands while staying within policy, never disagreeable, through all of the Ronald and Nancy FACs, resolving POV issues with the same attention as MoS issues. His efforts resulted in a recommendation from Raul654 that Happy be recognized in a Signpost Dispatch. I've also observed the experiences he's had, frequently coming under serious fire on his talk page because of editing political articles, and he's maintained a good disposition nonetheless. I'm pleased to be able to co-nom this worthy and dedicated candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am very honored, and I accept the nomination. Happyme22 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2008 (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: As an admin, I hope to continue working, as I have, cooperatively with others in normal article space. But with the addition of admin "tools", I hope to spend additional time assisting editors at WP:RFPP and WP:AFD. Since my interests have to do with political matters, RFPP is essential when facing vandalism and heated edit warring.

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

A: I'd have to say that my best contributions are within two closely related articles: Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. Both have achieved FA status as a result of my major additions, rewrites, and copyedits. I am very proud of them because they are controversial topics; as a result, it took me two GANs and five FACs to promote Mr. Reagan's article. I have cooperated diligently with fellow editors on the articles' respective talk pages, both Republicans and Democrats, to produce well written, NPOV articles. My good article contributions include: Pat Nixon, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Dick Cheney, Tear down this wall, George H. W. Bush, Laura Bush, Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, Iran-Contra affair, and Leonore Annenberg. Many of these I completely rewrote and I created Mrs. Annenberg's. Other major contributions and articles that I have written can be found here. I was very honored to have what I feel are my best contributions written about in the Signpost here.

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: Well yes, I have been involved in edit conflicts. This largely stems from my interest in political articles, where things can get quite contentious. Of course I try not to edit war; I've never been blocked and never violated 3RR. I will not hesitate to stand up for what is right and what abides by core Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Previously, I have brought the pending issue(s) up at the article discussion page; there, I am always willing to discuss it with users who disagree with me or others in an attempt to end the edit war and make peace. A few months ago, a large edit war got underway at the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, wherein three users were failing to abide by an established concensus and 3RR was violated many times. I requested full protection so that users may cool down and reach a compromise. I was personally attacked by two of the users who engaged in stalking and disruptive behavior, so instead of firing right back, I reported the primary user at WP:WQA, where questions arose regarding sockpuppetry. Citing the evidence, I requested an IP check at WP:RFCU. The results proved that the users were indeed sockpuppets and resulted in four permanent blocks. As a concensus from both sides of the political aisle, the editors of that page have been able to further improve the article.

I know that additional edit wars will erupt in the future, but I believe that I have enough sense and the proper judgement to keep the discussion focused on the matter at hand. It's what I've done in the past, and what I will continue to do in the future.

Additional {Required ;) ) questions from NuclearWarfare

4. Please define notability in your own words.

A.

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A.

6. When should a cool down block be used and why?

A.

7. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.

General comments

• See Happyme22's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for happyme22: Happyme22 (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/happyme22 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support - Sure thing. Meets my criteria. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. Can't see any problems here. – iridescent 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Excellent candidate Baloonman! Good find! Easily surpasses my criteria. An article builder, sane and competent in contentious areas? Exactly what Misplaced Pages needs! I fully expect some POV editors to join the oppose section, prima facie evidence of a clueful editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. FAC is usually a spot where nominators show their true colors; the fact that HappyMe22 remained cordial throughout the 5 Ronald Reagan FACs and the Nancy Reagan FAC (which was restarted) says a great deal about his character. After Nancy Reagan achieved FA status, a user I did not know chose my talk page to complain about HappyMe's "POV Pushing". I investigated pretty thoroughly and found that, even in the face of blatant POV-pushing by anon users, HappyMe kept his cool and reasonably discussed policy and the merits of the disputed edits. I have full confidence in his judgement and think he will make an excellent administrator. Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per the nomination and Wisdom89's criteria.--Xp54321 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Co-nom Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Basically what Karanacs said. Anybody who can keep their cool through a process as bruising as the Reagan FACs is going to be able to handle adminship. Was also incredibly impressed with HappyMe's commitment to neutrality on Ronald Reagan in the face of almost insurmountable attempts by others to have the article written with an agenda in mind. --JayHenry (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I was on the fence until I saw your Userboxes.--Koji†Dude 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Support With nominators like Balloonman and SandyGeorgia I can safely say you will make a great admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong Support per TomStar81. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support: Candidate looks good. Has well rounded contributions and it's nice to see a candidate interested in American politics as well. It's quite a controversial area and it's nice to see an editor taking initiative and editing the articles in an appropriate manner. I think this user will make an excellent administrator.  Orfen  • _C 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Happily support Happy is a level-headed editor with a maturity that is often in short supply around here. I have found him to be cordial, thorough, and - most importantly - always willing to listen to another point of view and negotiate a compromise. He has helped out on FA review of articles I'm involved in that are not in his own typical editing focus, but done so with integrity, fairness, and insight. I have seen him withstand unfair attacks that many would have responded to with anger - Happy remained calm and polite, while standing up for his own (correct, as it happens) position. My only criticism would be that he was too nice - responding to unreasonable requests in a FAR that he could have just ignored or declined and no one else would have objected. As an admin he may sometimes need to be tough - but I am confident he will meet the challenge. I enthusiastically support this and look forward to calling upon his administrative tools which I know he'll use with care. Tvoz/talk 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)