Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/Hmwith

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hmwith[edit]

Page links: (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Ahoy-hoy! In case you've never seen my signature around these parts, I'm hmwith. My real name is Hayley, and I am in my early twenties. I have seen users seeking someone with oversight lately, and, after the encouragement of a few other editors, I feel that I could help fill the void.

Let's get started with the fun stuff. I have been active on Wikipedia for 17 years, 2 months, & 20 days, and I have been a sysop for 16 years, 8 months, & 12 days. I have also been an OTRS volunteer since early April, and I am currently a trainee clerk for the Arbitration Committee.

I live in the Eastern Time Zone, and I am usually around/on my computer most of the day. It is very easy to reach me, as I am able to be contacted through either WP, email, or IRC. As a college student, I am available when many other editors are at work, school, or otherwise unable to be reached, and I think that I could really help out.

Well versed in oversight policy, I have kept up-to-date with RevisionDelete feature, and have had these functions performed per my request in the past. I am always civil and friendly, but I'm also able to say "no" when needed. I understand the privacy concerns, and I can assure that I am trustworthy.

If you'd like to further inquire about my history, check out my contributions or feel free to ask me any questions, whether here, on my talk page, or through either email or IRC. Thank you for your consideration, and best of luck to everyone else running. It's an honor to be considered with such esteemed fellow editors.

P.S. Forgive my delay in posting my statement, as I just returned from a vacation without any access to the Internet. hmwithτ 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions for hmwith[edit]

Questions
  1. Question from Aitias (added 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)): Obviously, you would not have nominated yourself if you did not believe that there is a realistic chance to be elected. Why do you feel that you of all people should be one of those which will be elected? Do you, for example, reckon that you are better qualified than the other candidates?[reply]
    Thanks for your question, Aitias. I see the names on this page, and, as I said above, it truly is an honor to be considered with such esteemed fellow editors. I feel that we are all quite qualified, and I know that any of us would do a fine job. I wish the best of luck to everyone running.
    However, I hope that the community knows that I can be trusted, fair, and put in my all to help out as much as possible. hmwithτ 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Question from Mailer Diablo 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC): How would you deal with editors/vandals/requestors/lawyers who attempt to creatively stretch the Oversight/Suppression policy, be it making an edit or making a request for suppression?[reply]
    Whether an edit should or should not be suppressed, the same action should be taken regardless of circumstances. I would look at the edit standing by itself: is this removable per the oversight policy? The situation may change if the edit is part of a series of edits that are a problem as a whole. I would also consider just using RevisionDelete for less offending circumstances. If I couldn't reach a decision regarding the matter, I would not hesitate to ask advice from fellow oversighters.
    However, if it's just a vandal constantly requesting that random things be suppressed, he/she should be warned and blocked appropriately. hmwithτ 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Question from — Kralizec! (talk) (added 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)): While I am a big advocate of giving tools to the people who need them, I also strongly feel that those possessing tools need to use them for the betterment of the project. As such, in reviewing your edit history I am troubled by the fact that from June to mid-December 2008, you made just 365 edits in 200-odd days, and of those 365 edits, approximately 22% were to your own user space. Likewise, during this six-and-a-half month period, you only performed 15 actions using your administrative tools, and 13% of those were to your own user space. Personally, I think you are a great editor, and I have very much enjoyed working with you in building content on Toledo-area articles. However given your long periods of relative inactivity and the associated very low usage of your administrator tools, do you feel that you have a more demonstrable need for the oversight tool than other candidates? Similarly, can you tell us why we should vote for you rather than other candidates who have been active every month and consistently used their existing tools?[reply]
    I had very serious real life issues during that time, regarding my real life health and safety. During this time, I physically had no computer access, other than maybe checking things on another's computer, where I'd just quickly check on my messages and inactivity notices. I would prefer not to divulge any further details regarding this situation on-wiki, but I can perhaps provide some general information to you off-wiki if you'd like. hmwithτ 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Question from miranda (added 20:25, 30 July 2009): Do you think you will have the time commitment to be an oversighter, since I presume that school/college/etc. is going to start in the next month? Oversighters generally have to respond to the queue on a daily basis. Thanks.
    Absolutely. Fall quarter starts in about 2 months, but I normally schedule all of my classes on just two days of the week, and I'm able to get online in the library between classes. In fact, my schedule makes me much more available than those in high school or those with 9-5 jobs. hmwithτ 14:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Question from TharsHammar (added 01:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) My one experience with you has been in relation to an article that has since been deleted, see [1] where I posted to your talk page. In that instance you were fooled by a Weekly World News article and kept reinserting the material. Why should I believe that you will not be as easily fooled in the future when dealing with more complex issue?[reply]
    I wasn't familiar with the website, and I only payed attention to the article without looking at the header or the rest of the page. At first glance, it looked fine. I made a mistake, which I can't promise that I won't ever do in the future. However, that certainly taught me to be more careful when quickly editing and to take breaks after sitting at the computer for an extended period of time to clear my head and thought-process. I also realize that with extra tools comes extra responsibility, and I won't misuse oversight. I understand the policies, and I know when something would need to be suppressed. If I am for any reason confused about situation, I would ask for a second OS opinion, as I mentioned in my answer to Mailer Diablo's question above. hmwithτ 05:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Votes in support of hmwith[edit]

  2. Shappy talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. iMatthew talk at 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Majorly talk 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (X! · talk)  · @062  ·  00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Acalamari 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JayHenry (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Animum (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Law type! snype? 06:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SoWhy 06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Barras (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, per my talk page, I am ineligible to vote in this elections. --Barras (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Definitely. AGK 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. LittleMountain5 15:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. JamieS93 16:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. FASTILY (TALK) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. chaser (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Samir 04:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. BrianY (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ceranthor 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Caspian blue 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Pmlineditor 17:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. ~ mazca talk 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Alexfusco5 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Bullzeye contribs 19:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Recognizance (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --SPhilbrickT 23:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. (reasoning) The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. See here. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 23:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Ysangkok (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Jayron32 03:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Sceptre (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Aye, but weak ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 01:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. — CactusWriter | needles 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Cbrown1023 talk 17:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. GDonato (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. –Megaboz (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. AlexiusHoratius 20:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Steven Walling (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. —Terrence and Phillip 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Lara 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Whitehorse1 21:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --StaniStani  22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. BJTalk 23:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes in opposition to hmwith[edit]

  2. Prodego talk 00:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pzrmd (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    --Fox1942 (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (Vote indented as user is ineligible to vote in this election - SoWhy 11:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  4. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Masonpatriot (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. WJBscribe (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. miranda 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. With regret. Joe (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -Drdisque (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. fish&karate 11:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight/August_2009_election/Oversight/Hmwith&oldid=1147982076"