Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hcheney

Hcheney

I would like to nominate Hcheney for administrator. Not only does he have 1150+ edits since 23 December 2003 and a generally calm and collaborative attitude about his work here, but Hcheney acted very impressively when previously nominated for admin and withdrew his acceptance of the nomination when it became obvious that foul play was occurring (through no fault of Hcheney's). I think that this kind of community-minded behavior is a fine example of what a Wikipedia administrator should seek to embody, and I have every confidence that Hcheney will continue to act with this care and integrity in the future. Jwrosenzweig 22:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination. I ask that the voters please consider my merits and faults as an editor and wikipedian. If any editor has questions or concerns, I would gladly address them either on my talk page or by e-mail. --H CHENEY 00:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

1. Jwrosenzweig
2. moink. Good editor, and actions of others should not be held against him.
3. Having worked with him, I can say that HCheney is a model contributor. If anyone deserves this, it's him. And I can understand being disillusioned--that was a confusing, frustrating and unpleasant situation for all concerned. However, that was in no way due to HCheney him(?)self. Meelar 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Support. ugen64 01:33, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
5. Support. Tim Starling 01:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
6. Support. →Raul654 02:21, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
7. Gentgeen 02:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. BCorr|Брайен 03:04, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. Having reviewed a random selection of his edits, I found nothing to complain about and much that was good. A thoughtful and responsible editor. Isomorphic 03:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
10. Stewart Adcock 03:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. 172 13:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
12. Merovingian ↕ Talk 13:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
13. Support -- Baldhur 13:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
14. Hold up, hold up... You mean he wasn't one already? - Fennec 14:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
15. I've disagreed with Hcheney, but I believe he is a conscientious and well-intentioned contributor. Cribcage 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
16. Warofdreams 15:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
17. Support: good, responsible editor. —No-One Jones 17:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
18. Support: only seen good things. —Morven 17:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
19. Support. Wik's objections are invalid. As much as I dislike Grazingship, Hcheney has nothing to do with that. RickK 23:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
20. Support. Ambivalenthysteria 05:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
21. Support -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
22. Support -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 06:41, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
23. Support. RADICALBENDER★ 16:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
24. Support. I was working on a Perl parser to help me analyze User contribution pages using HCheney's contributions as test input. Then I realized that I'd better vote for him before I finished, because his time is running out. Nice work! -- Brian Rock 01:06, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. He did not act impressively at all when previously nominated and withdrew his acceptance not "when it became obvious that foul play was occurring" but only in the last moment when it became obvious he would not get a consensus (when the vote stood at 15-9). His "impressive" reaction actually consisted in making a pretense of leaving [1], which lasted about a week. He also said "The entire RfA process has completely disillusioned me" which is strange - if he wasn't requesting adminship himself, why would he care so much about it? I still suspect that Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are the same person and he cares too much about adminship, much like Alex Plank. --Wik 23:56, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
   • Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are not the same person, both the technical and human evidence are quite clear on this. They know each other from high school but now live in different cities. Their IP addresses confirm this story. -- Tim Starling 01:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
     • I also can confirm that Graz and Hcheney are not the same user. Their IPs are quite different. They know each other outside of wikipedia. They are two different people. Kingturtle 01:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
       • If they know each other from high school, then Hcheney is clearly a liar since he claimed last time that he did not know Grazingship. --Wik 01:45, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
       • Note that the technical evidence only confirms that they live in two different cities, not that they knew each other from outside Wikipedia. -- Tim Starling 01:50, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
2. Vandalized my website (see [2] if you care). Lied or at least was not forthcoming about Grazingshihp last time he was nominated (and Grazingship is in my http logs reading his vandalism right after he created it, clearly they were closer than he is admitting). I'd support given a bit more time, and a bit more explanation as to his previous actions, as he has kept a low profile since withdrawing his nomination, but it's a bit too soon, IMHO. anthony (see warning)
3. Still not enough experience with the community, IMHO. Kingturtle 15:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Enough weirdness with the whole weird thing from before that I think it might be a good idea to hold off for a while. john 00:37, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments: OK, I want to support, but I also want to know what's behind Wik's statement that Hcheney lied about not knowing Grazingship. I remember the original incident but I wasn't paying all that much attention to it. Can anyone remind me, and confirm/deny what Wik says? Isomorphic 02:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the alleged incident was in which Hcheney denied knowing Grazingship. However, [3] is a discussion of the issue of their relationship, begun by Hcheney. moink 03:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That statement could easily be misunderstood to mean that Hcheney denied knowing GrazingshipIV. What it actually says, I believe, is that when Hcheney was contacted by GrazingshipIV, he did not realize that GrazingshipIV was the same person who had introduced him to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that when Wik questioned GrazingshipIV as an inexperienced nominator, GrazingshipIV claimed to be a long-time user who had only recently gotten a username. [4] --Michael Snow 03:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you believe that story that Hcheney presented last time as an obvious last-ditch attempt to secure his nomination, then I would say you've crossed the line from "assuming good faith" into "gullibility". Let's review the facts. Consider this excerpt from the last nomination:

1. Oppose - nomination by a 13-day-old user is dubious. --Wik 20:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
   • If it is any consolation I have used Wikipedia for years. I would hope you would base your vote on the merit of the candidate rather than myself.-GrazingshipIV 20:36, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
     • It just gets more dubious. Used for years and only thought to edit 13 days ago? A likely story. --Wik 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
       • No I got a user name 13 days ago. [...]

Now what does the last line from Grazingship there imply? Apparently he's saying that he edited before but just got a username 13 days previously (as it would indeed be hard to believe that he used Wikipedia for years only as a reader, without ever editing). Yet the fact that he made obvious newbie mistakes [5] after "getting his username" strongly suggests that he did not edit before. When I raised this contradiction he said: "When I said I've been using it for years I DID mean as a reader." One wonders then how to explain his statement "No I got a user name 13 days ago" above. In any case he returns to claim that he did use Wikipedia for years as a reader without ever thinking to edit. Not only is that unlikely in itself, it raises the question: how did he get to know Hcheney then? If you just read Wikipedia, you don't see usernames. Once you read talk pages, page histories, or Recent Changes, you will of course edit yourself too. When I asked him about this contradiction he did not respond. Now why would Grazingship get into all those contradictions to support Hcheney? If they aren't the same person it is crystal clear to me that this was arranged, not just, as Hcheney claims, as an offer from Grazingship which he was not going to comply with, but an agreement by both sides. Had it worked, Hcheney would have nominated Grazingship later. Hcheney's behaviour is strong evidence for this (his story about Grazingship's emails, combined with messages he left on everyone's talk pages asking to reconsider their votes; and comments like "I do not intend to continue with Wikipedia having the status of a joke user." showing his fixation with adminship that would not be explicable if he hadn't expected the nomination, as he originally claimed: "I am flattered that I would be nominated so early"). --Wik 14:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you think it's unlikely that someone would be a long-term reader of Wikipedia without editing? Two people I have met by chance in real life have been overwhelmingly impressed when they hear I am an editor for Wikipedia. They are both fans who know all about what Wikipedia is and how it works, but just never quite get around to editing. One has plans for things that she "really should contribute when she gets the time". The other thinks it's the best site on the net and spends hours reading it, but he's too intimidated by the whole thing to start editing.

As I said before, Graz got to know Hcheney from outside Wikipedia (yes, there is such a place). Graz noticed Hcheney's username while reading, and hatched the adminship plan. He was very keen to support Hcheney because he wanted Hcheney to support him in return. However Hcheney refused. I don't see where the mystery is. -- Tim Starling 06:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

I can't make the blind see. But why do you think Hcheney made his statement only in the last moment when his previous nomination was failing? Do you seriously think he received that email from Grazingship just then, and not before? Obviously (considering the campaigning he did on everyone's talk pages, and his complaining about the whole process) it was designed to save the nomination. Why did he suddenly care so much when initially he pretended to be surprised to be nominated "so early"? --Wik 20:21, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Assume good faith. - Fennec 02:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cheney has gone around adding social security numbers to a bunch of pages. I guess this is no longer considered a bad thing, as it was when I did it? [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] anthony (see warning)

Can you point me to where he did this? Thanks. moink 00:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Those people are all dead. Perhaps putting their social security numbers in was unnecessary, but it's in no way in any violation of policy -- those people are all dead. You can't use their social security numbers, obviously, so there's really nothing wrong with him adding them. Of course, I've never heard of any instance in which anyone added peoples' SSNs into articles, and it's probably unnecessary, but in no way wrong, IMO. ugen64 01:21, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've done it, and I was called a troll for doing so. "I don't rule out a situation where it might possibly be appropriate for some reason. But to put someone's SSN in the first paragraph of an entry about that person? No, there is no reason at all for that, and it does constitute vandalism." --Moncrief anthony (see warning)

Please note that I obtained that information from the Social Security Administration's Master Death Index file. Those Social Security Numbers were a matter of public record and anyone can obtain any SSN that was part of a death benefit claim [11]. If this is considered improper, please feel free to remove them. --H CHENEY 01:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think adding SSNs, both by Hcheney and Anthony, is weird, but not really wrong. I think I'd probably want to remove them when I saw them, but I don't think it's at all vandalism. moink 17:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, when I did it I was much less familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia, which perhaps makes it less weird. At the time I was tricked into believing that there was a law against it, but I have since discovered that the law which was cited was never passed. But I'm not sure an SSN is really encyclopedic, in the sense of the word which is used by the vast majority of Wikipedians, so I haven't added it back. A repository for such facts is certainly useful, but I'm not convinced it fits well with Wikipedia. Maybe wikimorial, or better yet, wikipeople... anthony (see warning)