Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Howabout1 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Howabout1

[edit]

Vote here Final vote (9/5/3) ended 18:01 July 22, 2005 Original ending 03:55 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I am eager for adminship and feel I have met the requirements said on my last RfA. I strongly suggest you read the above link. I have doubled my edits since last time (I have 1,300 see Here for specifics). I think I would be a very active admin and make wikipedia a better place. I actually do few article edits, so all the more reason to aid me in my use of wikipedia. Howabout1 Talk to me! 03:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Due to opposition and the fact that I am indeed too eager to become an admin, I withdraw this self-nom. I still hope to become an admin, so by no means take this as me losing interest. Howabout1 Talk to me! 18:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC) Support

  1. You have my vote -- Michael Dobrowski User:Mdob
  2. My interactions with Howabout1 have been wholly positive. He has a keen interest in admin duties, as exemplified by his answers below. I trust him. (For those opposed because this is his second self-nomination, I will only point out that he did wait the customary month.) -- Hadal 05:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support good job with RC patrol. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 14:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support - Sango123 17:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Borderline Support. I was close to voting neutral on this one. However, the friendliness shown to newcomers is a very good quality in an admin. I believe that you will use the admin powers wisely. -- JamesTeterenko 04:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support.  Grue  09:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I opposed last time due to lack of experience, but I see Howabout1 has continued making good contributions, and I feel that he will make a good administrator now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Now that my RfA is over, and I haven't seen any evidence of serial killer tendencies, I say, give him the mop. -- Essjay · Talk 15:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I apologize, but with an edit count less than 2000, only six months contributing, and the fact that I have never seen you before, I cannot really support you. Denelson83 06:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I should probably oppose. You seem to be a well-intentioned, nice user, who's used the User talk namespace quite well, and has done a nice job welcoming the newcomers. However, I noticed you reverted Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 7 times in a 24-minute period two days ago; WP:3RR says to not revert one article more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. I think you have good potential for us, but you need to understand policies better in order to become an admin. I'd suggest waiting a bit longer (sorry about that, I know this is your second nomination and everything...) for an existing admin to do the honors on nominating, rather than getting stressed with self-noms not turning out. --Idont Havaname 07:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see seven vandalism reverts in 24 minutes as a bad thing. --Carnildo 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    See the comments section; I misunderstood 3RR and am switching my vote to neutral. --Idont Havaname 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, no. This is not particularly about your dispute with me over your proposal for disruptive users. I simply think you lack the maturity to be an admin. Grace Note 00:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This editor is trying too hard to become an admin. Will support if not a self-nom. Kelly Martin 12:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I'm going to vote neutral for the moment; I've definatley seen Howabout1 around doing good work, but I'd like to see what may come up in the course of voting. Provided he doesn't have a history of high crimes and misdemeanors, I'll change to support before the end of the week. -- Essjay · Talk 17:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I was opposed but will probably go with neutral now. I'd suggest using more substantial edit summaries; sorry for my comment about the 7 reverts; I didn't look at the diff and just assumed that "rv" as the entire edit summary meant a revert that the 3RR applies to - that's a case in point about edit summaries being confusing. :-) As I said in my oppose vote, I'm generally against self-nomination anyway, particularly multiple ones. I wouldn't mind having you be an admin in the future after you've used better edit summaries for a few months. I'd prefer that you get a nomination from a different user in the future if this one doesn't go through, though, so that it doesn't seem like you're knocking on the door asking, "Can I be an admin now?". --Idont Havaname 21:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am neutral becuase I think the user would be a good admin, but dont know him/her well enough and haven't seen all but one conflict resolution. I would prefer to wait and see after several major projects to the editors name and some cool resolutions to the most diffcult vandal-troll-sockpuppet users. Other than that, I think the user is a great person. Just not everyone can be an admin. I, myself, would never dare try and do it. -Husnock 02:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I supported his previous RFA out of encouragement for his sheer enthousiasm, which I believe is a very important quality. However, I do think that two self-noms in so short a span of time make him a bit overeager. I believe Howabout should keep up his good work and wait for someone else to nominate him (as will undoubtedly happen) and I will certainly support then. Radiant_>|< 12:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Responce to Idonthaveaname If you look at the diffs, that was all vandalism. Almost every revert was reverting a different IP. I put the test2 template on most of their talks. And the 3RR says "The three revert rule is not generally considered to apply to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course." So will that possibly change your vote? Howabout1 Talk to me! 14:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested, the diffs are: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I count six reverts of clear vandalism, plus one revert to fix a minor edit that violated the Manual of Style. Looking at Howabout1's contributions, he also warned several anon IP's not to do it again by using the Test2 template. I'd say there's no 3RR problem at all (3RR doesn't apply to fixing simple vandalism), and he was just doing sound RC patrolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A.Just about every sysop chore imaginable. I intend to clean out CSD and VfD. I would block vandals, I'm not afraid to. I would also love rollback to help reverting. And to top it all off, I am the founder of a wikicity and have sysop powers there, so I am familiar with them (just not blocking, I'm the only editor except for one edit by an anon.).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.I'm very pleased with Christian Children's Fund, an article I brought up from a stub. But, as I said, I don't write much, so nothing else.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. See wikipedia:Disruptive user and User talk: Grace Note. Also, wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of songs played at dances for two half-conflicts.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Howabout1_2&oldid=1146671253"