Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Halo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

The Halo[edit]

(67/32/9) Ended 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominations

Nomination by Springeragh

The Halo (talk · contribs) – I believe that The Halo is a user well worth the nomination. He is kind; the perfect blend of WikiGnome and Wikiholic; and his dealing with an issue of late (which you may ask him about, whether or not he tells you about it) was surprisingly well-balanced and quick. I believe that his adminship would be a great asset to the community; you can decide yourself. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ 02:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Nomination by Sergeant Snopake

Why should The Halo (talk · contribs) be an admin? He has been on Wikipedia since August 2005, and started to regularly edit from approximately January this year. In this time, he has amassed over 3100 edits, been a constant vandal fighter, shown good judgement on AFD [1], [2], become a prominent member of Esperanza, and been a well rounded, thoughtful, and helpful contributor to Wikipedia. I know that The Halo has all the qualities and good judgement that a great administrator needs, and it would be a loss to the community should this RFA fail. Sergeant Snopake 15:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: It is with a very thankful and humble heart that I accept this nomination. Thε Halo Θ 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I am very active in AfDs, and recently I have began to tackle some of the backlog there. I’d really like to do more to clear the amount of old AfDs we have, and I’d use the tools to tackle the more ambiguous ones, and the discussions that have resulted in a delete consensus. Like most users, I am also involved in a fair amount of vandal fighting, and I am a recent changes patroller. I won’t pretend that I am the best RC patroller ever, but I’ve done enough to see that WP:AIV often has a backlog, and I’d do my bit there as well. I will also, of course, continue to be active on WP:AN, and WP:AN/I, to offer my assistance and opinions. I firmly believe that Admins are ambasidors ambassadors of Wikipedia, and, as such, I would strive to set a good example, mediate edit disputes, address incivility issues, and use both my tools and judgement to aid the project.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: As I said in question 1, I have began to tackle the AfD backlog, and, though this may seem silly to some, I am pleased that I am helping the project in this way. I would also look forward to contributing more to Wikipedia in this way in the future. There are two articles that spring to mind that I am particularly pleased with. The first is with the Howden article, which I greatly expanded and cleaned up. The other is with American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which I created. While neither are FA standard, I believe that both are important subjects for an encyclopaedia, and I am pleased that I was able to contribute to the subjects. I am also pleased with my contributions to, and thankful to Phaedriel for getting me involved, with WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, placing the {{NorthAmNative}} on the relevant talk pages. I realise the this as well isn’t a huge thing, but it is a long, laborious task, which shows my dedication to the project. Finally, I am very pleased and proud of my involvement with Esperanza. While I realise that the community is the means to an end, not the other way round, I’d like to think that in my own small way, I’ve made Wikipedia a nicer place to work.
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: While I have been in debates with other users, I have never been in a personal conflict with an other user. However, I am a semi-active mediator with the Mediation Cabal. I took a case at Portal:Taiwan, at which was a full blown dispute over pretty much everything to do with the portal between User:Heqong , (formally User:Chiang Kai-shek), and User:Nrtm81. This mediation can be found in Portal talk:Taiwan/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, and Archive 4. Despite the very high tension during the mediation, and at times high stress levels, I believe that I proformed well in moving the discussion along to a semi-conclusion. I say semi-conclusion because there is a naming dispute which is still on-going, and neither party was willing to continue mediation. However, I worked well with both parties during mediation, as well as another mediator, who was involved in the mediation for part of the way. This shows my ability to stay cool and civil to angry stressed out users in times of stress, and the ability to work well with others.
4. In relation to your answer to question 2. Howden appears to be a broken link why's that and would you provide some more expamples of your contributions?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Firstly, thanks for the good questions :) As far as the Howden link goes, I'm having no trouble with it, but maybe it would help if I gave you the full article title, as Howden is a redirect: Howden, East Riding of Yorkshire. Hope this helps.
As for my contributions...well, I've been quite active in creating and expanding articles relating to English women's football, a subject area which is vastly underwritten on Wikipedia. I have created 8 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8), and contributed to 7 others (these 1 [[2 being my favourites). I also created the Category:Arsenal L.F.C. players. Seeing as you said "contributions" rather than article contributions, I should also point out that the bottom four pictures in the Howden article, and the photo gallery at the bottom of the Hampton Court Palace article are all mine, and they clearly show the relevant subject matter. Hope this answers your question. Thε Halo Θ 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A I'm not quite sure what you mean by this question. An established user is no more above the law than a new one, so in that sense I would issue a block for a violation of policy, but only after a warning to the user, of course. It is difficult to answer such a question without an example, but if an established user left another user a racist personal attack for example, I would have no qualms about giving a block. I think that discussion works in a lot of cases, trying to get to the root of a problem without just reflex hitting the block button, or giving a user a cool-down block, which often serves to further inflame the situation. So, I suppose that the answer to “Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?” the short answer would be, in any instance where that editor abused the project, our content or our contributors.
I hope that this answers your question, and if there is anything that I have left out, or not addressed fully, please, don’t hesitate to ask more :) Thε Halo Θ 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

The Halo's editcount as of 16:53 September 20 2006 from Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 16:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this user seems trustworthy, but I'd still prefer that he has more experience when promoted as the twain are two different things.Voice-of-All 14:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for any inconvenience, but I will be out for almost all of Wednesday and Thursday, so I will not be able to answer any questions or queries quickly, though I assure you that all will be answered. Thank you. Thε Halo Θ 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Extremely Strong Support As co-nommer. Sergeant Snopake 15:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Strong support also as nominator. —$ΡЯΙNGεrαgђ (-¢|ε|Ŀ|T|♫-) 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support seen user around. Should be a great admin. Good luck! :) --Alex (talk here) 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to weak support after seeing points made by opposers. Nevertheless, I still believe The Halo would be a good admin, even though he does have few mainspace edits. --Alex (talk here) 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *gets beaten up for using cliché* Support. – Chacor 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SupportThe Halo deserves to be an admin. He's a sensible, hard-working guy. DiLuna25 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been reading through some of the oppose comments, I would like to say something - do the mainspace edits count that much, when you consider that the bulk of The Halo's edits are within the Wikipedia space? The Halo has consitently contributed in the place that keeps the whole thing ticking over while the article work is done. Isn't that the point of an administrator? One who administrates, surely. Not someone who spends the majority of their time editing and polishing their favourite articles. I think far, far too much emphasis is being placed on the mainspace edit count here. DiLuna25 23:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support JoshuaZ 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Michael 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Suppport {{RfA-cliche #1}} The Halo rocks. <-- Period. Highway Daytrippers 19:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No major conficts spotted when browsing his contributions, seems to have a pretty good understanding of the rules, and he's been around long enough. We certainly have enough info to decide whether or not he is likely to abuse the tools, and it seems he's a safe bet. Edit statistics are of low importance. Sxeptomaniac 20:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I myself have been an admin for much more than a year now, and I still have fewer articlespace edits than The Halo does. To say that isn't enough would be to place our standards unreasonably high, and relying too much on edit counts we often miss the bigger picture. I think The Halo would make a fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support I am completely confident that The Halo (hereafter TH) is to be trusted with the admin tools and will make good use of them.
    • While his mainspace edits are a bit lower than I would normally like, it seems as if all of his edits have been meaningful contributions; he has a bit of experience in reverting vandalism and after checking out his edit history, I cannot see one instance in which he bit a newcomer. TH has also been heavily involved in WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. He's done extensive maintenence, as well as creating the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which would easily pass the GA criteria today. He's shown an eagerness and dedication in researching the article with the hopes of making it as thorough as possible (which is further evidenced by its extensive references).
    • He has lots of experience in the primary area in which he desires the extra buttons, which is helping out with AfD's. In every AfD participation of his that I looked at (at least twenty), all were meaningful comments, citing policy and using a reasoned opinion (no "per noms"). He has also begun to successfully close AfD's, so he'll be able to hit the ground running in this area, so to speak.
    • TH is very friendly and would be great to work with in controversial areas. He's retained a level head throughout his time on Wikipedia and often goes out of his way to help others. He's also done some work with Med Cab. I couldn't find a single complaint about his behaviour or actions on his talk page, despite his having been involved in a controversial (to say the least) incident that resulted in another user becoming banned from Wikipedia. He's not shy about asking for help, so I was wondering if some of the opposition (all of whom have valid insights and concerns) would consider supporting if one or a few experienced admins pledged to keep an eye on his admin actions for some time as a bit more experience seems to be desired (sort of an enhanced admin coaching). He's certainly to be trusted and seems to want the extra buttons to further help the project, so hopefully this could be amicable. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak to Moderate Support per nom, and weak due to the critism by the opposers. Hello32020 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. After fixing the formatting of Hoopydink's post and rethinking this, I see no point in staying on neutral. While Halo's main space edits might be low, I do think he can be trusted not to abuse anything. So I'll move towards support. Bean counting is a bit silly anyway. And maybe we can spare us a second RfA in a few months. --Ligulem 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A low number of mainspace edits really has no correlation to the kind of job he'll do as an administrator. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Support. Excellent contributor, eminently worthy of our trust with the admin tools. Administrators are expected to maintain Wikipedia, the amount that they actually contribute to its content is nice but not particularly relevant. If their skills in negotation, their wisdom in judgment, and their understanding of policy are all top class it doesn't really matter how much they do to write articles. The requirement some seem to have that an editor write a Featured Article before becoming admin ignores that your writing abilities are pretty much unrelated to your administrative abilities. For example, a look through the last 500 contributions of User:Tony Sidaway and User:Cyde would suggest that they never edit articles in a non-maintainence fashion. There is nothing wrong with this and I intend no offense to them, but it should demonstrate my point that administrative ability is unrelated to mainspace edits. --tjstrf 00:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. This sort of nomination is where a measure like edit count will betray those who use it as anything more than a rule of thumb. It's usually true that it will take a user a couple thousand edits and 3-6 months to get policy down and create a track record to give voters a comfort zone. This is an exception. Editing in the main namespace is always a good thing because we are building an encyclopedia, but we need people who focus in other areas to make this more than a chaotic melange of information. The Halo is an example of that other type of user.Erechtheus 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, despite the slightly-low mainspace edit count - TH is friendly, and Wiki would benefit from him having the mop. Daniel.Bryant 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good judgement and dedicated involvement, no matter what the edit counter says. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support - experience with image tagging, makes up for low article space edits and odd upload log --T-rex 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support have seen this user contribute from a distance and has always seemed quite civil and helpful. Along with that, the user's activity in afd's in which the user frequently cites relevant policy shows to me a knowledge of policy. The mainspace edit issue doesn't bother me and I don't think that alone justifies an oppose vote.--Jersey Devil 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. strong support per noms. ~crazytales56297 - t-e 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. First time I log in weeks, only to check how things are going... but how could I not have my say here? ;) Now if you excuse me, my wikibreak must continue. Hugs all! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support—I too would like to see a few more actual edits. But I'm in no hurry to return to the rigor of the Diablo Test and there is enough data to confirm you (The Halo) are unlikely to abuse the tools. Use them carefully & thoughtfully - Williamborg (Bill) 05:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, we need more happy smiling admins. :) No, seriously, I would feel completely comfortable coming to him with a problem, and I think that's really important. I think you would use the tools wisely. The low mainspace count may end up being a problem, but for now you have my support. Best wishes, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 06:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak support good user in my experience, though mainspace edits are low. Computerjoe's talk 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Per Phaedriel and others, low mainspace edits should not be a complete block to adminship. I have few or no qualms about this user's dedication to the project. Support ++Lar: t/c 09:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, per Hoopydink, above, I'd be willing to "keep an eye" on this editor should he be confirmed at this point, and if this nom does not succeed, I encourage the candidate to try again later. ++Lar: t/c 09:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, I trust this editor, he is responsive to requests and will be careful with the tools, I am sure. NoSeptember 10:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  29. Supportinspite of the few mainspace edits. Doctor BrunoTalk 12:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Yes. — Gary Kirk | talk! 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. G.He 14:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Nearly Headless Nick 14:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Edit Conflict Support. Darn it, all my reasons have been stated. I particularly agree with Riana's reasoning, however. Admins need to be kind and approachable. Additionally, his AFD participation is very good. To address Joshua's concerns below, listing articles for deletion isn't the most important part of the process by any means. Srose (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Very Strong Support A great editor, really deserves to be an admin. Helps out where admins are needed most. Has constantly shown good judgement and keeps a cool head. Eager to help, would be a truly great asset to the community. Mr Negotiator 15:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. A wonderful editor who is likely to not abuse the tools. Adminship is not a big deal remember? Ian¹³/t 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weak support. Qualitatively his contribution has been impressive. The quantity, as several opposers and neutrals note, needs work, hence my weak. But quantity will come in due course, and so I'm inclined to support now rather than go through the whole process again in a few months. Bucketsofg✐ 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Will not accidentally delete the Main Page. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, editcountis. I trust him with the tools and I hope his edit count in the mainspace will increase when he's promoted. --Terence Ong (T | C) 17:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Level headed and not likely to abuse the tools. Rx StrangeLove 17:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above. Markovich292 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per RyanG. —Khoikhoi 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support keep up the good work Mjal 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Positive impression every time I've seen this user around.--Húsönd 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Massive support Fabby user - kind, civil, helpful and generally lovely. Good luck mate! Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Great user, very civil. However, I would like to see a few more mainspace edits.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per noms. Rama's arrow 23:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I haven't interacted much with The Halo, but he has struck me as a very reasonable and thoughtful editor. I think he would be fair with the buttons. I do encourage him to edit more substantially in the mainspace, as he's very good at it. -- Samir धर्म 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I have been waiting for this one for some time! Hand him the mop Æon Insanity Now!EA! 04:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support with him being around for more than a year, "inexperience" argument looks very much like bullshit.  Grue  07:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per Grue. bd2412 T 07:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I trust this user with the tools. Though not relevant to the RfA !vote, I hope the second nominator will stay with us also. Newyorkbrad 17:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Absolute support!, I can't believe I didn't notice this RfA sooner! The Halo is an exceptionally hard working and polite Wikipedia, and has on numerous occasions interacted on the same level as administrators, discussion many issues at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, which shows his well-footed knowledge in all things Wikipedia. -- Natalya 21:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support Meets my standards, and I have had good experiences with Halo in AfD.-- danntm T C 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Go, dude!--Suit-n-tie 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support sufficiently civil, gets stuck in, doesn't over-react even in cases where that could easily have happened. MLA 09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support. -- Szvest 12:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, I'm sure he can be trusted with the mop. - Mailer Diablo 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. per Grue, and the weirdly large number of very weak oppose votes Flowerparty☀ 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Never seen anything negative from this user, and I hate to perpetuate editcountitis Canadian-Bacon t c e 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. The Halo is a very helpful editor, a kind one, and always civil. He manages to keep a cool head and disolve disputes with ease. While the edit count could of course be higher, these are qualities we need in our admins. Civility is a must, and The Halo has plenty. -- Banes 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support, I've always been impressed with what I've seen of this user and don't see the lack of experience perceive by the opposing voters. The Halo is mature, well-mannered and approachable, and I see no compelling reason to oppose. Good luck! Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak Support Eh.....What the hell. Just H 14:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support - There's nothing wrong with making someone whose primary activity is dealing with non-article matters an admin. From what I can see, most admins have a slight preference to doing mainspace edits, and deal with other matters only because such activities are necessary. Someone who focuses on and enjoys working on the other non-article side would be extremely valuable to the wikipedia. Badbilltucker 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Weak support, few mainspace edits, but good character. —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support My encounters with Halo on WP have been nothing but positive. Edit count might be a bit low, but I like what I've seen. --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Impressed, despite the fact of low mainspace edits. Яabi∂ςa√in 11:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - Sorry, 602 mainspace edit seems little low for me. --WinHunter (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as per Winhunter. --Merovingian - Talk 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Too little experience in encyclopedia building, per low mainspace edits. Espresso Addict 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not enough experience, sorry. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Edit conflict) General comment to all above opposers: Halo has been on Wikipedia since August 2005. The worries about him not having enough experience policy wise are not well-founded; he's, as mentioned in the noms, a regular AFD and vandal fighter; and personally I did think he was already an admin. This is one I strongly feel that low mainspace edits (is roughly 20% of all contribs really low?) doesn't apply as much as it normally would. – Chacor 17:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone is a vandal fighter I would expect them to have an unusually high mainspace number, not a relatively low one. JoshuaZ 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the edit counter (yes I know that's a bad way of doing this) lists him as only having tagged one article ever for deletion. Even if the counter is innaccurate it is a bit hard to see how that indicates a lot of experiences with AfDs. JoshuaZ 18:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm…you do realise that if he'd tagged a whole bunch of articles which then got deleted, those edits would not show up, right? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose nice overall edit count, but the areas where you say you help out lead to concerns about your administrative capabilities. EFG 17:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Indef blocked account of Freestylefrappe. Ral315 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - this user's first edit was only 3 days ago. Syrthiss 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! If you wouldn't mind, to help me become a better editor, could you expand a little where you say "the areas where you say you help out lead to concerns about your administrative capabilities."? Thank you for any help. Thε Halo Θ 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, no problem. If you are carefully tracking WP:AN/I and WP:AN then you must have seen there are quite a few instances in which incidents of severe policy violations regarding editing protocol have been ignored. EFG 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say that I had been carefully tracking both WP:AN/I and WP:AN, at least, not as well as someone like Cyde. I certainly remember some allegations of policy violation that I commented on yesterday, but, other than that, nothing major springs to mind...Thε Halo Θ 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    user was Freestylefrappe Syrthiss 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per my standards, encourage the nom to browse WP:RFA/ST to see what most RFA !voters require before considering a nom. Themindset 18:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose not quite enough edits, but certainly a good start. Trnj2000 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, in a couple of months and a couple of thousand mainspace edits, I will support abakharev 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Wider experience needed. Singopo 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per Singopo †he Bread 05:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Nom Springeragh has a confusing signature and his user page has a fake "you have new messages" tag that leads to a "gotcha" page. Not encyclopedic and not in tune with the prevailing admin culture. Doubt that if you were ready to be an adminship that you would have accepted his nom. --Spartaz 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is abso-fricking-lutely ridiculous. Sprineragh's nomination was in good-faith. I'd understand if this was a bad-faith nom, but that is just ridiculous. – Chacor 08:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify for you, two admins (Phaedriel and Natalya), one former admin (Banes), and one other user (Aeon1006) all said that they would have nommed me, but Sprigeragh (whom I hold in high regard for his excellent work in Esperanza and elsewhere) got there first. Thε Halo Θ 09:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I find opposing someone for who they were nominated by not very appropriate. You should judge the candidate on the jobs they do and what they give to the community, not on who nommed them. Sergeant Snopake 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While I find those fake "you have new messages" extremely annoying, I cannot base an oppose on the nominator having one or for the nominator having a poor signature.Dlohcierekim 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I don't find the nominator's sig that distressing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How's my signautre now, Spartaz? —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Distinctive. --Spartaz 22:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Reluctant oppose. Certainly a good faith user, but not enough actual article writing experience. In my opinion, solid experience in the main namespace is an absolute requirement for being a good admin. — mark ✎ 08:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose due to lack of experience. On the article edits, it's not like he can't write: [3] [4] – involvement with FAs would be even better. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per JoshuaZ's comment above. Overall, headed in the righ direction, but just needs more expereince.Dlohcierekim 13:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reluctant Oppose Is the edit-counter broken? I've seen the editor around, have a generally favorable impression, and am surprised by the low number of article edits. Still, insufficient mainspace edits are a sign of inexperience, and its better to remedy inexperience before getting the mop. Xoloz 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Sorry. I hate opposing based mostly on edit counts, but i do think that you could use more mainspace experience. It's important to have a decent amount of article editing experience to be a good admin, imo; that is where most conflicts develop, where people start arguments, where one learns who is a spammer and who isn't, and where one really learns to work with fellow editors. so, again, sorry, but you need to spend some more time in the shit. --heah 19:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per Xolox. — Moe Epsilon 22:24 September 16 '06
  17. Oppose per lack of mainspace edits. I can see that The Halo interacts well with fellow Wikipedians, but I would like to see more contributions to Wikipedia's mainspace. --Nishkid64 01:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per above. Sorry. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per nominator's signature :) too few mainspace edits. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per above due to lack of mainspace edits, needs more experience. Silensor 07:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Lack of mainspace edits. Sorry. --Guinnog 11:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose definately shows a lack of maturity in some of his judgement calls and edits. Lack of mainspace editing, no featured articles created... wikipedia is here for writing, not for mere social aspects (thats why we have an IRC channel). Not to mention I hate it when family members co-nom... I dont approve of meatpuppetry.  ALKIVAR™ 14:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please be a little more specific? That would be helpful. Oh, and just because I'm his sister doesn't mean I'm his meatpuppet, that's pretty offensive. There were plenty of other users that wanted to nom him. Sergeant Snopake 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, perhaps it would be best to let one of them nom next time. The possible appearance of nepotism could not help an RfA. Dlohcierekim 14:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey! Don't speak like that, there might not have to be a next time! ;) Yeah, I guess so, but I didn't really think of it at the time. Sergeant Snopake 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate it if you could be a little more specific when you say "definitely shows a lack of maturity in some of his judgement calls and edits". It would be very helpful for me as an editor to know whether I do have a ‘lack of maturity’ or not, because I do not at all believe this to be true. Thε Halo Θ 15:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I had voted neutral (under my prior sig Tachikoma), and I still stand by that decision. However, I have been following this RfA closely, and I strongly feel that an accusation of The Halo's "lack of maturity" should be backed up with some examples rather than just left out there. I also believe that Sergeant Snopake genuinely believes in her brother's merit and that she's not doing this out of a sense of family loyalty. It might have been better to have someone else as co-nom, to avoid the appearance of nepotism, but it's too late now. Sorry, I just really had to get my word in. --Kyoko 16:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Edits and experience. Also seems to be something of a "social user". --kingboyk 15:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Reluctant oppose, reluctant because I think this is an editor who works for the good of the project and has been helpful; oppose, however, because I don't think this user yet has enough experience to be ready for the mop. Sorry. Will certainly consider supporting a future RfA, after some more experience, if this one fails. --- Deville (Talk) 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak oppose for now. urge them to work more in article space and not spend 7% of their time editing Requests for adminship pages before they have enough experience dealing with other editors directly in the process of collaboratively editing articles. No concerns about behaviour though so this is a borderline to neutral. Ansell 01:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    I hope this is not assuming bad faith, but the combination of the fact that the anonymous user who made this edit, last edited around the time The Halo account was created.(about 2 weeks after) Although the anonymous user could likely have been a combination of different users and there is no way to prove otherwise, the block log and talk page history of that IP may be relevant [5] [6] Ansell 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not assuming bad faith, Ansell, don't worry. It is a strange coincidence that IP changed my sig around (not least because there really was no need to), but I assure you, it is no more than a coincidence. Looking at his contribs, he seems obsessed with the BNP, and Fascism, a trait that I, thankfully, don't have. I have even shown a slight interest with socialism notice the Che and Stalin quotes. The IP also seems to go to AfD quite often as well, quite a few times before he changed round my sig here, and here + more. Also, for such a prolific 'editor', I would expect that if this had been me, I would have made an edit a day at least, just as the IP does. However, after editing for the first time on August 11th, I didn't edit again until November, due to busyness. Of course, while there is no way to prove this IP and me are not the same person, I think that the difference in style and subject interest alone is enough to show that we are different people. Hope this helps :) Thε Halo Θ 09:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation! I hope if you don't succeed this time that you will focus on editing articles and interacting with a wide variety of editors so that you will be knowledgable when the time comes for you to get access to the extra tools and responsibility. The coincidence with the edit (mostly the 5 minute window for changing when the anon didn't otherwise contribute) I referenced was just too large for me not to say something about. :) Cheers, Ansell 09:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per my philosophy at User:Blnguyen/RfA. I feel rather disappointed that administrators and writers are drifting into separate disjoint camps with excessive administration not related to the improvement of content or removal of bad content, so I feel that being an avid and highly enthusiastic writer is important. Not necessarily high quality, but the intent must be there. I've been impressed most by the administrative behaviours of administrators who are article writers at heart. In any case the Howden article is a good job and I think you should definitely write more, as when you think about it, article writing is the most backlogged thing on Wikipedia - it's surprising how many prominent people/things never get their article improved despite the availability of people who do know stuff about them. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose This editor seems like they will one day make a good admin, but they have far too few mainspace edits to really illustrate a proficiency with policy. TewfikTalk 03:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose mainly because mainspace edits are just too low, but also because I'm really not comfortable with the social side of things and I don't really see a need for admin tools. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Attitude to blocking. Insufficient quality editing.--Mcginnly | Natter 09:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I oppose this user receiving adminship at this time. I'm not particularly worried about mainspace edits, but more about the blocking attitude, and I do agree that this is more of a social RFA. Ral315 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two people have said that they don't like my idea's on blocking now, but I still can't see what's wrong with them. The question given was very vague (who are we considering an “established” user? Someone who has been here 6 months or a ‘crat?), so I gave a vague answer. Without the proper information, I can not give a proper answer, just as I would never give a block with out, as I have said, discussing it (this means with both the user that has done something potentially worthy of a block and a more experienced admin if the situation was difficult. Indeed, I think that if we had more discussion between admins, are wheel war levels would go down, which would be great news for everyone.), researching it, and being sure of my decision. I believe that a lot of the time, on established users, cool down blocks do not work, and possibly inflame the situation, an opinion which I’ve heard some other admins express. So I really can’t see the problem. Maybe I’m missing something…? Thε Halo Θ 19:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, the more I read this, the more confused I am. Ligulem said the same sort of thing in his RfA, that being, to research the situation, discuss with both editor in question and another admin if need be, warn the editor about their behavior, and don't block too rashly as it can inflame the situation (okay, his answer was far better put, I admit). And Mcginnly liked that answer. So, as I say, I don't get it. Thε Halo Θ 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, his open sentence was "In general, blocking is very rarely the right thing for an established user". The ability to understand what was being asked, put his answer in an unambiguous way and demonstrate reason and reasonableness are all qualities I would like to see in administrators. Your answer wasn't bad Halo, please don't take umbridge, it just wasn't enough.--Mcginnly | Natter 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cool, I just couldn't understand where I might be going wrong. Thank you very much for the explination. Thε Halo Θ 09:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per lack of mainspace edits as already noted by others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - Nice guy, but against what other people seem to think, being an admin shouldn't be about who's popular or not! That's why we have highschool! The fact is, Halo has too low an edit count, & we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to make friends & have them vote for you. Nominations should be made on their rock hard contributions. That's my 2 cents... Sorry Halo... :( Spawn Man 03:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to say, to everyone who has said that this RfA is for my friends to vote, that I've requested the tools to aid what I'm doing, and to help me make wikipedia better (the main way I'd do this is to continue to tackle the RfA backlog). While I think anyone who said that they wouldn't want their friends to vote for them on an RfA would be lying (deep down we want everyone to like us, it's part of our psychology), I opened this RfA so that people could see my contributions to wikipedia (most of which are in the wikipedia space), see that there is a need for the tools, see that I would not abuse them, and then voice their opinion. While, of course, some of the opposes have hurt, I have been very happy with the supporting opinions, and the constructive criticism in the oppose opinions, so, in that sense, yes, I agree with you Spawn Man. RfA's aren't a popularity contest. They are about giving a user the tools if he needs and deserves them, and, if not, making that user into a better editor, which I hope and think has happened here. Thε Halo Θ 10:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're a really nice guy Halo. But as I said it's not a popularity contest. It's unfair on people like me, who just cause their unpopular yet work really hard, means that they'll never be an admin. I've seen people lately who have way less edits than myself get through sheerly on their friends & on their niceness. Everyone's forgotten that this is an encyclopedia. I appreciate your personal reply, & I feel bad that I have to oppose just because your article writing is declined. If you get your edits up, I'll definitely support... Spawn Man 10:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you also for your very nice reply too Spawn Man. I assure you, that comment was not just directed at you, a lot of opposers have said that this is a popularist RfA, and before it ended I just wanted my thoughts to be known on the subject. I fully respect your vote oppinon, and you as an editor (in fact I thought you were an admin, and will fully support any RfA of yours in the future), and I thank you for both you constructive criticism, and for a potential future support (but, of course, only if I improve as an editor ;) Thank you. Thε Halo Θ 10:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Me an admin! That'll be the day the moon implodes or something... :) -- Spawn Man 11:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, please do not be too hard on yourself, Spawn Man. You never can tell when you would be nominated..... Cheers! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral The low main namespace edits is a concern to me. However, you are a good editor, so I can't oppose here. Might change my mind if this is close. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral 602 in main are a bit low for a vandal fighter. And mediation doesn't really need the admin bits. Eh, and what is an "ambasidor"?... ;] (sorry, I couldn't resist, but this didn't influence my decision). Otherwise, a very kind guy in my dealings with him, so I can't really oppose. Give it another try in a few months. I hope you won't be stressed by this RfA, though. --Ligulem 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Changed to support --Ligulem 22:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn! I put my answers through a spell check and everything ;) Thε Halo Θ 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm pleased to see participation with AfDs; however, 602 edits in the article mainspace seems a bit low considering how long you have been with Wikipedia... for comparison, I've been here just over half a year and I have 526 mainspace edits. Your distribution of edits is a bit more evenly balanced than mine, though. You seem to be a well-mannered, level-headed fellow, and I would vote "Support" if not for the comparatively low number of mainspace edits. It would be churlish for me to vote "Oppose" when considering all that you have done for the project. Please understand that this is not a referendum about you as a person, and perhaps when you have more article edits, I will vote "Support". Best of luck in the future. --Tachikoma 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to add that I am in no way trying to belittle your number of edits in comparing the number to my own. I merely wanted to illustrate that the number of mainspace edits is a major criterion for many people who follow RfAs. I do hope that you aren't stressed by this RfA, whatever the outcome may be. --Tachikoma 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral perhaps when you've got a few more mainspace edits i will support you, but slightly premeture at the moment, you are a good editor however so i will not be opposing. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, I must disagree with the nom, 91 warnings doesn't indicate the user is a "constant vandal fighter". Most users edits are deletes at AfD, esperanza edits, and updating tallies of RfAs. Hasn't been here that long, but certainly a potential admin in the future (if this fails).--Andeh 03:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm, I thought TH had been here since August, 2005. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I meant very few edits considering the length of time they've been here.--Andeh 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral can't oppose, but I can't support either with only 602 article namespace edits. Great edit count overall, but I only have about 20 less article edits, and I only have about 1,500 edits as opposed to his 3,100+ - Mike 16:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Unsure from above. People Powered 19:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral leaning toward oppose. Seems like a nice guy, but I see too much socializing and not enough article writing yet. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral as admins aren't really here to chat all day long. I would prefer more article writing (I like my admins to have either 1 FA or several GAs), and less Esperanza work and more time on RC patrol. IMO (this is, obviously, disputed), admins should set an example to the rest of us editing-wise as well as maintaining the encyclopedia. Moreschi 16:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)(needless to say, I'm still a tad cheesed off after that row at the Esperanza talk page - in the Wikipedia:Esperanza archives if anyone wants to look it up. I make an honest point and get groaned at and one or two comments skated near to an WP:AGF violation, not just from The Halo. But hey, I'm a nice forgiving guy, so I don't oppose, and will doubtless support in the future)[reply]
    Oh, and one last comment. Even if this was God's RFA, I would still try to dissaude him from having the Virgin Mary as a co-nom. Particularly when the Virgin Mary then goes into retirement. Moreschi 13:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per article editing/creation experience (see Blnguyen). I can't oppose based on this though. --Storkk 13:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/The_Halo&oldid=1147963238"