Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hersfold 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Hersfold

Final (75/1/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hersfold (talk · contribs) - Greetings! I would like to nominate Hersfold for adminship. I will keep this fairly short (although I tend to go on) - Hersfold is an excellent user who has shown his dedication to the project over a protracted period of time, making his first edit in December 2006. He has over 11,000 edits across the English Wikipedia, with almost 2,500 mainspace edits. A lot of his work has been at AFD, where he's made many excellent contributions. Hersfold has a number of strings to his bow - he's a new page patroller, helps out on the Help Desk, fulfils speedy rename requests at CFD, contributes to Motto of the Day, participates in Articles for Creation, and works on some of our most intricate templates, including the user talk warning templates. His editing history shows a sound grasp of policy, including our image policies, an agreeable disposition when dealing with both new editors, and general awesomeness.

Hersfold has been nominated for adminship on two previous occasions (June 07 and September 07). The second time, in particular, led me to conclude that all Hersfold needed was to gain experience. In the six months since that last RFA, he has taken the advice offered to heart, more than doubling his article activity whilst still continuing his excellent work in the project namespace. In particular, one of the reasons cited for his last RFA failing was a failure to do his research (he didn't know who Bertrand Russell was). I suggested as a penance for his error, he improve the article, as it wasn't great at the time considering the subject. He took this to heart, and look at the difference. I think that is penance enough! I believe Hersfold is an outstanding, polite, knowledgable editor who has exhibited a willingness to learn and improve, to listen to others, and to contribute to making Wikipedia better (just look at all those barnstars!). He has a clear use for the tools, and his gaining the mop would benefit Wikipedia greatly. I hope you will agree. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination. Just felt like I should add something. Hersfold has been extremely helpful on a couple of occasions [1]. Just lending a hand. I offered to nominate him for adminship before, but unfortunately Neil got there before me (grr!) He has worked on Wikipedia:Help desk and obviously have been a great help to others and I think that by giving him the mop will be a great asset to Wiki. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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: I would intend to work mainly in deletion processes, including WP:AfD, expired PROD's, and speedy deletion candidates. As I also do a lot of work with vandalism patrols, I would also spend some of my time at WP:AIV, blocking users who continue to make unconstructive edits. I've also had some experience with sockpuppetry, and would spend some time occasionally reviewing those cases. While I currently have little experience in those fields, I would also begin to look over protection requests, starting with the most obvious need for protection, gradually moving upward. I have experience with using the rollback tool - I have used Twinkle for several months now, and was granted "official" rollback rights by User:Acalamari on January 30th.

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

A: I keep a running tally of my particularly outstanding contributions on my user page, but of those, I'd say the best are these:

• When I was first getting involved in Wikipedia, I worked with User:SebastianHelm to update the templates at WP:UTM (back then, WP:TT) to include tooltips with the {{tltt}} templates, to make the templates easier to use for vandalism patrollers.
• I have continually assisted editors at the Help Desk, helping them use Wikipedia and get started on those lines.
• Along those same lines, I have adopted three different users through the adopt-a-user program. While I have yet to graduate anyone, unfortunately, I do hope to continue this work in the future.
• I am a founding member of WikiProject Articles for creation, and have done a lot of work there with the project templates and clearing the backlog, which was finally closed in a drive started by me a few weeks ago.
• I have two DYK credits with Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park and Hood Mockingbird, and significantly improved the references to Bertrand Russell, as Neil noted above. I do know now, most completely, who Earl Russell was. (joke)

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: I have had conflicts in the past, and in every case I've done my best to deal with things in a calm and reasoned manner. Looking through my talk page history, my first major conflict was in January of 2007 with Seicer over the 3RR, wherein I had warned another editor for violating the 3RR when he was reverting vandalism (See here for full discussion). Other conflicts have taken place over prematurely tagging articles for deletion (here), tagging articles for deletion that did need to be deleted and explaining the reason to the authors (here, here (although that was an AfC decline), among others), pointing out where other users have been a bit incivil (here), dealing with complex vandalism (such as this lovely case). The links here are all obviously to my talk page archives, which I plowed through to help answering this question, but in all of my conflicts, of which there have been several, I've always tried to remain as diplomatic and understanding as possible, and always consider the option that I could be wrong. I think I've improved on that as time has gone on, and I hope that can be seen through the links above and my more recent contributions.

Update March 11: One more dispute to add to this list took place at User talk:64.238.172.212 today. The IP address had been flagged as being a shared IP address, based on the WHOIS report provided via a link at the bottom of the talk page. The IP editor was disputing this, repeatedly removing the banner with edit summaries that accused other editors of malicious, libelous intent (see [2] [3]) In an effort to stop the edit war that had to this point involved reversions by several different editors, I posted an explanation for the shared IP template, at the same time requesting semi-protection of the page in case things didn't work out. Fortunately, I was able to get the IP editor into a civil discussion and withdrew the request. I'm still not certain we've really resolved the problem completely, but I think at this point we understand the other's point of view a little better and are willing to make some sort of compromise on the matter. P.S. - If anyone is wondering why I didn't simply allow the IP to remove the header per the talk page guidelines, I was ignoring that particular rule for the justification I made to the IP here: such a header is rather a benefit to the IP in the event he does get blocked, as it means the block is shorter. Having the header saves time and effort for any admin, or other editor, who needs to deal with issues with the IP address. The header is not a vandalism warning, and removing it could do more harm than good in the long run. Added by Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

4. What issues from your previous requests for adminship have been raised, and how have you addressed them? What new or returning issues do you expect to see from opposers, if any, this time around?

A: My first RFA was going rapidly downhill mainly due to a lack of experience in editing - at that time, I had only been on the project for about 6 months and had around 2,000 edits. While many of the supports appreciated the enthusiasm I had demonstrated, many others felt I hadn't done enough at that point to grant me the tools. Following that RfA, I worked more in anti-vandalism, and moved into Articles for Deletion debates, which to that point I had not been very involved in.

My second RfA plummeted mainly due to the Bertrand Russell incident - opposers felt that my not bothering to check who he was was a sign that I would not properly check any AfD's I was to close. In response to that, I have taken special care to do internet searches on almost every AfD I check (some this still isn't necessary for, but those are rare cases and generally fit some speedy criteria or other or are blatant keeps). I did also improve the Bertrand Russell article to get it back to GA quality (not yet listed, nobody's reviewed it), but this I feel is more article-writing. Researching something after it's been deleted doesn't do much good, although were that to happen, there's always WP:DRV. Back to the point, I've taken much more care about what I say, how I say it, and how much I look at something before I say anything at all.

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: I certainly would not undo their edit without making a strong attempt to contact them about the situation first. My first action would be to go to their talk page and find what their reasoning was behind it, and try to explain my point of view. If we weren't able to come to any sort of agreement there, I would begin to move up the dispute resolution process with the other admin (slash editor, this would apply to anyone in good standing), bringing the issue to the article's talk page and trying to form some sort of a consensus there. If that didn't get anywhere, as talk page discussions rarely do, unfortunately, I'd open a request for comment on the article to try and pull some more editors into the discussion.

In the event this was actually a deletion (probably speedied under G10 - other processes would involve discussion ahead of time, wherein I could have voiced my concerns) I would bring this to DRV if discussion with the admin failed.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

A: He who giveth shall taketh away if the big red button gets pushed the wrong way too many times (Sorry, couldn't tell how to stretch the fancy speech any further). I certainly would - if I royally screw this up, the community deserves the right to take back the tools they gave me, or in fact any administrator, in the first place. I realize that not all admins share this same opinion, but recall is a helluva lot easier than dragging things through ArbCom - it allows someone who has made a mistake to leave their position with some bit of dignity, as well as an improved chance to redeem themselves through continued editing.

7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

A: Wikipedia:Civility. With the ability to delete pages, block users, protect pages, yada yada so forth, admins get crap thrown at them faster than a sewer from people who argue that they can edit however they want; my band IS notable, you dummy; who are you to tell me I'm vandalizing; so forth and so on. I've certainly had plenty already, plus one or two actual death threats. An administrator needs to be able to know how to deal with these people, and/or know how to simply brush off those that can't be dealt with, like the last few links there. Staying calm, and trying to rephrase things as clearly as possible, is key to avoiding a complete explosion and making situations worse. After all, the longer you keep the vandal talking, the less time he has to vandalize. Compared to this, WP:DELETE, WP:BLP, WP:NFCC, and all the rest, are secondary (but still very very important, don't take that the wrong way!!). Of those, I'd say WP:NFCC is the most important, as that's the one that can really get Wikipedia in trouble if we neglect it, followed by WP:BLP for the same reason. WP:DELETE is really just a compilation of all the other policies (if it violates X, Y, or Z, it should be fixed if possible or deleted).

Note: If a dozen more questions are added after this before you have a chance to answer, don't answer mine - I'll withdraw them when I notice.

No big deal - I'd be somewhat surprised if I didn't get bombarded with questions, most everyone does. :-)

Optional question from Keepscases

8. If it were to come to your attention that a fellow Wikipedian frequently snuck into the RAC to play basketball, what if anything would you do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A. Someone's been reading my user page... I would likely congratulate him for the spirit he's showing for the college that's going to win the America East Conference this Saturday. :-) (Then make sure he's not adding biased information to the UMBC Retrievers article - we have to stay neutral, you know.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

9. When should you apply a cool-down block?

A: Never, especially if I'm involved in the dispute that needs cooling down. Such blocks tend to only make the situation worse. If an editor is being particularly uncivil, then the situation should be brought up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, or if more severe, WP:ANI. Blocks should only be applied when a user is being blatantly and deliberately unconstructive or disruptive, and only when the blocking admin does not have a conflict of interest.

10. Which contributions are you not proud of?

A: Bleah - I hate these questions. I'm certainly still slapping myself over the Bertrand Russell thing - that was definitely a very dumb thing to do. There's a few other AfD mistakes I've made, nominating articles that had little business being nominated, or something similar. Unfortunately, I can't recall anything else that's particularly outstanding - as I'm always trying to improve upon what mistakes I do make, they all rather smush together in the long run. Sorry I can't come up with a better answer for this, but this is honestly about 20 minute's worth of thinking on it.

11. How long would you block a user (account), if s/he recieved a warning after a final warning?

A: It depends on a lot of things, mainly what type of account we're facing, what kind of vandalism we're dealing with, and if the user has been blocked before. Since you mention "account", I'm assuming you don't mean an IP editor, but someone who has created an account for the sole purpose of vandalism. For simple stuff that appears to mostly be someone who's really bored and can't find anything better to do (test edits, section blanking, tossing in random words that don't make a huge impact, etc.), I'd probably do a couple days (48-72 hours) up to a full week, just to give them time to give it up and find something else to do. In more severe cases, where the intent can't be described as anything but blatantly disruptive and/or malicious, I'd go for a longer block, likely indefinite. Since it's an account, we won't have to worry about blocking out other users who do want to constructively edit, and the account can always be unblocked if they show an honest desire to reform themselves.

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Hersfold
• Requests for adminship/Hersfold 2
• Requests for adminship/Hersfold 3

• Links for Hersfold: Hersfold (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/Hersfold before commenting.

Discussion

• Note from Hersfold: I will unfortunately not be online when this closes due to a previously scheduled trip from Monday the 17th to Wednesday the 19th. I'll continue checking this page up until that date, but if anyone leaves me any last-minute questions or comments they expect a reply to, just know they may not get answered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm off. Thanks to everyone for their support (I'll send around the usual thank-you-spam on my return). I look forward to serving as an admin when I get back. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Your response to the Bertrand Russell issue demonstrated a sort of ultimate way of responding to an area where you had messed up. If anything, it shows you would take seriously any significant error you made that is identified by the community. Furthermore, I've reviewed your recent work at AFD and it appears balanced and always with a decent explanation of your thought. An overall glance at your last 1k edits or so shows broad activity and good work being done, and impressive situations where others request help and you promptly help them. Good luck.Gwynand (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Very strong support: I was going to co-nominate him but I didn't notice he'd applied until just now so this'll do. He's one of those people where you see their user page, talk page, contribs etc and you just can't believe he's not an admin. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support as last time but now without any qualification. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. No obvious problems, seems trustworthy, demonstrated need for the tools. Fire away :) AGK (contact) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. bibliomaniac15 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Another RfA in which I either got mentioned in the questions or the statement, yet I'm not the candidate or nominator: I'm everywhere! :) Heh, heh, Hersfold is an excellent user, and I was more than happy to grant him rollback. He will make a good admin. Acalamari 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Lots of experience, lots of excellent contributions, no red flags. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Agree with number 2. I thought you were already an admin. Well, after this, im sure you will be, you're a helpful user who has contributed to WIkipedia in a big way, and for that, you get my support. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Strong Support. My interaction with this user has been very positive. Willing to help out wherever possible. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong Support - I see this user around everywhere, especially the help desk. Without hesitation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Qualified editor, and it sounds like he won't tell on me for sneaking into the RAC without paying the five dollar guest fee. Keepscases (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong support - great editor, well versed in almost all areas of the project. Great work on WP:AFC! Tiptoety ^talk 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Ach! Keep getting edit conflicted! - Helpful and knoewledgable user, will not abuse the tools. Best of luck! Spencer^T♦C 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Great editor. Superb answer to Q7 above. (anyone that can use "dummy" in a self-reference is fine by me:-) I have no worries about your inevitable promotion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - No reason not to. I'm sure he's learned from his past RFA's. And since nobody's seemed to have mentioned this (unless I missed it), I'd like to say that aside from his help on Wikipedia:Help Desk, he's also helped users on CAT:HM.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support As per track and concerns of previous RFA overcome.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support per answers to questions. Avruch ^T 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support as nominator. Neıl ☎ 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Strong Support Per answers to questions, experience, and edit summary usage. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Really, Hersfold is such a great user that I have to come out of my wikibreak just for this. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Looks good to me. Go get 'em! --Sharkface217 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Full Support, no questions, all the way as per co-nom. You've been a great help keep up the good work. :) Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support per above. Good candidate, supported his/her last RfA last September. Hopefully Hersfold will not get opposed. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. MrPrada (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. A familiar name — no reason to withhold support. WODUP (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support Looks good, proud to add my name here. :) GlassCobra 06:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. I trust this user. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support brillian ansers, will make an exeedingly good administrator! Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 16:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support A great editor, my issues from the last RFA have definitely been addressed. Definitely trustworthy! VanTucky 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. Hersfold has done such good work since last time that I've been proven an idiot for opposing previously. That clean-up of Bertrand Russell was not an easy task. Bravo! --JayHenry (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

    You were right to oppose last time - that was a lesson I needed to learn. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

35. Support. Editor appears to have gained from previous experiences, exhibits civility and politeness (GRUNet was a nice example), and demonstrates knowledge of pertinent policies and guidelines. I am reasonably confident that the community's trust in this user's judgment will not be abused. -- Avi (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Looks good. нмŵוτнτ 06:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Strong Support. Greman Knight. 09:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Completely support, have seen them around and they will be an excellent admin. Woody (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Great contributor, has improved significantly since the last rfa. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Third time's a charm. Jmlk17 11:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - I've seen this user around and they contribute well. They will, I am sure, make good use of the administrative tools using their wholly unique, intelligent and exceptional method of contributing... Go get 'em, Tigger. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Good luck and avoid letting those powers get to your head! Dusti^{talk to me} 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Ready for the role. --MPerel 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Yes, yes, yes. Fantastic work, Hersfold. Particularly at WP:AfC. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 21:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - Very civil and helpful user, great knowledge and experience, will make a good admin! Tiddly-Tom 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Support, another quality candidate, no reason to believe that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
47. Support Good user. Maxim_(talk) 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Strong user. Lara❤Love 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Strong Support Great approach to helping editors. Has my respect. Best of luck. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - I see he has made a lot of improvement. Change from last time of (oppose). Bearian (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
51. Great candidate. Valtoras (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - I love the answers to all the questions. Good Luck! Thedjatclubrock :-) ^(T/C) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - It's time.--Kubigula (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. From a review of his recent contributions, I believe Hersfold has learned from past errors of judgement and is now ready for admin tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - Great nom and great answers. I have no doubts. --jonny-mt 09:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Good editor - no reason to oppose. --Veritas (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Absolutely See him around often enough, have never had any problems with him. The only thing that gives me any pause whatsoever is the Bertrand Russell incident, but that seems to be an isolated incident more than six months ago; I can forgive Hersfold for not being a philosophy major. Therefore, no reason to oppose (well, aside from the fact that he supports the Blues :P). faithless (^speak) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Everything here seems good. Juliancolton ^{(St. Patrick's day)} 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support looks good to me. Kimu 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support Time to let him live down the Bertrand Russell incident. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support I've found Hersfold to be a good editor and fair in matters of AfD and related processes.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
62. Support A rare case of a user who's never stopped improving. Will make a fine admin. Húsönd 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
63. Support Hersfold clearly now doesn't need my support but I give it gladly for the assistance he's given me with PD-copyright issues. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Some sort of recommendation here.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 04:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
65. Support good asset tp WP. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Logical and deserving. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - Great answers to the questions. iMatthew 2008 10:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
68. Support - I'm happy to add my name here. Hersfold will make an excellent admin. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
69. Good Support Overall, this candidate is very good. I like his/her reply on question 11.--RyRy5 (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
70. Support as a good candidate. However, I can't see why the oppose vote should be discounted.--Bedivere (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. See no issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
72. Support. Well answered questions. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
73. Support Of course! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
74. Support - an experienced, well-rounded editor who should make a capable admin. No obvious reasons not to support. Good answers to questions. --BelovedFreak 20:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
75. Whoa - let me just check the admin list to check he really isn't there.... Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

User has not been around for long enough, I am not happy to have any system operators who have not been here for at least three years. I also feel there should be a minimum number of edits before a user can even *try* to have an RFA, like 10 000 edits. Since Herfold has only 1 000 more than this, I will not support him right now. No.Moosester (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked for vandalism.Balloonman (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The user is now blocked only for 12 hours.[4]Should not the vote be counted.Feel only indef blocked votes should not be counted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It might not be discounted, but I can't imagine the closing bureaucrat taking it seriously. For one, this oppose has 70 supports going against it. Furthermore, this user's criterion are unrealistic, especially in light of Jimbo Wales stating that adminship was no big deal. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since at this point the user is unblocked, I'm restoring his !vote. This is also partially to help out those who only monitor the bot-generated RFA report: reinstating this vote makes it more obvious that a new !vote has been added (Nick's). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gimmie a break. This user has been around for a grand total of 3 days and 7 edits and suddenly is !voting on RfA's? Absolutely no way whatsoever someone can understand RfA after 8 edits. -- Tawker (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Per generally uninformed commentary on Geni's current RfA. Failure to check details over before commenting and slightly worrying characterisation of the candidate. Nick (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Would you elaborate a little more? After some review of geni's RfA, it seems that Hersfold's done some real detective work. He's asked geni several questions, and gave a detailed explanation of why he was opposing. If you feel that some mischaracterization was done, I'm sure both Hersfold and indeed everyone (certainly myself) would appreciate some details as to what exactly you felt was incorrect. GlassCobra 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   If there's something you feel I've done wrong, I will certainly take a look at the situation again; however based on Geni's responses and what I've seen, I'm not comfortable with giving him the tools back. I do openly admit to failing to notice that he had been desysopped at first, but then afterward took careful note to figure out why that had happened, what Geni's reasons for his (her?) actions were, and if there had been any noticeable change since then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   The detective work was crap, look at the comments in the discussion section. I also don't like the dangerous characterisation "Stating that you "no longer really have the time to be involved in that form of conflict" tells me that you no longer really have the time to be an administrator." We're a volunteer project, the attitude that some people need to spend more time editing than others is wrong, and that assertion that someone has no free time to be an admin is wrong. Nick (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Which comments specifically are you referring to? I also justified my reasoning for that characterization - I do realize that this is volunteer work, but if such conflict comes his way, Geni's going to need to deal with it and not shove it off. Doing such is, as I said, irresponsible. I'm not requiring him to go seek that sort of conflict out, such is his right as a volunteer. Also, offering to take on extra responsibilities by nominating himself for adminship should mean that he feels he is able to take on that extra responsibility - immediately turning around and saying that he doesn't have time for it seems contradictory.

   On an unrelated note, is there any reason directly pertaining to myself as a prospective administrator that you are opposing? We are all entitled to our opinions in RfA's, which is why we have them. Opposing for that reason alone seems unfair (acknowledging that in this case I do have a slight conflict of interest, of course ;-) ). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Geni didn't say he doesn't have time to deal with administrative functions, he said he doesn't have time to continue being involved in conflicts. Adminship doesn't revolve around conflicts and edit warring. I'm sure you know that, if not, then that alone is sufficent for me to oppose. I believe you do know that adminship doesn't have to be about conflicts and edit warring, so I have to take issue with the time statement. I've said this already, availability to be an admin has no bearing on suitability. If that's an attitude that's going to carry over into your administrative actions, then I'm feel I need to note my concerns here. Nick (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Commentary that you disagree with on a completely separate RfA for another user is not a valid reason for opposing a candidacy for adminship. To clarify, Hersfold's oppose commentary on Geni's RfA and his reasons should not cause you to oppose Hersfold's own RfA, or at the very least should not be the sole basis for your opposition. (I'd support Hersfold in this RfA, but at this point it would not make much difference in an RfA that was already in outstanding favor of the candidate). — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   If that commentary makes me concerned on how it will impact on a candidate's use of the tools, it's a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Nick (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   In that case, I understand. Thank you for clarifying. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Nick, I've been involved in conflicts simply due to the actions I currently undertake as a non-admin, as I have taken painstaking care to elaborate in the questions above. Administrative tools, by their very nature, tend to involve more controversial changes. Even if admins do not go looking for conflict, their position and increased access makes them far more prone to being involved in conflicts. I know that conflicts aren't what adminship is all about, however people seeking the admin tools need to be able and willing to deal with it when it does arise as a result of their actions. Furthermore, that was not my only reason for opposing Geni - if you read my comment again, (which I note you have not bothered to respond to within Geni's RfA, where I believe this discussion should have taken place) you will see that there were other reasons which led to my opposition.

   I further don't see how this would have any bearing on my actions as an administrator - judging the qualities of a prospective admin, and the consensus within an RfA, is the task of a bureaucrat, not an administrator. If the community grants the tools to Geni, as an administrator I would be able to do absolutely nothing about it, nor would I even if I could. You can tell from my responses to my questions above, and comments in debates elsewhere, that I value and respect community consensus and will abide by it even if it is against my own personal views. Your reason to oppose my RfA above does not provide any detail on how you feel this would reflect on my usage of the administrative tools, and you still have not made that distinction clear despite this long discussion on that very topic. Were I applying to be a bureaucrat, then I would understand. Since I am not, I miss your point. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I'm concerned that if you think conflict is unavoidable, that will, to a certain extent, dictate your behaviour, which I find slightly worrying. Conflict is avoidable. If you go into a discussion with the idea that someone is always going to find fault with your actions, it has the potential to completely change the way the discussion evolves, and when you've got access to things like Special:Blockip, that makes me ever slightly worried. Nick (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Polling at... lets see... 97% right now. Perhaps this conversation meets this policy :-) And Nick, on a edit conflict, you might want to be more careful that you don't just delete comments, as you did to my last one. Thanks! Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   I agree with Tanthalas39's sentiments on WP:STICK. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   So a proper discussion on an RfA is a waste of time ? Nick (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   It's not necessarily a waste of time, but it certainly is beating a dead horse. — scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 00:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   My comment was probably more directed at Hersfold than you, Nick. I am in no way saying your opinion, discussion, or thoughts should be discounted or dismissed, even in the case that you are essentially the sole opposition (the other being a blanket, template opposition of all RfAs from a not-very-trustworthy editor) in the face of 70-odd positive ones. I was commenting that if I was Hersfold, I would stop arguing with you - I would bet a paycheck his RfA passes. Tanthalas39 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

   Agreed. At this point there isn't any purpose in continuing this conversation - Nick and I are each missing the other's points, it seems, or otherwise consider them wrong. Anyway, the horse is well beaten. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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.