Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello

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.


HighwayCello

[edit]

Final: 14/27/12 ended 21:38, May 14, 2006 (UTC)

HighwayCello (talk · contribs) – Right (I've tried writing this about five times), I've been editing Wikipedia steadily since the end of January and it's began to take over my life slowly. I editted around the 'pedia until I found my feet in Pokémon articles, where I've spent the largest portion of my time, first on Torchic, which is at FAC status, (pending til I can find the time) then others. I believe my edit count is somewhere in the region of 4000 edits, since the last time I saw a current count was quite a while ago hovering over 3000 edits. But edit counts are irrelevant. Depsite not being here for 6 months, I hope that all editors will treat my RfA fairly and look beyond my area of expertise and judge me because of my worth as an editor. Thank you in advance to all who vote here, support or oppose. Thanks, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: May as well, Highway Rainbow Sneakers

Support

Weak support. I worry about how much OJT this user will likely need, but I have no reason to believe the tools will be abused. Could be more seasoned, but I'm just this side of neutral. RadioKirk talk to me 22:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Changed, see Neutral RadioKirk talk to me 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support. Excellent contributor and also a significant number of wikipedia namespace editor. DarthVader 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support per Radiokirk. To Mets501: Mathbot says his edit summary usage is 71% for major edits and 37% for minor edits. I have never understood the "discrepancy"(?) between these 2 tools. Kimchi.sg 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathbot only reports on the last 150 edits, and the other tool reports on all the edits. I am glad that you pointed this out, however, as it shows that beacuse recently the edit summary percentage is higher than the overall average, the user is improving in edit summary usage. I will still remain neutral, however, for my other reasons stated below. —Mets501talk
  3. Support, I have seen him act well to a myriad conflicts, and he is a very dedicated contributor. -- Natalya 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support He works hard on the pokemon articles. I see no reason to not give him the mop. --Actown e 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ok, I'll vote support. BTW, you spelled edited and editing wrong. --GeorgeMoneyTalk  Contribs 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Committed editor. Will do well with admin tools. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A good contributor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, Wynaut! :D Stifle (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support KI 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 04:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, despite the snowball clause at this point. I don't think Highway means to sound uncivil or stir up controversy, and I could trust him with admin tools. I think he will have a good chance at promotion if he strives to remain civil and work well with other users in the future. --TantalumTelluride♪ 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. We, the wikipedians, always assume good faith, and some of us always use this term to confront other editors/ administrators as a weapan. I am supporting this nomination assuming not only good faith but utmost good faith, as I believe that all human beings, in real life as also in the virtual life, should get recognition, and our system may perhaps be having at least few other editors/ administrators who should not be around. In case, the nomination passes, and misutilization of admin-tools are noticed, our system and procedures should be fast enough to de-sysop. --Bhadani 14:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Though I may not have agreed with his decisions I have found him to be the epitome of fairness --Irishpunktom\talk 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support Great user, but because of the issues expressed by opposers, I must make this weak.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 18:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I rarely oppose candidates, but from my interactions with him, this user strikes me as quite confrontational, and quite uncivil; he does not respond well to criticism, as he has already called users who disagree with him "a pain". Also, a quite snappish reply to Raul when the Torchic FAC failed left me with a very bad impression. He also unnecessarily inflamed a tense situation, and these replies don't help defuse conflicts. As Mets501 points out, he is very quick to get into conflicts, and that, combined with the attitude I've seen from seen forces me to oppose. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but you are taking certain things out of context. First of all, you were either not replying or contradicting yourself. I maintain that you contradicted yourself because first you talked about refs in the intro, saying that I should talk about it more in the article, because if you have a ref then you're not talking about it anymore. You then went on to say that the article talked about other things beside Torchic. So generally you made complained saying - "you should talk about the stuff in the lead more" and "don't talk about non Torchic stuf". Since the ref is talking about the franchise as a whole, I would think that it would be okay for it to be. After this, User:Celestianpower asked for your path of action, to which there was no applicable reply. Which is why you were being a pain. It was a joke, apologies if you took it to heart, but I even "that's my job", more innappropriate terms. I'll respond to the rest later. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't "snappish" to Raul, in your eyes perhaps. Raul failed the FAC when there was clearly still active discussion, and then he ignored me afterwards. In my eyes, Raul has some form of prejudice against Pokémon articles. Like I would know, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This was hardly inflaming, I was merely voicing my opinion on the matter civily, and if anything, User:ILovePlankton is even more at fault than myself since it was him that was trying to guilt trip editors. Next, it was One in the morning, apologies for being snappish. User:Cool Cat was being what only can be called pompous, since they weren't even attempting to see the other side of the arguemnt. I was not swearing at them. This was provoked by a single editor bypassing my mediation and giving me aggro on the subject, forcing me to go to another editor. The editor was banned shortly afterwards for some offence, but the point stands that it was an editor who was ignoring the progress of a mediation to change the rules to work for him. Why am I even bothering? I am not "he is very quick to get into conflicts", I would like to see you show me evidence of when I have screamed at someone for something, because trouble seems to find me. I'm past caring, I may as well close this. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the Torchic FAC discussion (as it isn't for this page, and I feel I was sufficiently clear when I replied, as expanding what's talked about in an article's lead section and removing unnecessary material is not an either-or situation as you make it sound), the replies you gave may not have been personal attacks, but they were still unnecessary. It was not necessary for you to get involved in the Karmafist situation, even if you consider that someone else was to blame. It was not necessary to reply to Raul in the way you did, as Raul is the ratified FA director, and can fail a candidacy at any time with even one actionable oppose vote if he so desires. It was snappish, as you can see by the number of editors who agree with me.
    In the Cool Cat situation and the GA mediation, it was again unnecesssary to use that language; the other editor doesn't know (and probably doesn't care) if it is noon or midnight where you are, and can't know whether you're joking or not. All they can see is that you've used an expletive, and you cannot know how another editor will respond to it, which makes the situation more tense than necessary.
    I don't doubt that you're a good editor, but if you become an admin, you become a public face of Wikipedia, so you will be faced with considerably higher levels of stress, and I just don't think that the way you've handled it is constructive, as "wanting revenge" (you know what I'm talking about) can cause a major public controversy if you're dealing with outside inquiries. I went to look at your contributions as I usually do for an editor for which I vote, and the Cool Cat incident was on the first page of your User talk contributions, which forced me to oppose. I may support at a later time if the temper issue does not come up any more. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 17:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I'd like to point out that both admins and non admin are the face of Wikipedia. That kinda relates to your Esperanza problem, no? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, both are public faces, because a non-admin can make Wikipedia look horribly. From that fact, non-admins should not use it as an excuse to not behave like admins. In fact, if you behave like an admin before you're made a sysop, it becomes much easier for you to become one, and it makes it much easier to actually be one, once you're promoted. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhmm, true. I like the way you dodged the Esperanza note. ; ) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would request that people not oppose him based on his comments to me - HighwayCello is human like the rest of us, and everybody has a bad day now and then. Raul654 06:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I appreciate it. I just seem to get a lot more of them than others. Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 06:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose As per Titoxd. Wikipedia is a community, stubborn individualism only helps drive us apart. Myciconia 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  3. Oppose per Titoxd, sorry -- Tawker 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Titoxd, and too little time on Wiki. Sandy 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - sorry. I think you're a good editor, but I'm too uncomfortable with some of your answers, especially about vandalism. If you don't make it this time, you'll learn something from the process. I may well support you next time if that seems to be the case. Metamagician3000 03:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, your edits aren't very balanced, need more experience on the project.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please expand on that? I wouldn't ask but I'm active in a project, apologies if you mean something else. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Wikipedia:" namespace is also known as "Project:". That's what people generally mean when they say "project involvement" - involvement in the day to day business and on-wiki dealings of Wikipedia. AFD, RFA, DRV, etc etc. --kingboyk 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Needs more time with RCPatrol as regular user before going at it as admin. Important to distinguish between Vandal and Newbie. Getting reverted as a newbie is painful enough without a block too. Otherwise, looks ready to go from standpoint of edit count and time w/ Wikipedia, though I prefer 6 months. (BTW, I too know the frustration of inadequate vandal fighting tools. Might want to apply for VandalProof and then try again with added experience that brings.User_talk:Dlohcierekim 06:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose as per Titoxd.--Eva db 07:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: Since user believes "edit counts are irrelevant", I must go on his time experience, which is not long enough. Also, a very low edit summary usage. Good communication about edits it particularly important. Good luck though, Chuck(척뉴넘) 08:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah that's exactly what I meant. Apologies, I assumed that the lack of a number below meant that an edit count wasn't important, eh I don't see numbers as particularly crucial, thank you though. An edit of vandalism and an edit of help are counted the same. (Not that I do.) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as above. --kingboyk 09:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Titoxd. Civility is paramount. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose for insufficient use of edit summaries. I do not consider 71% for major edits and 37% for minor edits based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace good enough.--Jusjih 16:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose doesn't understand many ascpects of wikipedia, and not enough time anyways --T-rex 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please expand on that? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I don't like the tone of the answers to the questions, and I disagree with what I can tell of this user's view on vandalism. --Danaman5 19:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please expand on that, its kind of vague of what you dislike. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for being vague. I am primarily referring to your answer to JoshuaZ's question 2. Personally, none of those three cases strike me immediately as being vandalism. I would personally only consider case 1 to be vandalism, and just barely. All three cases seem to be mostly newbism and possibly poor judgement, but not vandalism. Since you view all three as different sorts of vandalism, I cannot support you, for fear that you would scare off potential good editors by labelling every erroneous fact or POV assertion that they make as being blatant vandalism. Hope this helps. --Danaman5 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah well you are welcome to your opinion. I don't know if you have seen, but I often communicate with newer editors, be it warning or welcoming, I've actually began telling editors about the PCP, the Pokémon WikiProject, which has led to a rocket in membership compared to beforehand. Thanks you for all your comments. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Titoxd. A potential admin shouldn't be in a position like this. Then again, I should talk. --Elkman - (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC) I am repudiating this vote because I'm just causing someone more stress, which is against the ideals of the organization that I just got asked to leave. --Elkman - (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Titoxd.—G.He 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per the above.--cj | talk 10:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: not enough experience at this time and too few edit summaries. Those are important. Jonathunder 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Titoxd. Work on edit summaries, civility, and get a wider range of edits under your belt, and come back in a few months. Guinnog 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Titoxd. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 19:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak oppose per Titoxd. Joe 19:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sad oppose committed editor and user, but a few civility problems as per Titoxd. Mopper Speak! 22:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Initially neutral per Titoxd's comments and some editing inexperience, but the response to Titoxd's vote seems argumentative. Would likely support this editor in the future after diversifying his edits to more articles, using summaries more often, and AGFing a little better. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No offence, but what is AGFing? Cheers, Highway Rainbow Sneakers
    Comment assuming good faith Gwernol 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    That's right — sorry, I overuse Wikiacronyms. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per Titoxd, and per his responses to that user. Rob Church (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Temperance --Masssiveego 05:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question are you really opposing this candidate because you believe he is against drinking? I can't see any evidence of that. Or did you mean something else? Gwernol 06:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even as I'd likely have used concerns about temperament or intemperance, Massive's election to use temperance is altogether fine; though we generally understand the term vis-à-vis imbibing alcohol, it acts also as a synonym for restraint. We can infer, then, that Massive meant to call into question, as others supra, HC's moderation (as against HC's general complexion, as with the usage of temperament); Massive might even have noted concerns about the intemperance of HC's temperament (I don't take any position on the substantive underlying issue, I should say). Joe 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I believe I can relate to myself being against drinking. I am part of the Esperanza Barnstar Brigade and I had asked for an idea about people having a tough time or something. And someone suggest a bottle of vodka, and I said that that would either upset me or make me feel worse. I'm not against drinking, it's more vodka, spirits, getting drunk until you're out your mind, I've seen what it can do first hand. That and I'm fourteen.. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 08:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose A bit more restrain needed. Tyrenius 06:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per Titoxd and Danaman5 --Zoz (t) 10:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose As my username implies, I rarely oppose Pokemon related users. But I looked into what Titoxd said and found out he was right. Raichu 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reasons stated above. Mr. Turcottetalk 21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC) RfA closed. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - for a number of reasons. Against him is his poor use of edit summaries for articles (around 50%), limited range of articles that he has edited, only about 3 or so edits at AFD, and his ability to get into a large number of conflicts. For him is his large number of edits to articles, good amount of user interaction at talk pages, and his activity in Wikipedia namespace (mostly about featured articles and WikiProjects relating to Pokemon). I'm just not quite sure what to do, so I'll stay neutral for now. —Mets501talk 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I want to support, but I don't quite feel it's right. Sorry. Royboycrashfan 01:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, same feelings as Royboycrashfan. Grandmasterka 01:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC
  4. Neutral but leaning to oppose. Titoxd raises some important issues which need answers. I am not comfortable with the narrow range of articles edited, and some of the answers below specifically comments like "being beaten to the post by admins, which is somewhat annoying" and his answers to JoshuaZ's questions which are muddled. There's not enough for me to outright oppose yet, but also not someone I can support. Gwernol 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, great user, helped me out a lot with WikiProject Nintendo, though I am concerned about the issues pointed out by Titoxd. --☆TBC☆ 02:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, Great user, but I have worries about conflicts. --Primate#101 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, leaning to oppose. I would have supported him but after seeing the reasons Titoxd pointed out. We can't have uncivil admins. --Terence Ong 11:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, leaning support fantastic user - concerning edit summaries from below stats. Computerjoe's talk 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral suggestion: Leave all the pokemon articles alone for a month. Don't touch them. Instead, work on clean up, categorising existing articles, write some new articles on an obscure river in China, or even copying material from the 1911 Britannica. You, but most importantly, Wikipedia, will be better off for it. I won't vote against you though. Stevage 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral I second the comments by Stevage. Try some new things to get a good feel for the diversity of the encyclopedia. Come back in a month or two. Ted 02:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral, and this may be the hardest decision I've made at Wikipedia, entirely thanks to this edit from the user, who is taking this personally. It's oft said that "adminship is no big deal", but this cuts both ways: sure, it should be no big deal to "promote" a prospective admin, but it can't be a big deal to the prospective admin, either. Adminship is a mop, a bucket and a set of keys; the "badge" is attached to the pocket of your janitor's uniform with a metal clip; why do you come across as someone who wants it so badly? Is this for you, or for Wikipedia? If you can accept the vote not as a rejection, but as a validation that you're a solid editor who is on the right course to be a good admin someday, that little extra seasoning and level-headedness will guarantee it—and I'll be there to support you. RadioKirk talk to me 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral, no need to pile-on, you know what's required over the next couple of months. Deizio talk 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Time range: 127 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 22hr (UTC) -- 07, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 2, January, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 48.56% Minor edits: 56.77%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 45.25% Minor article edits: 56.8%
Average edits per day (current): 34.43
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.89%
Unique pages edited: 806 | Average edits per page: 5.42 | Edits on top: 8.15%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 34.52%
Minor edits (non reverts): 21.07%
Marked reverts: 2.47%
Unmarked edits: 41.94%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 38.96% | Article talk: 4.97%
User: 13.81% | User talk: 13.26%
Wikipedia: 14.25% | Wikipedia talk: 5.41%
Image: 2.2%
Template: 1.17%
Category: 0.05%
Portal: 4.19%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 1.74%

:Total edits	4377
:Distinct pages edited	876
:Average edits/page	4.997
:First edit	00:49, 3 January 2006
:	
:(main)	1954
:Talk	217
:User	603
:User talk	585
:Image	96
:Template	51
:Template talk	3
:Category	2
:Category talk	1
:Wikipedia	628
:Wikipedia talk	237

Hope that's helped! Computerjoe's talk 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no offence, but what is my edit count? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the remark about "looking beyond my area of expertise" and instead considering the candidates "worth as an editor". If the candidate edits totally within an area of little value to Wikipedia (*if* - I'm not asserting that), then by definition his worth as an editor is low... Stevage 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh sorry, that isn't what I meant. I was asking all the editors not to oppose me because I like Pokémon articles and judge me on how good I am as an editor. Hope this helps, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:01, 8 May 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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Well, I'd like to become more active in reverting vandalism, speedying new articles and contributing to AfDs. I've recently began editing a wider net of Pokémon related articles (my preferred area of editting) which has lead me to coming across a lot more vandals, and becoming more active in reverting vandalism. Unfortunately, I've now became accustomed to being beaten to the post by admins, which is somewhat annoying. Main targets of vandalism include Pikachu, Torchic and Pokémon, which has been semi-protected because of the mountain of vandalism.
Since the WP:PCP only has two admins that are members, tasks such as merging and splitting (of which there are various pending discussions that could be aided by an active admin) articles as well as other adminy tasks. I think that this would help Wikipedia has a whole since it would 1. It would help remove responsibilty from User:Celestianpower, who is in charge of the PCP, relieving some of the stress that this puts on him to do these jobs as well as Esperanzial duties, and I believe I could help contribute better with these extra tools.
I also now and again do New Pages patrolling, something I have moved away from recently to work more on other Wikipedical tasks, but wish to return to, especially since I have the power to speedy delete articles instead of tagging them. I also hope to become much more active in discussing and closing AfDs, specifically giving the WP:PCP's side of AfDs (something that people think is always in favour of keeping an article, since a lot of articles are either unoffical hacks or fanfics Pokémon trainers.)


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, the article that is clearly my best work on Wikipedia is Torchic, which came from this to its current state. Although it failed its FAC, (which taught me a lot about the FAC system) I feel that it can pass when I renominate in the forseeable future, something I've been putting off to broaden my editting paths. I've also became a steady reviewer of GA articles, allowing me write GA standard articles, increasing the quality of Pokémon article standards. Severe Wikistress has recently caused me to move away from GA Nominations, but I am beginning to return gradually.
Other articles of which I'm proud of my contributions are Pikachu, Princess Peach, Princess Zelda, Marshtomp and others. I also have done extensive cleanup of Pokémon articles, of which can be seen at Golduck, Bellossom, Umbreon and others. I realise that this sounds like a giant mound of Pokécruft, but I don't see the point of editting articles just to get promoted that I have no interest whatsoever just to pass an RfA, if I don't enjoy editting something, where's the point?
The point is to help Wikipedia. Adminship is about "serving". Not "enjoying" yourself. IMHO. Stevage 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: Yes, of course, any editor that has been round here long enough will eventually find trouble. By that I don't mean that if you haven't been in a conflict of interest makes you a newbie, it just boils down to the fact that sooner or later, all editors will have a difference of opinion. Because of my somewhat controversial editting reviewing style on Good Article Nominations, and interest of Pokémon, I have received a fair amount of arguments. After my first feud, an angry user who did not accept my notes on the failing of Queen (band, in which I learned a lot about arguments. After this, I have managed to calmly solve disputes involving images, GA noms, Japanese names and a particular POVishy paragraph in Princess Peach. I have recently began to be asked to help mediate situtations, most notably the GA nominations policy change, which in turn came from the Mohammad controversy article, which I later requested to be mediated by User:Natalya.
Question by RadioKirk: you note that "being beaten to the post by admins ... is somewhat annoying". This could lead peers to wonder if you might be too quick to use the tools, based on some desire to be "first". Can you address?
A: Apologies, that isn't what I meant (I believe the being beaten term was original said CSCWEM). As you know, admins have the rollback tool, which allows vandalism to be reverted in one click, opposed to the prior version which I use. First, I need to figure out all the vandalism done and find the right version to go into, before so I need to copy the Username/IP and try to remember the other user I am reverting to. Then I have to access the older version and edit it, finally I have to write - Reverting vandalism by User:Example to last version by HighwayCello. And after I have done all of that, most admins have pressed rollback. Hope I've expanded on this point. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, additional questions are completely optional.

1 Could you please respond to concerns that you have edited in a very narrow range(I note that your answer to question 2 makes the range sound more narrow than it actually is, since some of the articles you mention there are not Pokemon related, but the concern still exists)?
A: Apologies for now answering this, I had to go to sleep. Anyway, I wouldn't call Pokémon a "narrow range", I'm not sure why I did, probably because it's viewed like that by other editors. I would say that Pokémon appears very narrow to other editors because of their lack of knowledge - "All the blobs are the same". I started on Pokémon, and I'm now branching out, as well as staying there, there are around 550 Pokémon articles, character bios, concept articles, Pokémon everything. I wouldn't say it was narrow, and I'd hope others wouldn't either.
2 I have some concern that you don't make a strong distinction between vandalism and POV pushing and/or newbism. Example would be this recent dif, this and this. Could you please explain how you distinguish between vandalism and other problems, why these difs fall into the vandalism category and in general respond to this concern?
A: Right, to clear up; the first one is a care of POV, since it refers to new actors appearing in the Pokémon anime, something which has not been welcomed by fans of the show, but since they haven't been officially replaced except for in a test of the new actors, I would say this is POV, especially since there isn't a source.
The second case is something I refer to as a 'over specific edit. These kind of edits only occur in flagship/major articles such as Team Rocket or Pokémon, by going into over specifics when a paragraph touches on a subject or is talking about something as a whole. In this case, it compares to when Jessie dressed up as Nurse Joy, a significant recurring character (which was integral to the point of the episode, in which Joys from across the continent had came together) to what can be described as a 5 second burst-in by Team Rocket, later removing the disguise. The edit was not helped by the considerable lack of grammar, punctuation or notability, as above.
The third case is simple newbism, Princess Peach was never playable in Super Mario Bros., making it a simple, albeit theoritical vandalistic, mistake. However, the user responded aggressively to the removal and respective note on their talk page.
I think they all fall under vandalism in some sense of the term, but the reason they technically fall under vandalism is because when I type "Reverting" in the Edit Summary box, "Reverting vandalism" is the first thing that comes up, something I obviously need to keep my eye on. I would have have to saw that 1 and 3 are more vandalism than number 2 (which is much closer to Newbism), despite 3 being plausible to be also Newbism, first instinct draws to "ooh, someone's being funny". If you have ever played the related game, the whole idea is that you spend a game trying to save Peach, opposed to play her. Thanks, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3 This concern is related somewhat to question 2. I see only 2 edits to WP:AIV in your last 1000 edits, both for the same vandal, and the second edit was to correct your incorrect use of the vandal template [1]. However, the first thing you mention in your answer to question 1 of the standard questions is to deal with vandalism more. Could you explain how you have the experience to deal with vandals?
A:Thank you for all your questions (I'm doing this one first, ha) generally because it's the easiest one while my brain is half functioning at this hour. When I mean vandalism, I tend to think of that stage as a final resort to vandals, which I don't often come across, since most vandalism attacks to Pokémon articles are one shots, opposed to a barrage of hitting every article. Basically it's a "Pokémon suck cock" or "Poop is good for the soul" in one or two articles, and no more. That vandal is the only one I have actively came across who has vandalised three times in one lot, opposed to either spreading them out or having rotating IPs. I've yet to go specifically vandal-hunting, something I never dreamed of a short while ago, simply forgetting about the IP and caring about the article, a point of view I don't use now, going for the IPs straight after I revert. As a personal philosophy, I would only post a vandal there if I had used the test, test2, test3, test4 code, something which is yet to happen. The main reason I posted that particular vandal was because of his prior warnings, which was later just denounced because he hadn't vandalized in 40 minutes or something. However, vandal whacking is something I wish to do soon. Highway Rainbow Sneakers
The above 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/HighwayCello&oldid=1133015058"