Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:27, 4 August 2007

Hdt83

Voice your opinion (talk page) (9/10/5); Scheduled to end 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hdt83 (talk · contribs) - Hello, my name is Hdt83 and I have been on Misplaced Pages since September 2006 but was not really active until the beginning of this year. With almost 11500 edits on Misplaced Pages, I know a lot about how Misplaced Pages works and its policies/guidelines. I have contributed to many areas of the encyclopedia including removal of vandalism, articles for creation, afds, GA review, user warnings, and the help desk. --_Hdt83 00:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: There are many areas on Misplaced Pages that I intend to help out as an admin. One is at WP:AIV where I would block vandals from disrupting Misplaced Pages after being warned. Another area would be at CAT:CSD. CSD has one of the worst admin backlogs on Misplaced Pages and I want to help tackle the backlog. In addition, I would also close afds when they end, and protect/unprotect pages at WP:RFPP.

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

A: I have several contributions to Misplaced Pages that I am proud of. I am proud of two articles that I worked on which attained GA status, Crater Lake and Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. I am also pleased with helping out at WP:AFC and clearing out the backlog. As many know, AFC has one of the worst backlogs of all the backlogs on Misplaced Pages. The third thing that I take pride in is my vandal-fighting work.

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 not been in any huge conflicts that caused me stress. If I was in a heated debate that resulted in conflict, I would ask the opinions of another editor before proceeding. If that does not help than I would back off from the conflict and let it cool down before resuming discussions.

Optional question from Giggy

4. Could you please explain why your userpage is semi-protected?

A: I requested it to be protected as it was getting vandalized frequently by vandals. See WP:PROT#Semi-protection. --_Hdt83 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be a jerk about this, but could you please provide some specific diffs please? Thanks, Giggy 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

, , , , . --_Hdt83 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Giggy 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Pascal

5 I also don't want to be a jerk about it but a number of people indicated in the last RfA that they'd rather see you wait more than a month after a failed RfA. Why did you then decide to run now? And more importantly, do you feel that you have addressed some specific concerns that were raised in the first two RfAs? Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A: I have decided to run now because people can improve in a short time and I have gained considerable knowledge of WP policies since my last rfa. With AIV and CSD being frequently backlogged, I want to help tackle the backlog which keeps growing as time passes. The main concern in my previous rfas was civility. I think that the civility issue was an example of exaggerating the situation since there was only one example of incivility that occurred and a lot of people opposed because of that. Since my previous rfas, I have improved my behavior substantially and have been very nice and AGF with everybody I meet as shown when I welcome new users and continually helped others as evidenced with my contributions at the help desk. --_Hdt83 01:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by User:Vodak

6. Would you please provide your most recent curriculum vitae?

General comments

• See Hdt83's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Requests for adminship/Hdt83
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 2
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 3
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 4
• Requests for adminship/Hdt83 5

• Links for Hdt83: Hdt83 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Deleted contribs: 50 most recent go back to 8 June 2007. One article created from Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_creation/2007-06-10#Curtis_Truex_Jr. that was deleted via {{prod}}. Otherwise generally speedy deletion taggings in the 100 most recent. GRBerry 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hdt83 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. You know what we are about, and what we are for. You will therefore make a great admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
2. But of course. A great user who's really put in the hard yards. Giggy 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I don't remember if I supported last time, but I recall doing an editor review that did not raise any serious problems for me. The advice to wait a little longer before the next application should be taken to heart. Shalom 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Support I really admire the determination and courage of this user to run for adminship one month after a failed nomination. It shows that this candidate is willing to improve the scope of this project. I also believe that this candidate would not abuse the admin tools given to him as well. --Siva1979 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Good user. Answers to questions are good, and Q5 is fine by me. PeaceNT 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Loud Support I see nothing recent to suggest that this very experienced editor shouldn't be trusted with the extra tools. The objections seems to mainly be these two:
   1. Too keen. Surely that's a good thing? We need people who are keen to attack the backlogs. RfA candidates are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they don't seem to want the tools people oppose because they say they don't need them. If they do seem to want the tools they're opposed for being too keen.
   2. Too soon. Whether or not the other RfAs were recent, the question we need to answer is whether Hdt83 can be trusted with the tools. I can't see any evidence to suggest otherwise. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 08:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Support- really good user that I trust. --Boricuaeddie 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Support- because now it's even. Just watch the edit summary usage. :) Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Support solid work so far, but get rid of the red edit summaries. Bearian 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Moral support. Anthony.bradbury said it best. —AldeBaer 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak oppose... All other issues aside, your last RfA ended less than a week ago. Seriously, what's the rush? Grandmasterka 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was more then a month ago ;) Giggy 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, you're right. Retracting, at least for now. Grandmasterka 01:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose Your last RfA ended about a month ago, and the one before that only a month before the last one. I think you are over eager to get the tools. T Rex | talk 01:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
2. I feel as if this is the third time I've seen this RfA in the last two months. Last time, one of the main concerns was that Hdt should wait longer before applying again. The response to this was to wait 5 weeks instead of 4. It's longer, yes, but clearly not what people were asking for at the previous RfA. I'll definitely be returning to this RfA to see the response to question 5 above. If the candidate has a good reason that he ignored those concerns (and ignoring concerns is something I strongly dislike in admins), I'd be willing to reconsider my opposition. --JayHenry 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
3. I admire your determination but you seem to power hungry. Plus it has been not long since ur last rfa. SLSB talk ER 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Yeah, sorry, I'd give it at least two or three months between RFAs, especially if two in a row fail. Either that or don't nominate yourself. You just give me the impression of someone who thinks that the admin tools are something they can't contribute to Misplaced Pages without, be that because of their actual use or because of the position of power, I find that a bit worrisome. --L-- 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose I am sorry to oppose again, but I do not feel you have given enough time to show you have learned from the concerns made during your previous RFA's. --Ozgod 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   As I have already said above, the main reason I withdrew from my first rfa was due to concerns of civility. That concern was over a single silly comment that I have since regret making. The second rfa failed due to concerns of canvassing. Once again the canvassing was only one user with whom I had contact before. I have not been incivil or canvassed since these rfas as shown from my contribs. --_Hdt83 03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   When I read the second rfa it appears to me that nearly every single person in the oppose section said to wait longer between RfAs, and that this was the primary reason it failed. I suggest that if this RfA fails, that advice be taken under more serious consideration. --JayHenry 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose Needs to heed the advice from the last RfA about leaving the intervals between applications to frow larger and using that time to improve with admin-related tasks and editor interaction. (aeropagitica) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose I find the answer to my question worrisome and I simply don't see the maturity level I look for in prospective admins. Pascal.Tesson 06:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose Too many RfAs in too little time. Sorry. Captain panda 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the people that have said it has been a to short of time since your last RFA. Politics rule 17:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Opppose User is far too new to be considered for elevation to level of administrator. - MSTCrow 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

    Is there any other reason besides that? My RfA was successful when I had 6000 fewer edits than Hdt83 currently has, and he made his first edit 3 months before I did. I'm not sure what your criteria are. Leebo /C 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose I agree with the people who said that the gaps between your RFA's are too short, try to wait at least 2 months before another one. -Lemonflash_(chat) 00:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Nearly a support, but I agree that the concerns brought up in your previous Rfa have not had quite enough time to have been resolved. Next time. Jmlk17 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral I think it's just a little too soon after your last RfA. If you were to give it three months and focus on the issues that you were lacking in the last one, I think you would make it without any hassle. Don't be in such a hurry. Trusilver 15:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral Most of your speedy deletion tags are accurate and result in appropriate speedy deletion. I don't think I found any tags you placed on articles that shouldn't have been deleted, from the last few months. There were a few that had the wrong tag though (of these nonsense tags this should have been A3 and this should have been A1 or G10 note: only administators can view these diffs). It's very important that administrators delete for reasons that clearly meet the applicable speedy deletion criteria. It is important in a process sense, as well as for clearly notifying the user of what the problem with the article was. This concern along with the repeated nominations is leading me to be neutral. If you continue to appropriately tag articles for speedy deletion, I will be supportive in the future. Leebo /C 17:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral You have a good, well-balanced contribution record; you have been here for about six months; and you seem to know what you're doing. But if you keep on applying every month you are just not going to get the support. If you succeed now, well good. But if you do not, leave it three months, apply then and you will cruise through. Editors need to feel that you have taken the time to learn since your last application. You may feel that you have - but it's what they think that weighs with the closing bureaucrat --Anthony.bradbury 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral Per Anthony.bradbury. ~ Wikihermit 01:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral Per Anthony.bradbury. Otherwise qualified, but going up again within a month is poor judgment. Come back in a few months, and I'll support you. -- The_socialist 07:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral - over-eager. -- Anonymous Dissident 08:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)