Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HereToHelp

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

HereToHelp[edit]

final (75/1/2) ending 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

HereToHelp (talk · contribs) – HereToHelp is a very experienced user, and over the time he's been here he has made a very large number of edits, and assisted many people with various things on Wikipedia. After reviewing the community standards, I believe that he deserves adminship. Alex43223 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I humbly accept the nomination.--HereToHelp 21:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Sure. --TantalumTelluride 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very Strong Support. HereToHelp has a very large number of edits, and they are steadily increasing. I think that he could help Wikipedia a lot more if he has the additional sysop tools. Also, the way he has invited, welcomed, and assisted other users on Wikipedia is amazing. Definitely deserves admin, and has a bright future ahead. Alex43223 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support. He is certainly Here to Help! — Deckiller 23:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. How could you oppose a user named HereToHelp? I like what I have seen of this user. A deft, gentle touch in vandal fighting is just the thing. Support ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Absolutely, per above. joturner 23:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Personally, I think the majority of edits should be in the mainspace. Looking past that, it appears they are here to help and worthly of adminship. :) Nephron 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support: hes here to help!--Urthogie 00:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per above. GizzaChat © 00:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Although technically he doesn't quite meet my minimum standards for edits to the main article space, I'm impressed by his demeanor. Also, since a large number of his edits to project pages have been to create something, rather than simply debate and vote, I'm happy to add my support. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Just barely made my minimum standards qualification. Moe ε 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Per above. Fetofs Hello! 01:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I have recently been working with this user on the Scientific peer review project and found his attitude to be excellent. He is up to being a good admin. --Bduke 01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Richardcavell 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support sounds good to me. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support C'mon should already be an admin... mmeinhart 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Very Weak Support Meets most of my requirements but has only about 1000 edits in the articles in Wikipedia. Needs more edits in articles but OK to me. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 04:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support The total number of edits is more important than where they are. In this case, the user has a wide variety of edits aside from the mainspace edit total which is not low in any event. JoshuaZ 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Deckiller. –Joke 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Looks very good. AucamanTalk 05:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Absolutely--Looper5920 08:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, 1000 article space should be fine to me. --Terence Ong 10:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support: Ahonc (Talk) 11:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Edit summaries will become a habit with time, I believe. Misza13 T C 11:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, cause the user is HereToHelp—This unsigned comment was added by Anirudhsbh (talk • contribs) .
  26. Support, it seems as though this user has a quite fitting name. --Deville (Talk) 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, good user. I know you're HereToHelp. =) I find the oppose vote silly - the discussion HereToHelp removed from Talk:Main Page was obviously some kind of joke. JIP | Talk 14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Trustworthy editor with solid record (and adorable username.) Xoloz 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Has experience and has made good contributions; I trust that he will not abuse admin privilleges. --Jay(Reply) 19:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support A great editor, the perfect user to be an administrator. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 20:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I was going to nominate wasn't I? To be honest wasn't expecting you to get this much support! Petros471 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor was I! Looks like this username really paid off.--HereToHelp 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per above. Looks like a great editor. Weatherman90 21:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Have had consistently positive interactions with this user. --CBDunkerson 00:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Once he takes on a page, it's a sure thing that the page will improve. I've worked with him on the Main Page redesign, the Help page overhaul, and lately on Tip of the day. In each case, his contributions improved the project and helped push it along. He's on our side - one of the good guys. A good choice for admin. --Go for it! 00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Someone interested in Math who can write! And seems to be a very nice person! You've got my vote! --Mmounties (Talk) 01:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support sounds good enough, good luck to you. Gryffindor 01:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, good experience with this user; lives up to his username. I hope that HereToHelp understands now though that just deleting comments from talk pages isn't a good idea, unless it's his own (and that's debatable). —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's nitpicking; that discussion had absolutely NO value besides a laugh at BJAODN. If you remove your own comments, strike them out using <s> and </s>.--HereToHelp 02:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, Oh are you now? PROVE IT!:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I thought he already was one. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had people mistake me for a sysop many times now...--HereToHelp 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, piling on it seems, I just found out. Clearly a knowledgeable and experienced advocate of this project. hydnjo talk 12:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support See no evidence that this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Have worked with very happily. --Quiddity 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-26 22:57Z
  46. HereToSupport :) Renata 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I'd encourage using edit summaries more. However, he's a good candidate by the rest of my standards, has experience in many areas of the site, and (per his answers to the questions) looks like he could really use the tools well. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good user. - Eagletalk 00:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. pschemp | talk 02:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Great user from what I've seen, and deserves to be admin! ~Linuxerist L / T 03:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Excellent experience working with him. He's definitely here to help. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Your not one already support wow, you really desrve it, how can you not be one already? ITS A CRIME!!! American Patriot 1776 14:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So sue someone.--HereToHelp 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Yep. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Looks gooood to me. --Rob from NY 02:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Fine by my count. --Zifnabxar 03:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Good distribution of edits in various namespaces. Meets my standards. — Mar. 28, '06 [12:50] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  57. Support --Ugur Basak 13:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Ramallite (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, looks good. Hiding talk 13:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. --Rory096 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - very suitable for adminship from what I've seen Aquilina 19:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - I've seen him doing good work on keeping Wikipedia going behind the scenes. --Danaman5 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support-He's helped me a lot with getting used to Wikipedia, including the rock portal...yeahOsbus 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -Looks good! --Prodego talk 21:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Excellent work in project space, the username says it all. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -- suitable candidate. - Longhair 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support -- good candidate.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support will be good admin --rogerd 02:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support: Excellent editor so far. _-M o P-_ 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Will support if there is a committment to use edit summaries for article space edits, including minor ones. Jonathunder 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--HereToHelp 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support: seems like a swell bloke. Thumbelina 18:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, seriously thought he was one. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose [1] Editing the comments of others. Needs another year. --Masssiveego 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People remove vandalism from talk pages, but unencyclopedic (I now can spell that!) information is on the borderline between good content and vandalism. I am unaware of any policy about the matter (unless you can point me to one), so I decided to remove that for server room, if nothing else. And that was awhile ago, and one edit: please, look at the boader picture. Still, I respect your opinion.--HereToHelp 12:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP: Vandalism. Removing warnings
    Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
    WP: Vandalism. Changing people's comments
    Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)
    From what I can tell that may be either violation of the above. Please study Wikipedia policy and return again when you are ready. --Masssiveego 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are following the letter of the policy, not the spirit. I did not remove any warnings (that refers to any of the {[tl|test}} series); I removed an irrelevant conversation. The conversation remains preserved on the BJAODN page; I only put it under a more relevant title (while still showing the old one) and put the image there to illustrate the point better. Furthermore, that was one edit a long time ago—please look at the big picture and see that my contributions far outweigh any ambiguous technicalities I may have violated inadvertently (and I haven't recieved one complaint about that edit besides you).--HereToHelp 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet I could thumb through your contributions and find some of your early mistakes, and also some smaller mistakes you made later on. I won't, but nitpickers could find chinks in even Jimbo's armor. He, me, and you are human. Lighten up.--HereToHelp 23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like your attitude. We should make "Lighten up" a policy, right alongside "Assume good faith". My two cents. By the way, thanks for the help on Tip of the day. --Go for it! 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "We should make "Lighten up" a policy". That's called WP:IAR, but that's one of the most contested pages outside the main namespace.--HereToHelp 02:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I like this "Lighten up" idea. A user shouldn't under no circumstance "need another year" for a reasonably sensible edit. Maybe it would be better if this is moved to the talk page. GizzaChat © 11:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that codemning me for a year because of one edit is bogus, but this conversation seems to be dying anyway (and it will get less attention on the talk page).--HereToHelp 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the banner on the Main Page talk explicitly says "Irrelevant discussion may be removed."--HereToHelp 14:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sorry, you edited a comment left by someone else, so it's one year before you can apply for adminship again." JIP | Talk 07:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I would support but for the dreadfully low edit summary count for minor edits. That may seem an insignificant issue, but I feel that describing what you are changing on a page is important and indicative of a willingness to work with the community. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 24 March 2006 @ 23:43 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you feel like that. Since, admittedly, I do not make many edits to the main namespace those minor edits could be from many months ago. Though Mediawiki software allows isolating edits by namespace, it does not let us view only minor edits. Look, instead, at my most recent contributions across the board and you will find a much more satisfying percentage.--HereToHelp 00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call it "dreadfully low", there are edit summaries on a majority of minor edits. I doubt this would be an issue if Mathbot didn't display the edit summary percentages for every nomination.--Alhutch 04:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not really low, though I am happy that nen decided to make this a neutral vote instead of an oppose vote. — Deckiller 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Me more than you.--HereToHelp 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. It would be much better to use edit summaries more often also for minor edits.--Jusjih 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed this complaint in my response to the above neutral vote.--HereToHelp 12:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 92% for major edits and 61% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See HereToHelp's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • For all of you that support (and oppose) me: I will send out the thank-yous after this is over so I can inform you how the nomination went.--HereToHelp 23:12, 24 March 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. It’s not that I want to be able to do one thing badly so much as it is a bunch of little things. The ability to semi-protect pages would have been extremely useful when Apple Macintosh went live on the Main Page and received a ton of image related vandalism (I won’t elaborate). Page deletion for when I come across an abandoned, empty talk page or stop using my subpages (every little thing helps to speed up the servers). Rollback and blocking abilities to continue the fight against vandalism. I once came upon a template that was deleted despite surviving a TFD; undeletion would have been nice then. And, ultimately, the ability to not have to embarrassingly ask someone else to do stuff that, if I was a sysop, would take less than a minute. I think the Administrators' noticeboard and Vandalism in progress pages are great ideas, but when an article is on the Main Page it is highly visible and so it receives a lot of vandalism, and because it receives a lot of vandalism it is highly visible. During those urgent moments, there simply isn’t enough time to fetch someone else to deal with it. Additionally, the need to go through such systems—which take time, by definition and human nature—may discourage a sysop chore from being done at all. We’ve gotten the big puddles cleaned up, but we’ll need lots of mops to get the last drops.

PS (added during nomination): I can't stand to see the templates on the Main page not have "(pictured)" in them; I'd fix that whenever I saw it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. As mentioned above, I am very proud of helping edit Apple Macintosh to featured status. But I work mostly outside of the main namespace (that’s the main exception). I helped in the Main Page redesign and I am pretty proud of that (enough to redesign my userpage around it, and I’m pretty proud of that, too). I’ve also helped out in other, smaller things. That includes several Portals (Apple Macintosh, Olympics, Rock and Roll, Nuclear technology), and I have created Category:Portals needing attention as a quick way for users to find where their help is needed. I contributed to the discussion on Scientific peer review and helped out a little on projects like the Wikipedia:Article assessment and Tip of the day. I just organized the help system. And of course there are many little things to numerous to list here.
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. Recently, I’ve had a dispute with a new user, RememberOctober29, who insists about adding an unsourced, original research, and awfully POVish paragraph to the Steve Jobs article basically accusing him of firing employees of minority groups after promising not to fire any employees. I’ve told him very civilly that unless he finds a reputable source to back him up, the paragraph is original research and has no place here. He wound up reverting me several times (though not quite breaking the three-revert rule) with things like “YOU stop” in the edit summary (and vandalizing my talk page with false accusations). Ultimately, I think he’s stopped and nothing more was needed. That was the only time I was fighting someone who was malignant to our cause; I’ve had a few other disputes on talk pages but they’ve stayed there.

I have never been banned or blocked, nor be the subject of a request for comment, mediation, or an Arbitration Committee ruling.
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/HereToHelp&oldid=1082477364"