Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Heimstern

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

Heimstern

Final (61/0/2); Ended Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:50:07 UTC

Heimstern (talk · contribs) - Overview: Heimstern is a multi-lingual, world travelled graduate student in music from California. He's been a Wikipedia editor for just over a year, and fully active for six months. Heimstern is well known to vandals and vandal fighters alike. He is a consistent contributor with a cool head with a demonstrated ability to stay focused on our goals when things get murky. He's shown a clear understanding of our policies and has a clear need for admin tools. Relevant to the recent discussions on RfA; Heimstern would be one of the top 20% most active admins and I think would contribute significantly to reducing backlogs.

Vandal fighting: He's been a vandal fighting machine, with more than 1500 vandalism reversions during his time here. He has also left in excess of 600 warning messages on various vandal's talk pages. He's been a user of VandalProof, and been awarded barnstars for his vandalism work. Additionally, he's been quite active at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Other non-mainspace areas: While vandalism is an obvious focus of Heimstern's, he has also been active in a number of other ways. He's been a consistent contributor to

Cool under pressure: I've been quite impressed with Heimstern while conducting my review of him. He's cool under pressure; I've found no instances of snap comments or short tempers with any user despite his long service as a vandal fighter. In fact, he's demonstrated the opposite ([1] and his response at [2] for one example; and this chain of edits for another re-putting AfD tag,user's response and Heimstern's response). He has also helped mediate disagreements before, helping them to satisfactory conclusions (See Talk:China/Archive_11 and his comments there).

Main space contributions: Some may be concerned that his forte has not been in article development. Frankly, this was a concern of mine as well. In my review, I was careful to discern what sort of editor he is and how well he understands our article development processes. My concerns were laid to rest though by my review. As an example of development, he produced this version of an article from scratch [3]. Further, I found convincing evidence that he understands our need for citing claims in articles [4][5] [6] and helping to keep clear of original research [7][8][9]. He's demonstrated willingness to follow guidelines in article writing [10], helps to keep talk pages of articles on track [11], and is constructive in his editing [12]. He has also demonstrated a desire to work within consensus to move things forward [13]. Though article development is not his primary focus, he has clearly demonstrated knowledge of how our article development processes work, shown he can mediate disputes, and can foster discussion towards successful article development.

General behavior: I was quite impressed by his willingness to admit error [14][15][16] and this quote from [17] particularly showed his general attitude on this; " I also try as hard as I can to keep open to the possibility I was wrong". He understands concepts of abuse of admin privileges [18]. He is also pleasant when correcting people [19] and flexes as needed to accommodate the needs of other editors [20]. I also appreciate that he is self evaluative about his own actions as witnessed by [21]. Heimstern submitted himself for admin coaching and was tested on his discernment abilities with respect to speedy deletions, in which he did quite well. See User:Heimstern/Admin_coaching#CSD.

Nitty gritty: On the talk page of this RfA you may find Heimstern's edit count table (5915 total), contributions graph (consistent contribs for six months), and edit summary usage analysis (100%). I've confirmed that Heimstern's e-mail address registered with Wikipedia is active and he is responsive on that address.

Conclusion: Heimstern is an admin in all but having the mop. He's been helping in many ways which are entirely admin appropriate and has been handling himself appropriately and within Wikipedia policy. It's time for him to be given the mop so he can do the jobs he has been doing more effectively.

--Durin 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. Heimstern Läufer 21:21, 9 February 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I've done a great deal of vandal fighting thus far and would anticipate helping with blocking vandals at

WP:AIV

. I'm also interested in helping to alleviate the constant CSD backlog by evaluating and, where appropriate, deleting speedy deletion candidates. I'd also like to close AfDs (although I'd wait awhile to get the hang of it before closing any controversial ones).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm quite pleased with the article

original research

in evaluative writing on classical music and am trying to implement these standards in Wikipedia's articles on this subject.

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: Like most vandal fighters, I've gotten uncivil comments and personal attacks from those users I've warned. I generally try to simply ignore this and move on. Occasionally, a user will have pointed out a legitimate error I made while patrolling; in this case, I admit my error and seek to improve so as not to make it again. I have also been involved in content disputes, notable at the articles China and Joseph Stalin (see Talk:China/Archive 11 and Talk:Joseph Stalin#Dictator). In these cases, I've tried to keep cool and argue based on Wikipedia policy rather than my own feelings or thoughts on a matter and have sought compromise to end editing conflicts.

Optional questions from —

7.

WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. You can have a look at the full counter spam efforts on meta at m:User:Eagle 101/Spam

.

A: Wikipedia's ever-increasing popularity on the internet has an unfortunate side effect of making it a desirable place to advertise. I have observed spamming in progress and it is clearly a problem of significant severity, as it devalues our encyclopedia if it is used as a set of billboards. RC patrol is important for dealing with blatant spam. As for Myspace, Youtube, blogs and the like: They should be used only if they contribute to the article in some way. A possible example could be linking to the Myspace page of the subject of a biography. With Youtube and similar sites, we must also be sure the linked material is not a copyright violation. We should be careful when dealing with non-blatant spam: many who add links we would consider spam may not realize that the links are inappropriate.

WP:AGF

comes into play here, and we should be ready to explain kindly to people why their links aren't acceptable (while at the same time reverting them, of course).

Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I've thought about this sort of thing in the past. Indeed, I have sometimes resolved to take time away from vandal hunting, AfD and the like to focus on adding to the encyclopedia (though usually not for as long as a day). Yes, I could see myself coming to the point of deciding to take a day off of admin tasks to work on encyclopedia content.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support per above. --Durin 14:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I can't wait until this user becomes an admin.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yep. Looks like a good one. Polite, consistent contributor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support; very strong candidate. Seems to have the right temperament for the job, and already has quite a bit of experience. Antandrus (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, --
   T/C) 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Support Great user, I've seen his good work many times.--Húsönd 22:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support extremely strong candidate. I'm particularly impressed by his dedication to getting OR out of articles on classical music. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Trogdor Strong Support. I am Heimstern's admin coaching (back from Esperanza times) mentor, and I definitely think that Heimstern has demonstrated great progress in our time together (even though we didn't do all that much). Heimstern shows an understanding of policy, clearly knows his CSD, AIV, etc. He's a great contributor to articles, and he knows how to handle himself in sticky situations. I have no doubts that Heimstern will be a great admin. Nishkid64 22:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support seems like a great user. Cbrown1023 talk 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support per record of good contributions in mainspace, vandalfighting, overall participation. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support How can you get a bad feeling with this guy? Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support great nom and answers to questions all good. Decent vandal whacker, I'm fully confident this user will make Wikipedia a better place. The Rambling Man 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I can't see how you could oppose this editor - a fantastic all-round editor. Great answers to the questions as well. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support for the multitude of excellent reasons set out in the nomination as to why this nomination should succeed. Agent 86 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Herr Läufer, ich stütze Sie sehr gerne. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  01:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support A good editor and a great addition to Wikipedia's editors indeed. You have my support. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche 02:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I'd like to see more main space edits to one particular article than 41,[22] but everything else seems fine and he appears to be congenial after looking over his recent edits and the history of his talk page.
    Quadzilla99 04:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 04:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Support In my conversations with Heimstern, one thing I've consistently observed is that he is very careful when making posts about controversial topics. I believe that he would use good judgment when handling conficts and when employing administrator tools. Trey56 04:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. OMG yes support Absolutely first-class editor.
    dzasta 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. I've seen only good stuff (and a lot of it) from Heimstern.
    Daniel.Bryant 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support Looks like another good candidate, with vandal fighting and mainspace edits in order. (aeropagitica) 06:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Per nom and I see no evidence this editor will abuse admin tools--MONGO 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I see nothing but good contribs. No probs. James086^Talk 07:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - I thought you already were an admin--
    SUIT^-n-tie 08:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. Support I like his work. --
    Folantin 09:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support - has helped out well with keeping an eye on the visitations of Jacob Peters, and everything else looks good. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support I agreed with his opinion on a few discussions, which I think is a good sign of being ready for adminship. Just H 12:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support great user, should be an asset to the team. Durin, I got to say, great nom! - Anas ^Talk? 13:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support per nom —
    ^(talk) 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Rettetast
33. Support Vandal fighters are always needed. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, lots of good editors on RfA right now.
    ^{On Belay!} 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support as per above :).
    Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Support per nom. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support good editor, also A Durin nom, I haven't seen one of those in a while
    ^{wat's sup} 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support
    Review
    )07:33, Sunday, 11 February '07
39. Support. YechielMan 20:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support a sound editor with proven good judgement. Mallanox 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I hateses the vandalses. I likes the vandalses fighter. 'umble too.
    talk 06:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. Support because he enjoys classical music. While this editor's main focus isn't article writing, I'm pleased to see that he does participate in it, both in writing from scratch, as well as contributing to existing articles and perhaps most relevant for admins, interacting with other users in the article talk space to seek consensus. I'm also glad to see that he has experience in a variety of areas, seems willing and able to combat vandalism, and keeps a cool head. Therefore, I choose to support. --Kyoko 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - not seen Heimstern around, but I trust Durin's judgement, and convincing nomination.
    ► 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. YES per well-researched nomination.
    Mordecai Salleh 12:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
45. Support -- Like
    Mordecai Salleh, I also appreciate Durin's research and presentation of this candidate -- it's a good example for others. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support excellent nomination for excellent candidate.-- danntm ^T _C 16:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Aksi_great (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. WjBscribe 00:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong support - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Unterstützung ~ trialsanderrors 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. PeaceNT 03:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Good candidate. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support per all above. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 10:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support No reason to oppose. Dionyseus 20:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support He's already there. If he spends all his admin time fighting vandalism, that's fine by me. Tyrenius 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, no problems here.--Wizardman 06:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support NoSeptember 07:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
59. Support seems to be worthy of the tools. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. SynergeticMaggot 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. No issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Neutral

1. Neutral • Decent looking editor, but something just gives me a bad feeling about them. It wouldn't be very fair to oppose over just a "bad feeling', though, so Neutral it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   That must be going around, I had that feeling the other day on an rfa. Just H 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Heimstern's response to my question bothers me: either he doesn't appear to know how to set aside personal time for himself when working on Wikipedia matters (which is not a failing unique to him) & can suggest he may suffer premature burnout; or he has little interest in directly improving the content of Wikipedia. I don't know enough about this user to say more than this, so I'm limiting myself to just offering this observation for further discussion. -- llywrch 20:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.