Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC

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

HighInBC

Final (

HighInBC (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself so that I may better participate in monitoring vandalism and mediating disputes. I have found the rules for conflict resolution in wikipedia most agreeable. While my number of contributions is somewhat low, I think the quality of these is high. I have managed to maintain a neutral point of view in articles that I have a strong opinion on, and I encourage the input of my peers. I speak fluent English. I firmly believe that discussion of a matter can solve any dispute between willing parties. HighInBC 18:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accept - I formally accept my self nomination. HighInBC 18:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Sympathy Support Let us stop discouraging this user any further. It takes a brave soul to nominate himself/herself. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak (not pro forma) support Having reviewed the user's contributions, I am confident that neither would he volitionally abuse the mop, etc., nor would he, ignorant of policy or unfamiliar with process, otherwise inappropriately use the admin tools (it seems likely that this user will seek the input of others before undertaking actions about the propriety of which he is unsure). To be sure, my support would be clearer were there a larger edit history at which to look (one complete with involvement in sundry Wikipedia-space discussions), but the good in his work assuages any fears I'd have w/r/to abuse/misuse. Joe 19:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral support, per Joe. --Tone 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Question answered well enough. Reasonable edit counts, seems trustworthy. Not at all vandal obsessed. ShortJason 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sympathetic support per Joe. SushiGeek 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. I see nothing wrong with promoting this user. Axiomm 05:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Despite edit count, won't abuse powers. Yanksox 06:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support per Yanksox -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 08:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Has demonstrated good judgement and faultless civility in editing, vandal fighting, xfd votes, etc. A further thousand edits would only allow the candidate to demonstrate his evident suitability again. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. 'Support I am convinced he would exercise good judgement and be reasonable as an Admin. That's all really matters to me. Captainj 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support He knows how to handle things properly and find out what he needs to. He will be a good admin. Note: using VandalProof. Tyrenius 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. ShortJason 21:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC) duplicate vote - Tangotango 07:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose Must be here 3-6 months and if that's not the case at least a 1,000 edits. This user has 668 edits the last time I checked. As this user has never been in an edit war, he hasn't reverted much edits which is needed to become an admin. If you nominate yourself or someone else nominates you in 3-5 months I'll support you. Suggest returnal around late July, early Augast. ForestH2

   Wait a second, what? Potential admins should get into edit wars? That doesn't make sense. --Rory096 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose You seem to have had a good beginning to wikipedia, but too short on overall experience as yet. Sorry. Regards, MartinRe 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   moving to neutal as more example prove cool head, but alas, not enoough experience. MartinRe 00:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose, of the four items listed under the admin tasks, three can be done without admin rights. I suggest getting first experience with those before trying again. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose You seemed to have made a promising beginnig to a bright wiki-career. But you need to spend more time & gain experience before we can entrust you with the tools. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 19:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per reasons stated above. Like MartinRe and Srikeit said, a good start, but more experience is needed. G.He 19:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose <sigh> If only you had more experience. The good thing about a low edit count is that it is easier to sample. From what I've seen of your talk page and edits, I think you will do ok in about 2,000 more edits. More edits will help assess your judgment. You don't really need admin powers for most of the things you list. The most dangerous/beneficial tools I can think of are the powers to block other users and delete articles. Could you list what tasks on the admin attention list you have in mind? :) Dlohcierekim 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Please
   WP:SNOWBALL Oppose no where near enough experience. Computerjoe's talk 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Nothing should be snowballed. WP:SNOWBALL is not policy, and he deserves to get a fair hearing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   It is ironic that the former leader of an Esperanza wannabe group is endorsing snowballing, when he must know what a degrading experience that is. robchurch | talk 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Degrading? Not really... (and I would know) --Rory096 06:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. [1]. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment most of that edit was not by HighInBc, but a copy paste of a unsigned comment by 65.92.94.115 onto their talk page [2], so please take into account what he said (the first and last line only), and not what was said to him. The only mistake HighinBC made here was forgetting to add an {{unsigned}} before pasting back. Regards, MartinRe 21:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I have placed an {{unsigned}} between the offensive diatribe and HighinBC's more urbane remarks.CHeers, User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 22:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   A useful lesson for me in how diff works. Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. I would trust the user with admin tools, but I would like to see some more Wikipedia namespace edits. ~Linuxerist
   L/T 02:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Oppose I'm worried by the misplaced RfA. joturner 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Oops, thanks to User:ForestH2 for fixing this. HighInBC 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose, fails
   Mailer Diablo 16:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Oppose. Looks to be pretty much the same level of experience as I am, and I would never consider that to be experienced enough for adminship.
    Fluit 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Oppose. Needs more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose - per above --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 04:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose – due to relative inexperience. Nothing personal – Gurch 10:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose: A long time with low edits is a matter of serious concern, as either dedication or authenticity may be suspect. Not everyone needs to be racking up thousands and thousands, but, at the same time, there isn't a great deal of article creation (which can mean slow but weighty edits), either. Geogre 12:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Per above.
    X 14:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Oppose for insufficient experience.--Jusjih 15:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per above. Cynical 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per above — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose, mediation doesn't require adminship, and having only 39 edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests you haven't done much of it. Stifle (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose Low edit count, and not enough experience of using Wikipedia and its associated policies and guidelines. Come back in a few months time. --Wisden17 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per above --digital_me^(t/c) 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. Nothing personal, just a little more experience and variety in edits shall be useful. --Bhadani 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. Needs more experience. --
    talk - email) 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Um...No not enough experience or edits. The Gerg 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Can you please elaborate on the "edit war" mentioned above? If that can be explained, I'm inclined towards support. ShortJason 19:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I am not sure which "edit war" is being refered to, I cannot remember being involved in any edit war. HighInBC 20:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it is referring to the comment in oppose #1. (Not assuming what that poster meant, but it could refer that, not being in an edit war as an editor, we have no idea how you will deal with the inevitable conflicts that adminship involves.) Regards, MartinRe 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In retrospect it would be more accurate to say that I have been involved in edit wars to the point that I have seen them coming and avoided them through discussion. HighInBC 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral, needs more experience. Will support in a few months. --Rory096 22:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. Not enough overall edits or wikipedia namespace edits. I will support in a couple of months. DarthVader 22:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. Can't support per insufficient breadth, can't oppose per this user's good work thus far. Shouldn't be too much longer. :) RadioKirk talk to me 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral (from support) You seem to have had a good beginning to wikipedia, but# too short on overall experience as yet. Sorry. Regards, MartinRe
5. No reason to doubt good faith, competence or desire to help whatsoever, but I'd love to see a little bit more general interaction somewhere. Nevertheless, well done on nominating yourself; it takes balls which, in four incarnations, I've never had. :) robchurch | talk 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral, lacks of experience and edits. Try again in three months time. --
   e Ong 03:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Wikibreak Neutral. hasn't been here long enough for me to know whether I want to support, but nothing suggests to me a need to oppose. —
   UTC
8. Neutral. Too new for me. More edits and more experience --> support in the future. Nephron  T|C 04:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral. Just a little too new, look forward to supporting in the future. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral. I like your attitude, and how you have become an active vandalism reverter, but give yourself some time and maybe join a few projects. Also I suggest you become acquainted with
    WP:AN/I.-- The ikiroid  22:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Neutral as per Geogre. Adminship is no big deal, and your edit count could be ok, but contributions are still limited, and I have a higher standard for self-noms (at least one other Wikipedian should know what a good admin you will make :-). Come back in a month... +sj + 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral. I can tell you would be helpful as an admin, but I'd like to see more experience from you. Royboycrashfan 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username HighInBC
Total edits 734
Distinct pages edited 251
Average edits/page 2.924
First edit 20:20, 7 February 2006
 
(main) 216
Talk 181
User 115
User talk 149
Image 30
Image talk 3
Wikipedia 39
Wikipedia talk 1