Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haham hanuka

'''This page is closed to revisions. Please add any comments to the Talk Page' -- Cecropia | explains it all'' ® 21:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haham hanuka
final (2/9/1) ending 12:10 March 13 2005 (UTC)

more than 1000 edits in 5 months

Support
 * 1) David Cannon 12:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC).  I support this nomination, because I believe the English Wikipedia is enriched enormously by users who are not native speakers and/or are active on other language versions of this project.  Without them, I suspect the English Wikipedia would have an extreme bias towards the USA, England, and other English-speaking countries.  Moreover, the work of such users in copying, translating, and connecting articles across languages is invaluable in giving the project an internal cohesion, so that it is a single project and not 164 different projects.  It does appear that User:Haham hanuka needs to get a clue or two about formatting, but even my own formatting skills are not perfect, after eight months as an admin.  Give this user a chance. David Cannon 12:40, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with David Cannon. -- R yan!  |  Talk  03:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Strongly oppose. Definitely does not have enough experience:
 * 2) *Placed his RfA on the Standards page and then in the "Current Nominations" section.  (it's actually a self-nom).
 * 3) *Marks virtually all edits as minor. This includes substantial edits and VfD votes..
 * 4) *90%+ of edits are adding links to other Wikis (mainly Hebrew). This greatly inflates the edit count and is not an activity that requires any admin powers. Carrp | Talk 14:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Agree with Carrp. I had to fix the self nom of the user to confirm with the guidelines of nominations. His user page is also pretty empty, and his talk page has few comments, two of which are in hebrew, two are disagreements, and one is my request for him to sign his self-nom. In general he does not seem to be familiar with the community or the policies and guidelines. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * i created 10 new articles in anonymous IP or in another UserName (before i made this one), i've also created the Porn-stub Template, in now thatg a lot of my edits are adding links to other Wikis, but this is also important --Haham hanuka 18:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) and i bring to the deletion/renaming of Category: Terrorist organizations (NPOV) and improved Adolf Hitler article and i made cleanup\wikified to a lot of articles, and categories an so on. GIVE ME A CHANCE, YOU WON'T REGRET! - i was very active in the Hebrew Wiki and i created at least 100 article in Hebrew --Haham hanuka 18:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You still have not yet signed your self nomination, nor added a reason why you need adminship. Maybe you can request adminship for the hebrew wikipedia if you are more active there. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:07, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Clearly not enough experience. jni 16:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, lacks the necessary experience. Rje 23:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutralitytalk 23:49, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for now based on lack of editing experience. Jordi·✆ 10:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) utcursch | talk 08:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Err... His response to User:Chris 73 demonstrates:
 * 7) His disregard for proper syntax.
 * 8) His breathless editing style.
 * 9) That he didn't know how to link to a template properly without using an external link.
 * Needs much, much more experience before I could support. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but the user seems to want adminship too much (in a bad way). And to echo the votes above, he needs more experience with disputes, content, policy, and complex tasks. Maybe later. --Slowking Man 06:59, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I personally do not consider any of the things mentioned by Carrp above to be particularly serious, at least not in the sense that they should cost anyone an adminship. On the other hand, I don't see anything really special that would recommend this user for adminship either.  The edit count and longevity are respectable but not extraordinary, and I cannot help but notice that while the user has nominated himself and replied to others' comments about his nomination, they still have not completed the three generic questions (below) as of this writing.  Thus, I see not enough evidence to vote either way.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) *I don't expect an admin candidate to be perfect, but I believe the things I mentioned are good examples of why he's not ready for adminship:
 * 3) **I would expect any self-nom to be familiar with the nomination process. Failing to place the RfA in the self-nom section does not demonstrate a firm grasp of the process. Comments such as "I believe I would be a good admin..." on the RfA Standards page also demonstrate inexperience.
 * 4) **Marking virtually every edit as minor is very unhelpful and misleading. Users expect that a minor edit did not make a substantial change. In this case, the behavior isn't due to malice, but to inexperience.
 * 5) **An edit count of 1,000 is quite low when most of them are adding a single link to another Wiki. If all the edits he considered "minor" were discounted, the edit count would probably be less than 100. Carrp | Talk 16:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Haham Hanuka, while you may have shown good judgement on the Hebrew Wikipedia, we really have no way of knowing that, and we generally don't judge one Wikipedia's candidacy based on experience in another Wikipedia. You'll need to prove yourself on en just as I would need to prove myself on the other language wikis I have accounts on if I wanted to have admin access there. Unfortunately, and not meaning to offend, your English grammar is fairly poor. I'm more comfortable with supporting admins who speak English fluently. --Improv 23:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A.