Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haham hanuka 2

Haham hanuka
final (0/14/3) ending 12:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

more than 1400 edits in 6 months --Haham hanuka 12:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1)  M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 02:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) add to Tony's point below that this RFA is far too laconic for a self-nomination. Even the "generic questions" are missing. All other self-nominators attempt to make some sort of case for themselves. I might change to neutral or even support if he follows up with  some convincing statement that will tell us who we're dealing with, and why he needs admin privileges. HH even left it to me to point out that his first self-nom failed one month ago, with a clear 2:9. Much less does he give any sort of hint why he thinks people should reconsider. dab (&#5839;) 14:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Several issues that were raised during the previous RfA have not been addressed since then by Haham hanuka. Two of these have already been mentioned: the RfA format and the lack of Wikipedia namespace edits. Another issue is almost every edit being marked as minor, which is very unhelpful to other editors. With more experience and community involvment, I will support. Carbonite | Talk 14:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Way too many edits (and for important articles) do not have edit summaries. I cannot stress how much of time this wastes for RC checkers. Pavel Vozenilek 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly oppose. Another issue in this user's previous RFA that has not been resolved (as of this writing): Haham hanuka has not yet followed the guidelines to nominate one to RFA. How can one be an admin when xe cannot follow simple directions. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Needs to address the issues brought during previous RfA. Malformed nomination (missing votes, end times, and questions). Nomination text consisting solely of edit count and time on Wikipedia. Needs more edit summaries and fewer minor edits. Haham, you seem like a good editor, but please address our concerns before you nominate yourself again. With such a sparse nomination and not answering the standard questions, it is difficult to know anything about you. Nor have you addressed why you want to be an administrator or what you'd do with administrative abilities. Finally, administrators must be familiar with many different policies and suggestions. This is your second self-nomination; you should be able to follow the directions on the RfA page, leaving others to clean up after you. Sloppy editing isn't desirable even in articles, but from someone with administrative abilities it could be dangerous. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose for all the reasons others mentioned. If this users doesn't follow the procedure to nominate himself that doesn't bode well for other rules. Mgm|(talk) 21:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose.  &#9999; Oven Fresh  ²  21:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongly Oppose. Don't take it personally, but adminship is not just based on how many edits you have; your statement above for your nomination "more than 1400 edits in 6 months --Haham hanuka 12:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)" isn't enough; you also need some more community envolvement and edit summaries. --Lst27  ( t a l k )  22:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Strongly Oppose. Three things. First, after looking at your revision history, the overwhelming majority of your edits are marked as minor edits. Just because you've got a huge amount of minor edits doesn't mean you're qualified as an admin. Second, after reviewing your major edits, and some of your minor edits, it seems like you are very biased. Some of your edits, particuarly those concerning Nazism and Adolf Hitler, have alarmed me. Third, where are all of the edit summaries? Even a short tidbit would be better than nothing. Linuxbeak 18:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 07:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Adminship isn't something you just get for having a lot of edits. Andre ( talk ) 19:57, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I promise to be on the support side after a few more months and seeing more major edits involvement.--Jondel 09:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) After hearing what Eranb and Danny have said, I am changing my vote. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 11:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, and I have close to twenty thousand edits and not the slightest interest in being an admin. All I can tell from User:Haham hanuka's user page is that he LOVES writing and adding to articles about young pornographic movie "actresses" and is very keen on listing links to their very explicit sites, now why is that exactly? Does he want to turn Wikipedia into a larger channel for the filth that floods the Internet already? Gimme a break, this should not be happening! IZAK 11:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) --Haham hanuka 10:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral because this user has very few edits in talk (17), user talk (19), and Wikipedia (about 18 non-RFA-related) namespaces.  Although he seems to have strong janitor skills, the lack of communication means I cannot vote for this candidate.  I'd need to see evidence that this user likes people and can communicate well with other editors--skills that you need a lot if you use admin powers.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) * I strongly urge this candidate to resubmit after talking more, marking fewer edits a "minor" and the like. This is to my mind a very frustrating candidacy.  The evidence is there in the edits, but the community involvement isn't.  A potentially great administrator if only he'd get more involved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral for the same reasons given by Tony. Rje 14:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Having taken a closer look at this user's contributions I change my vote from opposed to neutral. A good editor but I'd like to see him answer the standard RfA questions. --Bjarki 01:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * first self-nomination failed 2:9 on 20 March. dab (&#5839;) 12:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm addicted to Wikipedia for more than a year. I'm active in the Hebrew Wikipdia too, I think that you should give me a chance and I promise I would be a good Admin. Feel free to ask me questions here. --Haham hanuka 14:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * but you already have every chance of participating, you just need to do it. being an admin will only allow you to protect/unprotect pages and ban/unban users. Every other janitor task you can already do, no problem. Also, we don't know how you react under stress. You seem to have attempted to unprotect Adolf Hitler last week. Would you just have used your admin powers for that? At least answer the generic questions every other admin candidate is asked. We don't even know what you want to be given a chance of doing. dab (&#5839;) 15:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than having us ask you questions, have you considered answering the standard RfA questions? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Haham hanuka currently has 1442 total edits: 1240/17 to articles/talk, 60/19 to User/talk, 54/1 to Image/talk, 42 to Wikipedia, 4/1 to Template/talk, and 3/1 to Category/talk. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 14:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know that what happens on other Wikipedias is largely irrelevant to RFA here, but User talk:Merovingian is interesting. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 17:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. he's asking for adminship again? oh dear me. what will he think of next? Eranb 19:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)