Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HappyCamper

HappyCamper
final (33/2/1) ending 01:28 23 August 2005 (UTC) - Has been a very reliable and consistently helpful editor. Very active in the WikiProject Chemistry and in helping out at the reference desk. I have no doubt that he will use the admin tools wisely. For those that care, he has over 1700 edits. - Taxman Talk 01:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * Thank you Taxman, I accept your nomination.


 * To everyone visiting this page, please feel free sign your user name, comment, or do anything you feel appropriate to convey your thoughts on this nomination. I am always open to feedback and suggestions, and this is probably one of the few places where this would be very useful for both myself and Wikipedia's community. Let me take this opportunity to thank everyone in advance for their time and thoughts into this - I look forward to reading all your comments! --HappyCamper 04:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Taxman Talk 01:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC) - as nominator, of course.
 * 2) Support I thought he had been one already. Yay, I got the first vote after the nominator! D. J. Bracey (talk) [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 01:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2005-08-16 03:03
 * 4) Oleg Alexandrov 03:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Without...a...doubt. -- Essjay ·   Talk 04:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) El_C 04:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Jusjih 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) I love the sound of an admin who knows a bit more of the role than just clearing out VfD and rollbacks. WP:CP is forever banked up, and I'd love to see a HappyCamper helping out over there. Harro5 08:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. HappyCamper goes out of his way to be polite and welcoming.  Joyous  (talk) 10:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - What I've seen of him, he has always been civil and polite. --Celestianpower hab 11:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Encyclopedic mind, good knowledge of policy. Very dedicated at the reference desk. JFW | T@lk  14:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Merovingian (t) (c) 15:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Briangotts (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Howabout1 Talk to me! 00:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support- seems enthusastic Astrotrain 18:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, looks like qualified and knowledgeable editor, participates in Wikipedia discussions, deals with vandals, edit summaries, ... etc. Thanks for your work. Pavel Vozenilek 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support for this good-natured and exceptional Wikipedian. Antandrus (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Has done a lot of good work on WP:RD for some time now, seems like a bright and considerate person. --Fastfission 23:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. HappyCamper plays well with others and if WP:RD is any idication will make a very enthusiastic admin.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 03:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) - Guettarda 04:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - Great, helpful, and answers lots of questions at the reference desk. HappyCamper also shows traits that will help make him a good administrator. (vote by Stevey7788, see ) --HappyCamper 02:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Proto t c 15:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) I'm a happy camper with that. (No pun intend... OK, OK. Pun intended.) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - We need more admins looking over at copvios and and acting upon them. He says that he will help out with Copyright problems and related VfDs, so he gets my vote! &asymp; jossi &asymp; 22:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I've seen you around, you're a good editor :D &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 15:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, as per Joyous and the way he answered the questions. Func( t, c, @,) 16:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 05:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Cool. JuntungWu 08:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Mainspace edit count is a tad low, but you've done great work. I'll take quality over quantity. :) Acetic Acid 03:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. Helps out quite actively on Reference desk. Jonathunder 03:46, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. -- DS1953 03:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Helpful, knowledgeable, has a good attitude. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support, gladly.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   04:11:24, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose simply not enough edits. freestylefrappe 04:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Not enough edits according to me.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  15:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Sadly enough I've never heard of Happy, and its my policy to vote neutral on users I've never heard of. Sorry, and good luck. Redwolf24 04:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) **Would you ever consider looking at the user's contributions to judge the nomination? Apollo58 21:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) ***You know, if you don't want to vote for someone, you shouldn't do so. But not having heard of someone doesn't seem to me a productive criteria for refusing to support them. Checking their contributions is quite simple. This behavior smacks of attention-seeking. --Briangotts (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) ****It's a legitimate reason to vote neutral. It's not like he is opposing him. He just prefers being familar with the nominees beforehand. Please don't attack users who choose to vote differently. We all have our personal policies. Acetic Acid 22:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) *****Ya, don't attack Redwolf24. He wished him good luck. Red already gets enough attention (see his talk page), so voting neutral isn't nessicarry to get attention. Are all neutral voters attention seekers? Howabout1 Talk to me! 00:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Everyone should re-read HappyCamper's accept message: To everyone visiting this page, please feel free sign your user name, comment, or do anything you feel appropriate to convey your thoughts on this nomination. Attacking other users for thier votes is counterproductive, and I'm sure HappyCamper would agree that everyone should just leave everyone else's votes alone. -- Essjay ·  Talk 03:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) ***Look, voting neutral is basically the same thing as not voting. I'm not attention seeking as I think by now most people know me. and I think that having heard of them or not seems like a fair criteria, no? Now please do not hound users for their votes, intimidation is no reason to change a vote either. Happy Camper I still wish you good luck. Thanks, Redwolf24 03:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "hounding" you. Relax. What I said was that I fail to see how it is a productive criterion, and I am as entitled to express my opinion on the matter as you. Perhaps if you explained it a little bit I could see where you are coming from. What qualifies someone in your eyes? Must they have actually exchanged communications with you? Is it sufficient that you happened to have seen one of their edits? --Briangotts (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * gah. I don't care whether they've talked to me, its whether or not I've heard of them. That's seems like a fair criteria. Some people only vote for people if they have a Featured Article. Look I do RC Patrol, I do a lot on talk pages, I know a fair bulk of the editors at WP:1000 and many others. And I don't see why my criteria should be so important to disagree over when I voted neutral, not even oppose. Now please let us not disrupt Happy's RfA and if you have anything else to say do it at my talk page. Thanks, Redwolf24 (Talk) 23:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One last thing. How is he to judge an editor if he hasn't even seen the name around? Maybe looking at 50-100 contributions isn't enough to decide civilty, et cetera. Howabout1 Talk to me! 01:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redwolf24 has the right to vote neutral, and he is very far from saying anything negative about HappyCamper. Voting neutral and not voting at all is about the same. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to start an argument here, I was just questioning his stated policy to see where he was coming from on it. He indicated to me that he thought thems was fightin' words, but I assure you they weren't. Apollo58 03:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * The full WP:KT readout is 623/144 to main namespace, 55/196 to User:, 620/93 to Wikipedia:, 3/0 to Image:, 3/13 to Template:, and 1/0 to Category:. David | Talk 11:10, 16 August 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. Initially, I think I'd like to help out with Copyright problems, and then gradually increase my participation with the VfD process. Helping out with editing the front page and featured article candidates seem enjoyable activities too. I'd also like to spend more time explaining to new users how to contribute to Wikipedia, especially in cases where their edits are very well intentioned, but potentially not suitable for the project. To complement this, I'd also like to dedicate some of my time to dealing with chronic, adverse types of activities on Wikipedia such as vandalism and sockpuppetry. If I become an administrator, I don't expect to use the deletion or blocking abilities very frequently until I thoroughly understand the consequences of their usage, and feel at ease using these functions. I think it is apt to give myself ample time to learn and feel comfortable with using them properly. Generally speaking, I see myself volunteering where help is needed in the long run whether it be VfDs, or FACs, et cetera. --HappyCamper 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. One of my favourites is the nondimensionalization article, as well as a few minor edits I made regarding Nordic and Germanic influences to the opening of heavy metal umlaut. These were some of my earlier contributions to Wikipedia and the positive feedback I got from them while editing made me feel very welcome to the project. I also enjoy posting on the Reference desk and archiving the answers. I've learned so many new things just by doing that! The picture I took for Mexican jumping beans was quite fun to do too, (although I still have to figure out how my digital camera works to get the pictures to look just right). I'm also trying to get this WikiProject Polymers project up and going, and I'm also thinking of starting a similar one for digital communication systems. I also like these short articles Creation and annihilation operators and vibronic coupling very much. After writing some content for these pages, I met so many new Wikipedians with similar interests as me, and found it really rewarding to work with them during editing. --HappyCamper 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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. Generally speaking, I think it is appropriate at times have a good balance between being welcoming, earnest, and thorough with one's explanations. This is especially more so if being involved in a conflict. I've found that the avoidance of intensifying statements work well in this regard, and I value taking the time to answer appropriately, or as best as I can. I believe that Wikipedians deserve respect and reciprocation for their volunteering efforts, and I am very much mindful of this.


 * For myself, I have found it important to recognize that posts made on Wikipedia may not necessarily capture the entire context of a situation, and often there are implied assumptions being made by parties involved which should be acknowledged. I think assuming good intentions is a good rule of thumb. I feel editing with clarity and goodwill are foundational to this, and for my part, I will generally express what my thoughts are, my interpretation of what is going on, and what I think can be done to resolve a situation. More importantly, I think listening is instrumental to resolving conflicts or contention.


 * Sometimes I feel that the best way to deal with conflicts is perhaps not start them at all. In the past, I have been in situations where I felt a conflict was brewing and simply stepped away and stated that I would not participate any further. Granted, it may not always be the best thing to do - there are times when one should explain oneself and invest the time to do so. Having a well thought out and measured response could help resolve a conflict easier and quicker.


 * Finally, I think recognizing and admitting when I am wrong is paramount. Backing down gracefully, and being able to convey sincere apologies is something I think an administrator should do when and where appropriate. If I were to become an administrator, I imagine some of my primary concerns might be "Was that done correctly? Did I do what was best?". If not, then perhaps it may be apt to say so. Sometimes one cannot do everything that one believes to be thoroughly right or correct. For this reason, I feel in conflicts it is necessary to act in as rational a manner as possible, recognize the perceived reality of the situation, and choose to make a reasoned and justified course of action. I would recognize the any conflict or interaction as something to learn from, and I would hope that my choices would result in a resolved conflict and a more positive atmosphere for everybody involved. --HappyCamper 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)