Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hersfold


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

Hersfold
FINAL (15/7/10); Withdrawn 03:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

- I have been on Wikipedia for about six months now and feel as though I have become fairly experienced. I participate in several areas of the project, most notably vandalism patrol (including recent changes and new pages), the Help Desk, Articles for Creation, and Motto of the Day. I've logged over 2,000 edits during my time here, most of which are in user warnings and speedy deletion notices. I am quite familiar with Wiki-markup and can build templates easily, as well as being able to help others out with their difficulties with the same. I am more than willing to help people out when needed, and can dedicate myself to a large amount of work if needed. Hersfold (talk/work) 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: This request for adminship has been withdrawn by Hersfold (talk/work).

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to work on removing speedy deletion candidates, the quick reversion of vandalism, and the blocking of those vandals. I hope also to work on clearing many of the backlogs that exist - I have some experience with this from what I have done in WP:AFC - although I do admit I've only been working on that aspect for a fairly short amount of time, I've already picked up the routine and am willing to work on similar areas. Administrator abilities should help me work on the trickier backlogs that exist.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I completely re-wrote the article at Liberty High School, Carroll County, Maryland, which was suffering greatly from non-NPOV and vandal edits. This was one of my earlier edits, and as such it was still lacking some critical information (such as reliable sources), but I am still rather pleased with how it turned out. I have also done a lot of work with WP:UTM, in tandem with User:SebastianHelm, updating the tooltip codes to make the user warnings more accessible to everyone. Other contributions, which spread over a longer period of time, include answering many many questions at the Help Desk, the  category, and WP:AFC.


 * 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: There have been some disagreements - most recently, I created a user notice template for reminding editors about WP:BITE (see uw-bite), and I had a bit of a disagreement with how it should be used, formatted, etc. Earlier, I had another disagreement with an editor who I felt had been a little mean to a anonymous vandal, whose edit may have been in good faith - the ensuing disagreement led to a few reversions of my talk page. In both cases, I did my best to keep a level head, and I eventually apologized to the editor in the second conflict for my actions. I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit where I have done wrong.

Please ask me additional questions as you see fit. Hersfold (talk/work) 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer
 * 4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

General comments

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


 * Links for Hersfold:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hersfold before commenting.''

Discussion

 * As of 03:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC), I am hereby withdrawing my request for adminship due to a general lack of consensus. Thank you to all who supported me, and thank you for those who were neutral or opposed but offered comments for improvement. I do plan to make another RfA sometime in the future. Again, thank you all. Hersfold (talk/work)

Support
 * 1) Support, as this user has shown their willingness to jump in and help out at some of the most overwhelming backlogs, as well as a demonstration of skill in the technical side of things and willingness to help others. The edit count will only increase from here!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Seems to be a willing, capable editor who won't misuse the sysop tools&mdash; arf! 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support why not? Anonymous Dissident  Utter 06:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, this user looks like he is a honest, well motivated and reliable user who will do all he can to contribute to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia would benefit from having an admin like him.   ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓  ( Talk ♥ Contribs )  06:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's... a distinctive signature. Riana ⁂  19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Warnings for speedy deletion indicates edit count would be higher if the warning templates were preserved in the contribution hisotry. Also plenty of reports to WP:AIV. I would have liked a bit more diversity, and less time at motto of the day, but no reason to withold a demonstrable need for the tools. Pedro | Chat  09:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, no reason not to. Neil   ╦  11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Firm Support 57 AIV reports and 182 Helpdesk edits, amongst responses to requests and managing to clear out a day's worth of backlog on Articles for Creation? Cheers, Lanky TALK 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Clear and observable dedication to counteracting vandalism and bad edits is evident in the candidate's edit history. What he have here appears to be a hardworking individual with all the right goals and characteristics. --Agamemnon2 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. User's edit history is sufficiently long enough to determine that they have a good head on their shoulders and have had a positive impact on Wikipedia.  I see no issues with handing them the mop. Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. More than enough experience. Er rab ee 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Seems competent, Q1 shows clear understanding of the tools. In response to the opposers, I don't really see why masses of mainspace edits are needed - this user has demonstrated that they understand the admin tools, and has a varied range of experience. Walton Assistance!  18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support From their edits, I see a helpful, very civil and knowledgeable editor. No reason to oppose. - Two Oars 18:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support He has five months of pretty consistent editing and I see no problems. He seems quite communicative and knowledgeable.  Jody B talk 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, per oppositon. 5 months editing is great; 650 main space edits is ample. Good luck. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Nothing to suggest editor will misuse tools, and has shown that the extra buttons will be useful. PGWG 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose not enough experience. I'm sorry, you are on your way,  but just 650 mainspace edits is a bit too low for me.  Jmlk  1  7  07:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I think this user is still too new here to become an admin (approx. 5 months of editing - his second edit was on Jan. 5) Od Mishehu 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Certainly a well-intentioned candidate, who will probably make a great admin someday soon -- still, a little low on general experience at this point. It's much better for everyone, including the candidate, if all rough edges are smoothed before getting the mop.  Two or three months of solid editing will make this a "no-brainer." :) Xoloz 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose too few mainspace edits. And your answer to question 3, while not a reason in and of itself to oppose, is a little of concerning for me (the part where you thought an editor was too mean to a vandal.  From your answer it seemed like you assumed good faith for the vandal, but not the editor).   BH  (Talk) 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Very little experience. Most of the user's few edits are semi-automated vandal reverts. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Experience, sorry - you have failed to demonstrate an ability to display discretion, especially in disputes. I need to be confident you can cope before supporting.  Daniel  06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - I would like to see more experience. Crum375 02:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral This user's doing a good work, but perhaps there's not enough experience yet to attest his preparedness for adminship. Also, there's no much need for the tools as this user's usual tasks don't seem to require admin intervention.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would point out where I mentioned my anti-vandalism and CSD patrols, but I do understand your reasoning. Thanks. :-) Hersfold (talk/work) 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Seems good, I'm just a little concerned about the lack of experience. In a couple months I'd gladly give strong support; until then, I'll remain neutral. -- Captain Wikify Argh! 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Only because your highest mainspace edit is just 6 but your overall total edits is quite good and maybe if you improve you mainspace edits which is below 1000, next time around I will support you :) ..-- Cometstyles 10:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I'm sorry but I'm going to remain neutral for several reasons, of your 2000+ contribs, I think that a good half of them are to WP:AFC, your mainspace edit is low but not bad at 605 and I cannot see much variety of edits, I only see anti-vandalism and no other Wikipedia edits (of course this is not too bad!), overall I think your doing great but maybe you could improve on the above factors, however everything else (e.g experience, edit summary) is fine. Good luck!  The Sunshine  Man   12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral First of all, you are a great editor. You have done a great job with fighting vandalism so far, keep it up:) You also seem like a all around good editor. The reason why I can not support you is because you do not have enoungh edits here. 2K is not to much for a vandal fighter. I look for a vandal fighter to have 5K or more edits before I vote to support them. I am not going to oppose you because you are a good vandal fighter, and a good editor. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 13:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral per above; too few mainspace edits. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - I feel perhaps you need a bit more experience. Looks good besides that. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι τ оr  17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral per lack of experience, doesn't give me much to judge your contributions with. However, you're definitely on the right track - I would support in a few months' time. Don't lose heart if this RfA doesn't work out. Cheers, Riana ⁂  19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral per above, please try later in like 2-3 months-Arnon Chaffin (<font color="Chrome">Talk ) 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral and expect to hgave good reason to support in a few months.DGG 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.