Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HisSpaceResearch


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

HisSpaceResearch
'''FINAL (7/19/3); withdrawn by candidate 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

- HisSpaceResearch first edited Wikipedia in May 2004, originally using the name "User:Ezekiel Cheever" and later briefly "User:Sproglet777". His major contributions to the project began with the creation of his current user account, User:HisSpaceResearch, in February 2006. He is an experienced article writer, with around 4,200 of his 8,000 edits being to Wikipedia mainspace and having significantly contributed to two Good Articles, King Crimson and Out of Reach. He has also created many articles, and uploaded many images and spoken articles. His substantial experience of AfD discussions, his regular requests for page protection and his vandal fighting show that he will have a good use for the admin tools. His ability to remain polite and calm during AfD discussions and his knowledge of policy show he would use the tools wisely. Epbr123 17:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I formally accept the nomination.

I would agree with most of what is written above, although I haven't uploaded a great number of images and spoken articles to be accurate, but that's got little to do with whether I'd make a good admin or not. Also, I have one more good article nomination pending review - The Jeremy Kyle Show. I will answer the questions soon, but not at this precise moment.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: WP:RPP and protecting/unprotecting pages per vandalism or other reasons, closing WP:AFD debates, deleting pages through WP:CSD, deletion review, possibly blocking IP addresses for vandalism, and WP:SALT.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: To paraphrase from Editor review/HisSpaceResearch, the following is true about me: I have made a large number of edits, have created many articles, uploaded images and spoken articles, have significantly contributed to at least two good articles, and several failed good articles. I have used Wikipedia in some form for over three years, understand how Wikipedia works, regularly participate in deletion debates, add article improvement ideas to talk pages, clean up pages, add tags to the top of pages, remove unreferenced statements and the occasional BLP violation, clean up a bit of vandalism now and again, discuss and create categories and templates, debate Wikipedia policy, question what defines certain ideas and what makes them encyclopedic or not, etc. I immerse myself in many aspects of the Wikipedia community. I also have a number of Wikipedia essays on my userpage. I think my best contributions are the work on King Crimson and all the new articles I have created myself, along with the fact that I regularly place tags on articles, convert the to and use the deletion process (WP:AFD mainly, but also WP:PROD and WP:CSD when I tried newpage patrolling) to remove unencyclopedic/non-notable pages from the main namespace.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: Rarely. User:Bart Versieck removed a deletion notice from Marie-Rose Mueller which led to me filing a short WP:RFC, and recently User:Maxim accused me of incivility and being rude, yet I'm still waiting to learn exactly what I said that was particularly incivil. I try my best to be polite towards people here, because I'm a nice guy (although I'll stand my ground at the same time if necessary) so I don't see how that could be a problem. As for how I'll deal with it if it arises in the future, I'll try either dispute resolution or requests for comment. Violating WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOCK and WP:NPA are all ugly things to do that the community is much better off without, and calm measures to handle things smoothly are much better.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from 
 * 1) If you found a sockpuppet of an established user (And there was no doubt about it) that had made three legitimate edits to the mainspace, what would you do?--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to clarify - what do you mean by 'legitimate edits'? There are legitimate uses of multiple accounts, so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an edit being 'legitimate'.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As it happens, User:ais523 non-admin has exactly 3 legitimate edits to the mainspace (and no non-legitimate ones, although checking yourself may be more worthwhile than taking my word for it), and is an admitted alternate account of User:ais523. What action should be taken about this? --ais523 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for HisSpaceResearch:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch before commenting.''

Discussion

 * The bold in the no in my comment, is for definition in the final format of this RFA, not for a statement. Just in case. R udget zŋ 19:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion either way in this RfA, but I'm very disappointed with several of the Oppose votes. Disliking or disagreeing with someone's essays is not a good reason to oppose. Neither should someone be denied adminship just because they disagree with the general consensus on a certain issue. Fine, he doesn't think anonymous users should be allowed to edit - and to be honest, he has a good point. This is a terrible reason to oppose. WaltonOne 12:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ...in your opinion. In my opinion, and that of others, a strong dislike of one of Wikipedia's core policies is not a good trait for a sysop to have. The Islander 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a much, much stronger dislike of another one of Wikipedia's core policies, viz. "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Was I a bad sysop (I was one until yesterday) because of this? As long as HisSpaceResearch upholds policy as it currently stands, and does not use his sysop tools to intimidate or attack unregistered users (and there is no reason to think that he would do so), then this oppose reason is completely invalid. Any Oppose rationale in an RfA ought to show evidence of how the user might abuse or misuse the admin tools, or otherwise act in a manner inappropriate for an administrator. You haven't done so. WaltonOne 12:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * RFA is a DISCUSSION and many of the oppositions neither give a real explanation or provide sufficient evidence justifying an oppose. The differences cited and the discussions cited don't in the least show any incivility from this user. Sure, The communism bit is somewhat odd but that's definitely not something that would make this person unqualified to be an administrator. I'm especially worried by the editors who have made assertions and haven't responded back when their oppositions have been responded to or explained by the editor.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support as nominator. Epbr123 18:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 18:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support - The user does seem well-rounded in areas that Wikipedia is key, and seems to be well-acquainted with policy. However, not assuming good faith like HSR did here, makes this a weak support. Of course this was in June 2007, so don't give me all that nonsense about it being a long time ago, because it was made 14 months after the creation of the account and after 5000 edits were made, meaning HSR should have been familiar with behavioural guidelines, i.e AGF. R udget zŋ 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't violating WP:AGF there - I was merely asking a question. But thanks for the support nom anyway.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. You've shown AGF there though, not that it was a trick. :) R udget zŋ 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Ρх₥α 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support This editor has a good number of edits, has a lot of mainspace edits, has improved a few articles and has done some fairly good work here on Wikipedia. So far the oppositions evidence doesn't bother me that much, not enough to oppose or even remain neutral for that matter. Unless some stronger evidence is provided opposing this editor then I'm going to have to support based on what I can see of the good work this editor has done.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks okay. Acalamari 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per EliminatorJR - and no that is not a typo. The four essays s/he linked to fail to convince me the candidate will truly go apeshit with the tools were they to be given him seven days from now. On the contrary - in WP:EXTENT where he appears to exhibit bias against anon editing, he goes on to say that "I don't always feel the way I do about Wikipedia as I did… when writing this essay." Yes all admins should unequivocally endorse the foundation issues, but "unequivocally endorse" does not mean "to have never ever questioned". Also I note that the WP:EXTENT essay was written seven months ago so the candidate's stance regarding anon editing might have changed since then. The essays he writes do not necessarily represent his views for all situtations and all times, rather what he was thinking at a particular point of time, akin to a blog entry. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 13:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Oh, I disagree with this editor all the time at AfD, but I still trust him with the mop. According to my evolving standards, he has enough edits (especially mainspace), and the diffs by the opposition below only prove that he knows the rules and what is opinion. Bearian 15:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Strong oppose Rather rude and uncivil, qualities I don't want to see in an administrator.  Maxim   18:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give any examples of when he has been rude or uncivil? Epbr123 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will echo the above. Do you have differential edits to back the assertion, if not, I respectfully request you retract the assertion?  M er cury    18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This could be something to do with it. 82.31.8.141 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you opposing this adminship candidate due to this conflict? M er cury    19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You clearly don't understand the speedy deletion criteria, as demonstrated here, without even discussing it with the author first to attempt to reach a resolution. Several AfD edits in quick periods of time, nominating suitable articles for AfD here. I think its important for admins to be approacahble and discuss things before nominating things for deletion, or if you're an admin - actually deleted them. Qst (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do understand the speedy deletion criteria. Although in the first case I really should have informed the user on their talk page, in the second case the AfD, as with all AfDs, was merely a consideration of deletion. I certainly wouldn't have speedily deleted it, and just brought it to AfD for discussion. Perhaps the latter violated WP:NOT?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see how that template was not potentially divisive and inflammatory.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CSD, the criteria used in the above diff, "This applies only to pages in the Template: namespace". Therefore you misunderstood the criteria by using it where it didn't apply (in this case, the page was not in the Template namespace). Dreaded Walrus t c 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Anyone with as deep a misunderstanding of deletion policy (per QST's diffs) is not ready to be trusted with the powerful block button and rollback function. K. Scott Bailey 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per the misunderstanding of an admin role here, this silliness, the third paragraph in this, and the opinion that unregistered users shouldn't be allowed to edit in this.  E LIMINATOR JR  19:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that in Wikipedia essays we can't explore ideas, whether negative, positive, or neither?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're calling one of my short reflections 'silliness' - now that, as far as I'm concerned, is a bigger violation of WP:CIVIL than anything that User:Maxim has raised. Merely exploring ideas is harmless.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but trumpeting one position (inclusionism) and deriding another (deletionism) isn't particularly productive. There's nothing wrong with exploring ideas in essays, but  attacking other editors is not what I'd look for here. And this is really unimpressive.  E LIMINATOR JR  19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain why it's unimpressive. Wikipedia is not censored (given the subject matter there - you should make no judgement regarding the content, merely the intent) - and I am not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, either. You may consider the whole debate there puerile, but it's not, in my opinion - and where have I ever attacked other editors? I would not do that.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are effectively saying that somehow "inclusionism" (i.e. editors that believe in keeping articles) is better than "deletionism" (i.e. editors that err more to the side of deleting borderline NN articles). I am concerned therefore that since you have said that you would be interested in CSD/AfD etc, that you would let your own viewpoints override policy. That may not be the case; nevertheless it raises concerns with me.  E LIMINATOR JR  20:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm a mergist now, more than anything else. Perhaps some of these essays are outdated and I should get rid of them.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * HisSpaceResearch has nominated articles for deletion (eg. Articles for deletion/Ines Cudna), so if he is an inclusionist, he's a moderate one, able to judge each article by it's own merits. Epbr123 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh for God's sake, this Oppose is the most ridiculous I have ever seen. All of the essays cited in the oppose are not only perfectly acceptable and within the bounds of legitimate essay-writing, they are all precisely correct (especially the statements about how new users are intimidated by our masses of pointless rules). Nor do any of them qualify as "attacking other editors" in any meaningful sense. WaltonOne 23:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, at least we know you wouldn't want the bureaucrats not to count EliminatorJR's comment when making their final deliberations (if it gets that far). Nick 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course they should count it. Every vote from a user in good standing should be counted. I just hope it won't influence any other voters to pile on (luckily, I expect the community has more sense than that). WaltonOne 09:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Eliminator's diff is problematic. I construe it to mean that you are seeking adminship as a way to push back. I hope I am wrong. the_undertow talk  20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I see too many problems with the above, and to say you intend to take part mainly in AFD, I'm unsure about some of the articles you nominate. Also doesn't seem to be able to reply in a way to change the opposing users' minds, which, if you should be an admin, you should be able to do, or trying to do, which it doesn't look like you are doing. -- Jack 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Frankly, this user strikes me as being quite hostile and defensive all the time (yeah, I know what you're thinking: "Look who's talking" :-)). That's a bad quality. Strong oppose. -- Agüeybaná  00:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Doesn't believe unregistered people should be allowed to edit. Sorry, but admins who disagree with our most core of core principles are not a good thing. User:Veesicle 01:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But it takes next to no time to create an account.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Jimbo. -- Agüeybaná  01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I might well do that. I've considered that in the past.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving my point :) If it's so incredibly easy to register, registering means literally 0 and therefore it's no bigger deal to have an account than not have one. And consider that most readers who notice a typo are not going to want to register to fix it (especially as most websites have ridiculous registering processes, many of our readers will expect us to be the same). And so the typo doesn't get fixed. And the reader who might have fixed the typo never tries to edit Wikipedia. And we could possibly lose out on a contributor, no? A lot of our content comes from drive-by IPs. If we turned them away, we would lose a lot. User:Veesicle 07:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I would not be comfortable having this user as an administrator, and therefore I must oppose. DS 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I believe this user has any valuable contributions, but the many concerns voiced about above (most notably the incivility) are troubling, so I must Oppose. -- θnce θn this island  Speak! 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Incivility where, exactly? I'd like to be shown exactly what I did wrong.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose per the very worrying examples cited above, in particular the diff. linked by Qst. Also dislike the blanket attitude of disallowing unregistered users to edit. Would not be happy with this user becoming an admin. The Islander 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) No per Maxim. Try again in few months and I'll support you. NHRHS2010  talk  03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Eliminator. Sorry - the attitudes expressed in your essays are pretty troubling for an admin candidate.  Folic_Acid 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Can't trust this user with the protection (ie. semi-protection) tools due to his flagrant disagreement with our non-negotiable core policies.  Daniel  04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per issues raised above. Jmlk  1  7  04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, sadly. User:HisSpaceResearch/Wikipedia is communism worries me. comparing Wikipedia to political systems is asking for trouble, especially seeing the US views on communism. Essays they may be, but some of them suggest a lack of knowledge, and an abundance of opinion. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 05:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Sorry, but civility is a must to make a good admin. A good admin is someone you can trust and talk to easily.  Marlith  T / C  05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) No Pretty much per Maxim. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - I'm not at all happy with the unregistered users thing. Someone with the power to make life difficult for anonymous editors shouldn't be nearly so vocal in their opposition to anon editing. Nick 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral; HisSpaceResearch is a prolific editor, and his contributions to the mainspace are valuable, but he has very little experience with the janitorial duties and almost no visible implication in policy or dispute resolution; this makes it impossible to see how well he would use (and not misuse) the tools. I would be willing to support after a few months of involvement beyond AfD and RFPP; perhaps involving himself in WP:3O, or helping with the thankless backlocks in WP:SCV or WP:COIN for instance. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per above, he hasnt done anything that would turn me against becoming and admin, but like Coren said, he doesnt seem to have a lot of experience in cleaning up duties, another turn off for me is that is seems he has trouble with filling in the edit summary box, which is a must for an admin. Looks like a great editor and with more work in admin duties I would be ready to support.  Good luck!  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral A great editor but the oppose comments raised by the above users is a cause for concern. Anyway, I do not feel that it is enough to oppose this user outright so I will stay neutral. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 03:46, 12 November 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.