Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Instantnood


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

Instantnood
Closed (3/5/0) ending 05:25 October 5 2005 (UTC)

– Been here since January with 15983 edits(!). Started Hong Kong wikipedians' notice board and Hong Kong Collaboration of the Week. Contributes to many different articles. I think Instantnood will make a great admin. -- W P  Talk  05:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * Thanks. I am most happy to accept the nomination. But since I have been in disagreements with a few wikipedians over some mainland China-related and ROC/Taiwan-related issues, I have to accept it with conditions: I will not exercise any administrator's power in these issues, until a resolution is reached and agreed upon by community consensus. &mdash; Instantnood 06:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the ArbCom case has not been concluded, and will unavoidably affect, no matter positively or adversely, the impression towards my past records, I have decided to reject this nomination, until a better timing. Thank you so much for all the precious encouragement and opinion from everyone of you. &mdash; Instantnood 19:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support, of course. --  W P  Talk  05:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, as he's contributed lots of Hong Kong related articles, and also the HKWNB and COTW for Hong Kong. --Shinjiman &#8660; &#9832; 10:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Solid editor and writer. Opposition irrelevant, as he states that he will not exercise any admin powers in PRC- and ROC-related disputes. 172 | Talk 13:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm opposing not because I fear his use of admin powers in those pages, but rather because his actions demonstrate a lack of maturity and good judgement in handling disputes. Borisblue 13:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, and very strongly too. While it is not expected for all admins to have a NPOV in all issues, his conduct when it comes to dispute resolution and naming conventions has led to a record of one RFC  and two ROA, , the later of which is still on-going. Contrary to this claims, he has proven himself to be critically inept in dispute resolution. Irrespective of the Arbcom's outcome, I have little confidence in his ability to demonstrate maturity, fairness, and tact in his dealings and general conduct on wikipedia.--Huaiwei 11:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On an additional note, may I point out that if one may scrutinise his "15983" edits, a significant number of them are either related to inserting stub notices, adding and sorting categories, correcting grammar and spelling, or endless rounds of revert warring and long-drawn out discussions in talkpages. Not that these contributions are any less important, but I would suggest that his content contribution be taken with a pinch of salt and not merely based on the number of edits. One only hopes that he may use the time he has to help write full-length articles (and not another list) and develop more articles for FAC status.--Huaiwei 11:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I'm supposed to be on wikibreak now, but I think I'll vote on this one. Instantnood has been involved in plenty of edit wars, including some really trivial ones (should category HK literature be put under or merely linked to Chinese Literature? See WP:LAME for details). I just don't think he has the right temperament to be an admin. Borisblue 13:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The behaviour of this user proves that he does not believe in consensus; in fact, he'll either ignore it or try to get around it. I find it difficult to believe that someone who games the system by using carefully-spaced reverts to avoid 3RR, or sneaks in controversial changes by marking them as minor, would actually abide by his word and never use his admin powers on the one topic in which almost all his edits are. This is a one-track editor with a clear POV and mission, as proven 16,000 times over. I will reconsider my vote if ArbCom clears him of any wrongdoing. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Even if it wasn't me personally involved with many of his disputes, I'd still oppose, for the same reasons that Borisblue and OwenX detail and a thousand other reasons that a good look over the edit history reveals. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, involved in renaming controversies and other disputes, I'm not sure that he would work harmoniously with others. There was an earlier RfC: Requests for comment/Instantnood. -- Curps 18:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Curps. freestylefrappe 20:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * Arbitration has not ended for this user at time of nomination. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 28 September 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. I have been watching edits to Hong Kong-related topics over the past few months, and have been reverting vandals. With the roll-back button I will be able to do so more promptly, and possibly sparing the effort to keep an eye on other topics that I am familiar with. I also help resolving conflicts at the talk pages of articles upon requests at my user talk page. I will help with anything urgent at WP:AN/I, as well as WP:CFD, and speedy deletion requests. I will continue to be active in maintainence, including grouping articles into categories, wikifying them and tagging them with the right stub types.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. The notice board and the COTW for Hong Kong, which has been functioning exceptionally well with the collaboration among Hong Kong wikipedians. With their precious efforts the coverage on Hong Kong on Wikipedia has been expanded, in terms of depth and breadth. I have been refining my proposals to set up some WikiProjects for Hong Kong-related topics.. will soon be ready when the disagreements around mainland China and ROC/Taiwan are resolved.
 * 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. I have been in long disagreements with a few of wikipedians over mainland China- and ROC/Taiwan-related topics. I drew people's attention to the relevant naming conventions and Wikipedia policies. I invited for third-party opinion on the talk pages, requested for comments, made good use of the twoversions tag (see two versions), and advocated to present all views in the article, so as to be as neutral as possible, to reach community consensus. Alternatively I have also tried drafting new versions, and archiving an old but less-POV-loaded version in under my user page. This is possibly a short-term resolution, sort of cooling down, in cases of deadlock. The ArbCom case resulted from the above mentioned disagreements that I am involved has been getting on well, and I have always been cooperative with members of the arbitration committee and my advocates. I look forward to the adjudication, and reaching resolution with wikipedians with opposing views based on the adjudication and community consensus towards the issues.
 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.