Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MHLU


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

MHLU
Final (2/8/1); Closed 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

– I would like to have sysop rights on the EN Wikipedia. I have been here since July 2008, and started contributing "IP-less". Although I sockpuppeted once, I made a promise not to do it again because it is distrusting the Wikipedia community (it is not jocular). By the way, I revert nonproductive language, and someday might use Huggle. I will use Twinkle to delete articles that meets WP:CSD tremendously. MH LU talk 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I might be irresponsible with it, but I would speedily delete pages that qualifies with WP:CSD policy. This includes malicious redirects, no explanation of why the subject is notable, or pure vandalism to Wikipedia.
 * B: I would intend to protect pages that qualifies with WP:PP and would only do so when the violation is suffice. I would semi-protect pages that have been persistently vandalized by IP addresses, and I would protect pages when they are very visible, having edit disputes, and persistent vandalism by autoconfirmed users. I would move-protect pages that have no reason to be moved, or subject to persistent page-move vandalism. I would create-protect pages that was recreated several times and always qualified for WP:CSD. See WP:PP, for instance.
 * C: I would intend to block users meeting WP:BP. For example, they sockpuppet, they vandalize many times, and they continue to add copyright violations. I would ban users who were blocked repeatedly and sufficiency 7 times.
 * D: I would spend my time on Wikipedia looking at the vandals on WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, block them, and revert all edits that are remaining that are vandalism. I block users to keep Wikipedia and its editors from harm, not to punish users. I already know what the block form looks like, because I saw an image of it uploaded by Josiah Rowe.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: They are mainly about amusement rides because I go to amusement parks nearly twice a week.


 * 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: I doubt that I have any. But if I have it, I will deal it as making the edit soon.

Additional question from Nsk92
 * 4. You were blocked in September of this year for two weeks for sockpuppetry. Could you explain in more detail what that was all about?
 * A: I left my computer open, and a friend borrowed it and did what got me blocked. But I know that is my conduct and not of others, and my requests for unblocking was declined. Even if I did it, I will promise not to trust the community in this manner again, as it destroys Wikipedia's content. HTH.

General comments

 * Links for MHLU:

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

Discussion

 * So your response to the sockpuppetry question is "It wasn't me, but if it WAS I promise not to do it again". Very inspiring.Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Moral Support - Please continue to edit Wikipedia and build up your experience in administrative areas, as well as building content, and reapply in a few months or so if you so feel the need. Remember, adminship is no big deal and just because this RfA will fail does not mean that future ones will. Kind regards. - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support - If you don't have major edits, you just can't earn the trust you will need. You probably don't have a chance, but keep your fingers crossed. If all else fails, run again. You can do it! And remember, if you don't make it, it's not a big deal!. K50 DUDETALK TO ME!LOOK AT ME!

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per lack of experience. As for Q1: you "might be irresponsible with it"?!Ironholds (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. I rarely find the need to oppose candidates and I would far prefer to morally support a candidate, but if you claim you might be irresponsible with CSD tools, I cannot do so. CSD is not a game. D ARTH P ANDA duel 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose- only 500 edits, of which over a third are to your user page or talk page, does not give me enough material on which to judge your contributions or policy knowledge. That, and your answers to the questions are quite worrying. I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but I don't think you should have the tools just now. Reyk  YO!  03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- MHLU, I think your intentions are good, but you really need to get a lot more edits and experience. Your answers also make me a lot nervous.  But please, keep trying, and thanks for the good edits you've been doing since your block.  Also, please try to write edit summaries for your edits.  Flying Toaster  04:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Not much experience with reverting, and possibly might be irresponsible with admin tools. The sockpuppetry also worries me.  Math  Cool  10  04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Very strong NOTNOW very tempted to snow-close this now but I think another few hours of politely worded NOTNOWs will help this editor in the long run. This editor claims to be a primary or secondary student so unlike adults who exhibit poor judgment, there is a very good chance that this editor will mature - pardon the pun - with time.  This editor should not re-apply for at least 1 year and at least 2,000 non-tool-assisted edits, if then.  I echo the other's comments that he should keep editing and I echo NuclearWarfare's moral support as an editor.  However, we would be doing both Wikipedia and this editor a major disservice if we were to give him the tools that, if misused even accidentally, could tarnish his wiki-reputation for a long long time.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - your enthusiasm is great, but if you apply for adminship again, please spend more time on your answers to the questions. I cannot work out what some of your answers mean, e.g. "I would ban users who were blocked repeatedly and sufficiency 7 times." and "But if I have it, I will deal it as making the edit soon". I also suggest reducing the number of banners at the top of your talk page, but as those above me have said, the best advice is to just work on increasing your experience and policy knowledge. Regards, Somno (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose I only needed to get three sentences into your candidate statement to come to my decision. Anyone who has socked in the past five months is completely unqualified to be an administrator. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Your intentions are admirable, but your timing is premature. You require much more experience before seeking out adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2008 (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.