Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MakeChooChooGoNow


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

MakeChooChooGoNow
[ Voice your opinion] (1/16/3); Ended 16:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

- My name is Harvey Henkelman, and I'm 32 years old. I'm employed with CSXT out of Tampa, Florida as a freight train conductor/locomotive engineer. I spend much time on Wikipedia when I'm home, editing and adding articles and images along the way. MakeChooChooGoNow 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A:Vandalism watchdog


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A:Train horns in North America, Bone Valley, along with many tidbits of information scattered over the course of many articles.


 * 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 have been involved in more than a few conflicts, as to be expected from a man who has opinions of his own.


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Moral support And how is 2854 edits since July 2005 being new here? &mdash; Michael Linnear   06:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose- Vandalism Watchdog isn't a sysop chore...and specifying age isn't what you're supposed to say. --The preceding comment was signed by Us  e  r:Sp3000  (talk•contribs) 04:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Answer to Q1 does not require admin tools. Nacon kantari  04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose &mdash; it pains me to be the first to oppose, but I have to say it - you aren't experienced enough in the type of work sysops undertake. Having a look at your last 1000 contributions, although you've done wonders for the article mainspace, you have all of...19 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Remember *sysopship is no big deal*, but if you do want the mop and bucket, get down to some deletion debates, pack some vandal-slaying under your belt (to actually prove your answer to Q1), and try to volunteer at Peer review or any other backlogged Wikipedia page. Don't let this get you down - your on the way to the mop, but you need to refocus some of that marvellous energy towards the sysop side of operations. anthony [ cfc ] 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Not enough experience, and you could've thought of a better answer for question 1-_ $U IT  04:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I think this username needs to be changed here before he is nominated. It looks like it is unfamiliarly confusing or a uservio. Future54 05:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I don't see any problem with his username at all.  If you're going to call out someone's username, you'd best be explicit about what problems you see with it.  The fact that he's been around for a year and three-quarters and 2500-ish edits suggests most people haven't seen a problem. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 10:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose just based on Q1 alone, haven't even checked experience.-- Wizardman 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Okay! Let's look on the bright side of this RfA... Erm, well, I couldn't find much of a bright side (Well, you are healthy... hopefully...). So I might as well tell you the dark side - yes let's all join me on the dark side, to quote Darth Vader. You don't have my minimum requirement of 3000 edits. You have made 19 Wikipedia namespace edits (A large chunk of which have been to the proceedings of this RfA) & even worse, only have 1 Wikipedia Talk edit to your name. Your edit summary usage is 47% for large & 7% for minor edits - this is really really realy bad, but can easily be fixed by setting the "automatic summary" setting in your preferences. You have no GA, FA, FL or any FC for that matter. Although sysop tools for vandalism watching could help, based on your answer to Q1, you don't sound like you really really really need the tools just yet. In fact, the fact that you didn't even follow the example set by others in the RfA process, such as in how to answer the questions properly, is enough to make me oppose on it's own. I'm not here to completely crush your spirit, unlike Darth Vader, but I suggest you do a few things, as I'd rather help you than quash you. 1) Withdraw this RfA. 2) Go back & improve on a few things - get your edits up, get an FA, get waaay more Wikipedia namespace edits & try to stay out of trouble. 3) Learn about what admins do & how to properly answer questions. Lastly, never ever give out personal info. Whether it's true or not (I find it hard to believe that a 31 year old can't see if his RfA questions are not even close to other's), you should never give out your info, even if you're older like you say. Anyway, continue to edit here & you may consider shortening your name to a less complicated one, as that is an often used oppose at RfAs. Anyway, wishing you the best. Regards, Spawn Man 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above. Improve your experience on wikipedia, because you are relatively new here.Real96 06:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Spawn Man, he's hit just about every nail on the head. Plus the slighly hostile response to the neutral comments below doesn't bode well for a stressed-out admin... The Rambling Man 07:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose In all sincerity, he can reveal anything he wants to, the consequences are his. And the username doesn't matter.  In equal sincerity, I think both the answers to the generic questions and the odd response to the first two neutral posters show a lack of respect for the community.  I envy your abilities in the mainspace, but I can't support you as an admin.  -- Tractor  kings  fan  08:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, weak answers and generally lacks of experience. Vandal fighting can be done without the tools. Terence 09:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Piling in here, but Oppose - I haven't even checked your history but your answers to questions 1 & 3 are instant nos. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  11:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose and suggest withdrawal Very low edit summary usage, no AIV reports, very little interaction with other user via User talk pages and Wikipedia talk, very bad answers to questions, one does not need admin tools to fight vandalism, yes it mkes it easier but its not needed. i suggest you edither withdraw it or an admin or b'crat will per WP:SNOW.  Te ll y a ddi ct  11:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - Over 2000 Edits its pretty good and your mainspace edits is excellent but what bothers me is the Answers to your question which I think is far from acceptable....-- Cometstyles 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Opppose sorry but you've recently been removing references from articles (often ones you've created), for example: and . When Morven asked you about this on your talk page, you replied "...the tables I've been adding to the articles would supplant the offsite references". This appears to show a fundamental misunderstanding of verifiability which is perhaps our most important content policy. As a fellow railfan I greatly appreciate the excellent work you've done on Wikipedia articles, but administrators here must show they understand of policy. You also need the ability to interact with users without jumping down their throats and your answer to Anas' neutral opinion below is almost exactly the opposite of the one we need. Gwernol 12:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Didn't have to go past the user page -- and the political userboxes thereon -- to find good cause to oppose this candidate. Sorry.  Kelly Martin (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see political userboxes. Well, one, I guess, but even that one is about as innocuous as they come. Haukur 14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Comment. I think you're out of your ever-lovin' mind for posting sufficient personal information that you can be tracked down. Especially if you want to do sysop chores - there are some rough customers out there, and even if you don't want to get involved with them, they want to get involved with you, sometimes. I won't oppose you for this reason, as it's your funeral (not literally, I hope), but I would think that identifying yourself as you have necessarily limits what you can do, safely, as an admin. Herostratus 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral weak answers and low experience. — An as  talk? 05:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would appear that a college degree is required for Wiki adminship. No thanks, but I have a real-world job, with real-world responsibilities and bills to pay. I'm not the type to needlessly subject myself to bouts of nervous diarrhea and sweat over the number of edits or my seventeen-letter user name.
 * And as for divulging 'personal information', any competent person can seek that same information (and more) through a simple Google search. Also, let us not forget that we Americans enjoy rights as prescribed under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I would be all too happy to greet someone who threatened me (especially in light of recent provisions passed by the Florida Legislature) due to a Wikipedia edit of mine superceding their own. MakeChooChooGoNow 06:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Grr! I knew there was some Government Conspiracy POINT this user was trying to convey. Your above comments only affirm my concerns - Many users & admins on here don't have any type of professional PhD etc. Heck, there was even a 14 year old admin once (probably still is somewhere....) Your combative remarks show that you don't have he patience to become an admin. My oppose was very civil, light hearted & helpful in future RfAs, yet your complete disregard for both my & other comments here is detestable. I have no PhD, nor am I a professinoal paleontologist, yet I've written 5 dinsoaur FAs - you can do exactly the same. In the immortal words of Rob Schnieder - "You can do it!" In regard to your reply about the personal information - Yes we could quite easily look you up on the internet, but I'd doubt I'd look exactly for Harvey Henkelman on google. Anyway, I'd hoped you'd take my & other's suggestions to heart, but this isn't probably going to be the case. None of this is personal - we're just commenting. You are good enough, just not yet. Don't doubt that you can in time. :) Spawn Man 07:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd note, in passing, that a fair number of Wikipedia's current Arbitration Committee give their full name, their ages, and their approximate area of residence. As does Jimmy Wales, for that matter.  There are certainly reasons to pause before giving out identifying information, but it shouldn't be expressed as expected that Wikipedia admins should not do so, or that bad consequences are inevitable.  They're not.  Plus, pseudonyms give one a false sense of security; it's easy to leak enough info to be identifiable in any case.  As to the consequences of giving his employer, I must note that Mr. Henkelman works in a unionized and very regulated industry, in which dismissal for non job-related issues is very unlikely. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that if you look a little further down the page, you'll see a 12 year old with a reasonable chance of passing. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a question - which one? --The preceding comment was signed by Us  e  r:Sp3000  (talk•contribs) 11:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I've just got to say - I love your username :) We need someone who can make the trains run on time ;) Haukur 13:19, 13 April 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.