Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The High Fin Sperm Whale


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

The High Fin Sperm Whale
Final: (1/6/1); Closed per WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW by &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // at 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

Nomination
– The High Fin Sperm Whale has been a Wikipedian since September 2008. THFSW is a really active vandal fighter who currently has rollback rights. I have seen his edits on my watchlist very frequently. He also has some experience in the RPP and UAA, as well as some WikiProject work. This user has wanted to be an admin and should be The High Fin Administrative Sperm Whale. He would be definitely trusted with the mop, and he wouldn't abuse it.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks very much NSD, I accept. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:13, 14 March 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: There are several areas where I would contribute. The main one will be WP:AIV. I would also be involved with WP:RFPP and WP:PERM, especially WP:RFP/A and WP:RFP/R.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I have created 93 articles, mostly biology stubs, and a few volcano lists. My most successful article has been Largest prehistoric organisms. I have also uploaded 74 images on Commons.


 * 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: No, I have not had any major editing conflicts. If, however, I get into a dispute, I would resolve it on the talk page.

General comments

 * Links for The High Fin Sperm Whale:
 * Edit summary usage for The High Fin Sperm Whale can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * You may want to answer the first three questions before transcluding your RfA, as it gives us a general idea of what you would be doing here... --Taelus (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Strong support per nom.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per your actions which led to this thread just a few days ago. It indicates to me that you have poor judgment skills and may have a poor knowledge of our policies as well.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise but for now my blank-slate opinion is that you would not be a good administrator.   —  Soap  —  00:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you're mistaken. That RfA was closed by Bradjamesbrown.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you, NSD, are mistaken. The RfA was closed prematurely by THFSW, reopened, THEN re-closed. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was originally closed by High Fin Sperm Whale, only 21 minutes after transclusion, and without even a single oppose !vote. That is what triggered the WT:RFA thread.  —  Soap  —  00:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, that RfA still ended up being closed per WP:NOTNOW. I think THFSW can predict NOTNOWs, which may have been why he closed early. Either way, he has probably learned from this, and he probably won't close an RfA like this early again.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This was really bad judgement and demonstrated an over-eagerness to exercise admin-like tools. Responding to blatant canvassing here for here without so much as a word is not good.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See my above comment. He has probably learned from his mistakes. Maybe I should give him a resilient barnstar...  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does not have the judgement or experience expected of an administrator. Answers to the questions are frankly, lacking in any depth. The response to Q3 is meaningless, "No, I have not had any major editing conflicts. If, however, I get into a dispute, I would resolve it on the talk page.". The question did not ask you where you will deal with it. It asks you how you will deal with it. Your most successful article is also tagged with cleanup. &mdash;Dark 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, resolving on the talk page is how.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, but you're just not ready. I hate to be so succinct, but there's nothing more to be said.  ceran  thor 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, concerns about judgment, temperament, and experience. -- Cirt (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: concerns about judgement, such as the RfA close only a few days ago. I'd say come back in a few months with more experience. Sorry, Airplaneman  talk 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral leaning support I am on the fence with this RfA, I have seen this user do good work in the past but am unsure they are ready for the mop at this time. I reserve my judgement...   --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 01:22, 14 March 2010 (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.