Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The High Fin Sperm Whale 2


 * ''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: (1/5/0); Candidate withdrew; Closed by The High Fin Sperm Whale at 18:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
– Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to nominate The High Fin Sperm Whale for adminship. THFSW has been on Wikipedia since October 2008, and since he joined, he has made over 10,000 edits to Wikipedia, 44% of which are in the article namespace, and over 14,000 edits to all Wikimedia projects. He has created 127 articles, and he created the good article Pholiota squarrosa, which was also featured on Did You Know. In addition to his experience in content creation, he also has experience in the vandal fighting field, having made over 300 reports to AIV. In addition to his experience in vandal fighting, he knows the protection policy fairly well, having made over 200 reports to RPP. His first RfA failed due to concerns about his judgment, but his judgment has greatly improved since then, and I think he is ready for the tools. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For my first RFA nomination, it is my pleasure to present The High Fin Sperm Whale, an active Huggler and page creator with over 100 pages created and 300 reports to AIV. Other than that, he is also an active participant as the science reference desk with over 200 edits there. Last time his RFA failed mainly due to a bad judgment call closing a RFA with no votes; now I see no reason that THFSW will do the same having learned from the incident. Since then he has closed two RFA's easier correctly per WP:NOTNOW. and. While not an ideal content creator as many would like, I see no reason THFSW will abuse the tools. Derild 49  21  ☼  15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Co-nomination from Derild4921


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks guys, I accept. I hope this isn't too early... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to do the most work at AIV, and also a good deal at RFP. I will also help at PERM.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As The Utahraptor siad, I have created 127 articles. My best one is Pholiota squarrosa, which, thanks to Sasata, is now a good article and a DYK. I have also made many reports to AIV and RFP as said above. In addition, I have made over 4,000 contributions to Commons, were I have uploaded 239 images.


 * 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 never been in any major conflicts, and Wikipedia rarely causes me stress. However, when it does, I usually just take a break. If faced with a major conflict, I hope to discuss it peacefully.

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * 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 his contributions before commenting.''

Support

 * 1) A little bit of this, and a little bit of that. All for the better. Net Positive-- intelati  talk 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Your last edit to Pholiota squarrosa left it as this, and yet you still take credit for the article being a GA. In addition, the vast majority of your 127 articles, from the sample that I selected, are either a few sentence stubs, which is not bad by itself, or do nothing to indicate notability or the existence of third-party sources. NW ( Talk ) 17:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) About to say the same as NW but he beat me to it. Lack of content contributions is one thing and can be explained away if you want to concentrate on something else and have a good reason for wanting RFA. Claiming the credit for someone else's work is an instant fail as far as I'm concerned when you're applying for a position of trust. – iridescent  17:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the credit goes to Sasata, but I did create it, so I do get some credit. I am not claiming to have done it all myself, and it never occurred to me that people were getting that impression. And my best contributions, however, I don't think are in the article creation area, but in AV efforts. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Was also going to make the above point. Sure, you deserve the credit for making a stub/start class article but if that's your best contribution it's somewhat concerning  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 18:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. Since you find it concerning, I am no longer taking credit for it. I removed the DYK notice from my page, the GA userbox, etc. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, I cannot trust this candidate. To claim recognition for a GA based on two early edits is not the behaviour expected of an admin. Graham Colm (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) No experience in any article review process gets an oppose from me. The GA note above is at best dishonest; you can't take credit on a Ga for an article you didn't really touch. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)