The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Addhoc[edit]

Final (talk page) (58/1/1); Ended Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:15:04 (UTC)

Addhoc (talk · contribs) - Addhoc has been an editor on WIkipedia since July 2006. Addhoc has been active in Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and has been seen improving articles across Wikipedia. I am making this RfA (my first RfA nomination) because on a recent visit to User:Addhoc, I was surprised to find Addhoc was not already an Admin. An active editor who is often seen working on difficult and challenging tasks and shows strong potential to continue good work as an Administrator. Jeepday (talk) 11:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: humbly accept. Addhoc 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Helping with image backlogs at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This is an area that I'm reasonably familiar with, at the moment I frequently add rationales to images tagged for deletion. Also, I could help with articles tagged for speedy deletion - again I have some familiarity in adding references to articles tagged for not asserting their notability. Otherwise, I have a reasonable familiarity with the admin process and could assist where needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Probably my involved with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, I've mediated several cases and I'm currently a coordinator, which mostly involves minor clerking type tasks. I've written a few articles relating to construction trades, including Construction worker, Concrete finisher and Steel fixer.
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: Last year I was blocked for edit warring concerning the Religion and the Internet article, however this was when I was very new and since then I've mostly stuck to 1RR.

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Addhoc before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Ok, here goes. I think Addhoc has a pretty good edit record, with a wide variety of edits. According to EC, his main work is mainspace and unique pages. However, having been blocked is not a good thing, but Addhoc's honesty and edit record more than make up for this early nuisance. Another really good thing is the edit count, currently 17265. But his best record is the amount of time and edit summary record. There are no edits without a summary October 2006 on. Finally, I support him because of his wide variety of work. Cheers, Laleena 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Very experienced editor in a wide range of areas; no reason to believe that he would misuse the mop. Useight 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Should have become an administrator long ago. Lots of edits, much experience in image-related areas, and helpful as a mediator. Melsaran (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support overdue Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I was very impressed with a mediation Addhoc did a while back at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-09-10 Shakespeare Puzzle. Dealing in such an even-handed and fair manner with such a contentious and dispute-prone subject indcates Addhoc should make a great admin.--Alabamaboy 20:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Jmlk17 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. MatthewFenton trolling RFA with another facetious (literally and figuratively) reason for opposing is always a sign that the user would make a decent admin. Neil ム 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — [ aldebaer⁠] 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support One of my bros from the AMA, who helped make that organization a credit to Wikipedia, though we both left before it became overwhelmed and had to be discontinued. Ameriquedialectics 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've seen plenty of him around before, and I know he'll kick ass! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — about time. ~ 01er 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. No reason not to. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - He raises no red flags, and as H2O says, I'm sure he'll be great! Best of luck. Love, Neranei (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. great WP:MEDCAB work. CO2 01:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I am strongly in support of this nomination; Addhoc will be a great administrator. Acalamari 01:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support No doubt a supurb Wikipedian, will contribute more with the tools. Phgao 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Without a doubt, he fits the bill by my count. He additionally is savvy in dispute resolution, which is a very good sysop trait. Vassyana 04:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 'Support' Good user. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A great user. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Most certainly. Daniel 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. A down to earth, level headed user who would make a great admin - support Ryan Postlethwaite 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Solid all-rounder with an impressive editing record. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Matthew (oops). More than meets my Standards. Med com is always a plus with me. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Addmop. Reasonable candidate. >Radiant< 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support without question. Every interaction I've had with this user has been positive. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Strong editor. LaraLove 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strongest Possible Support - I first got to know Addhoc when he helped mediate and resolve a particularly contentious dispute on the Halloween article last year. Since then I have seen him handle many admin-level tasks and situations with calm, patience and skill. I have no doubt he'll be a fine addition to the team. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - another case of "Ithoughthewasanadminalready" -David Fuchs (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. People who are opposing don't say anything I find particularly bad. Backsigns 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I am shocked this user is not already an admin! I am going to support this person because I do not believe that there are any real reasons to oppose. Good luck!:)--SJP 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support as per SJP and overall track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards 08:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Yeah mate. Dfrg.msc 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support for giving support to maintain the neutrality of Sri Lanka related articles. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support very active, good contributions and experience. You need the tools. Good luck. Carlosguitar 11:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Contributions demonstrate solid policy knowledge, civility, article editing and discussion building. Ticks my boxes! Best. Pedro |  Chat 
  36. blah blah blah yeah. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support much varied experience and understands policy well. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. While this editor made some (admitted) mistakes in the past, since that time, has made a huge number of constructive edits, so can be trusted with the mop. Bearian 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 'Support I have had numerous positive experiences with him... :) already thought he was an admin. Sethie 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Keep up the good work! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - this is an absolutely brilliant RfA! An excellent candidate. Need I say more? Lradrama 08:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support . yandman 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - proven track record, hard worker. I've never seen issues with BITEiness - Alison ❤ 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support I quote this editor on my user page (although I have read a couple of comments where it is described as abusive--it is a compliment)!!!!! Like I wouldn't support this candidate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support--Filll 02:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per Neil. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support – what, not an admin already? Excellent attitude to tagged images, no problems in my experience. .. dave souza, talk 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Blah! per Sir Nick. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. · AndonicO Talk 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Should handle very well the extra tools.--JForget 23:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good candidate, no evidence they would abuse the tools. VanTucky Talk 00:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - looks okay to me. The action for which he was blocked doesn't seem to have had any malicious element Deb 10:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. WjBscribe 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Great user, very good contributions, everything seems to be in place. --Kudret abiTalk 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per Jeepday. E104421 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Good contributions. I checked some of his postings to WP:AN/I. He seems to be patient and have good knowledge of policy. I wasn't persuaded by the data given by the Oppose voter about his AfD work. EdJohnston 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I'm not sure I have faith in Addhoc's judgement, for example this. The topic (Harry Potter movies and films) is clearly notable and it's quite clear the article is encyclopaedic (whether it belongs on Wikipedia is open for discussion). I've also ran into you before on another article, you stated every article must have secondary sources (when you know primary sources are perfectly acceptable), when in fact it's every article must have reliable sources. I'm also not convinced you'll stick to "1RR" if it's not convenient for you. Matthew 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck out the above statement because it appears to be nothing but trolling, the 1RR? -Icewedge 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)(see below)[reply]
    You have struck the above comment because it appear to be nothing but trolling? Please tell me why you believe my comment to be "trolling" ("Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia."—Wikipedia:What is a troll?). I'm inclined to believe you are trying to start a dispute... (oh, do not alter my comments again). Matthew 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While it's likely trolling, crats decide if it's valid or not. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know this is actually slightly humorous, not because I was called a troll... but the pattern. It seems people are being branded trolls by the friends of the nominated more often for... err... not agreeing with them? Matthew 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Matthew, because you disagree with his views on deletion, you oppose him as a candidate for adminship? I, as an inclusionist, personally agree that the pages should be kept, but there's certainly a valid case to be made for deletion. This was not really an obvious lack of judgement, it seems more likely that you simply disagree with his opinion. And it's true that articles should preferably include multiple secondary sources to verify the claims made in the article, as primary sources are often biased. See also Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources. (original emphasis) Melsaran (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with his deletion views (I also don't agree with them.) My point is that his deletion comment wasn't supported by policy/guidelines, when the policy/guidelines actually seem to support inclusion (ergo my belief is that he would be deletehappy). And preference isn't the issue, it's that he issues a blanket "only" statement (again, causing me worry he'd use the administartive powers to force his opinion). Matthew 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm also not convinced you'll stick to "1RR" if it's not convenient for you" - While he does say he will, there's no reason to change to 3RR if the need arises. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The stated reason given in the AfD was that the article's subject was already adequately covered by Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)#Differences from the book. You may have good reasons for disagreeing with this view, but this doesn't seem to be the sort of concern that would result in questioning a prospective admin's judgment or fitness. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about this trolling business, it appears I have made a genuine mistake. I had not read the part in the Admin hopefuls answer about the 1RR so when I saw you talk about it in you oppose vote it seemed to me you were forcing random excessively unreasonable expectations upon the editor, coupled with the slightly combative tone of your post I made the overly hasty decision to strike out you comment as trolling. I am sorry, I realize it was mistake. -Icewedge 01:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew's opinion is entirely his own. We don't need to beat him with a stick because he disagrees with the rest of us. He gave a reason for opposing, that's good enough. CO2 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral - I will forgive Addhoc for his poor judgment in many articles I work on, (as I know he doesn't know the subject matter and does not know any better), and I will forgive him for his poor support of me as my AMA Advocate (as I know he did not recognize the six sock puppets and I guess was intimidated by them in the Mediation), and I will forgive him for one last thing, if he will just stop! He seems to follow me around and change all my <references/> to ((reflist)) for no reason (it is not on long lists of references but often on very short ones) and I cannot read the small print very easily. So, Addhoc, if you would just stop that, I will withdraw my Neutral --Mattisse 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category