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

Henrik[edit]

(39/1/1); Originally scheduled to end 09:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Henrik for adminship. Henrik has been editing on Wikipedia since January 1 2005, but only really became an active editor in early 2006. He has well over 3000 edits to his name[1], with plenty in both mainspace, talk, and Wikipedia:space. Henrik has been awarded barnstars from a number of editors for his editing and his work in creating articles at the Articles for Creation pages. He also wrote a script for the AFC page, to speed up the process. He got Vasa (ship) to good article status, as well as five new articles onto "Did you know?" - he is a capable editor. He has reverted vandalism, reporting users correctly and carefully, and participated on WP:AIV. While he has fewer contributions to xFD than some (less than 100[2]), I challenge anyone to look at this and say he doesn't have a good awareness of what is and is not suitable material for Wikipedia. I think Henrik would make an excellent administrator. I had posted saying we needed more hands at the mop, and he contacted me wondering if he was suitable, as he wished to help out. When I looked into his editing, I was struck by what a helpful, kind, and good Wikipedian he is, and was only to happy to nominate him. I hope you will find him suitable. Thanks. Neil ☎ 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, thank you. henrik•talk 00:03, 29 October 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: The two areas in which I have felt an immediate need for the admin tools are in WP:AFC, where you quite often encounter a user wanting to recreate a deleted page. Thus being able to view the deleted edits to determine if it is a repost would be helpful. Secondly, I intend to help out at WP:DYK and started writing a DYK notifier script, to help post the DYK credits to user's talk pages, but found it difficult without being able to actually update T:DYK.
If successful, I would also participate in the usual alphabet soup of wikipedia processes that are frequently backlogged (such as WP:CSD, WP:DYK, WP:AIV, WP:AN/I, WP:AFC, WP:AFD, WP:NPP), though initially staying away from WP:RFPP, WP:AN3, WP:SSP, WP:IFD and other areas in which I have less experience.
Other things I'd like to do as I gain more experience is to create more userscripts and/or bots to help make the processes admins are frequently involved in run more smoothly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am not an outstanding article writer, but I have lately been interested in the technological history of Sweden, its inventors and engineers, and have created a few biographies and articles in that area (1, 2, 3). Most recently, me and User:Peter Isotalo brought Vasa (ship) to GA status, and will hopefully bring it to WP:FAC in the near future.
Other than that, I enjoy programming and I've written a few more or less useful user scripts, participated in the AFC project, answered ((helpme))-requests ([3], [4], [5]) and vandal reversion ([6]) and warnings([7]). My current project is to bring Sweden back into shape[8].
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: Editing articles about obscure scientists and engineers from a small northern country isn't exactly the most controversial of activities, and I haven't sought out conflict in other areas either. A few remains of long ago disagreements with other editors are documented on these talk pages: 1, 2. No feelings were hurt though [9]. A more recent disagreement is here and here. In general, I'm a pretty calm and mellow person, and it is hard to upset me.
Optional question from candidate self:
4: What's up with your long period of inactivity between May 2006 and May 2007?
A: Real life rather rudely interrupted with graduation from college, a new job which resulted in very intensive period of work, moving several times to a new town and new places and extended periods without internet access. I do anticipate that I'll keep up my current level of activity of roughly 400-700 edits a months for the foreseeable future however.
5. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: The current policy states that all admin actions are subject to a one revert rule, however I don't see myself unilaterally undoing the action of another admin even once. Nothing on wikipedia is a life or death situation, and there is always time to get a second (or third) opinion - the one exception would be a compromised admin account on a rampage. I would most likely assume good faith and that the blocking admin knows something I don't, and go my merry way. But assuming I felt strongly about it, I would first discuss it with the blocking admin and if that failed to resolve my worries, bring up the issue at an appropriate noticeboard and wait for consensus to form. Wheel wars represent a breakdown in communications between those who have the responsibility to help other users resolve their conflicts by communicating and are thus extremely damaging. Not being in a hurry and assuming good faith goes a long way. henrik•talk 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong support as nominator. I have no concerns whatsoever about his abilities or his attitude, and feel that a be-mopped Henrik will only be of benefit to Wikipedia. Neil ☎ 09:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Henrik knows policy well and as Neil says, he's a helpful chap - I'm sure he'll be fine with a couple of extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Well-versed in policy and a trustworthy editor. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Very good user. Unlikely to do anything wrong--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 11:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good editor, doubt he will abuse tools. PatPolitics rule! 14:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Experienced editor, will help with backlogs, which I know the current admins will appreciate. Support for sure! K. Scott Bailey 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seems a good bloke. Yes, support. -- Hoary 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I like his answers. He's clearly found ways to contribute despite not being "an outstanding article writer," and I'm impressed by his wanting to help automate DYK. Dppowell 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Dustihowe 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Pete.Hurd 18:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, if with a tiny hesitation. My impression from encounters with the candidate is that he's very cool, calm and reasonable, but...I do wish it was possible to see how he handles himself under real stress, rather than through the tiny disagreements that he links to in his response to question 3. (Not sure what they're even supposed to be about—Peter Isotalo and Gillis do quarrel about the Vasa (ship), but I would hardly say that Henrik gets involved.) I do see the point about editing in uncontroversial corners of the encyclopedia, though. I suppose I can hardly expect Henrik to pick a fight just to give me an illustration of how adept he is at calming it... (<subliminal egging-on>Come on, pick a fight! Do it!</subliminal egging-on>) I do have a good feeling about Henrik's use of the tools, and no reason to suspect he harbors secret depths of unreasonableness. That'll have to do. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Support I appreciate your ideas about AFC and your comment that you need to gain additional experience. With that attitude I think you can be trusted to use the tools wisely.JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looks good, and we'll be needing all the good admins we can get come November and December. GlassCobra 21:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Endless November is right around the corner. east.718 at 21:59, 10/29/2007
  15. Support Always nice to see someone who actually wants to work through the constant sludge of backlog. Jmlk17 22:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, well answered questions and good editor. Good luck! — jacĸrм (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Fine user. Acalamari 23:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support haven't had the pleasure to run across him/her, but he seems to know his/her stuff. Carlossuarez46 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — great contribs :-) --Agüeybaná 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support This user knows Wikipedia policy well and is also a very civil user as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support per Neil and Henrik's contribs.. you do know your stuff! DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Good user. I look forward to seeing Vasa (ship) at FAC in the not-too-distant future. --JayHenry 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support per JayHenry. NHRHS2010 talk 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - sufficient edits in all types, reasonable answers to questions, multi-lingual editor, no issues. Bearian 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Hemmingsen 18:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Actually seems to want the mop and bucket to do mop and bucket tasks. All signs appear to affirm purity of heart and calmness of demeanor. Pigman 22:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support From the excellent diff provided by Neil in the nomination and a review of contributions and talk page - a civil helpfull editor who has deomnstrated policy understanding and won't go heavy with the delete button. Pedro :  Chat  08:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, per the great comprehensive nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  29. Support as per above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. per nom. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, no valid reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Per nom and satisfactory answers. Phgao 03:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Why not? Good luck!--SJP 20:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support our Scandinavian friends! - Darwinek 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support John254 23:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--MONGO 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--per nom. Rock on.Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per Neil. I trust his judgment. Lara❤Love 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Insufficient share of actual conrtibution of wikipedia content. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You should probably put a BIT more thought into your decisions than simply cutting and pasting the same claptrap to every RfA. It does not demonstrate good faith to simply oppose every RfA and write only "I don't think we need professional police" on every one, with little or no real explanation of what that actually means. Just because someone doesn't have enough mainspace edits to satisfy your whims doesn't mean that they would be "professional police" as you so pejoratively (and repetively and repetitively and repetitively) refer to them. K. Scott Bailey 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In general Mikkalai has a valid point. Admins who eschew article work sometimes cause a lot of problems/drama. But Henrik doesn't really seem to me to fall into that category, Mikka. Take a look at Vasa (ship). It's quite good. --JayHenry 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikkalai seems to be making another one of his points. I suggest we let him make it peaceably, as chances are he won't even look at this RFA again. Neil ☎ 09:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a disgusting feat of WP:AGF. I vehemently disagree that we need "good admins here". We neeed good editors, and thus my vote. `'Míkka 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is equally poor with regards to WP:AGF. Have you seen anything to suggest Henrik would make a poor administrator? Neil ☎ 15:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out Mikka's talk page history. Anyone who leaves him a comment questioning his pointy blanket oppositions of all RfAs he votes on has their comment summarily deleted. And if we place our concerns here, he complains of "bullying", WP:AGF, "trolling", or "wikistalking." That he has adminship, and is acting this way is quite disturbing. K. Scott Bailey 20:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to echo this comment by HBWS. I think Mikka is entitled to his opinion, and it won't hurt me to hear comments on what I could improve. The rest is rather outside the scope of this particular RfA. henrik•talk 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem with Mikka's vote is that it's one of a canvas of oppose votes, all citing similar "concerns." Is it possible that every RfA candidate simply wants to be Wikipolice? K. Scott Bailey 20:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider this a poor reason to oppose but the user is welcome to whatever criteria he wishes to apply at RFAs. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Candidate has mentioned the deletion backlogs, but only as part of a general "alphabet soup" of policies (candidate's phrasing) – Gurch 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can rest assured I intend to help out with the upcoming changes - indeed, concern over that is what prompted this RfA. However, like Wikipedia, I'm here for the long haul, and I wanted my Q1 answer to reflect my intention to be a general purpose admin. henrik•talk 07:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category