HereToHelp (
talk·contribs) – HereToHelp is a very experienced user, and over the time he's been here he has made a very large number of edits, and assisted many people with various things on Wikipedia. After reviewing the community standards, I believe that he deserves adminship.
Alex4322313:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support. HereToHelp has a very large number of edits, and they are steadily increasing. I think that he could help Wikipedia a lot more if he has the additional sysop tools. Also, the way he has invited, welcomed, and assisted other users on Wikipedia is amazing. Definitely deserves admin, and has a bright future ahead.
Alex4322323:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
How could you oppose a user named HereToHelp? I like what I have seen of this user. A deft, gentle touch in vandal fighting is just the thing. Support++
Lar:
t/
c23:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Personally, I think the majority of edits should be in the mainspace. Looking past that, it appears they are here to help and worthly of adminship. :) Nephron 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Although technically he doesn't quite meet my
minimum standards for edits to the main article space, I'm impressed by his demeanor. Also, since a large number of his edits to project pages have been to create something, rather than simply debate and vote, I'm happy to add my support. —
Doug Belltalk•contrib00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I have recently been working with this user on the Scientific peer review project and found his attitude to be excellent. He is up to being a good admin. --
Bduke01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support The total number of edits is more important than where they are. In this case, the user has a wide variety of edits aside from the mainspace edit total which is not low in any event.
JoshuaZ04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, good user. I know you're HereToHelp. =) I find the oppose vote silly - the discussion HereToHelp removed from
Talk:Main Page was obviously some kind of joke.
JIP |
Talk14:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
User:Go for it!/Vote Support Once he takes on a page, it's a sure thing that the page will improve. I've worked with him on the Main Page redesign, the Help page overhaul, and lately on Tip of the day. In each case, his contributions improved the project and helped push it along. He's on our side - one of the good guys. A good choice for admin. --
Go for it!00:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, good experience with this user; lives up to his username. I hope that HereToHelp understands now though that just deleting comments from talk pages isn't a good idea, unless it's his own (and that's debatable). —
Spangineer[es](háblame)02:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
He's nitpicking; that discussion had absolutely NO value besides a laugh at BJAODN. If you remove your own comments, strike them out using <s> and </s>.--
HereToHelp02:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I'd encourage using edit summaries more. However, he's a good candidate by the rest of my standards, has experience in many areas of the site, and (per his answers to the questions) looks like he could really use the tools well. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
00:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
People remove vandalism from talk pages, but unencyclopedic (I now can spell that!) information is on the borderline between good content and vandalism. I am unaware of any policy about the matter (unless you can point me to one), so I decided to remove that for server room, if nothing else. And that was awhile ago, and one edit: please, look at the boader picture. Still, I respect your opinion.--
HereToHelp12:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
WP: Vandalism. Removing warnings
Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.
WP: Vandalism. Changing people's comments
Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)
From what I can tell that may be either violation of the above. Please study Wikipedia policy and return again when you are ready. --
Masssiveego23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
You are following the letter of the policy, not the spirit. I did not remove any warnings (that refers to any of the {[tl|test}} series); I removed an irrelevant conversation. The conversation remains preserved on the BJAODN page; I only put it under a more relevant title (while still showing the old one) and put the image there to illustrate the point better. Furthermore, that was one edit a long time ago—please look at the big picture and see that my contributions far outweigh any ambiguous technicalities I may have violated inadvertently (and I haven't recieved one complaint about that edit besides you).--
HereToHelp23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I bet I could thumb through your contributions and find some of your early mistakes, and also some smaller mistakes you made later on. I won't, but nitpickers could find chinks in even Jimbo's armor. He, me, and you are human. Lighten up.--
HereToHelp23:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I agree that codemning me for a year because of one edit is bogus, but this conversation seems to be dying anyway (and it will get less attention on the talk page).--
HereToHelp12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
"Sorry, you edited a comment left by someone else, so it's one year before you can apply for adminship again."
JIP |
Talk07:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Neutral I would support but for the dreadfully low edit summary count for minor edits. That may seem an insignificant issue, but I feel that describing what you are changing on a page is important and indicative of a willingness to work with the community. —Cuiviénen,
Friday,
24 March2006 @ 23:43 (
UTC)
I'm sorry you feel like that. Since, admittedly, I do not make many edits to the main namespace those minor edits could be from many months ago. Though Mediawiki software allows isolating edits by namespace, it does not let us view only minor edits. Look, instead, at my most recent contributions across the board and you will find a much more satisfying percentage.--
HereToHelp00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't call it "dreadfully low", there are edit summaries on a majority of minor edits. I doubt this would be an issue if Mathbot didn't display the edit summary percentages for every nomination.--
Alhutch04:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 92% for major edits and 61% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
For all of you that support (and oppose) me: I will send out the thank-yous after this is over so I can inform you how the nomination went.--
HereToHelp23:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
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 voters:
A. It’s not that I want to be able to do one thing badly so much as it is a bunch of little things. The ability to semi-protect pages would have been extremely useful when
Apple Macintosh went live on the Main Page and received a ton of image related vandalism (I won’t elaborate). Page deletion for when I come across an abandoned, empty talk page or stop using my subpages (every little thing helps to speed up the servers). Rollback and blocking abilities to continue the fight against vandalism. I once came upon a template that was deleted despite surviving a
TFD; undeletion would have been nice then. And, ultimately, the ability to not have to embarrassingly ask someone else to do stuff that, if I was a sysop, would take less than a minute. I think the
Administrators' noticeboard and
Vandalism in progress pages are great ideas, but when an article is on the Main Page it is highly visible and so it receives a lot of vandalism, and because it receives a lot of vandalism it is highly visible. During those urgent moments, there simply isn’t enough time to fetch someone else to deal with it. Additionally, the need to go through such systems—which take time, by definition and human nature—may discourage a sysop chore from being done at all. We’ve gotten the big puddles cleaned up, but we’ll need lots of mops to get the last drops.
PS (added during nomination): I can't stand to see the templates on the Main page not have "(pictured)" in them; I'd fix that whenever I saw it.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. As mentioned above, I am very proud of helping edit
Apple Macintosh to featured status. But I work mostly outside of the main namespace (that’s the main exception). I helped in the
Main Page redesign and I am pretty proud of that (enough to redesign my userpage around it, and I’m pretty proud of that, too). I’ve also helped out in other, smaller things. That includes several Portals (
Apple Macintosh,
Olympics,
Rock and Roll,
Nuclear technology), and I have created
Category:Portals needing attention as a quick way for users to find where their help is needed. I contributed to the discussion on
Scientific peer review and helped out a little on projects like the
Wikipedia:Article assessment and
Tip of the day. I just organized the
help system. And of course there are many little things to numerous to list here.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Recently, I’ve had a
dispute with a new user,
RememberOctober29, who insists about adding an unsourced, original research, and awfully POVish paragraph to the
Steve Jobs article basically accusing him of firing employees of minority groups after promising not to fire any employees. I’ve told him very civilly that unless he finds a reputable source to back him up, the paragraph is
original research and has no place here. He wound up reverting me several times (though not quite breaking the
three-revert rule) with things like “YOU stop” in the edit summary (and
vandalizing my talk page with false accusations). Ultimately, I think he’s stopped and nothing more was needed. That was the only time I was fighting someone who was malignant to our cause; I’ve had a few other disputes on talk pages but they’ve stayed there.
The above 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.