Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hersfold 2

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

Hersfold

Final: (23/19/8); ended 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hersfold (talk · contribs) - I am Hersfold, and I've been a member of Wikipedia for eight months and seven days, according to the little userbox on my page. In that time, I've participated in several aspects of the project, including the CVU, new page CSD patrols, the Help Desk, the IRC help channel, Motto of the Day, rather extensively at Articles for creation, Articles for Deletion, a couple GA reviews, some article cleanup and writing, template writing, and I've recently started in the Adopt-a-user program. There are probably a few others that I've missed, but if so, my involvement in them hasn't been too high.

I'm a dedicated editor to the encyclopedia willing to do just about anything that is needed. My edit count is over 5,000 edits, with most of them coming from areas such as the help desk and AFC. I did have one previous RfA which I withdrew when it was clear the consensus was heading towards "not enough experience." I hope I've gained the experience everyone was looking for and have earned their trust to help out the 'pedia as much as I am able. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by KTC: Gee Hersfold, I was going to do the nominating! :D Everywhere I go on Wikipedia, I seems to run into Hersfold, or at least his edits. He deals with questions, from newbies or even the more experienced, with patience; his edits shows a lot of effort spend in fighting vandalism. He has shown he understand policies by his response on the help desk / helpme request, his participation in community process such as RFA & AFD. In turns of editing, he has also spend a lot of time reviewing and processing AFC as he has already stated. I believe he will make a very good and very helpful admin. -- KTC 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Gee, lemme think... I accept. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have just started college, so to start out with I'm probably going to be looking for some tasks that can be completed in short sections of time. I will definitely work on backlog clearing - I've had some good experience with that at AFC (678.16 articles in the recent drive - that's 677 full reviews, and a half-review and a two-thirds-review, if anyone's wondering about the decimal.). I've also had plenty of experience with vandal-fighting, so might work in the AIV department and RFPP, although I've not as much experience in the latter, I will freely admit. Deletion patrols will be a part of my admin workload as well, mainly CSD but also with closing out AFD's and expired PRODs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm quite proud of my work at AFC clearing out the backlogs - I just missed first place, about 20 articles behind davidwr, and about 50 in front of the third-place runner. That was a lot of work, but together the AFC Wikiproject managed to clear out a year's worth of unreviewed archives, and I am pleased to have contributed so much. I've also done some work in the mainspace, mainly with the articles Liberty High School, Carroll County, Maryland (rewrote to proper format), Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park (started as stub and contributed a pic, which is now gone), and Carcross Desert (started as stub and expanded to start-class). I'm also quite proud of my recent adoptee and my other work helping others out at the help desk and "in the field." My graphic design has also helped out, designing three barnstars (one two three) as well as the logo for WPAFC. I also added a lot of the {{tltt}} codes with SebastianHelm at WP:UTM and designed the templates {{nn-welcome}} and {{uw-bite}}, for CSD warnings and anti-biting, respectively.
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: None that were overly serious - when I first came in and didn't quite have the grasp of things, I had a bit of an issue where I tried to stop an edit war and didn't really go about it the right way (see here). Another time I tried to point out a somewhat bitey edit by another user and he got a bit annoyed about the comment (linky). Those were both several months ago, and I haven't had any major conflicts since, only the occasional vandal getting pissed because I reverted his edits. In all cases (including the pissed-off vandals), I've tried to deal with the situation as politely and calmly as possible - on the internet, it's impossible to use inflection to help indicate your meaning, so I've tried to be very careful in what I say and how, and will always remember to do so in the future. I adhere as closely as I am able to AGF and civility, and am more than willing to apologize when I don't (which I have done more than once, I'll admit).

Please ask additional questions, I'll try to get to them as soon as possible. If I don't respond in a day, give me a ping on my talk page or email me.

Optional question from Melsaran
4. All of your latest 500 edits (except for some Twinkle edits) were marked as minor. Many of them don't meet the definition at WP:MINOR, and marking major edits as minor provides a discourtesy to people who choose to hide minor edits on their watchlist or in the recent changes. Could you please explain this? Melsaran (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: When I first registered on Wikipedia, my initial intentions were to work mainly in fixing vandalism, so I set in my preferences to mark all edits as minor to save me the time. I have since moved from there, but in general my contributions are not overly major - mostly comments on talk pages and similar changes. When I am making larger or factual changes to articles, I do try to remember to remove the check from the box. I do realize that changes to talk pages such as adding comments and so forth aren't technically considered minor, but in general notes on talk page will be noticed rather quickly anyway, and are not likely to be overly controversial (at least, mine aren't). As a result, the check ox gets left checked perhaps a little more often than it should be, but is something I will work to take note of more often in the future. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend that you turn the "mark my edits as minor" feature off, just to be sure. Marking a major edit as minor is more harmful than marking a minor edit as major. Still, this is a satisfactory answer, thanks! Melsaran (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change made. Sorry, it's just one of those things you kinda forget about. Thanks. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Well, seeing as how this is about to end and I clearly haven't gotten enough of a consensus, thanks to everyone who participated, including those who opposed. I do hope to have another RfA in another few months, and will work on the concerns addressed. Another extra thanks to KTC, who was kind enough to offer to nominate me this time around, and put in a co-nom instead when I missed his email. See you all around until then. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Hersfold's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Hersfold before commenting.

Discussion

  • Per the AfD concerns noted below: I do understand your concerns and will certainly work off of your comments in the coming week. I would ask you to continue to watch my contributions and see how things are progressing. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong support as co-nom. KTC 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support he is a exellent editor and can be trusted with the mop. -FlubecaTalk 02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support great editor as shown in his contribs. Very experienced and deserves the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support An excellent editor. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A little more mainspace activity would be nice, but I support anyway, for his great work at the Help Desk and AFC. --Boricuaeddie 02:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Exellent contributions to the projectspace. --Hirohisat Kiwi 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per above. NHRHS2010 Talk 02:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as nothing I have seen makes me believe this user would misuse the tools. - Philippe | Talk 03:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support For reasons above. Cheers,JetLover 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A good editor and impartial unlikely to abuse tools.Harlowraman 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Support The comments by JayHenry who I respect a great deal left me leaning to oppose. However a review of your last 2000 contributions shows an enormous amount of civility, a genuine desire to help the community and new contributors and you certainly seem able to cite policy. Wether you fully understand the policies is my concern, so I'd advise you to be careful if granted the buttons - however on balance I see no reason not to trust this editor to do the right things. Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support No need to ask my usual newcomer question - A brilliant user who assumes good faith--Pheonix15 10:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No evidence that this user would abuse the buttons --SXT4 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Per nom. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support per Pedro. The recent issues brought up at AfD are concerning but on the whole this user's contributions appear to be good and solid. I'm not quite willing to overlook so much good effort and work over a couple poor statements in AfD, and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Seems like a reasonable candidate. I think we can forgive one error of judgment on an AfD - the AfD process is designed to get broad community input, so errors like that can be corrected. WaltonOne 16:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support no evidence to suggest that this user will be abusive. Acalamari 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - a keen and dedicated user who has great experience in the Wikipedia space and in Wikipedia generally. Mainspace is quite low, no 'ace' contribs, but that isn't too big an issue, and isn't relevant to what he intends to do so pretend I never said that. ;-) This is a good candidate. Lradrama 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support As this users first (and still) adoptee, I can say he's been really good at teaching a newcomer the tricks. --Audacitor(tc) 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good editor. Certainly assumes good faith and shows civility; unlikely to abuse admin tools. Lot's of projectspace edits. Would be good at clearing backlogs with the tools. ♠TomasBat 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Very helpful whenever I have come across this user :) Tiddly-Tom 09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The question I ask myself when I see an RFA is: Is this user likely to misuse the tools? With Hersfold, I am confident that he will try to discuss any controversial admin action, and that he will not abuse the tools. The concerns raised by the oppose voters ("sloppy research at AFD") do not convince me at all, because everyone makes mistakes, and Hersfold's overall pattern of contributions looks good. Melsaran (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I have found Hersfold extremely helpful and nice. And yes, I am also concerned with the very relevant issues raised by JayHenry, (goodness, never heard of Russell..arrrrgh!) However, I trust Hersfold when he said that he would "work on that"; he needs to. But bottom line is: this is a guy with exellent knowledge on technical issues (AFAIK), very, very helpful, willing to learn, and, IMO, highly unlikely to misuse the tools. Regards, Huldra 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose You are a good editor but I think you need more time. You have low main space contributions. But it's looking at two of your most recent AFD contributions that leaves me believing you're not ready. You recently argued to keep the guy in that one Mike Jones rap video, and voted to delete this. You described Bertrand Russell as "apparently notable." When challenged about this, instead of checking whether or not he's one of the most important thinkers in the history of human civilization (which he is), you said "Just because I may not know who this person is, does not mean I don't understand Wikipedia policy." Actually, when you fail to look at any context, it does. I don't like to oppose off a few diffs, but in this one discussion alone you failed to understand at the very least WP:SOAP (not even close), WP:NOTE, WP:V and WP:DP. I'm sorry, but I don't trust you evaluating the deletion of articles until you've had more experience. --JayHenry 03:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for the comments. I'll try to work on that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose per lack of Mainspace editing, as well as per JayHenry. Jmlk17 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User has 885 mainspace edits... out of curiosity, how many are enough? --SXT4 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been here about 6 months, and have over 1,100 mainspace edits! Politics rule 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but not everyone has the time to make over 1,100 mainspace edits in 6 months. –sebi 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well as an admin needs to be active, that is the point I am getting at! Politics rule 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are different ways to be active. I'm more a fan of the kind of activity that involves peer-reviewing hundreds of articles than the kind that involves voting on every RfA based on nothing but edit count, for example. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of mainspace edits you make in 6 months is not a great way of determining whether you are an active editor or not; I have seen candidates that have made over 11,000 edits in one month, and have made less than 700 or 800 edits for most other months, but this doesn't mean that the candidate is active. Personally, I don't feel that if Hersfold was promoted that he'll become one of many inactive admins, on the contrary. I'm just pointing out the fact that the amount of mainspace edits one makes is not a great way to determine whether an editor is active. –sebi 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You meant to respond to Politics rule, right? I agree with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [restarting indent] Yep, directed at Politics rule. Sebi [talk] 06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I don't think Hersfold would purposely abuse the tools but the Bertrand Russell incident is an ominous sign. Not knowing about Russell is no crime of course. However participating in the AfD about a book without taking the time to follow the link to the author is sloppy and as JayHenry noted, the ensuing stubborness isn't reassuring. I also found a lot of reliance on Google searches to determine notability [1] [2]. In some cases, Google may be a pretty good indicator but it's still a superficial one. I will probably support in the future but as of now, I have to oppose. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per JayHenry and Pascal.Tesson. I likewise agree that Hersfold wouldn't abuse the tools and think he is a fine editor who does great work at AFC, but am compelled to oppose for the following reasons:
    • The Why I Am Not a Christian AfD incident is too recent to overlook. When the key issue is the notability of the subject, one should generally comment only after checking for sources, especially if someone else has made a reason argument for keeping (as was the case in the above-mentioned AfD).
    • I was also uncomfortable with this comment; specifically, I thought that the suggestion to create a BJAODN WikiProject went against the spirit and letter of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY when one factors in the fact that BJAODN was just supposed to be a 'fun' distraction.
    • Finally, in this AfD earlier this month you suggested merging multiple articles and then deleting them. Per the GFDL this is technically not permitted (at least not unless someone manually merges the article histories).
    If you hang around AfD some more (either as an observer or participant), you'd probably be a shoo-in at a future RfA (assuming this one doesn't succeed). — Black Falcon (Talk) 07:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree with your parting advice -- I don't think I'd support an admin who supposedly became qualified for adminship by "hanging around AfD". There's much more to Wikipedia, and focusing only on the one part that by definition contains the worst of Wikipedia gives you a skewed perspective. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. Spending too much time at AfD may be both harmful (in terms of what you said) and stressful. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Hersfold, or anyone else for that matter, should spend all or even most of his time at AfD. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I don't oppose very often these days, but I think some more experience is needed, per the reasons provided by Black Falcon and JayHenry; the Bertrand Russell comment Jay cites in particular makes me think another few months of familiarisation would be beneficial. Neil ム 10:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not knowing who Russell was isn't great but not bothering to look him up before commenting at the AfD shows a lack of care which would be very worrying for someone with admin powers. "References could probably be found (I don't really have the time to check myself at the moment), and it could be arguably notable as the author is apparently notable himself. However, it is a borderline WP:SOAP, and could perhaps provide a bit more background and a bit less quoted material." Reading it again I'm speechless actually. Nick mallory 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose Lack of mainspace edits. Politics rule 12:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting oppose: according to Wannabekate, Hersfold has 888 edits (at this time) to the mainspace, and you have opposed him for lack of mainspace edits. However, you have supported another candidate, who has roughly the same amount of mainspace edits. Acalamari 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that user's mainspace contribs were of exceptional quality. This user's mainspace contribs are somewhat unsatisfing. --Boricuaeddie 19:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then PR needs to make an effort to describe this, other than throwing other users off the scent by mentioning "edits" rather than the "quality of edits". –sebi 05:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I am trying to get at is that as an admin, he needs to be active, and I do not see that much activity in his edit count! He has a solid overall edit count, but he needs more mainspace. The RFA pointed out above, I supported him because I could see a consise edit count. Politics rule 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And my point is, that making a judgment on a candidate's rate of activity by looking at their edit count isn't a very accurate way to determine whether they are active or not, as explained above. Sebi [talk] 06:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose at this time per the comments by Neal, Nick mallory, Black Falcon, Pascal.Tesson, and JayHenry. I would be happy to support after another two months, more experience, etc. Best of luck! Bearian 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AfD sloppiness. Ouch! Sorry, but not right now. Moreschi Talk 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I came to support, but unfortunately... Xiner (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Black Falcon and Nick mallory. To be frank, I have no confidence in the editor's ability to assess WP:N relative to WP's policies. The idea of the editor speedy deleting or closing AfDs at this time is disconcerting. To compensate for certain deficiencies in the editor's general knowledge, a habit of extraordinary thoroughness must be demonstrated, and that is not presently so. Xoloz 14:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Sloppy research at AfD is one of my bugbears, and such a basic lack of research doesn't bode well for participation in the more complex admin activities. Espresso Addict 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Sorry, per above. The lack of mainspace edits and the AFD issue bothers me. =( -ScotchMB 19:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose As well as the Bertrand Russell incident, it's less than two days since this. Anyone can make one mistake, but that's twice in the last week you've not carried out the most basic checking whilst dealing with what a moment's look at the articles would have told you would be particularly contentious AfDs — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I am concerned with the AFD issues brought up by others. It would be best if this was fixed before the next RfA. Captain panda 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per the fact that there are issues above that need to be addressed. --Ben hello! 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. An administrator has to check basic facts before acting, and the multiple incidentsJayHenry, Iridescent, and others provided suggests that this may be something of a learning opportunity. If you had a broad record a few really bad days could be overlooked, but your record is somewhat thin and this causes really bad days to stand out more. Participate in fewer AfD discussions per month and spend more time and do more homework before commenting in the ones you do participate in, and try again in a couple of months --Shirahadasha 06:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per JayHenry mainly, but I look forward to another nomination down the track. Cheers, Daniel 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, per candidate's own comments at AfD. I don't like to oppose at RfAs, but this one is very troublesome. The !vote cast in the Why I Am Not a Christian AfD is certainly worrying, but not nearly as disturbing as the candidate's misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policy, in particular the !vote to "merge and delete", which naturally is never an option (an admin needs to know this). I would strongly suggest that the candidate spend some time reviewing our policies (GFDL in particular), guidelines, and the application thereof before considering another RfA. Heather 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Per JayHenry and no need to pile on. —AldeBaer 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Others' issues are a concern, and not something I would support. –sebi 05:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was going to support until I came to the Bertrand Russell incident. While it can be forgiven that you didn't know who he was (though he was the most important thinker of the 20th century, philosophy isn't everyone's cup o' tea), I think it shows an overzealousness on your part (which isn't necessarily a bad thing!). While I am sure you were acting in good faith, the fact that you apparently couldn't be bothered to follow a couple of wikilinks is very worrying to me. It seems to me that if a troll nominated this for speedy deletion and you came across it, you might have deleted one of the most important writings of the last 100 years. And considering the recentness, I just can't support at this time. Since you've just started college, I'd recommend waiting a couple months, slow down a bit and maybe take a philosophy class. ;) I believe I would support in the future but not now. faithless (speak) 10:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning to support. Though I usually err on the side of caution and would oppose in a case like this, Hersfold's contributions that I have seen have been wonderful. I think a bit more experience couldn't hurt, especially in mixing it up in content disputes to develop conflict resolution skills, but I generally think she would use the tools wisely. I just need a more solid assurance of her understanding of policy, especially in regards to deleting articles. VanTucky (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm male, actually. It's a common mistake with this username, but just pointing that out. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, so apologies. Thanks for the head's up. VanTucky (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - I believed that I was going to be able to !vote support, no problem. However, the mutiple opposes have a point, so instead of going "oppose", I will have to for the time say neutral. Sorry mate. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral(sorry...MOTD mate) Sorry, I tried to support before I saw the controversial Russell incident. He is a good editor, light enough and a good editor to lean on, but,like what I'll do, wait until you get the 4 months.K14 17:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answer to Q4. Melsaran (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per Bertrand Russell incident. Wikipediarules2221 03:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. For someone whose main contributions are in meta-stuff like AfD, I'd expect to see wiser decisions on AfD. But I will not join this pile-on when apparently half of it is for a pointless, counterproductive, and editcountitis-based reason ("not enough edits per [my preferred unit of time] in [my preferred namespace]"). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:03, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hersfold_2&oldid=1090627013"