Wikipedia

User:HighInBC/RfA voting history/HighInBC

< User:HighInBC | RfA voting history
# Support I beleive will be a value to the wiki as an admin. HighInBC 22:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
# Oppose I am sorry, but an admin needs to take critisism well, if it is accurate or not. You appear to be taking alot of the critisisms here personally. You seem to be an excellent editor. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
# Support This user seems to be a valuable asset, technical know-how, conflict resolution skills, neutral in controversial topics, give him the mop. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
# Support Despite limited XfD experience, he has demonstrated the ability to do so well, and that is the important thing. A great editor all around, good a dealing with disputes which is also very important. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
# Very weak oppose I do not think this user has gotten past his civility problems. Things like don't give me that "civil" stuff. Have a look at #2 on my Wiki philosophies. Don't be that guy. That's such a noob thing to do would really disturb me if I heard it from an administrator. His response is that it's context somehow makes it acceptable, I disagree. You could have said the same thing without name calling. One of the biggest things admins have to do is deal with people who do not understand, or do not want to understand the rules. They must remain civil regardless. I also disagree with his rule #5 as I think it is probably not true, and a little insulting to our anon editors who are helpfull. I would like to ask if you really checked the history of all the main page articles to confirm that? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
# Oppose Taking up a mocking tone towards other religeons is not something that can be tolerated in an admin. Examples include "I knew you would ignore everything I said and just start preaching like a mad man" and "You have no answer, and I pity you for being so decieved... then again, most people simply allow themselves to be, because they are afraid of how alone and insignificant they are in the universe, and so they look for some imaginary powerful being to seek comfort under. When one thinks about it, it is incredibly childish, and to an extent, pathetic.". Sorry, you need to be neutral and calm to people with opposing beleifs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
# Support Wow, almost missed it, great editor. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
# Support This editor can hold an opposing point of view and remain civil and neutral, excellent qualities for an admin. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 07:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
# Support I have read the source code, and if ran as is will act as a responsible and helpful admin. Any further tasks should require additional approval. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
# Support This will reduce that backlog on WP:AIV, because she won't be filling it with reports, but instead removing them. Keep up the good work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose You seemed to have skipped over question #2 which is a really important question. Question 2 is your opportunity to show that you have contributed to areas an admin is expected to know about. Your answer to question 7 does not address the ongoing main page vandalism, I would like to hear your alternate solution to this very serious problem. Your answer to question 3 does not tell me how you deal with confrontation, which as an admin you will have to do often. Your answer to question 1 is very limited, blocking users and CSD, do you have experience with WP:CSD and WP:AIV? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
# Support An admin needs to be a person you can disagree with and still be productive, NYB qualifies in that regard. Experience is enough, would be a benefit. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
# Support A fine editor. Will be a fine admin. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
# Weak oppose Bucketsofg points out some rather dismissive comments, not so civil comments. Calling somebodies message "completely worthless" and saying "You are just repeating what someone else has already said to make your self feel important." are not the type of responses I would like a user to get when the talk to an admin. I am glad you have decided that uncivility is unproductive, but that was just in Feb, perhaps at a later time. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
# I would like to see more indication of experience with conflict resolution from this user before I support. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
# Support without hesitation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Answer to question three leaves doubts as to your experience with dispute resolution. Q3 is your opertinuty to show how well you handled disputes in the past. I am also a little concerned about issues meantioned above. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
# I have great respect for this user, I am sure this user would not willingly mis-use his tools. However, with only 652 Wikipedia namespace edits(267 of which were on WP:RFCN) I just get the feeling it is too soon. In each of the last three months, this user has done more edits than the three months before combined[1]. It will not be long before I will be ready to support you at that rate. My only advice is to think hard before making a decision about if it is defensible if later disputed, an admin needs to make the correct decision and then stand by it when people complain(which will happen no matter how correct you are). Your admirable quality of recognizing your mistakes when pointed out to you and fixing them needs to be contrasted by an ability to know when you are correct and people are complaining anyways. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Not enough experience, no need for the tools. The declining of the questions leaves me with very little information. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose An admin should know what is uncivil and not have to wait until somebody objects. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
# Support HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Only 348 Wikipedia namespace edits. This shows a real lack of community participation on the policy level. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Does not seem to understand admin tools, per Q1. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
# Support This person has been an admin for a long while without issues, this sort of reconfirmation seems unnecessary. We should not be making long standing admins take an RfA regardless of how they got their bit. This user may have made a few mistakes, but find one admin who has been at it for over a year who hasn't. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
# Support This user looks very promising, and has gained experience in the needed areas. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Insufficient project space experience, only 158 project edits, and 9 project talk edits. Needs more community participation. Has not been very active for the last 5 months. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose You are not ready, participate in the project more, try again in a few months. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose An admin really does need a lot of experience in the Wikipedia: namespace, its talk pages. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose This user is not ready, though may be someday. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Civility issues, and general lack of understanding of the purpose of userspace and WP:NOT. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
# Support Good answers to questions, good history. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
# Weak support This user should make a good admin, but does not seem to understand IAR. It is not for ignoring other people, but for making non-controversial actions that would benefit the project but normally be prevented by the rules. Given this fundemental misunderstanding I can see why he thinks it should not be put into practice, but used correctly its practice helps the community rather a lot. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Self limiting your use of tools and putting yourself in the recall cat do not carry much water with me, I think both ideas limit the usefulness of an admin. Your answers to the questions were very limited an have not convinced me that you are ready to be an admin. You seem to be saying that being open to recall is a "simple fix" for lack of community trust, I don't think it even comes close. Ryan below me also raises some very disturbing issues, the ability to edit protected pages is of the larger concern to me considering the recent edit war that was halted by protection. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
# Support Good candidate, good answer to question 4(most get that one wrong). I have faith this person will benefit the community with the tools. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
# Neutral Using the tools to perform your duties as legal counsel is one thing, and I approve of that fully. But until I see a demonstration of your judgment I cannot support giving you the type of discretion in non-legal matters admins are trusted with. Until(1 == 2) 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Neutral When I pointed out that the foundation requires a copyleft license for content[2], you responded in a fashion that indicates you think the community can come to a consensus to violate copyright, and that unless the foundation comes and stops us that is okay[3]. The fact is that admins need to know to ignore consensus when it is a violation of Florida law(where our servers are held) or m:Foundation issues. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
# Support Keep up the good work! ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose Of the 58 users that this person reported to WP:AIV, 17 of then were removed without blocking. This shows a lack of understanding of when a block should be applied. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
# Support Job is uncontroversial and tedious, perfect application for a bot. I have read, and understood the source code, and it will function as described. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
# Support User seems to understand when tools should be used. AIV reports by this user are blocked 97.8% of the time, I know I checked. The 2.2% that were not blocked were well within the range of admin discretion. 1 != 2 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
# Hell ya 1 != 2 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
# Support I have seen good things from this user, and the reasons to oppose are not convincing to me. 1 != 2 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
# Support, I think he has already demonstrated admin abilities. 1 != 2 17:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
# Oppose 20 edits? How could we possibly know you well enough to trust you as an admin. Seek more experience then try later. 1 != 2 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
# Support, Yes I think this person who is an admin and has been an admin without issue should be an admin. I do not however support the idea of using RfA to determine if an existing admin should remain one. 1 != 2 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose Considering many of his speedy delete tags were rejected as not meeting the criteria, I have concerns that if an admin such article might just end up deleted anyways. Similar concerns regarding username blocks. Also, not related to my opposition, but what does CAT:AOR have to do with team work? Is an admin in the category more of a team player than one who is not? (1 == 2)Until 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose None of the reasons this user gave for wanting to be an admin requires an admin tool. (1 == 2)Until 00:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose desysoping any user who had not abused their tools. How many times is this idea going to come up?? It has been rejected time and time again and we are not just going to desysop hundreds of admins who have done nothing wrong. Go ahead and look at the history of compromised admin accounts, they are from active accounts, not inactive. (1 == 2)Until 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
# Unconditional support A long term, helpful, crucial member of the community. Will make a fine admin. 1 != 2 14:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
# There is no such thing. The idea of "reconfirmation" or "deadmining" in this fashion has been rejected by the community repeatedly. This goes against consensus. This is not the venue for this decision. Also this "rfa" is invalid because Jasonr has not accepted the nomination, this is all messed up. There is no precedent nor justification for this kind of reconfirmation nomination. Chillum 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
# I think being open to recall compromises an admins ability to do their job. I think that admins are plenty accountable without recall. As such I choose not to support where I would have otherwise. Chillum 00:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
# Oppose Civility is very important for an admin. Admins should reduce drama, not escalate it. Chillum 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
# I am recusing myself from this RfA due to my blocking of one of the participants for their behavior here. That being said I do support the nominee in spirit, if not in !vote. Chillum 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
# Support I have seen no good reason to oppose this candidate and plenty of reason to support. Those suggesting that more article work is needed should understand than being an admin is about using a mop to clean stuff up, not write articles. Chillum 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
# Neutral I would love to give my support but I am a little concerned about how this editor would interpret deletion debates based on the policies and expectations of the community. I cannot oppose such a wonderful editor though. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
# I would like to see evidence of participation in admin related areas. Things like AfD and other discussions that an admin eventually closes allow me to better judge the users understanding of policy. If such examples are presented I will reconsider my position. Chillum 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
# Oppose per block log. It may have been over a year since the last edit war but there are 7 blocks in 2 years before that for edit warring. A year without a block does not mean much to me because the admin bit will be with you for many years short of divine intervention. If it was 1 or 2 blocks I could understand but 7 blocks in 2 years shows a failure to quickly adopt community expectations. The last thing we want is a wheel war. Sorry Armbrust. Chillum 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
# Support I am happy to support this candidate due to the exceptional history of good work. Chillum 16:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
# Oppose With regret I must agree with DGG's opinion on this matter. I would hesitate to give this user the delete tool given a track record of poor judgment in regards to inclusion/deletion standards. No prejudice against running again after showing a better track record.

I waited a while before casting this opinion and I did not give it lightly. Chillum 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

# Support After much though I will support this candidate. Experience can be gained on the job and I am confident this user will move carefully in areas that are new to them and accept the advice of their peers. Chillum 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
# Support I can see no sensible reason for opposing this request. We need admins and this is a solid candidate. Chillum 02:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
# Support - While the opposition makes some reasonable points I believe this candidate will respect the will of the community as an admin. Chillum 05:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
# Support Hail C-zar! The nomination statements and a look at this users history tells me we have another good admin on the way. Chillum 19:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
# Support Q5 does not bother me, those diffs are all reasonable in context. Being firm with poorly behaved users is not incivility. I suggest people read the actual discussion instead of just the quoted text as context makes a difference. Great candidate. Chillum 17:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
# Support A fine candidate sure to make a fine admin. Chillum 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
# Support It is easy to support when we keep getting such good nominations. Chillum 20:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
# Oppose Based on block history alone. What was this about[4]?? There are other reasons, but the block history is enough. Chillum 23:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
# Support After examine this user's history and given consideration the reasoning of the opposition I see no reason not to support this user. Chillum 22:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
# Support Candidate seems like they would make a good admin. I found the reasoning of oppose 1 and 2 to be most uncompelling. Chillum 22:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
# Support This user seems like they would make a good admin. I see no sensible reason to oppose. I have since struck the previous sentence as someone has made a valid concern in the oppose section about the candidates view of IAR. While this is not enough for me to oppose I do hope the Fenix down will err on the side of caution when responding to the use of IAR. Chillum 20:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
# Support I expect this candidate to do a good job. I find the rational of oppose #1 and #2(the only that exist at this time) to be unconvincing. I don't think you need to be a great article writer to be an admin and I don't think you need a minimum amount of edits per month to be competent. Chillum 16:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
# Reluctant oppose - A great editor and a real benefit to Wikipedia. However I feel understanding of policy is lacking given their talk page history. Chillum 06:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
# Support I look forward to this user helping out. Chillum 15:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
# Support It is a pleasure to support this candidate who I know will be a great admin. I see no reasonable reason to oppose. Chillum 20:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
# Support I encourage Ian to take care to follow the deletion policy. Otherwise I have no concerns about this candidate, they will make a great admin. HighInBC 14:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
# Oppose An administrator needs to set an example and harmonize with the community. The history of blocks is simply not acceptable for an admin. Chillum 04:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
# Support I am confident this user will make a fine admin. Chillum 14:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
# I have to say you have promise but it may be a bit early. I failed my first RfA due to it being too soon, I passed the second time. Don't be discouraged if it does not go well this time. Chillum 19:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
# Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. I may change my mind if a convincing reason to oppose is presented. Chillum 14:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
# Support I see no good reason to oppose this candidate. Those complaining about lack of content contribution are asking a janitor to be a great writer, it is silly. Those who are upset that she thinks that great content creators should *gasp* follow the same rules as others have been unconvincing in their arguments. We need an even hand here. Chillum 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
# Support Now that Ceradon has given a story I can believe on the talk page I find their history to justify continued access to the admin toolkit. I will point out that it is not proper for an admin to be caught being dishonest like that. If you are going to hide something, do it with skill. If you are going to reveal something then do that with skill. This botched coming clean may sink this RfA far more than if you had hidden this properly or revealed it properly. Chillum 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
# Regretful oppose While this user is a great asset to the project I fear that an occasionally combative attitude is problematic. Admins need to constantly be de-escalating situations and the only stick they should carry is the olive branch. Chillum 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
# Support Having read this page I see no sensible reason to oppose this candidate. I may reconsider if something like that appears later, but it ain't here now. Chillum 19:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
# Support This seems like a fine candidate who I don't think will abuse the tools. Those concerned about the alternate account are blowing it out of proportion I think. It was only used to improve the encyclopedia and their 3rd edit[5] linked the accounts so it is not like they were being sneaky. Chillum 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
# Oppose The diffs provided by CorbieV indicate to me that this person lacks the judgement and temperament to be an admin. Sorry. HighInBC 04:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
# Support I see no reason not to support this candidate. Those opposing because this user is young would make a more convincing argument if they pointed out immature behaviour. Short of that I don't see it as a valid reason to oppose. It is not as though age and wisdom go hand in hand. I will reconsider if a serious issue with this candidate is brought up but I am supporting for now. HighInBC 01:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
# Support This editor has been here a long time and doing well. I see nothing put forward to suggest they would not make a good admin. I became an admin in less than a year of activity here and it turned out well, I see no reason for years and years of experience. Being an admin is after all not a big deal. HighInBC 15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
# Support Based on an extensive contribution history over many years. I have yet to see any good reason to oppose presented, I may reconsider if I do. HighInBC 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
# Support Based on this candidates history here I support. I have seen no good reason presented to oppose. HighInBC 17:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
# Support Based on the nominating statements and the analysis at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll/Archive_1#78.26 I am happy to support this candidate. HighInBC 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
# Support Seems like a good candidate. I may reconsider if there are any sensible reasons for opposition given, but currently there are none. HighInBC 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HighInBC/RfA_voting_history/HighInBC&oldid=1086394920"