Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hiberniantears 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hiberniantears_2

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

Final (54/0/0); Ended Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:32:28 (UTC)

Hiberniantears (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Hiberniantears, a long standing and trustworthy editor for adminship. I came to know him through the adoption process where he kindly offered to take me under his belt. As I often questioned him on aspects of Wikipedia I was unsure of, he demonstrated that he had a sound knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and is generous in the help he gives me and other editors such as here.

Hiberniantears has a pretty well rounded editing time; he has nominated a WP:SSP here, has participated in multiple WP:AFDs, has around 50 reports to WP:AIV which are solid and led to blocks, and has done WP:CSD tagging. His participation in WP:RCP has been good where he warns the vandals as well. Through my overview of his edits he has demonstrated a calm and helpful demeanour and has a definite need for the tools through his frequent reporting of vandals. His contribution has been sustained, and although there were some issues in his previous RfA regarding lack of experience, I sincerely believe he has those bases covered now. Phgao 06:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly, and graciously accept. Hiberniantears 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Following my previous RfA, I really tried to focus the last few months on fully comprehending this question via a more thorough participation in the project. I think that the first time through, I was too concerned with trying to be all things to all people, when I really have a few specific reasons to need the mop. If granted the mop, I would approach the new tools in a period of phases, working and mastering first those parts of the project I currently understand best as an editor, and over time, growing and learning to do other things that I am currently not comfortable, or well informed enough to do as an editor or admin, but for which the community needs admins to be focused on in greater numbers. In any event, before diving into an area with which I am unfamiliar, I would spend time working there only as an editor in order to learn the process, before putting the admin hat on. That said, rather than name any specific areas that I am unfamiliar with, I will simply leave this concept as follows: if granted the mop, I am an admin who will be open to learn and grow, and work where I am needed, even if it is not my "favorite" area in which to work.

As for those areas I will work in, and for which I specifically need the tools: First and foremost, I originally wanted the extra buttons in order to counteract vandalism. This still holds true. Whether through helping clear WP:AIV, or simply acting quickly to administer an appropriate, well reasoned block on a vandal, this is an area in which I feel very comfortable working, and feel that I could currently be of the most assistance with the extra tools. Over time, I have come to truly appreciate the nuances of just what constitutes an appropriate block, particularly in cases of recurrent vandalism following a prior block (i.e. dealing with an individual editor, or an anon IP, or a school IP, and so on). One of the most important elements of acting against vandalism is attempting to identify situations that are simply "tests" versus a more deliberate and mal-intentioned edit pattern. I believe that this understanding embodies a need, as my consistent contributions to AIV demonstrates the actions of a level headed, competent vandal fighter. I spend a lot of time in WP:RCP, and my contributions are a mix of manual edits, and WP:VP. I did not employ the use of VandalProof until this summer, many months after I was granted permission to use it, as I tend only to use it to zip through anon edits. The speed of the tool is great for small stuff, and quickly dropping appropriate warnings (and even avoiding edit conflicts on AIV at peak times for vandalism), but I continue to rely on manual vandal fighting to ensure that I remain intellectually engaged in what I am doing, and also to make sure I do not grow inadvertently bitey.

Second, as also noted above, WP:CSD is an area I enjoy working, and one in which I feel I have grown recently. I adopted the use of WP:TW recently because I found that it is a great tool for moving quickly, but at the same time slow enough that you make a fact-based decision on whether or not something is in fact a speedy delete candidate. I generally avoid tagging anything that is not "obviously" a speedy delete, and have not really ventured into nominating articles to WP:AFD, or prod'ing anything. I contribute from time to time in votes on WP:AFD, but generally prefer working in the CSD areas a little more. Before actually deleting anything, I would take the time to make sure I understand the process, and would ask another admin to walk my through the steps.

Third, as will also be noted in my response to Question 3, WP:SSP is something I find very interesting. I fell into conflict with a fellow editor back in May, and handled the situation poorly at the time (again, more on this in Question 3 below). This editor later turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor, and he has since gone on to become a very prodigious block evading puppet-master. The experience taught me a few valuable lessons, not least of which is to remain calm, but also to recognize that we are not in positions, as either admins or editors, to control everything, or make others behave. My current involvement with WP:SSP is essentially restricted to monitoring this particular editor, and working with Future Perfect at Sunrise and Moreschi to simply monitor the articles impacted the most on a daily basis, and take appropriate action. Both admins above have been incredibly patient with me (Future in particular, who tolerated me when I lost my temper when first involved in this situation), and have really helped me learn, and grow.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: In my first RfA, I stated that this was my ability to deal with and work with two difficult users. I still feel that this is a good example, but as noted in my responses to Question 1 and Question 3, One of the editors has since become less productive, and my interactions with him were not well handled back in May and June. However, I have really taken this as a learning experience, and in concert with some of the oppose comments in my last RfA, really worked to grow as an editor, and as a member of the larger project community. In many regards, I consider my growth since my first RfA to be my best contribution, since it really opened my eyes to just how large this project really is, and to how much more rewarding the experience is when you are more engaged with other editors.

Additionally, in non-admin related duties, I do enjoy actually writing articles here from time to time. I truly consider myself a reader of Wikipedia first, and a contributor second. While a superficial review of my contributions will demonstrate a ratio of edits strongly in favor of vandal fighting, a thorough review will also demonstrate that my contributions to articles are thoughtful, and generally large. I have also created a number of articles of which I am proud. One example is Boston Vigilance Committee which I created following a request I found on WikiProject Boston while working on some skyscraper related articles. I consider myself a generalist, and believe my overall history reflects this diversity of knowledge. While this is most helpful in my role as an editor, I think it is of benefit were I to gain the trust of the community, as it does permit me to make well informed decisions on a broad array of topics (that said, just keep me away from anything on advanced mathematics, and we should be fine...).

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: Yes. In fact, part of the reason my first RfA failed was that I handled a confict with Flavius Belisarius poorly. In truth, this was perhaps the most useful part of my first RfA, as the oppose votes were correct, and I used the opportunity to view the RfA less as a failed attempt, and more as an editor review. Admins are called upon to make well reasoned decisions on a quick basis, often in the face of vitriol specifically meant to incite anger and cause a loss of temper. For an admin to lose their temper can call into question the rationality of their decision making process. In my case, I lost my temper whilst espousing the wikivirtues of civility and neutrality; not only did this undermine my position, but it also undermined the ability of other to trust me. To date, I am somewhat humiliated by my actions at the time, and have on numerous ocaisions cited my behavior as an example of what not to do when faced with a contentious situation. In this instance, I fed the troll, lost my cool, and learned a lesson. Humiliation aside, I look upon the lesson learned as a positive experience as it eventually led me to grow significantly as an editor.

I should also point out that my interactions with the large number of sockpuppets of Flavius, who is himself a sock of the banned editor Shuppiluliuma, is ongoing on a number of Turkey related articles. Because of this, I wish to state very clearly that if granted the mop, I would not use it to beat Flavius over the head. I think that would be inapropriate, and would represent all the wrong reasons to seek the mop. In this particular case, I would continue working through Moreschi who has taken the lead from Future Perfect at Sunrise. I believe that my behavior since my last RfA can stand as an example of how to learn from one's mistakes, and more importantly, to learn from the advice of fellow Wikipedians.

Question from User:Piotrus

4. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: My apologies for a wishy-washy answer on this... Hypothetically, this is something I support. That said, I have not yet decided by what terms I would allow myself to be open to recall. My primary concern here is that (as noted above) I spend a lot of time working on combatting sockpuppets, and they, in turn, take note of my activities. In fact, the second edit to this RfA, although from an anon IP, was in fact from the Flavius/Shup editor, someone who has established over a period of time a large number of username sockpuppets who in a number of cases have established significant edit counts, and are not always obviously related. I have followed some of the discussions on this topic over the past few months enough to respect the concept, but I simply have not yet come to a conclusion on how best to apply it for myself given the nature of some of the work I do. Hiberniantears 13:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:Gray62

5 Do you think there are circumstances where an admin is allowed to call an editor "Idiot" and say that he is "pissed off" by the user [1]? What is your opinion on WP:Civil? Gray62 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:No. It was wrong for me to take that course of action, and I apologize to the community for it. The event linked above transpired in June, and as noted in my response to Gray's comment on the topic in the discussion section below, this comment is what my response to Question 3 is in reference to. This same link was also central to some of the opposition I faced in my first RfA. I took those comments to heart, and will not make the same mistake again. Hiberniantears 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Hiberniantears's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Hiberniantears: Hiberniantears (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

1. Support. Melsaran (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, I've worked with Hiberniantears in a difficult situation and was impressed by his thoughtfulness and resilience under stress in dealing with conflicts. Good, trustworthy editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Well-balanced and thoughtful. bibliomaniac15 17:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, I'm going through this process myself, and after looking at this user's history and contributions, I must say that I'm thoroughly impressed. Edit summary utilization for effective communication; 100% for both major and minor edits - something that is generally viewed as a desired criteria for RfA. There is no glaring disparity in editing, very evenly balanced (as much as it can be) between mainspace edits, talk, and namespace. User has the practical experience suitable to make a good administrator. Wisdom89 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Personal interaction with Hib tells me he is fully ready and qualified for the job - support Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Great Editor...definitely my turn to rubber-stamp Support. Rudget _{Contributions} 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support—trey^{omg he's back} 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - I'm particularly impressed with the well thought out answers to the questions, and the ability to question, find fault, and improve on himself. Best of luck. - Philippe | Talk 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - sufficient experience and trustworthy editor. Addhoc 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - I agree with Addhoc above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Another editor I am familiar with (in a good way) via AIV and other places. I agree with all of the above except Hiberniantears "gracious" acceptance - I found it merely functional. Extremely unlikely to abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support --Hirohisat ^紅葉 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Has clearly focused on feedback from last RfA. Ronnotel 02:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Well thought answers and good usage of edit summaries. Would definitely make a good admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Yes NHRHS2010 ^Talk 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support John254 04:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Looks like a very well-qualified candidate. --FolicAcid 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support as nom. Phgao 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Jmlk17 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. My opinion was neutral last time, but I've been impressed with how this editor has grown through careful attention to his opposer's criticisms, and drive to improve. More than enough to earn my support here. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Good chap, will do well. Moreschi ^Talk 09:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Great answers to questions, had a brief look over his contribs and nothing raises any massive alarm bells. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Weak Support - Rather low Wikipedia edit-count. If you didn't seem to know what you were talking about, I would have opposed. I do believe therefore that you're trustworthy. Lradrama 10:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. I opposed the last RfA because of this candidate's answer to Q1 and the follow-up Q4 (about his/her answer to Q1). The first paragraph of the answer to Q1 in this RfA was most pleasing, as was the rest of that answer and Q3 (which I found to be expressed in a way befitting an administrator and the experience required). An administrator with experience and the desire to work at SSP isa fantastic asset to this encyclopedia. Strong support. Daniel 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per Daniel. Candidate seems to have taken the feedback from the last RfA to heart and worked successfully to overcome remaining doubts. Very encouraging! Gray62 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak support now, per Neil. See below. Gray62 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Supportagain, oops. Sry, I've been to fast. H.'s reassuring answer quickly dispelled my concerns. Gray62 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

26. Support - Seems like a nice guy, plenty of experience and I doubt he will abuse the tools. Tiddly-Tom 12:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Great improvements since last time. Húsönd 13:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Good editor. A Train^talk 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I liked his responses in some of the issues that are discussed on his Talk page. He seems to have a good grasp of policy, and he is methodical and courteous. In his answers to the Questions I liked that he owned up to previous misjudgments. EdJohnston 16:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support—nothing concerning turns up in recent contributions; takes feedback seriously and learns from it. --Paul Erik 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support As per Riana and looking feel concerns raised in last RFA appear to be cleared.Pharaoh of the Wizards 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Looks great and I have no concerns. Captain panda 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Quite Detailed and well thought out answers. May I ask why you don't want to be involved in mediation or arbitrating disputes. Support--WriterListener 18:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support, doesn't seem to present any major concerns this time around. Pretty good candidate with a fairly decent amount of experience. --Coredesat 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. I promised I'd stay away from RfA a bit more, but this guy is just too good to not support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I am assuming edits like this are firmly in the past; although I thought it was funny, the recipient probably didn't. Not seen anything recently that would suggest anything other than a fine user who will make a fine admin. Which is fine. Neil ☎ 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thx for this find, Neil! Hmm, "firmly in the past"? I guess you said that 'tongue in cheek! This was July 2007! And I wouldn't want to hear stuff like this from an admin: "But this guy is at best off his meds 50% of the time."""But, even Hitler built the Autobahn.""I'm pretty much only pissed off about the anti-Irish, anti-American, SuperTurk Hyperbole. The obstinate sense of ownership is annoying, but I can work with it, since this idiot lacks consensus." I'm certain H. is talking about a pretty annoying editor, but still, admins should be the role models for WP:Civil, not the ones who engage in insults. And what about this: "More to the point, he has been indefinitely banned multiple times. I point this out, and two admins think nothing should be done..." ? Well, sry, but that a guy was banned twice isn't a sufficient argument for banning him the third time, you need more evidence. I really hope that H. would make a better case before using his tools against an editor. This stuff is really concerning, and I'm changing my vote to 'weak support' now. Gray62 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with you. This is the event I describe in my response to Question 3. This represented a serious lapse in judgement on my part, and it played a role in my last RfA. I am sorry that it transpired, but at the same time, I really used the community's response to this event (as voiced in my last RfA) to learn from the experience. I can assure you that it will not happen again. Hiberniantears 14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to this, let me just say here (me being the administrator who was mostly responsible for the situation back then) that Hib was essentially right, both in wishing the other editor banned and in being disappointed in our lack of action. It was an exasperating situation, and I can fully understand that Hib lost his patience at one point. The fault in not solving that problem back then was mine, for having become so tired of it I just couldn't muster the strength to tackle the sockpuppeter again (well, as an excuse I can say that I was only semi-active during those days anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thx for weighing in and clarifying this issue. Ok, shit happens, and we can't expect our admins to be supermen. Imho your reaction was only human! :-) Gray62 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

38. Support, wow, very through answers to the questions! I'm sure you'll do great. :) *Cremepuff222* 14:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I was happy to support previously and see nothing that has happened between then and now to change my opinion. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Excellent editor, lots of edits, work on all necessary admin-type projects, always nice to other editors, and showing improvement. Bearian 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. 100% doubleplusSupport This should teach me to watch RfA more often, me now having missed at least three nominations… —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. weak support Not too sure about this user, but i believe in giving someone a chance. Support based on if the user subjects himself to http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recallDustihowe 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Godwin's Law Support the_undertow ^talk 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. Surprised he didn't pass the first time. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I was Neutral last time based on concerns regarding your ability to handle a dispute. You have removed that concern with your well-thought out answer in Q3 and you general contributions since then. You have maintained all the traits I like to see - cross 'pedia participation, civility, vandal fighting etc etc. Yep. Bring it on. Pedro :  Chat  09:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Seems to have very good editing background, should be good as an administrator.TOL 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. I supported last time. An excellent user. Acalamari 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Good user, good edits.Must.^{T C} 20:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - ah yes. I weighed in as 'neutral' last time around. So much has changed since then. You've been doing excellent work and I'm quite impressed with your response to Neil's comment above. Straight, honest answer. No problems here - Alison ^❤ 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support will be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Good editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:00, 19 October 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.