mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HighInBC_2

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


HighInBC

[edit]

Final (76/1/0) Ended 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HighInBC (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate Ryan, or HighInBC, for adminship. He nominated himself back in June already but decided to withdraw as he didn't have enough experiences yet. Now, he has gathered over 5000 edits in various topics, he contributes to articles, helps resolving disputes over controversial topics, assists newcomers when needed and even helps with the selection of featured contents. Some weeks ago Ryan also started actively participating in XfD debates. He has shown a great comittment to the project overall and I think he should be entrusted the admin tools. Tone 18:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gladly accept this nomination. I enjoy Wikipedia and agree with it's philosophies and look forward to being able to mop the floor. As I have before, I shall continue to seek help when in doubt, keep my personal opinions apart from consensus, leave the keyboard when upset, and always remain civil and assume good faith. I believe any dispute can be resolved if the parties involved are willing. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:13, 21 November 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:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
I look forward to helping in the obvious areas such as WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. However some of the more overlooked areas need work as well such as CAT:NC/CAT:NCT and CAT:REFU.
I firmly believe that protected(to any degree) pages need a lot of admin attention to be sure protection is still warranted, and to insert legitimate edits from talk page consensus. I also want to able to protect pages that have legitimate need.
I often welcome new users, and while looking through their contributions I often find patent nonsense, attack pages, and other such things that can be speedy deleted. Blocking users is unfortunately an important part of maintenance here. I will most likely begin with clear cut cases of blatant vandals ignoring warnings. I believe in smaller blocks(less than a day) for users that may have potential for good faith contributions. For cases that are less clear I would seek the advice of my peers.
I will most likely start out slowly, asking for advice from longstanding admins who I respect. I am always open to discussion on any of my actions, admin or not. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
My image contributions are something I am proud of. I have found articles in need of images, or article who's images are lacking in quality and I take a photo and upload it, releasing it to a free license. I have participated heavily in WP:FPC in both the selection of featured images and in discussion of featured picture guidelines.
I have done a lot of work on the article Ethics of eating meat, I did a reformatting, removed a lot of uncited material, added citations and helped bring more editors to an article that badly needed help. This is an ongoing project.
I have contributed third opinions several times and find it to be a great way to help wikipedia, often all it takes is a fresh mind to settle a dispute.
Creation is an important form of contributions, but so is removal of content not compatible with our encyclopedic goals. My recent work on AfD has been very fulfilling, both in keeping Wikipedia clean and shiny, but also in giving me more experience with conflict resolution.
I have gone through articles such as Arguments for and against drug prohibition removing original research and opinion. In the article Health issues and the effects of cannabis I read all the citations and found that many did not support the text in the article. I made the appropriate changes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Yes, sometimes I get stressed, I usually take a break and relax in my own way. Once I come back I am calm and things are much easier.
An example of this is the discussion User_talk:HighInBC/Archive_6#Talk:Blood of the Fold. The user in question would not provide me with the context of the dispute and it was very difficult to proceed because of this. So I took a break and came back with the logical idea to ask him to provide context. In the end the matter was settled and compromise was reached.
Another event that caused me some stress was when a new user, anon(68.40.167.60), began editing Arguments for and against drug prohibition at an alarming rate without full understanding of Wikipedia policy. This was difficult for me because the user seemed to be acting in good faith. I dealt with this through extensive discussion on the talk page (Talk:Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition/Archive_2). In the end, while most of the users actions were reverted, many useful changes from this user remained. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4.Please comment on the User:Publicgirluk incident. Specifically, describe how you handled the situation at the time, how you believe it should have been handled by admins, and how you would handle a similar situation if you were an admin. Thanks, SuperMachine 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A.
That was a very confusing and emotionally charged debate. I had the position that we had no reason to doubt the license claim. I think it all went very well. We started a discussion, it got very big, and Jimbo intervened. At first I was confused, then I read this[1] and this[2]. As far as I am concerned the entire event happened well within Wikipedia process. I disagree with the final decision, but that is just my opinion.
If I had been an admin I would have handled it the exact same way. An issue that contentious cannot be remedied with special tools, only through talk. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5.. You said the following earlier: "Creation is an important form of contributions, but so is removal of content not compatible with our encyclopedic goals." That statement seems a little unclear to me. Could you please expand what you mean? --Wafulz 02:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A.
Good questions today. When determining what is and what is not compatible with Wikipedia, I often refer to the first post I ever received on my talk page, a welcome message from User:Searchme. Amongst the many useful links was Wikipedia:Five pillars.
To put it simply I apply the fundamental principals and policies of Wikipedia, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS etc...
When I see material in conflict with this I ask myself is this a threat to Wikipedia, such as an attack page or copyright violation, if so I mark it for speedy deletion. If not, then I ask myself Is this exploiting Wikipedia at the cost of our reputation in the case of blatant advertising if so I again mark it for speedy deletion.
Failing the need for speedy deletion I like to use a combination of cleanup tags to call editors in general(via the categorization), and discussion with the author(s) in question. Many times I have simply asked an author for sources and was able to remove a speedy delete tag when I received my response.
I am not a deletionist, but content in violation of policy cannot remain. This is what I have done in the past and this is what I will do in the future. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6.Why do you want to be an administrator?  Jorcogα  06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A:
As far as my practical reasons for being an administrator, I have spelt these out in question #1. But I think you are asking me more about my personal reasoning.
To put it simply, I have the goal of continuing to contribute to Wikipedia in a variety of ways for a long time, and these tools will help in this goal by allowing me to be useful in new ways. I see a bunch of good people cleaning a house during a messy party that isn't going to end, and I want to help. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support. --Tone 18:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Our paths have crossed more than once, and he's always been a top-notch editor. As I told him in my own RfA, I have much respect. Also liked the innuendo in his answer to question 3. Kafziel Talk 20:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I see him everywhere, especially at WP:FPC, a he always makes good and useful edits. He look slike he will be responsible with the mop an bucket. NauticaShades 20:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Looks like a good editor, with lots of vandal fixing, warnings issued and XfD participation. The admin tools would benefit this editor's work on the project. (aeropagitica) 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support from contributions SYSS Mouse 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Good editor, and has taken the opportunity since his last RfA to improve and prove himself to the community. Agent 86 21:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Another great candidate, good luck! --Majorly (Talk) 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Khoikhoi 21:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - looks good --T-rex 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support despite insufficient horse knowledge. And tell us - what is that way in which you relax? - crz crztalk 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiking the mountains and valleys of British Columbia, that is how I chose my name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (oh, that sounds like fun.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I have had good experiences with this user in AfD. Specifically, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hutber's law, he showed a openess and flexibility to adapt to new evidence, and such flexibility and openness and flexibility are useful for an admin to have.-- danntm T C 22:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Contribs seem well rounded and helpful at that.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 23:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. I have worked with this user in dispute resolution situations and found him to be extremely level-headed, logical, and civil. Gladly give him the mop. --Aguerriero (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Everything looks fine here. Nishkid64 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Yanksox 01:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support John254 02:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. --KFP (talk | contribs) 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support as a good editor with meaningful contributions to date, good answers to questions and no issues raised. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support semper fi — Moe 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support saw this [3]. A FP should be encyclopaedic and attractive, which that pic is not. Anyway, your contributions looks good to me --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Good answer to my question. I've probably disagreed with you at an AfD or two, but it's your thought process that matters. --Wafulz 03:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - welcome to BC -- Tawker 03:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I thought he was one...shows what I know. 1ne 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I was wondering when someone was going to use that line. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I like your level-headed approach. That and your contributions/participation-level speak for themselves. By the way, I'm extremely jealous of your method of relaxation! -- Renesis (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I've come across this user around the cannabis series of articles and he seemed to be a great contributor. Looking through this nom, his last nom and his edits, I'm confident that he'll make a great admin too. --Rory096 06:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, as the 29 users above can also testify, Wikipedia would be a better place if this user became an admin. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Merovingian ※ Talk 06:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -- Chondrite 07:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support A damn good editor that would make a brilliant admin. Atlantis Hawk 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've run across this user many times as an editor, and have been consistently impressed. I would like to run across him as an admin as well and believe he'll be a good one. Seraphimblade 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Rename to "HighInBCE" Support. (Radiant) 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his username is a reference to British Columba and not before the common era. Yanksox 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That is right. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I'm Mailer Diablo and I appprove this message! - 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support FireSpike 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. El_C 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I swear, I see you wherever I go. And that you have people mad enough at you to cause the stuff right after the first oppose is a good sign that you're active in something good. Bonus points for 288 WP talk edits. About the only thing you could do more is some category discussion. -Amarkov blahedits 05:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support seems good to me. James086 Talk | Contribs 08:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support A civil and sensible user. Dina 13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Good editor, pleasant to interact with, should be a fine admin. Eron 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, per nom. He is a good editor. --Carioca 20:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Ryan rulez! :) - Darwinek 20:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per my encounters with his conduct over some time. Tyrenius 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Yep. -- Steel 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per encounters on WP:AIV and the minor User:Akaneon incident. --210physicq (c) 01:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. You have convinced me.  Jorcogα  01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. The user dropped me a line about an admin-related action I did, and I liked the congeniality and conversability of HighInBC. I'm fer it. Teke (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, good user. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good user with a great attitude. I think he will do great as admin. Lostkiwi 05:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Shows a willingness to take time out and discuss things rationally with others, new and experienced contributors alike. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - good vandal fighter, per all of above. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Vandal fighting is amazing. HighInBC is one of those users for whom I have to check the rights log every time I see their userpage. I'll be glad what it finally says something. Alphachimp 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. G.He 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Looks good. Sharkface217 04:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per nom. Acs4b 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support should do a great job. And I like his username. riana_dzasta 10:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I've had a couple good experiences with this user in the past. He has always been helpful in the moderation and de-escalation of tense situations while maintaining a firm stance on wikipedia policy. Good qualities for an admin. NeoFreak 15:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Looks good for every areas, I'm satisfied with his worksMustTC 19:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yes, OK--Docg 01:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I can't believe I haven't double voted here. ;) Good luck man. ← ANAS Talk 12:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. support --Dario vet 13:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 'Support User should do a terrific job as an administrator. Hello32020 15:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. --Rudjek 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support: He is a great person and should be among good administrators. He looks for compromises in case of disputes and a good dispute resolver.--- ALM 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support --W.marsh 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong support I hate this guy with a passion for personal reasons. However, you can't deny this guy's mad wiki skillz0rz. Floaterfluss
  70. Support. Seems allright + I like the picture of him down by the creek. --JJay 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I've had a brief chat with this user. He is a kind user, has a great edit count, and I do believe he should be granted admin status. Kyo cat¿Qué tal?♥meow! 03:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, recently ran across this user and have been impressed with what I've seen. Accurizer 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. support very helpful this person should become a administrator soon Yuckfoo 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support: stellar work all around. --Howrealisreal 01:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Bucketsofg 02:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, sorry, I didn't like the way you handled the PublicgirlUK situation. -- Samir धर्म 07:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain? I'm not sure what you refer to. (Radiant) 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, but I believe it was felt that High-in-BC being soft on the trolling (thereby arguably contributing to it) and difficult on the admins who were attempting to bring it to an end. Perhaps this is what Samir is refering to. I did find his comment to myself regarding similar(?) trolling pretty odd [4], to quote the lead sentence: Your lack of explanation for this ban instills the fear to make comments on this wiki. So that was pretty weird. As I recall, Lar volunteered to mentor the user, with hilarities ensuing. El_C 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    El C touches on some of the issues. I understand why so many of you are supporting HighInBC; he certainly is a great contributor and seems like a genuinely good guy. I don't want to rehash the whole Publicgirluk scenario, but I thought that HighInBC came across very strongly in what was clearly a divisive issue. Perhaps this is just a WP:POINT !vote; when he becomes an admin, I hope he understands that there may be many different ways that the community views the oftentimes contentious issues that come up. That's it. Best of luck -- Samir धर्म 01:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this, I have been looking over my contributions for the time. I don't think your !vote is pointy at all. This is legitimate criticism, and I would like to address these issues.
    Firstly, El C has pointed out 2 mistakes I made. The first mistake was leaping to the defense of another user without examining that users contribution history first. I made demands that an admin explain himself without looking at the evidence available. My second mistake was not going back and apologizing when I realized my first mistake. Sorry about that El C.
    Samir brings up the more general problem of me being rather forceful in my opinions during the PublicGirlUK controversy. I took the issue very personally and spoke with great authority on topics where multiple opinions were held. This issue was emotionally charged for me because it was not over pictures or ideas or policy, but a person was involved who I felt was being mistreated.
    While I was heavy handed in my words, at no point did I take unilateral action. I had to learn a tough lesson about working with contentious issues. I have learned since that civility is not simply polite words, but respecting the opinions of others(even if I do not agree). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the grounds that you have conducted yourself poorly and have taken to bullying and badgering new users to Wikipedia! A poor administrator you would make! LoverOfBirds 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's 3rd edit. --Majorly (Talk) 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) User registered today. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose has been turning wikipedia into his personal playground. a big time powertripper. Mister Shankabout 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's 3rd edit. --Majorly (Talk) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I disapprove of this user's virulent and disgusting racial remarks. Rufus the Bear 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) And again, 3rd edit, I sense sockpuppetry. --Majorly (Talk) 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked, page semi-protected Jaranda wat's sup 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.