Project:Requests for adminship/Huji

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

Huji[change]

Ended on August 11, 2007 - 62% support

I, I.D. Rand, would like to nominate Huji (talk · contribs) for adminship. He has helped the project and I greatly with the formation of the main page, its format, colour, and layout, and, more importantly, helped with the encyclopædia. He has been very kind, helping other users, and is on Wikipedia for its true purpose — to help others learn. The encyclopædia is growing - and Huji is always helping! And, although he has only been here two months, he has over 1000 edits. He would be a great replacement for Sean William. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate's acceptance:

I humbly accept this request, and ask the community for sysop rights. - Huji ^reply 18:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Support[change]

'Huji currently has about 1200 edits in total; of the 790 last month, about 17% were in User/User talk namespaces. This is not something to worry about. I am aware, that Huji only started his fourth month here, but he has been easy to work with. I also do not think we should deny a user Admin rights, based on the fact that there are enough (active) admins already. The discussion on simple talk (Running out of editors) shows that being an admin is a sign of trust, rather than anything else. The more trusted users we have, the better this may be. I therefore can only support his nomination. --Eptalon 10:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Support "We have enough admins" is no reason to oppose someone if they are otherwise OK. Huji is an admin on the Persian Wikipedia as well so I think he can be trusted. Majorly (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Support as nominator. ionas ^talk _cont _ribs 01:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - Huji has shown a strong understanding of policy and practice (the commented Complex/en:wp comment being an exception) of this wiki. He often replies quickly and very correctly to questions posed (even those on oters talk pages.. I didnt need to bother with a recent issue on mine as he had dealt with it admirably before I even got to it). He appears in every way trustworthy of the tools and seems as being willing to be relatively highly active and available to use the tools as needed. The issue of having too many admins is not an issue in two ways (1. two of our admins are either on long wikibreaks, issues or out, my activity is drastically lowered recently (summer is busy for me), and another admin I would not like to comment on his activity level at this point beyond saying I find it debatable at best and 2. There is no such thing as too many people trusted as Admins.) -- Creol(talk) 08:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Side note: His edit count.. while normally this is a sticky point for me and true 500 mains isn't the most favorable, unlike others with those numbers, he has a relatively high number of non-main edits in important sectors such as Wikipedia: rather than many who have them more in User or User talk (he has a high user talk, but those are mainly warnings or replies to wiki related issues). His non main edits are mainly all dealing with policy and practice for this wiki and only add to showing his understanding of how things are done and that he understands much of what is required to be a good admin. -- Creol(talk) 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - Huji has admin experience on another Wikipedia, and can surely be trusted with admin tools here. Blockinblox - talk 13:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Support. Archer7 - talk 14:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Support, I'm glad I returned from my wikibreak just in time to take part in this discussion. From my humble point of view, this is a clear case of quality before quantity of edits; and I'll always be happy to stand by quality. As far as the admin-per-non-admin ratio issue, and remembering I took active part at the discussion linked to by Eptalon, I had the chance to say it there, and I'll repeat it here: the fact that we have a high admin ratio is in fact a good thing. Just, how many Wikis can boast of having such a level of trust on its regular editors? Is it harmful in any possible way? Much on the contrary: I feel much better and safer knowing that many of my fellow editors will have the means to defend this project from vandalism. I can understand we feel awkward to promote, i.e., more bureaucrats; but always remember, adminship - is no big deal. Phaedriel - 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Phaedriel, now I'm not forcing you or asking you to change your vote, but please review. There should be a certain number of edits (in mainspace) and not including reverting vandalism. Huji, in my opinion, should run an RfA next month and bring up the number of mainspace edits. He is a good and trustworthy editor, but in this "almost-out-of-novice" state, anyone can run an RfA because there are many users like him. :) Just my "two cents". --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No he shouldn't. That's incredibly bad editcountitis. I still have less than 1000 edits, and I became an admin about 2 and a half months ago with about 700. It's good there are users like Huji who we can trust to be admins, without counting statistics rather than the person. He's an admin already on another Wiki, so trustworthy; made plenty of good edits here; he's often in the antivandalism IRC channel and he's a nice guy to talk to. In all, a great admin candidate. Majorly (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lizix, your point is valid, and I completely respect it as it's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose. But you see, we all have different criteria, and things that we value in different ways, and that have more importance to us when reaching a final decision. The number of edits, while giving a general measure to take into account of the levels of experience and trustworthiness of an editor, are not the "be all end all" for me. In Huji's particular case, the fact that he's already an admin at other Wiki (and has not had any behavior problems there, apparently) give me the additional extra I personally needed to decide. That's of course my own criteria, and I utterly respect those who, like you, reach a different conclusion due to your own personal standards. All the best, Phaedriel - 07:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support: I feel he has great potential as an editor and even better potential as an admin. He has made many good quality edits, and I disagree with what Lizix said. He is quite experienced, an admin on other Wikipedias, I'm sure he'll do well here. Jordanhatch - talk 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[change]

Oppose (Was: Weak oppose) - Nothing personal, but I feel that we already have enough administrators to deal with problems on Simple English Wikipedia. There was one time when a lot were inactive, but we seem to have no major problems at the moment. As I said, I assure you that it isn't anything personal. Billz (Talk) 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Billz. Indeed, I also believe that the number of admins here is more than what is usually expected on other wikis. I think sysop rights will help me in some situations, yet I think there will be no problem if I don't have them, as long as other admins keep being so active. :)

I think I can help more if given sysop access in two views: first is by making a shortcut (for example, instead of I marking an article for quick deletion and an admin finishing it later, I can do it myself; of course it refers to those cases where deletion of the article is too obvious), and second is by covering the hours when admins are less active here (refer to User:Huji/Stats and compare the graphs to see the minor difference between the time I appear online and the time most of the admins are editing/adminstring here).

Again, I would like to assure you that there is nothing personal here, and I clearly take the point you made. - Huji ^reply 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am going to change my vote to Oppose due to the way in which you handled Liam's message, assuming that Liam was in the right before looking in detail. You also tried a bit too hard to please him, when myself archiving would be the best solution, for all parties.

I also did not realise that you have only just reached 500 mainspace edits, and I feel that this is vital to be a successful administrator. We usually use 1000 edits as a benchmark to see how much experience you have, and you're only half way there. Whilst I am sure you would make a good administrator, I have opposed your application for the reasons outlined above. If you'd like to comment, then I'd look forward to hearing them. Billz (Talk) 21:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. While I show a lot of respect for Huji and can see that he could make an excellent admin in the future, right now he hasn't been active over the past three months while his stay in simplewiki while the majority of his edits were in the past month where he began to pick up activity around late-June. While is edits based on Interiot's tool dosen't seems to be much of a concern, my only problem about his knowledge of policies is that he sometimes uses en wiki policies over at simplewiki [1]. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Do I sometimes refer to EN WP policies, or did I link to that on that one special occasion? Anyways, in this special case, En WP and Simple En WP have a similar rule. On WP:CSD#U2, you can read that user pages for non-existant users meet criteria for being quickly deleted. Thanks for the comment anyways. :) (ps:I have no argument about the edit count story) - Huji ^reply 10:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Who would decide to replace Sean William? j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 03:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because an admin left doesn't mean they need to be replaced. Oysterguitarist 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm sorry, but you've been here for less a time than I have, you have less mainspace edits than the usual standard. Also, most of the mainspace edits are to reverting and there are enough admins at this time with this number of users. Maybe try again in 2-3 months and bring up your mainspace edits. Sorry. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I think you have done some excellent work around here, Huji, so please do not take my vote personally. I must be honest, I do not have the level of trust with you as an editor as I would like to have in an administrator. It is slowly developing and I think someday I will trust you wholly. I hope you will not be deterred from continuing to be a good editor here if you do not pass. I hope you can understand my position. Thank you. · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose. This would be a neutral vote, but I'll never vote neutral ever again. Run again in 2 months and I'll be a support vote, assuming you maintain the quanity and quality of edits. - BrownE34 talk contribs 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just wondering, what is your opinion when you do vote neutral? Do you want the candidate to be an admin, or don't you? If you have an opinion either way, you should say it, but in a support or oppose. Neutral is there for comments for people who can't decide. Majorly (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments and Creol's comments on the talk page for this page. What I was trying to get across is we either get rid of neutral votes entirely and allow those people who only wish to comment and not vote to comment there, or neutral votes count as non-support votes and have a comments section for those who wish not to vote a forum to put their comments. We have a neutral section and a comments section here, thus the neutral votes are actualy votes and count in the total. - BrownE34 talk contribs 02:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure as to what they count to. If you don't want someone as an admin, oppose. If you do, support. If you don't care, but need to comment, put it as a neutral. Majorly (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You've basically summed up my point, all you do differently is keep the neutral section. I say get rid of the neutral section entirely to eliminate any confusion. Any comments should go in the comments section. This really isn't the place for this discussion. I discuss this at this Talk Page. I'm convinced at this point the neutral vote section only creates confusion, and I will no longer cast any neutral vote. - BrownE34 talk contribs 03:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral[change]

Neutral - I would support you, but Billz has brought up a good point, although I don't think it's enough to oppose such a great user. Also, you have a less than 500 mainspace edits, according to Interiot's tool. --Isis §^(talk) 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
neutral thanks to Billz to have explain my point of view --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments[change]

This edit (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding) to me it implies you can copy-and-paste then put complex at the top of the article. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

...as long as, you have planned to simplify it and fiddle around with it, but time was thin for you, it may be okay. In this special case, I guess it was about Justification (theology). The user didn't come back to fix it, so I'm going to do it. Thank you for bringing it to my notice. - Huji ^reply 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to offend you :::::::::Lizix:::::::::, but it seems kind of hypocritical to criticise someone and then use improper grammar, like "is implies". Thank you, —Ionas68224 (Talk) 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is it hypocritical? And that just looks like a typo. Majorly (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed them. Happy? And I'm not criticizing anyone. You know so much for an eleven year old. --:::::::::Lizix::::::::: (u · t · c) 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be rude (if I am being rude), but it seems like "t" is not near "s". Sorry to fight over little stuff. ionas ^talk _cont _ribs 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough admins to take care of the Wiki, why don't we close the RfA page of additional entries, so not to waste more time? --w^L ^{<talk · hope>} 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(This has nothing to do with this RfA). Adminship is about the trust of the community, of those people that regularly edit here. With our current daily activity level, we do not need 19 people to look after the wiki. Two or three would probably be enough. Still, anyone has the right to file an RfA, and to see this RfA treated fairly. Therefore closing the RfA section is no option. --Eptalon 08:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, dear Eptalon, /methinks WikiLeon was just being a little sarcastical on the "we don't need more admins" argument... Phaedriel - 09:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the people who think that being an admin isn't so much a job as a position of trust towards the person. The more admins there are, the more trustworthy people we have in our comfortable community. That was my two cents (or francs, where I come from)

Gwib^-(talk)- 09:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Phaedriel, isn't it "sarcastic" rather than "sarcastical"?

Both ways happen to be correct, dear Gwib [2] - but anyway, please don't ask my spelling to be flawless so late at night, while I'm this sleepy ;) Phaedriel - 09:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Phaedriel, my mistake (By the way, here it's early morning :D).

Gwib^-(talk)- 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And mid-day here! - Huji ^reply 09:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence... Someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence, certainly never. -- Franz Kafka, "The Silence of the Sirens" (October 1917) --Eptalon 10:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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.