Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hedley

Hedley

Vote here (16/7/7) ended 02:18 3 June 2005 (UTC) (withdrew by candidate)

I'm making a self-nomination now as I personally believe i'm ready for administrator responsibilities. I've been a Wikipedian since the 18th of February and currently have roughly 1,500 2,000 edits. I feel that I am a responsible user who takes active part in all areas of Wikipedia (including VfD, the mailing list and IRC). I believe that I have completed the Wikipedia learning curve, and that I am ready to further help the community by becoming an administrator. As an administrator I feel I would be better equipped to help deal with vandals and their vandalism, which I frequently do already, and that I would be better equipped to as a whole make Wikipedia a better place. Hedley 18:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Hedley 18:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for their comments and their votes in this RfA. Unfortunately it is clear how things are going to go, especially after the dispute regarding messages I allegedly sent on another forum, so I will be withdrawing this Request for Adminship. I'm disappointed about the ways it gone, and I feel I may have been the victim of a mis-understanding or simple dislike toward me with one or two of the votes. I will take the constructive comments onboard and will be back in one month with more contributions behind me. I hope to by then of cleared things up with those I have differences with, and to of become a strong enough editor to gain a secure consensus in my Request for Adminship. Hedley 02:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well I'm sorry to hear that you are withdrawing your adminship and I hope that you feel comfortable either accepting a nomination or re-nominating yourself in the near future. Jtkiefer 02:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll probably be re-nominating myself by mid-July, after I address issues brought up here. If i'm nominated by somebody else a month from now i'll happily accept. Hedley 02:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. I trust Hedley to be responsible with his powers. 1500 edits is not that low at all, and really I think that edit counts is a poor way to measure admin-qualities. gkhan 23:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
2. Yep. — Dan | Talk 01:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
3. Cool. JuntungWu 13:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
4. His apology and clarification shows that this user is responsible, and his edits show he is dedicated to the Wikipedia. Bratsche^{talk random} 01:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support, active and useful editor. I don't even see any need to chew over what exactly his involvement was in the fake article business—whatever it was, newbies have certainly been excused worse behavior. It's assumed that noobs haven't seen the wiki light. As long as Hedley became a trusty user after the incident, which I'm convinced of, just forget it. Extra points for the selfnom! Bishonen | talk 10:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Nadavspi | talk 22:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Changing my vote to support. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Ambi 06:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. James F. (talk) 16:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. I thought I had already voted, but I guess not. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Well yes I'm new to wikipedia. I can still vote, I'm already contributing. I believe wikipedia needs more dedicated persons like Hedley. QBorg 21:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
12. Party! — Trilobite (Talk) 00:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    He's apologised: what's the big deal? smoddy 14:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Vote changed 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

13. Support. Yay Hedley! User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 15:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
14. David Gerard 16:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
15. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:07, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
16. Support--Duk 16:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Slightly Oppose. Personally I find Hedley's politics concerning some articles based on personal bias. --Master Psychologist 09:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • I shall comment my vote a little bit. Personally I like "vandal hunters", but not those who are deleting something and keeping something other, basically in a clear pattern that has nothing to do with notability or some wiki preferences. --Master Psychologist 09:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
     • As this is an accusation i'll make a short response. The user is referring to my removal of several names from child prodigy, which I did with the help on JRM and Gkhan. Our discussion can be seen at Talk:Child prodigy. To note, Master Psychologist believes I should not have removed the names and this is possibly the basis for his vote. Hedley 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I really want to oppose, but I'm clearly biased, due to my contact with User:David 5000 Oh, what the hell, A qualified oppose. This user didn't get to a good start. This post from an external forum suggests that the reason he informed Wikipedians of his fake articles was to get other users in trouble: he was trying to get back at certain people. Anyway I don't think he's been a member long enough and he doesn't have enough edits to his name. Dmn / Դմն 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
   • Fair enough. The forum post you link to doesn't think it really mean anything regarding my Wikipedia conduct. How am I suppose to defend my actions of reporting them in any other way than that? The articles, the game, and the cleaning them up is in the past and I feel that my recent contributions and administrative qualities are what should be judged here, not my first few edits. Hedley 23:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
     • Do you think you have enough edits to be an admin?Dmn / Դմն 23:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
       • To quote Gkhan above, "edit counts is a poor way to measure admin-qualities". I think I have made enough contributions for people to judge my ability to become an administrator. I've currently made around 1,700 edits - when you became an administrator yourself you'd only made a couple of thousand. In my opinion it is quality over quantity, and those who vote here - and those who have experience of myself - can decide as to whether or not I am good administrator material based on the quality of the edits I have made. Hedley 00:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
   • Add the lie Hedley just posted below, to my reasons for voting against. Dmn / Դմն 14:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. oppose for now. i'd like to see a few more months of activity with the community and the software. Kingturtle 18:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. oppose for now. I have to wait and see. --Jondel 01:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Before anyone dismisses this as simply being vindictive, please read to the end, my opposition is based on more than the vandalism incident. As has already been discussed, Hedley and I (and others) were involved in a game on the CoolClarity message boards - both of us made two or three vandalisms, nothing more. About a month later I found that I had been blocked, after Hedley decided that he needed to drop someone else in it to save his own skin. This is the text of a private message that I received from him on the CoolClarity message board on 20th March: "If you want to know the whole truth, in this PM, I was just trying to impress the big guns in the Wikipedia room by coming clean by adding Zakir Raman to VfD. When I supplied them the info on the link to here, they noticed you and I guess I spoke to some strict admins about it because they put you up on the RfC. I don't intentionally mean to grass anyone up, but I wasn't gonna say that on Wikipedia.. Thing is, I didn't want to get a block, so I was defending myself. No intention to be hostile toward you or anything, but I was stuck in a situation where it was defend you and get blocked, or go on the side of the admins and come away fairly clean.." I don't think someone who is willing to twist the truth like that to further his own Wikipedia career is suitable to be an admin. My other objections revolve around the two occasions that I have encountered Hedley while making edits on here. The first involves the page Nelson Piquet, Jr., which I created in October. In March I was informed on my talk page by Hedley that "Hey, your article Nelson Piquet, Jr. was a duplicate of an existing article on him, so i've changed it to a redirect. You'll find there was an article of more depth already at Nelson Angelo Piquet." Of course if you compare the history of both pages 1 2 you'll see that Hedley was wrong: my page was there five months earlier - when I questioned him about this on his talk page I didn't receive a response. The second issue is about the page for the racing driver Mathias Lauda. Hedley created the page with the incorrect title 'Matthias Lauda', but when I renamed the page he quickly reverted it to the incorrect version without checking whether he was correct. Again my questions went unanswered. These experiences make me think that Hedley is inclined to make comments and edits without checking his facts first - I'm concerned that Wikipedia would give moderator powers to someone who acts without checking whether his actions are justified first. David 5000 08:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • I completely deny writing the quoted private message. I sent him a private message apologising for the inconvenience, and noting that I was not intentionally trying to 'diss' him, but I did not write what he has quoted. Their community is inparticularly hostile toward me now and I would not be surprised if they were planning to completely rig this vote with opposes. I also deny the claim that I don't answer talk page messages - your message was posted on your own talk page, so I didn't see it, and was not a question. Finally, to note the below comment, my CC account was 'conveniently' disabled recently so anyone could of been on it. I'm not going to respond to David further. Hedley 14:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
     • There's a very simple way to prove that Hedley is lying here. If a trustable third party Wikipedian wants to check, I will happily give them my CoolClarity username and password to read my private messages and prove that I was sent the quoted text on 20 March 2005, 00:48. I would put a screen shot of it up, but I'm sure I'd be accused of faking it. I thought you might dismiss my points as being part of a conspiracy against you, but I hardly post on that message board at all either, so you're wrong about that. And you still haven't answered my main reason for opposing anyway - the fact that in my experience you're quick to make changes without checking the facts first. David 5000 14:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
       • I've been shown this message and I can assure you David 5000 is telling the truth here. Perhaps Hedley will rethink his denial? Dmn / Դմն 14:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
       • David 5000, I would be interested in seeing this message. Instead of having someone verifying it, though, could you post your account and password here so everybody can check it? Afterwards you could change your password. That way would be a lot fairer I think- we can all find out who's telling the truth. Flcelloguy 16:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
       • Or if you're unwillingly to give your password to everyone (I would respect that opinion), maybe get 5 current admins to verify? The truth is the most important thing we must discover here. Flcelloguy 16:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
         • David 5000 and the Cool Clarity staff are capable of forging a message from me, including the date and time of send. I never sent the quoted message and so I no doubt think that if he is so happy to give out his password, he must have a message from my account which has been edited accordingly. Hedley 17:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
         • I would rather not give my password to everyone, but the 5 admin idea sounds good - email or message me and I will happily give you my login details (once I'm sure that you're trustworthy!!). Hedley's excuses are becoming increasingly far-fetched. First he denies the existence of the message, then he claims someone else might have logged into his account and written it, now he's claiming that I involved the admins of a large online community to edit one personal message? Methinks he doth protest too much - I would NEVER claim that someone else said something if it was not true. David 5000 19:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
           • I can confirm that the quote appears to be genuine. I am not convinced generally that Hedley did particularly wrong, but I have changed my vote to neutral because I am not totally convinced. That is not to say that I don't think Hedley would make a good admin, just that I want to have some slightly-suspect good faith issues ironed out. I would support in the future. smoddy 22:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Reluctant oppose for now. Seems like a very nice person on IRC, and does have many good contributions. I would like Hedley to stay involved. However, past vandalism must be balanced by a long good history, in my opinion, and the history here, while high enough to regard as a good contributor, is just a little bit too low to balance yet for admin status yet. Jonathunder 16:16, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
7. Oppose the incident being discussed suggests the user is lacking a a level of maturity that I would expect from an admin. --nixie 01:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Hrm. I like Hedley, but 1500 edits is a tad on the low side for me. I like the breadth of contributions, though there is an issue with respect to edit summary usage. He pointed out the fake article contest he was involved in (more info here). Some decent vandal fighting, but I can't reward the actions regarding the fake article creation. If I hadn't encountered Hedley before, I'd probably oppose. CryptoDerk 18:31, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
   • I appreciate your honesty. When I made the two 'fake articles' I had no experience of Wikipedia previously - It was just another website, and so I just gone ahead and done what the user on the forum said. Now that i'm established as a contributor, and now that I believe i'm a responsible user, I can look at that and see my mistakes. As it is in the past I hope it doesn't act as a permanant burden to me, as i'm past that - I happily reported it all after i'd become a regular Wikipedian. As for the edit summaries, I now 99% of the time use them for all non-minor or talk page edits (I've forgotten once or twice although that happens to everybody). Hedley 18:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Tentative neutral. I've just read the whole "fake page" incident (read it here), and it does seem that Hedley has "come clean" and was truly just following in on a joke. However, the latter part of the page (the outside opinion by DMN) does somewhat worry me. However, we've got to give him the benefit of the doubt- he has made many quality contributions since then and has not been vandalizing again. One should not be punished or scarred forever for one incident. The reason I'm voting neutral is because I feel the length of time since the incident is a little bit short. The incident was about 2 1/2 months ago (the responses were all dated 3/19/05). Hopefully Hedley has not done any more vandalizing since then, if you haven't, Hedley, give it another month and then I'd support you. Thanks for your contributions though! Flcelloguy 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Something is telling me this user has done something before that I didn't like. But I can't remember what. Everyking 09:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
   • Thanks for sharing! :) El_C 06:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   I feel pretty much like CryptoDerk, above, does. I've seen good work, but under four months and 1500 edits is a little on the slim side. Will willingly support in future if performance continues at the current level, though. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Yeah. okay, you convinced me.

4. While recent edits seem like he is on a good path, with few edits and questionable practices in the past, I must be neutral. However, in another few months, with no further issues, I see no reason why not. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 13:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
5. The concerns of concerned people concern me. – ugen64 01:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • I'm concerned that others concerns are concerning you, but my concern is that others concerns shouldn't infuence your concerns. gkhan 14:18, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
6. Hedley, you probably need another month or so under your belt at the currently level you're going. Right now, those questionable edits take up a very noticeable percentage of your overall contributions. happened 2 1/2 months ago, which is a bit little too early for me. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • Sorry for responding, but a 'very noticeable percentage'? The questionable edits took up exactly 5 edits of my 2,000. Hedley 16:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
     • Sorry, I lost my train of thought and now corrected that phrase above. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
7. While I am fairly certain that this user is trustworthy, I think I would prefer to see some more time editing first, to confirm good faith. This is not a slight on Hedley, just to say that I want to see more editing first. A month and I would probably support. smoddy 22:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'd be happy to participate in all chores, especially maintenance of VfD and tracking down/dealing with vandals and their vandalism. In general i'm happy to do whats needed, at the time.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I'm pleased with some of my early articles like Aqua (band), simply because the articles were inaccurate and weak before I worked on them. I was pleased with fixing them. Also, I cleaned up Dragostea Din Tei which i'm happy with, and i'm happy with 2005 GP2 Series season also. On a side note, i'm happy with how User:Hedley/April Fool's Day, 2005 turned out as well. In general, though, every little speedy delete i've posted or minor edit i've made is a contribution, and i'm happy with those too.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Once I failed to follow WP:POINT when trying to put across my case in the VfD for Radio KoL (which resulted in merge). I created a similiar article to try and say "if that can stay, so can this". I wasn't happy with my actions and have since learned from those mistakes. Also, as some may know, my first Wikipedia experience was as part of a 'make a fake article' game on a forum. I had no Wikipedia experience prior to that, and so participated, making two fake articles. Eventually, after I become a contributor, I reported the articles and (I hope) cleared my name.