Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HalfShadow

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

Final(14/17/3); Scheduled to end 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Closed 18:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC), withdrawn by candidate

HalfShadow (talk · contribs) - HalfShadow has been editing Wikipedia since September 2006, during which time he has made nearly 7,000 edits, including 2,900 to mainspace. He is an awesome vandal fighter, with 450 reports to WP:AIV, 200 reports to WP:AN/I, 40 reports to WP:UAA, and 20 Requests for page protection. He also has article writing experience, helping to develop various articles on children's television programmes. He has experience of AfD, and their are no problems with his level of civility. HalfShadow would make an excellent admin. Epbr123 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept this nomination. HalfShadow (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Pretty much what I'm doing now: vandal-fighting, since that seems to be the most common problem here. Admin ability will allow me to be somewhat more effective at it than I am now. As opposed to just reverting and reporting, I'll be able to be more pro-active: I can revert and block if needed, without having to wait for admin assitance, and of course, I'd be one more admin to deal with the vandalism report list.

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

A: The only article I've really contributed to as such is The Backyardigans. As I live in Canada, we get new episodes earlier than everyone else, and I've been updating the article as they show. User:Flyguy649 and I have worked together on the article for some time. I consider that my best contibution, because I'm adding information that is truly new. Most of my other contributions are the aforementioned vandal-fighting and just tidying up articles as I see them (fixing up the text, adding information that isn't there, I belive the term is wikignoming)

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: I do have a tendency towards singlemindedness, especially where vandalism is concerned, and I tend to be somewhat brusque when dealing with someone who's 'peeing in our pool'. The closest thing I've had to a 'conflict' recently was with User:Mercury. I mistook a posting error as some sort of vandalism and tagged him. I see now that it was just as much an error on my part for not assuming good faith. I haven't had any actual editing conflicts as such; generally speaking, if I add something and someone removes it I usually see their point.

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

• Links for HalfShadow: HalfShadow (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/HalfShadow before commenting.

1. the_undertow ^talk 22:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Epbr123 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Support. Excellent vandal fighting. Good job! Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Changing to neutral. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support per Malinaccier. Vandal fighters can benefit most from the tools and this user has no immediately noticeable issues. NF24^{(radio me!)} 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support: I think most active users have came across HalfShadow once or twice, and I have nothing negative to say. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Support Great user. Couldn't find a reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The diffs / incivility, communications dd not convince you? M-ercury at 14:29, January 16, 2008

6. Support Good Vandal fighter and track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per... no reason to oppose! Dreamy ^§ 00:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Double check my rationale. Regards, M-ercury at 14:29, January 16, 2008

   I still stand by my support. And why must people query my responses? Dreamy ^§ 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Support - Give em' the mop! Tiptoety ^talk 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC) - Should have waited a bit longer, changed to oppose. Tiptoety ^talk 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support Very good user. Makes great and constructive edits + fights vandalism. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - great user.   jj137 ^♠ 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I think I've seen you around. Spencer^T♦C 02:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose User Self-nominated </sarcasam>The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dedicated user, sense of humour. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Bit hasty of me - gonna sit this one out for a while. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per this series of diffs, where the user hit a former admin with a templated vandalism warning for accidentally screwing up the formatting on the administrators' noticeboard, refused to participate in discussion, then accused him of vandalism again after being offered an explanation. east.718 at 05:49, January 16, 2008
2. Weak oppose Fine user, but East718's diffs above appear to reveal a rather hostile behavior. Also, user should enforce edit summaries. Húsönd 06:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • Comment To be fair, I did state in question three that this was an error on my part. HalfShadow (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sorry, that incident was only the other day. Way too hostile over such a petty thing. I don't want to imagine what would have happened if the user was newer. Majorly (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. No, shows civility issue which we do not need with administrators. I think some time should pass demonstrating greater civility. -JodyB _talk 10:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. No, agree with above. Noted that HalfShadow removed an 'oppose' vote. He is correct that an IP cannot vote, but it is not his place to remove content in this case. I think this is a sign of how he wouuld use sysop tools.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomPhan (talk • contribs)

   Note User has made few contributions outside of this debate. Pedro :  Chat  10:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Removed vote was also trolling. HalfShadow (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment.This is not an issue. I was in the process of striking the comment myself and had an EC with him. -JodyB _talk 11:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Civility concerns shown above and this conversation from today seems to indicate a lack of policy knowledge regarding the difference between PROD and AFD. Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   See below in "neutral" for a fuller version. Bencherlite^Talk 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I deal more in reverting vandalism than anything else. I honestly thought they were different terms for effectively the same thing. Generally any topics I find that are deletable fall under SD. I'm a vandal-hunter mostly. HalfShadow (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I admire your vandal work, no question, but adminship is not just vandal fighting - not even close. Also, can you please use #:::: for indented formatting in your replies and comments, as you are mucking up the numbering. Which is also something I'd have expected an admin to know, to be honest. Sorry, but don't think your hard work is not valued - it is. I just can't support you getting admin tools at the moment. Pedro :  Chat  11:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. WP:DTTR. (*waits for jaws to drop ;)*). Sorry, not at this time - maybe some time in the future when we've forgotten about those diffs above. Dihydrogen Monoxide 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose for what I see as an unwillingness to admit mistakes. Also, I rarely ever oppose for lack of policy knowledge as I believe it's easy to learn and understand wikipedia policy if and when situations arise, but when someone points out a basic flaw in one's understanding of policy, I expect an admin (or any other user) to double check the relevant pages. I do not see that in the exchange with Mercury and in the mentioned by Bencherlite below. - TwoOars 12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm not going to want an administrator who is not understanding and who does not do homework or care. Reverted a good faith comment and considers that good faith edits are vandalism. Additionally, does not use judgment with regards to editors, "Does not care" about "background" or "history". Does not communicate very well. So, in light of the judgement and communication issues, I'll have to say no right now. Adminitrators need to communicate and use good judgement when dealing with these things, or he might block for what is vandalism "where he comes from" instead of thinking about it. So, I oppose this candidacy for adminship. Disclosure: Those diffs are really about me, but this candidacy is really about halfshadow and the project. M-ercury at 13:09, January 16, 2008
10. Strong oppose The diffs from today that Pedro posted indicate very basic confusion about the deletion process; hopefully, the candidate will study up and get a better grip on our procedures; with a little effort this kind of problem can be fixed in time for another RfA in a couple of months. The diffs provided by east718 are much more troubling because of the civility issues. In my experience here, if an editor has problems with this, it takes quite a while to grow past them. I worry that if made an admin now, HalfShadow will create more problems than he fixes. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose, I could overlook those diffs if they were from a couple of months ago, but such a major lapse in judgement so recently sets off alarm bells for me. Lankiveil (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
12. Strong oppose Sorry, but before I could support you in another RfA, I would need to know that you had not only understood why the errors of judgement have been taken seriously, but also that you had a very large number of edits demonstrating that the tools you seek would be used by a careful, thoughtful, even-tempered person of sound judgement. docboat (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Unfit per above. Mike R (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per Bencherlite (in "neutral"). Rami R 15:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - Per East718. That was just to recent. Tiptoety ^talk 15:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose as per diffs from east718 and Mercury that lead me to question if this editor has the temperament required for adminship. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per East718 (applying a vandalism warning to an established user, when it could have been a simple formatting hiccup or something) and Pedro (not understanding the WP:PROD process). Also, the diffs that Bencherlite provides below are troubling, especially when he submitted a report to WP:AIV without even giving the user an adequate series of warnings (which would have been inappropriate anyway in the circumstances). When I check out reports at WP:AIV, I research the incident thoroughly to determine whether someone is indeed committing vandalism, and I hate it when someone submits a vandalism report without truly understanding the circumstances and policies. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose for now. I could understand reverting and even warning Mercury-- we all make mistakes and don't always know each other as well as we should. I could even overlook the "I don't care comment" as a heat of the moment utterance. However, adding to all that removal of Mercury's comment on his talk page suggests nom was out of control at this point. Then there's the prod/AFD confusion. We all have our off moments, but the pressures from making decisions and consequences of our mistakes increase with the extra buttons. Perhaps when the nom is better seasoned and more experienced. Dlohcierekim 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose. This user has shown repeated questionable judgment. The mercury issue alone is enough for me to be uneasy about granting the mop to this individual. But even if that was an isolated incident, there's still more than enough evidence to suggest a lack of basic understanding of Wiki policies. Trusilver (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral Leaning Support per East718's diffs. To his credit, HalfShadow did own it and admit that he was in the wrong. Still, this was so recent, I can't support, though his honesty in admitting his mistake (not to mention his willingness to be so forthcoming about it) and his answer to Q3 tell me he's a good editor and potential admin. Bad timing, it would seem; his biggest lapse in judgment came just before his RfA so it's highly visible. faithless (^speak) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. Surprised that an admin candidate appears not to know how prods work or the difference between prod notices and afd notices. Halfshadow has repeatedly readded a prod to an article, warned the original author as if the author had been removing AfD notices, reported the author to AIV (no level 3 or level 4 warning before this AIV report, incidentally), and then, when I point HalfShadow in the direction of WP:PROD#Conflicts (which says that prods shouldn't be readded to an article, even if the prod was removed in bad faith), inaccurately tells me that {{uw-afd1}} etc are templates for warning people not to remove prods from articles. Not familiar enough with HalfShadow's general work to know whether this was an isolated lapse, hence not opposing. Bencherlite^Talk 10:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. I cannot support you after the difs shown by many of the editors in opposition to this, but I will not oppose yoiu either. Sorry, Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2008 (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.