Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Caribbean H.Q.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pr4ever (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 5 September 2007 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Caribbean H.Q.

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/1/1); Scheduled to end 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q. (talk · contribs) - Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I would like to nominate a very close friend, Caribbean H.Q. (CHQ from hereon), for adminship. Since 12 December, 2006, CHQ, formerly known as User:Dark Dragon Flame, has been an incredible contributor to the Puerto Rico WikiProject, as well as other projects. He has also amassed over 10,600 edits, but, it's not just the amount of edits he has made that amaze me, it's the incredible quality of every single edit. He has contributed to several article of both Good and Featured quality, such as Héctor Lavoe, Ramón Emeterio Betances, and Boricua Popular Army. He is also in the process of getting several other articles to GA status, such as Carly Colón, Miguel Cotto, and Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico). In admin areas, he is a regular at AfD, where he actively participates in discussions. He also founded the Devil May Cry Task force. He had a previous RfA which failed, but I believe he has addressed all concerns and is ready to take on the mop. --Boricuæddie 21:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept -- Caribbean~H.Q. 22:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I still believe the backlogs on WP:AIV is often critical, sometimes with reports going unattended for thirty or more minutes. I think that I can deal with the backlog without any problem since I have a tendency to do monotone jobs if not busy, such as attending the backlog of unassessed pages in WP:PUR and adding the project template to untagged articles. As a frecuent contributor to WP:AFD, I can also help with the closing procedure in those discussions that involve a proven hoax, a obvious case of nonsense or a clear case of consensus per WP:SNOW.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am the kind of editor that likes to improve those pages that are of my interest, when I like a certain article I tend to give it a try for Good Article after adding references and doing my best to clean the text of any Original Research and/or POV. My best contributions have to be those that I have done for WikiProject Puerto Rico, I am particulary proud of working with Hector Lavoe and bring it to Featured Article along Borincano75, working along Eddie and Marcos with Ramon Emeterio Betances was a great experience also.
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: The last particularly stressful event I was involved in was a long discussion over the writting style to be used in Carly Colón's page, the debate ultimately end with consensus reached between me and the members of WikiProject wrestling following a long discussion that can be seen in Talk:Carly Colón.

Optional question from Xiner

4. One AfD doesn't a candidate make or unmake, not usually anyway. I did take a look at Puerto Ricans in NASA, though, and two thought experiments came to mind. I hope you'll indulge me. a) Can you name an alternative to the list-article, and b) How will you respond, with relevant policies in mind, if someone questions the userfication of that article prior to its deletion?
A: I think there where two problems with how the article was, the first one being that while it was supposed to be a list-article it wasn't, it was more of a compendium of bios wich were considered reduntdant and led to its deletion, the second one is the scope of it, the article focused on NASA a goverment agency that isn't supposed to take things such as nationality under consideration and that was the main argument for deletion. I would have used a wider scope in wich to create the list such as List of Puerto Ricans in space programs and would have used a more traditional list format, listing the name of the subject and his/her occupation as well as adding a wikilink to a main bio page. I am personally aganist userfication, since it may not only be used to create new articles but it can be used to recreated deleted material, naturally this material can be speedied but if recreation persists it may end up salted wich would instantly create a bad image towards any article created that is based on the information there. I believe that the user dealing with the userification should consider the status of the editor to wich he is giving the material to, for instance in this case the author was Tony who is an admin, this means he can check the article's history to look for the information needed while avoiding possible recreation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Caribbean H.Q. before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - before anyone beats me :-) --Boricuæddie 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No reason to oppose. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. I couldn't find a single reason to oppose. Useight 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support just as in the last RfA. The opposition made no sense to me before, and since then this user has only further demonstrated a sound understanding of policy and the like. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good editor! PatPolitics rule! 22:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I opposed in the previous RfA for lack of experience. I think that has been solved and now I support. Captain panda 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - No concerns. --Hirohisat Kiwi 01:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - based on my experience and collaborations with the user. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I see no reason not to trust this user! --SQL(Query Me!) 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support seems like a good user here. Acalamari 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I checked his edits which were sound, and he did do work on those featured articles. Ton of work doing assessment - good for whatever wikiproject you're working for. (Wikimachine 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    That's WikiProject Puerto Rico :-) And yes, we're lucky to have him. --Boricuæddie 02:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good, reasoned responses at AfD and all-around good contributions. Perhaps a bit on the anal side here, but it doesn't seem to be a regular occurrence, and wasn't controversial anyway. Good luck. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no offense to the closing admin, but, if he had truly read the article, he should have at least known how to spell the name of our country, don't you think? Of course, we all make mistakes, and I'm quite sure he has a belly-button, so, whatever :-) --Boricuæddie 03:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was more of a speculation, perhaps a bit ranty but not meant to be a offesive comment, it just seemed unusual. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support based on my experience of this editor, SqueakBox 04:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support He will make a great admin. Tony the Marine 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've known this user since he came to Wikipedia, and I would trust him with my life. He's a great editor, and I believe that he will make a great admin. The Hybrid 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, I have seen him around. He is a herd worker and as an admin. would be an asset to the Pedia. Antonio Martin 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support A great editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No issues here. I've seen CHQ's comments all over the place and they always seem helpful and NPOV. A look though the edits this morning confirms my initial reaction on seeing this RfA - a great candidate who can only help the project further with the buttons. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  07:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - a fine user who will use the tools well. I am unconvinced with Maxim's neutral below that it will effect him as an admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm not concerned by the opposes and the neutrals at this time. Daniel 07:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Meets my standards with a Feature Article, despite the concerns raised by the debacle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puerto Ricans in NASA. Answer to question 4 helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Seems trustworthy, good edit count (much mainspace edits); no serious concerns, so I support. ♠TomasBat 13:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - A dedicated contributor. I trust this user. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I have yet to see one of his interventions in which he doesn't appear to be fair. Fairness is an important quality in an admin. and the basis for trustworthiness.Pr4ever 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Caribbean H.Q. specified that he wants to close AfD's, and I'm very worrying by a comment he made in this AfD, and as I have seen it previously while skimming through AfD, and it registered in the back of my head. I can't trust C H.Q. to close AfD debates, as he wanted to keep the debated article, which to me says that C H.Q. consequently doesn't understand WP:BIO, WP:N, and especially WP:DIRECTORY, which in point five clearly states "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" is not encyclopedic content. In conclusion, I'm worried about C H.Q. closing similar, and contensted AfD, as this happened on August 26. Maxim(talk) 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that User:Marine 69-71 also wanted to keep the article. Does that make him a bad admin? --Boricuæddie 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He outright voted, which is quite bad for an admin. Maxim(talk) 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He voted? Did you actually see the rest of the discussion? --Boricuæddie 23:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SGGH, User:Mtmelendez, User:DavidShankBone, and I also participated in that discussion and wished to keep the article. Does that make us incompetent editors? --Boricuæddie 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors no, but I don't want you closing similar debates. C H.Q. clearly states he intends to that as the second of the two admin areas he intends to work in (Other is AIV). As for Tony, his comment on 00:02 August 26, was simply "Strong Keep". If that's not voting, then the definition of the word is wrong. Maxim(talk) 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I realize that, but at least he participated in the discussion afterwards, right :-) --Boricuæddie 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate that was ongoing there was that it wasn't concerning any religious or ethnic group, it was about a nationality wich is different, my opinion was influenced by the argument surrounding that debate, and Cerejota's comment was what gained my support, stablishing that the higher figures in the agency had emphazized this was quite convincent to stablish notability, regardless of that I wouldn't close a AfD for an article that I had cooperated to or that is within the scope of any project that I have a mebership with to avoid a WP:COI. I am very familiar with the guidelines you mentioned. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for AFD discussions, the candidate has stated that: I can also help with the closing procedure in those discussions that involve a proven hoax, a obvious case of nonsense or a clear case of consensus per WP:SNOW. If the candidate sticks to these words, I don't foresee a problem with these issues. But that's my opinion. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, it's his own opinion. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral There's a sour taste in my mouth about this candidacy. My instincts are picking up something that tell me supporting you will be a bad idea, however, no offense is intended. I can't oppose purely on this, and expect me to ask so more questions later on. Maxim(talk) 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral I think your main space edits are great and that's what we're here to do, but the problems stated by Maxim are troubling. I'm sitting on the fence for now. ~ Wikihermit 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#So, at the moment, if you become an administrator you will help with the backlogs at AIV and close AFDs... is that all you will be doing? If you'll be helping out in more places than those specified, I'd like to hear about it. Sebi [talk] 05:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally I would cooperate in more than two places, WP:AN and WP:COI/N usually get some interesting cases, specially the COI noticeboard wich presents some cases that need some detective skills, attending those conflicts could prove a interesting challenge. Boards such as and WP:AN3RR, WP:RFPP and WP:UFA will receive my attention also, though I will try to get the hang of things before editing within that areas heavily. I have always been a multifacetical editor and I hope to keep up with that. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The areas you'll be working in should be specified in your answer to Q1, rather than in a reply to a Neutral. I'd prefer not to be assumed to know the areas you'll work in. Sebi [talk] 06:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most admins specialise in one or two areas where they will use the tools. I do quite a lot of username blocks and everything else is sporadic. Simply working at AIV and AfD are very legitimate area's to work in, many admins would concentrate on just one of those. I fail to see how you can withold support from a candidate because they state in Q1 that they will be doing what just about every other admin does. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Sebi [talk] 09:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Caribbean_H.Q.&oldid=155856001"