Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello 3

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

HighwayCello

Final (51/30/3) Ended Thu, 9 Nov 2006 23:23:39 UTC

HighwayCello (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate HighwayCello for adminship. I have interacted with him for quite some time, and I truly feel that he will make a fantastic administrator.

HighwayCello has been an active editor since January 2006, and since then has contributed some 12000 edits. He is quite an impressive editor, and is really dedicated to improving the articles here on Wikipedia, as well as creating new ones. He has written the featured article Torchic, and worked tirelessly to get it to Featured Article status, taking the suggestions of others and using them to improve the article. He has also written 15 (yes, 15!) Good articles, and is continuously working on more. He certainly understands the purpose of this encyclopedia, and works very hard to improve it. Since we are creating an encyclopedia, that goal is something vital for an administrator to understand.

In addition to editing in the article space, HighwayCello has lots of experience in editing the other facets of Wikipedia. He is very active in Wikiprojects such as the Pokémon Collaborative Project, Esperanza, Wikiproject Nintendo, and Good Articles, all of which appreciate him as an asset. Through Esperanza, he has helped recognize the contributions of many unappreciated editors through the many awards that he has given. He is very much used to dealing with vandals and combating vandalism, as he often encounters them and reverts their actions on the myriad articles upon which he works. Additionally, he is not a stranger to WP:AIV and the administrator's noticeboard, places that he would surely frequent as an administrator.

Complementing a superb editing background, HighwayCello has gained the respect of his fellow editors. He recently narrowly missed being elected to a spot on the Esperanza Advisory Council, though he will now be taking such a spot, due to a fellow councilor leaving. He was also chosen as the general coordinator of the Pokémon Collaborative Project. These actions show that a wide range of editors are glad to put their trust in him, something very important for an administrator.

A concern that some had in the past with HighwayCello becoming an administrator was his level of civility. I am delighted to be able to share with you that he took these concerns and learned greatly from them, and has evolved into a helpful, friendly, approachable editor who deals with stressful situations and conflicts very well. There are many, many examples of this, but I would like to share a selection, so as to allay any hesitations that you might have.

• From the first point when he distributed his RfA thanks, he was aware of the concerns about his civilty, and looked forward to correcting them, which shows a really good attitude towards taking criticism and using it to one's benefit.
• When handling conflicts with editors, he approaches them in a respectful and calm manner, and yields good results.
• In situations where there is disagreement, he discusses the issue with the conflicting user(s), and cites specific topics in order to resolve the conflict.
• He recognizes situations in which editors are getting stressed out, and helps to calm things down before anything gets out of hand.
• When receiving apologies, he is very gracious and understanding.
• When a discussion about the actions of a user was turning negative, he approached the user in hopes to solve many of the issues.

There are also many occasions where editors ask HighwayCello for advice or help, and he is always glad to be of assistance. Since, as an administrator, his help would surely be called on often, this both shows that other editors see him as a trustworthy and approachable source, and that he has experience in helping others. A few of the many examples include:

• He was asked to help with missing information being vandalized from an article, and was happy to be of assistance.
• His advice on handling fair use image policies was requested, and he helped explain the issue to a confused user (this also a great example of approaching a disputing editor in a really positive way).
• A general question was asked, and he gave a very informative answer, from which many could benefit.
• Additionally, he took the initiative to mediate a dispute between users. Though the dispute resolved in a quick fashion once mediation began, it shows great care on his part to take a problematic discussion and work it out between all parties.

Overall, HighwayCello is a fantastic contributor to Wikipedia, a respected editor, and someone who will stand up to vandals and tell them to go do something more productive. I do hope you agree, for Wikipedia will be well off with him as an administrator. Many thanks, -- Natalya 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Since you typed it all out. ;) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 22:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• First RfA
• Second RfA

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, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I imagine my admin tasks would follow a similar path to my editing habits, since I've been everywhere, I would use all my tools in time, but use particular ones in various times of my Wiki-career. Initially, I would also use my powers to assist WP:PCP in moves and other adminly tasks, including mediation, which isn't an admin task, in an attempt to help maintain a neutral plain, something all admins should be able, and willing, to provide.

I see the rollback tool being used to help combat anti-Pokémon vandalism on the quieter pages most watchlists escape, and to help combat it on popular pages, such as Pokémon and Pikachu. Blocking tools would also help combat these vandals, since a lot of the vandals are missed because of the lack of top-band editors in the project allows vandals to slip through cracks and vandalize again at different points in time. As you read on you'll notice I also have quite a lot of experience with images, and the tools would also help me in that area, with un-deletion, protecting for DYK, as well as deleting un-used and copyvio images.

I've always found the extensive backlogs unacceptable, and I would contribute to descreasing them, primarily in speedy deletions, the area which I feel has slipped from it's former perch. I've had former experience from new pages patrolling around the time of my first RfA, but the lack of help I could do without tools led me to spend my time at other projects.

Another thing I would use the tools for is updating DYK, something I dedicated myself to over the summer, and saw the mass requirement of more admin help. After I returned from my holidays, I lost the extra time I had gained that I had used for article creation, and moved on again to help elsewhere. Both DYK and New Page patrolling would be some of my regular admin activies, but I would help with varying tasks at the PCP, as well as general tasks and other admin duties as the oppurtunities arised. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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

A: Well, my proudest work is in Pokémon articles, which I have tried to my hardest to elevate them to a standard of notability, credibility and quality. The article I am the most proudest of Torchic, a featured article, which went through a much more...intense FAC trip compared to Bulbasaur, which I have also improved on, reference wise. I am also happy about the various GA articles, in Pokémon and Nintendo over all, since the goal WP:PCP is to promote every creature article to at least GA standards. I have also turned to article creating, of which YouthBank UK is quite good, and covers a contemporary topic in today's youth culture. I have also helped image tagging and sourcing in Pokémon articles, with help from my various self created templates, such as {{pokefair}}, {{pli}} and {{khfair}}.

Other contributions, article wise, include the comprehensive Charizard, as well as over a dozen GAs, including Paras (Pokémon), Ivysaur and Hoppip, and my long-time work with the Esperanza project, the Barnstar Brigade, awarding dozens of barnstars. If you would like to ask about any of my contribs, visit my talk page. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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: Nearly all editors will come across a fellow editor with a varied opinion of your own, it's what keeps like interesting, and I try to remain calm in these situations. A few months ago, I came across an editor who was trying to phase out a crucial reference in Pokémon articles, and replace it with his own website, which would result in mass advertising. I had long speculated about a possible sockpuppet circle among four users, and following a check user, it was revealed that the user in question was responsible for one of the sockpuppets (the other two were a seperate sockpuppet pair) and was appropriately dealt with. Unfortunately, the user took offence at me personally for discovering this, and soon began mouthing at me to my face, to other users and in other namespaces. The user was then blocked for copyright violations and incivility, for one week, which he evaded using scores of sockpuppets, causing an extension of his original block, and only ceased when his IP was blocked. Throughout and up-to his block, the user maintained that I was the one harassing him, and I was twisting the evidence, which he proclaimed at his own talk page, his user page, WP:AN and Jimbo's talk page. After a failed RfC, and more harassment an arbitration case was opened, and the user received a 12 month block. Throughout this tiresome affair, I have learned not to back bite after someone has a go at you, and you feel like you're going to spring out and fight back, take a deep breath and say, "will what I say benefit me, others or the wiki?" Through this questioning and self reflection, I hope I have cut down on conflicts I may create, and calm heated situations.

I have said this to individual users before, but I'll note here that I'm not going to go around saying I can happily work with all editors at all times, because people have creative differences, and I'm just not the kind of person that backs down on their principles, or beliefs to make things easier for me. ; ) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

4. I recall back in July in think, you had some Pokemon DYK nominations that were rejected by two highly respected updating administrators, User:Sam Blanning and User:Cactus.man on the basis that it was sourced to a Pokemon forum - As shown by this old iteration, where you reply "Removed then, what's the point." and "So none of them? Like other editors would get this." and your contributions in Pokemon, you seem to have a strong passion for Pokemon. As such, what is your policy regarding your selection of such items, where you may have a perceived conflict of interest as either an editor or support of Pokemon content, especially in cases where there is dissent about the nomination? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A: First of all, the main problem was that the forum link was only related to one of the three articles, and no sorces to forums were made in the other two, which prompted my remarks. Second, this problem will not arise for another 3 years minimum, because all stubs have been created, and only expanded stubs would be nominated, which of course wouldn't contain forum links. Cherimu, the article with a link only tempoarily had a link because a new function in the sprite decision hadn't been set in stone until game release, and the link's been removed now. Thirdly, another respected updating adminstrator later used one of the articles in a DYK update, but none of that links to directly to your question, sorry.

As I said above, this problem would not occur until new Pokémon are revealed, something which won't happen until the next series is released, which won't happen for a looong while, since the new ones are just out. I've learnt from that incident, and I would not add an article with a forum link in it, especially since there aren't any. If a conflict emerged, I would first consult any relating policies on the matter, and then consult neutral editors to the situation on their opinions. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 00:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So you would not rule out picking your own articles or other picking Pokemon articles even when contested?Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I wouldn't nominate an article with a link of that nature, because they're not required in the articles anymore. I had just nominated all of them so editors could choose. I wouldn't pick my own article if it went against all policy, and neutral editors also objected. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. I noticed that the edit summary tool had to go back through 2000 edits to find any minor edits. Any reason you avoid the little checkbox?

A. Kinda bad, I just hit Return after I've typed in the edit summary, and then it goes through. It's turned into an automatic reflex, I do try now and again but I always seem to forget. Sorry, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:That's why I have the automattically option for all edits marked minor by default. Anything minor is, and If it isn't, I uncheck it.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:

6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:

Optional questions by Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)(Optional for a support vote, that is. :))

1. The IP 12.345.67.89 is vandalising an article that is on your watchlist. You run the user with Test-1 through Test-4. The user stops after the Test-4 warning. Next week, the user is vandalising two articles, the first one and a different, related article. Do you warn him or block him immediatly? Justify your answer.

   A: Well, first it depends whether it's a static or rotating IP. If it's a rotating IP, then I'd most likely start with {{test1}}, unless it was obvious it was the same person, at which I would use the method for a static IP. For one such as that, I'd most likely start at either {{test2}} or {{test3}}, if the user's previous edits were not particularly serious, especially if the user was trying to improve their behaviour, but still acting in a vandal sense (like intentional vandalism to jokey bad faith edits). If the user had committed more serious vandalism and had returned to it, I would use a {{test4}} as a final warning to end the behaviour. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Would you act differently as an admin then you would as a user?

   A:

2. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?

   A:It varies, on one hand we have to assume the glass is half full and always assume good faith, but on the other hand, we have to assume the glass is half empty, since no article is ever complete. If that makes any sense, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

3. You find a registered editor who has been adding {{db-nonsense}} to several articles, such as Wii, Microsoft Windows, and Sony. However, after checking their contributation history, you find that, up until this point, they have had a pretty respectable edit history. What do you do in this situation? Justify your answer.

   A: I would primarily remove the speedy notices, and then leave a good faith message on the user's talk page, asking for a reply on my own. If the user continued after this attempt, especially if they have negative edit summaries or makes a personal attacks against involving editors, I would begin using the test templates. Cheers, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 11:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Optional questions from User:Hoopydink

   Why did you remove content from this RfA here? Your edit summary is a bit confusing, and the removal itself appears confusing, as users have opposed your request partially based on those comments. Did you change your opinions or was there another reason?

   A: I think my comments were just making the situation worse, I had wrote them in good faith and they were just antagonizing users. If users wish to read them, they're in the archive. If you have other questions about my actions, please direct them to my talk page. Sorry again, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

   Per somewhat unused policy, I've never even heard of it, I've re-added the comments, struck out. Sorry, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. From User talk:HighwayCello Hi again! Per your request, I'll leave questions here, which actually leads me to a question, hehe; why would you want users to bring RfA discussion to your talk page rather than keeping it in a centralised viewable location on the RfA page where users are encouraged to submit questions for optional response by the candidate? hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to leave questions there, I just think that RfAs easily drift off the topic of a user's ability sa a syosp, so questions about my behaviour really don't belong there. I'd rather only have questions there about admin behaviour and views on policy, opposed to my past actions. Cheers, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 15:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, but I actually thought that the question was quite relevent, as you violated Wikipedia policy on the RfA itself (unknowingly, it seems) and actively removed content pertinent to your RfA and which users have commented on as part of their rationale. As such, the question was indeed appropriate by your own language; admin behaviour and views on policy. Also, your past actions are important as well, as one's actions largely define one's character and abilities. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unaware of the policy at the time. Cheers, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See HighwayCello's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

HighwayCello's editcount summary stats as of 23:13, November 2 2006, using Interiot's wannabe Kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Strong support, not much else to say after that essay up there. :) Best of luck! -- Natalya 23:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support First, I think hoopydink does make some valid points, ones you need to reflect on. You can appear to be too eager and coming back exactly after three months since the last RfA does enhance his point. Nevertheless, you were offered an RfA over a month ago and I assume you declined that offer, so that does show some patience on your behalf. With respect to level headedness, you got extremely frustrated on the RfA talk page on more than one occassion. I have seen less of that recently and I am willing to bet you have matured as an editor since then. Your contributions seem quite solid at present which is good. If you get the admin tools please be aware that first and foremost this is an excercise in building an encyclopedia. Always be aware that you must be as objective as possible. Especially when dealing with situations that involve users you respect or know well. Good luck David D. (Talk) 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   After seeing this RfA progress i want to make a further comment. I was thinking of switiching to neutral based on the observation that some of your new found level headedness was vanishing before our eyes. Nevertheless, I will still support your nomination due to the fact that i believe you will learn from the mistakes during this RfA. Please read what everyone here is writing here. You need to listen to these editors, especially the type of comments offered by Moreschi and Chacor. David D. (Talk) 06:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Support A longtime editor and valuable contributor who has recently made great efforts to gain a better understanding of Adminship. The answer to question 3 also reassures me that while they have experienced some difficulties, this editor is both able and willing to learn from mistakes. I would like to second David's suggestion that there is still room for improvement, but I think Highway is ready. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Support I would have liked to see more vandalism related edits, more XfD related edits. My advice the last time was to increase vandalism edits I saw less than 100 out of last 4000 Overall, edit count and time w/ wikipedia more than sufficient.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Correction I !voted in the 1st RfACheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   My eye skipped over the 1FA. Congrats. No wonder you don't have time for RCPatrol. 1FA more than overcomes my criticism above.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to neutral per michaelas-- removed comments from this RfA. Even though the content was then restored and struck, it should not have been removed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Support. Nomination "essay" summed it up well. DarthVader 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. I have supported this user in the past and will continue to do so. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Weak support just promise not to be the one to put your own articles on DYK. Kavadi carrier 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support, you with the tools will only help the project.--Seadog 01:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support: Highway has a colorful personality that may have been stretched by stress in the past, but judging from what everyone is calling his essay above I can see he's done a lot of reflecting on how to edit real well and how to prioritize his agenda (for the lack of a better term I can think of right now). In addition to lots of editing on what would be GAs and FAs, many of his edits that I saw in the past concern vandalism removal, and I think he deserves to have the adminship reversion tool to perform this style of editing more efficiently. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
9. support keep up the good work Mjal 02:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support T REX_speak 03:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong Support. I believe that HighwayCello is significantly more civil and experienced than last time. People keep citing his previous RfAs, as if people never change. They also cite his "want" for RfAs as a reason for Oppose. But is it a bad thing to want to help the community out? When did a user's zealousness to serve Wikipedia become something bad?--¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!^{Join Esperanza!} 04:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Support, a very fine user. From my own experience with you I am convinced that you're easily civil enough to meet my standards, and I seriously thought you were an admin all along. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Super Strong Support- Come on, he deserves this.--SUIT⁴² 05:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support It is time to give him the mop. A very good editor as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Support --Ixfd64 05:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - I am for specialist admins who know some area. Lets have an admin in the Pokemon area. It generates a lot of vandalism. HC seems to be a very devoted editor and devoted editors make good admins. Alex Bakharev 05:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Support --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 07:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Support per above.  Doctor Bruno  07:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Everyking 07:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Support I have always found Highway to be hardworking, and in my experiences with him, he is always willing to learn and take on new challenges. Thε Halo ^Θ 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support...I thought he's one already?! - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support I've seen him around the wiki, and I support 12885 times :) ST47Talk 11:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Seen him around, not sure where but i think he helped me once or twice. Lots of edits. Dolive21 11:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. Just to clarify, this is not a !vote because he's a "friend", so to speak. I always have to think about it harder when I'm particularly related to the candidate. First, may I just comment on a few of the oppose !votes. Firstly, having to wait 12 months since uncivil behaviour is utterly ridiculous. Without resorting to the cliché, we need more admins, and this dedicated editor fits the bill. Secondly, I disagree that editors should have experience with AIV and AN before becomning administrators. I don't think I'd even heard of those boards before my nomination. My view is that you need to be a good editor first, vandal-fighter second (though, of course, vandal-fighters are appreciated and useful). I sincerely appreciate his efforts on Pokémon articles (where we interact almost daily) and Esperanza (also where I see him lots). While we disagree from time-to-time, it's always civil. Thirdly, while I'm slightly concerned about his responses to the oppose !votes, he is being faced with being told he must wait 12 months for the past to be the past, so I can understand, if not condone his replies. Overall, he's a useful and hardworking editor, who would make a great administrator. Even if he doesn't use the !powers all the time, every little bit helps. Thanks and kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 15:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you Cel, that meant a lot to me. ;) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

25. Support³*100³. Great editor, handles disputes well, and has an FA, several GA's, and a wikiproject under his belt. Would still like to see questions answered anyway.--Ac1983fan^{(yell at me)} 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. In terms of civility HighwayCello has improved leaps and bounds since his last RfA, and there are a lot of (IMO) non-opposes below. -- Steel 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Michael 20:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Support - I've seen Highway around wikipedia, and from what I usually see, his contrib.s are good. He is organizing Admin coaching, and he is civil. --andrewI20^Talk 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
30. HELL FUZZY YES ON WHEELS ~crazytales56297 ^{O rly?} 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. G.He 01:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. I feel that Highway has improved in civility and conduct immensely since the last RfA, and I think that he could do great things with the tools. The "argumentativeness" below seems like a non-issue: an admin is allowed to have opinions, and oppose !voters are not always inarguably right. Also, the time period doesn't bother me either. Overall, what matters is his ability to not abuse the tools, not minor personality traits. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. He's not perfect, but he'll make a solid mop. Sharkface217 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
34. I've finally decided to support, because the candidate has shown enough improvement since the last time around for me. The comment below, which half the opposers are jumping on, is somewhat inconsequential to me... 9 months is a long time to me, and I can somewhat understand the frustration the candidate would feel from having to wait that long to gain support. I caution the candidate against possible conflicts of interest in DYK and elsewhere, and remind them to always keep a cool head, but I do feel this user would be an adept administrator. Grandmasterka 06:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
35. Support, provided you take Grandmasterka's very wise advice into consideration. :) riana_dzasta 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
36. Support. O.K, so, this is marginal at best, but here's the reasoning.

    Highway has written 15 GAs. This type of excellent content contribution is more important than people think. It shows dedication. It shows that Highway cares about Wikipedia, and is not suddenly going to morph into some kind of administrative troll who it will take a thousand different ArbCom cases to stop. For want of a better word, HighwayCello is clearly a good-faith editor, and has not come here just to make a career. With all due respect to Celestianpower, I'm not sure that we need too many more admins, but what we definitely need are more writing admins. There is too much friction between editors who primarily contribute content and admins work in Wikispace. We need more people like Highway to bridge the gap.

    However, the incivility concerns are obviously important, though I do not think over-eagerness is a problem. When one editor has 5 RFAs in a terminally short period of time, we needn't worry about Highway. In my opinion, he has calmed down (for want of better words) and will not wreck Wikipedia if given the tools. However, semi-pestering the oppose voters is really unacceptable and must stop. It's also counterproductive and dumb, as all that happens is people dig their heels in and it attracts more oppose voters. But since I've seen really quite a few editors make this mistake, surely Highway can be forgiven this. But a little more detachment would be nice. Wikipedia is not the be-all-and-end-all. Best, Moreschi 10:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)(and why do I feel that I've messed up the formatting??)

    Thanks for the good words, I'll take them on board. I tried to fix the formatting as best I could, Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Fixed. – Chacor 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

37. Very weak support, changed from neutral. Well, we are an encyclopedia first. Your good work for the encyclopedia is commendable. I think the opposers havee brought up very good points which you should try to take on board and improve on. I think your responses to some of the opposers was uncivil, but I'm willing to overlook that, if you're willing to work further on trying to keep that temper in check. – Chacor 11:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
38. Support,Mustafa Akalp^TC 15:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
39. Weak Support I'm gonna make a leap of faith here, and trust HighwayCello will be more civil in the future.-- danntm ^T _C 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
40. Strong Support Amazed this user's not an admin yet. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Seems reasonable enough. --Delirium 11:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
42. Support, friendly user, will not abuse admin tools. haz (talk) e 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
43. Support. Glanced over the last several months of edits and seems to have kept clean with regards to civility issues. Habits do die hard, but I think the benefits outway any potential cost. It's been a while since the past RfA. Not just 2-3 months ago. Irongargoyle 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
44. Support - Has done/ is doing a lot of good work. Though I had opposed last time per civility concerns, I think the net effect of his becoming an admin will be positive. -- Lost^(talk) 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
45. Support productive editor and a nice guy to boot -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
46. Definite Support - In all honesty I have had nothing but absolutely pleasureable interactions with HighwayCello, and Im not going to invoke the RfA cliche but yes, that too (so finding this all of 2 minutes ago was a surprise! I see nothing but benefits for Wikipedia, fellow users and the nominee himself in his having the tools. Total support with zero hesitation. Glen 10:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
47. Support Geo. 16:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
48. Support - Has grown more civil over the past months, good to work with. I just hope he'll be more forgiving with reformed editors such as Minun. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
49. Support - per Steel. NCurse _work 14:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
50. Support. I put an awful lot of thought into this !vote, doing my best to make sure Highway met all of my criteria. The only one of these that people have really brought into question is the civility issue. From what I've seen and experienced first-hand, I feel that Highway has truly learned the value of civility in the past months, and will continue to make that one of his top priorities should he become an admin or not. Most importantly, however, I feel HighwayCello passes #1 and 2 of my criteria with flying colors. He is a thorough and diligent contributor to the encyclopedia, going beyond what many of us contribute as far as quantity and quality of content. He may not be a constant recent changes patroller as many of the people we give adminship to, and I really don't picture him using his admin tools more than once or twice a day (with the possible exception of rollback). However, he loves this encyclopedia and improves it daily; similarly, I am certain that every time Highway would use the admin tools, he would be doing so with the full intent of improving the encyclopedia, and isn't that what it is all about? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
51. Support - Seen him/her around. Seems competant & decent enough to become an admin... Spawn Man 07:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose for a number of reasons. First off, please allow me to state that I like and respect HighwayCello. However, he is not at all well-suited for adminship at this time, in my humble opinion. With respects to the nominator, HighwayCello is actually a virtual stranger to WP:AIV and the various administrators' noticeboards. I counted about 25 total edits. I also must disagree that he always approaches them in a calm and respectful manner. I feel that the nomination may have been written through rainbow-coloured glasses and does not depict an accurate assessment of the candidate. Issues with the nomination aside (not the candidate's "fault", for lack of a better word), I have some serious concerns about HighwayCello's level-headedness and his ability to separate his own personal opinions and aims when potentially using the admin buttons. My own assessment is that he is rather eager to use the buttons (third RfA in six months) and I don't feel at all confident supporting his use of them at this time. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
   Comment Could you provide some difs to demonstrate why you have such strong opinions of this editor, please? (aeropagitica) 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Sure thing (woah, deja vu). This seems fitting given the circumstances, hehe. In all seriousness, though, I'm happy to answer any questions and elaborate further. As mentioned above this is his third RfA in six months. As such, civility issues and inappropriate behaviour towards other users aren't "grandfathered" in, so to speak (at least for me). He seems a bit immature, and not someone I'd feel comfortable with having extra buttons. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   In relation to the RfAs, I've had a lot of experience between my RfAs, the first was a learning experience in early May, the second was a stronger, early archived attempt in July, and this is a nominated RfA. I am a very different user from the one who requested in May, and even to the one in July. On a side note, my nomination foreword lacks any connection to my potential of being an admin. Regards, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   As a note of clarification, (which Hoopydink and I already talked about), the mentioning of activity at WP:AIV and WP:AN on my part was not intended to say that he has frequent activity there, but to show that he has requested administrator action there in the past, showing both a need for the tools, and an understanding of the various noticeboards. I apologize for any miscommunication. -- Natalya 23:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how a few posts to administrator noticeboards translate to either a need for buttons or a full understanding of them hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 00:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose - I would like to see the candidate commit to not choosing his nominations under any circumstances, which he would not rule out doing, and also not choosing contested articles in a field in which he is active. There are too many perceptions of administrative impropriety already, and I think that making administrative selections where one has past connections gives rise to perceptions of partiality. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment - Despite my support for the candidate I think this is a relevant issue and I'd like to see it addressed. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Can I just ask why I'm being opposed for saying I'd do something to that all admins do? Is it because I edit less encyclopedic articles? I already said that I wouldn't just go and add them if everyone said no, I would only add them if other parties agreed. Which clearly isn't good enough, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   I don't know what you are trying to achieve with "Can I just ask why I'm being opposed for saying I'd do something to that all admins do? Is it because I edit less encyclopedic articles?" - If you read WT:DYK archives you will see that it is recommended that you do not choose your own articles because there has been psadt controversy and there is a conflict of interest because inevitably there are other articles which will be dismissed in some way. Even when the others have been correctly discarded - the fact that one has chosen your own when others are not chosen will leave room for looking bad. I was just saying what my position on a conflict of interest is and it appears that you have decided that I am persecuting you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   No mind tricks, I'd just like to know. All the admins do it, it's the same people who write the articles as upload them. If you don't want me to know choose them, I won't choose them but I think you need to listen to everything I'm saying, not just the parts you want to hear, and starting assuming good faith, per below. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   No they do not. I do not choose my own articles, nor does Lar, Samir, Petaholmes, nor ALoan. Also, as I resuscitated WikiProject Eurovision, I will not pick and Eurovision ones if there are any concerns expressed whatsoever. What would you like to know? I don't think it is a good attitude for an admin to say that because others are doing conflicts of interest (which they are not), then it is OK for you to join them, as that would simply make Wikipedia worse. My only original concern is that I strongly believe in avoid any conflict of interest and am willing to withdraw my oppose if you were to exercise neutrality in updating DYK. However you seem to be implying that you should be able to have a conflict of interest and that this is an acceptable behaviour as others do it (which they don't) .Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think we've had a break down in communication. At any point of the discussion, I've never acted in bad faith, and I think you may think some of my comments have been so. Equally, I feel you've said some things in good faith, and I've taken them the wrong. I've not been at DYK for a while, the last time I was there several admins, ALoan and Samir to name two I'm pretty sure, used their own nominations. If what you really want is for me is to not use any Pokémon or Nintendo suggestions, then I'll agree to it. I just want to end this argument, and help Wikipedia. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   All I was originally asking for was a confirmation that you would abide by the "gentleman's agreement" that was recommended the archives of WT:DYK that

   • The updater should not choose their own nominations at all
     • A second thing that wasn't discussed, but which I feel follows is that one should not select nominations by WikiProjects with which one is involved or close Wikipedian associates, should there be an objection or query raised about that nomination. As such, having relaunched WP:EURO and Portal:Eurovision and encouraged Eurovision people to participate in DYK, I have only chosen the Eurovision nominations of my wikiproject team-mates if there are no objections. On the few occasions that there were objections against the Eurovision, I have abstained from choosing them, despite my personal support for the nominations. In your case that would correspond to only picking Pokemon and Nintendo items of other users and only if there were no dissent.

   I have to reiterate that the only reason I asked you these questions was that DYK is traditionally a very sleepy corner of Wikipedia, so with your emotional reaction to your suggestions being declined, I felt it necessary to ask you to reaffirm your commitment to the "gentleman's agreement". I was hoping that it was quite clear from the wording of my original comment that my original opposition was very conditional, and that I would withdraw it were you to clarify your commitment to the agreement, in much the same was as an FAC oppose, so it is unfortunate that your RfA has taken a major turn for the worse due to this. In any case, I am very sure that you are mistaken that Samir and ALoan have self-selected, especially as ALoan has only begun updating in the last fortnight, and as you make noted above, you have not been at DYK for a substantial amount of time. In any case, as my request for confirmation has been fulfilled, I have withdrawn my objection to your candidacy as I had implied and promised. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   Just a comment... pretty sure that I never picked my own DYK noms. -- Samir धर्म 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. First of all, I think the civility concerns that came to light last time are still worth bearing. Secondly, the user's almost exclusive editing on only Pokemon and Nintendo articles (I would bet ~95% of the user's last 1,000 edits have to do with Pokemon, Nintendo or Esperanza, based on looking through recent contribs) makes me wonder about his ability to judge DYK articles. And third, I don't like the "need" for adminship (3 RFAs in 6 months is a bit much). Ral315 (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per reasons mentioned in the previous RfA, particularly the vulgar and hostile edit summaries. To me, they seem to be personal attacks and demonstrate a clear lack of civility. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 02:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   That is certainly fair, but do you at least give him credit for becoming exponentially more civil since then? -- Natalya 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   I do give him credit and I commend him for his progress. And if this were an isolated incident, I probably would be able to look beyond it and support. But HighwayCello seems to have a long history of losing it under stress and when other editors do not agree with him. I just don't feel comfortable giving him the mop. - Mike | Happy Thanksgiving 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose I've seen this editor around and I think that he's doing a good job, but I see no need for the admin tools. Recent vandal-fight and participation in XfD is virtually inexistent, answer to Q1 denotes that the user might not have a clear definition of the typical roles expected to be performed by administrators.--Húsönd 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose due to previous civility and anger-management issues. It's been pointed out that he's much better about being civil than he used to be, which is great, but the old Adam dies hard in most people, especially I think in people as young as HighwayCello. As an admin, you have to expect to receive a certain amount of abuse from people who resent you preventing them from vandalizing Wikipedia, and you have to be able to just stay cool and shrug it off. —Angr 06:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   No one has pointed out civility issues since the last RfA. Ought we be forever opposing someone for the things they did, once upon a time? Kavadi carrier 07:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Forever, no. But the last RFA was only three months ago. People don't usually change that fast. If there are no more civility problems in the next nine months, I could probably support then. —Angr 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   I've grown a lot, and I don't think it's acceptable for me to wait another 9 months to prove I've became civil. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   I think an administrator is supposed to serve the community. By this rebuke, I get the impression that you feel that it may be the opposite. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The comment right above here just did the trick. - crz crztalk 09:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Regretfully oppose - Yeah, me too. Just so we're clear. HighwayCello wrote, "I don't think it's acceptable for me to wait another 9 months to prove I've became civil." Huh? What does "not acceptable" mean? There is something wrong with an attitude that says "it is not acceptable for me to wait". What's the rush? I agree 9 months is a long time. Maybe another 3 months is more appropriate but the key issue now is the attitude. Lose the attitude, man. Adminship is not a right. If people feel you're not ready, accept their opinion with grace and learn from it. P.S. I wanted to support. I've seen HighwayCello around and he's a good Wikipedian. I would like him to be an admin sometime soon. --Richard 09:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   I was trying to protest to the length of time expected before I can have my former problems forgotten. I want to help Wikipedia, and I just don't agree it's fair that I have to wait 9 more months to earn the right to a fair RfA. That was all, :) Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

8. Oppose, sorry, no. An inability to deal with mild criticism on this very page in a civil and humble manner does not reflect well. Proto::type 09:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Can I just ask what criticism this is? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Blonde moment. ;) Highway ^{Ringo Starr!} 13:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

9. Oppose especially per Highway's responses to Blnguyen. Highway does not seem to take criticism very well and it now seems quite clear he does not see the conflict of interest evident in Blnguyen's scenario. -- tariqabjotu 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per answers to Blnguyen. Kusma (討論) 12:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose I am disappointed, but its clear that HighwayCello is not ready. I didn't agree that HC needed more time to prove his change, but this argument with Blnguyen shows he's not there yet. While I recognize that HC is trying to assert that he won't make bad-faith selections, there is a more reasonable way to make that case. Also, Blnguyen is asking for HC's consent on a safeguard - he's not actually alleging that HC would make compromised selections. I think this RfA came a bit too soon. HC would have been well-advised to wait till Jan '07. If this nom fails, I recommend waiting till April '07 - you need to give time and effort to overcome issues and build a solid reputation. Just carry on your great work, adding some experience in dispute-resolution. Rama's arrow 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose, based solely on ability to take criticism in stride and challenging other's criticisms in this RfA.--Caliga10 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Based on your interactions with other oppose voters, I get the impression that the candidate's tendency toward incivilty cited in previous RFAs has merely been suppressed rather than genuinely changed. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose usually, when there are a lot of opposes citing nebulous "civility issues", I find them overstated. In this case, though, my overall impression is that this user is just immature. Opabinia regalis 02:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose this sneaky violation shows misunderstanding of Wikipedia's discussion rules. Michaelas10 (T|C) 11:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose - too tempermental. --Duke of Duchess Street 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per the concerns above, particularly doen't seem to have responded to a bit of pressure on RFA well, although many of the questions above are marked as optional you appear to have selectively answered some, fairly or unfairly this suggests you aren't comfortable answering the others which concerns me. .."off the topic of a user's ability sa a syosp, so questions about my behaviour really don't belong there. I'd rather only have questions there about admin behaviour and views on policy.." I don't understand how you can divorce the two, the RFA is in part about trust, of course your general behaviour is relevent. --pgk 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Past civility problems which are still fairly recent. Over-sensitive reactions to oppose comments on this page. The candidate may not believe he should have to wait a significant length of time to prove that past problems have been rectified, but I do. Trust is not built up overnight. Zaxem 01:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose. Answers to Blnguyen, request that Hoopydink not discuss his behavior here, the removal of comments, and other problems in the recent past do not allow me the confidence I'd need to support. My feelings are basically Zaxem's, directly above. ×Meegs 11:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Too impetuous. --Quiddity 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
21. This user appears to be too controversial. Sorry, but no. >Radiant< 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose the responses to Blnguyen and Hoopydink make me too uncomfortable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose - His troubling responses to some perfectly valid criticism here leaves me in doubt as to how he'd perform under real criticism as an admin. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Angr, crz. Maybe in the future with some personal growth and maturity, but not ready yet. (Note that this is not a "never" vote, just a "not yet" vote).--A. B. 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose per responses to criticism on this RFA and a history of handling pressure poorly. Shell ^babelfish 06:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose The "I don't think it's acceptable for me to wait another 9 months" comment, and the later attempt remove it raise serious concerns about temperament and approach. TigerShark 21:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose Just not comfortable with the combination of past incivility combined with the strong desire to be an admin. Neither are good—I prefer admins who are reluctant rather than impatient. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose based on attitude and not willing to wait for the good to outweigh the bad. --Steve 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
29. Opposed I do not think his attitude is well suited for adminship. Dionyseus 02:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose after reading all above. Jonathunder 15:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Toward Support I note hoopydink's discovery of that off-color comment, but that's one comment out of many, many edits. We all sometimes say something that does not come out right or just is not right at all, but we are all human. HighwayCello, insofar as I can see by looking over his edits, has done a spectacular job of responding to the requests for improvement in the civility department and his knowledge of Wikipedia is certainly tremendous, as noted by the nominator. I also don't see a nomination three times in six months as over-eager. I would like to express, however, my concurrence with Blnguyen in that I feel HighwayCello's answer to his question suggests he would ignore a clear conflict of interest. -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   The diff was actually presented as an apparently failed attempt at humourous irony, as I was asked for diffs and provided one in which HighwayCello snarks Don't question other people's opinions when being questioned about my own opinions. Ah, it's late hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral towards Support Tariq echoes my sentiments. Rama's arrow 01:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning Oppose pending investigation - crz crztalk 05:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning to oppose. Blnguyen's and Hoopydink's points concern me. However, I did think he was an admin as I've certainly seen him around. I think the oppose points right now certainly have some weight, hence leaning oppose. Will wait to see further opinions brought up before switching either way. – Chacor 06:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral I opposed last time on civility issues, but the candidate seems to have worked hard and gotten those under control. On the other hand, the responces to Blnguyen's question and Angr's vote are very troubling. I may consider further. Eluchil404 11:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral There are very real concerns raised about civility, but currently I need more evidence before I can go either way.-- danntm ^T _C 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA, I know there's been quite a few things said on both sides that have been said in good faith, and not received in that way. In relation to your comments about requiring further evidence, I thought you may like to see the log Natalya and I kept of some of my good behaviour, here. I have committed to improving my behaviour, and I've just recently joined the Esperanza Advisory Council, as well as taking over the Admin coaching program, both of which require good people skills. Thanks for reading, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 08:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

   Switched to Weak Support, see above.-- danntm ^T _C 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral The concerns raised by Blnguyen, hoopydink and Angr are slightly worrying. When it comes right down to it, I don't see any pressing need for the technical side of administrative privileges. But I could go either way with some more convincing evidence. riana_dzasta 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Switching to support - I'm convinced. riana_dzasta 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for your comments to my RfA, some things have been said in good faith and have been taken the wrong, on both sides. I would use the tools quite a bit if I received them, mainly for helping with the Pokémon Collaborative Project, since they are lacking a current active admin to merge histories, protet pages, fix renaming etc. This is quite a large task because of our mass amount of articles, over 600 for sure, which all receive a fairly high level of vandalism, which could be cut down on wih blocking tools, since many admins don't have Pokémon on their watchlists.

   My next use for the tools would cutting back on speedy deletion backlogs, something which has gotten worse in just my time here, the length of time is not acceptable. Speedy deletion is supposed to remove harassing or inappropriate content quickly, and I think it's something that needs to be at the top of our back logs lists. Other uses would include DYK updation, and helping to mediate newer users, which isn't a tool use, but admins are supposed to help other users, and I want to help Wikipedia. Thanks for reading, 08:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Switch to neutral per michaelas-- removed comments from this RfA. Even though the content was then restored and struck, it should not have been removed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

   Aw, give him a break. He was trying to retract the comments and made a mistake by deleting them rather than striking them out. --Richard 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

   An Admin candidate should no better than to remove content from an RfA. The correct course was to strike the comments. Removing the content removed it from easy review for the next time. Some of us review prior RfA's. It just reaises a question of his judgment. On top of the other concerns, it just nudges me out of the support section. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:30, 5 November 2006 (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.