Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Happyme22

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

Final (87/14/6); Originally scheduled to end 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happyme22 (talk · contribs) - Shortly before my botched RfA, I accepted the strongest Admin Coachee that I've ever taken. Usually, I would tell somebody as strong as Happyme22 to simply go for it, but I saw a few areas that might have caused him problems. And SandyGeorgia didn't want to see his RfA get butchered, so she asked me to coach him to address some of the gaps I saw. What were those gaps?

First, his talk page was atrocious. There were allegations of POV pushing and even vandalism all over his talk page. In fact, if he didn't have Sandy's seal of approval, I would have stopped looking at his talk page. He had one of those annoying talk pages where he responded to people on their own talk page, thus in order to figure out what was going on, I had to find his responses on the other party's talk page. As Happy deals in a very controversial area, American politics, it shouldn't be a surprise that unfounded (or erroneous---and even libelous) allegations have been leveled against him. As his page read, you never saw his side. Of course, if he was a vandal POV Pusher, he would never get Sandy's support. Second, and the the biggest concern, however, was a large number of images he had deleted around November that showed a lack of knowledge on wikipedia's images policy. Since that time he's uploaded quite a few images and hasn't had any issues. Third, he had virtually no foot print in "adminly" areas. Finally, I was a little worried that since he works in an area with a lot of controversy that he might invoke some drive by opposes and that these drive-by opposes might have some obscure reason to oppose that garnered pile on opposes before he had a real chance.

As to the last point, I still have concerns that somebody might be sitting on some supposed bombshell... but I don't give that risk much credence. While it is entirely possible that somebody might pull something out, I think Happy's record speaks for itself. Happy did the impossible. He doesn't realize it, but we first met about 18 months ago when we both had articles up for FAC. I remember a conversation with Sandy wherein the general consensus was that the subject of Happy's FAC was simply too controversial and would never pass---even if it might be deserving. But that didn't deter Happy, Happy pushed Ronald Reagan through a record FIVE FAC's to get it to FA status. He then pushed Nancy Reagan to FA status as well. Anybody who can navigate those political landmines and emerge unscathe, is just the type of admin we need. In other words, if somebody pulls something out of the air, I encourage you to investigate the entirety of the situation. I think you'll find that Happy has always worked for the best interest of the project. You may not always agree with him, but he does strive for NPOV.

Over the past two months or so, Happy has been busy establishing footprints in "adminly" areas---most notably AFD. While I think he could have passed 6 weeks ago, I am a stronger believer in that fact today. Finally, I think it is really needed that we have somebody like Happy in the ranks of adminship. With this having the potential of being a hostile campaign year, it would be helpful to have an admin who keeps abreast of political issues and has a record of fair play.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom: I'm pleased to co-nominate Happyme22. I'm not a great fan of admin coaching, but in Happyme22, we have a civil, productive editor who assumes good faith and has contributed excellent content in his featured articles, but needed experience outside of his content contributions; with that experience, he will make an excellent admin. As Balloonman said, when the first two Ronald Reagan nominations appeared at FAC (before I was FAC delegate, just a reviewer), I expressed doubt that Happy would have the stamina to see such an article through FAC. He persisted, always polite and cooperative with reviewers, attempting to meet all demands while staying within policy, never disagreeable, through all of the Ronald and Nancy FACs, resolving POV issues with the same attention as MoS issues. His efforts resulted in a recommendation from Raul654 that Happy be recognized in a Signpost Dispatch. I've also observed the experiences he's had, frequently coming under serious fire on his talk page because of editing political articles, and he's maintained a good disposition nonetheless. I'm pleased to be able to co-nom this worthy and dedicated candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Diligent Terrier

I first encountered Happyme22 during a debate over the quality and neutrality of the Barack Obama article, which eventually led to a featured article review. During that time, I found Happyme22 to be an excellent and, well, happy editor that remains civil despite the heated debates that go on around him, and is able to understand the perspectives of people on both sides of an argument. His patience in dealing with these large-scale debates is also amazing; Happyme22 remained a helpful voice pursuing a resolution long after others had given up. (I actually think that he would be great mediator.)

Investigating further, I found Happyme22 to also be an excellent content developer, and for the concern lately that we need more admins that aren't all about simple maintenance tasks that do not require a high IQ, I point you to his work on the Ronald and Nancy Reagan and similar articles.

For those of you who remained concerned that Happyme22 does not have enough experience, I point you to the fact that he has been a member of our community since February 20, 2007, made nearly 12,000 edits in that time, and has a superior understanding of how to use administrative powers.[1]

For these reasons, I am asking you to support Happyme22 for adminship. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am very honored, and I accept the nomination. Happyme22 (talk) 01:32, 9 July 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: As an admin, I hope to continue working, as I have, cooperatively with others in normal article space. But with the addition of admin "tools", I hope to spend additional time assisting editors at WP:RFPP and WP:AFD. Since my interests have to do with political matters, RFPP is essential when facing vandalism and heated edit warring.

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

A: I'd have to say that my best contributions are within two closely related articles: Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. Both have achieved FA status as a result of my major additions, rewrites, and copyedits. I am very proud of them because they are controversial topics; as a result, it took me two GANs and five FACs to promote Mr. Reagan's article. I have cooperated diligently with fellow editors on the articles' respective talk pages, both Republicans and Democrats, to produce well written, NPOV articles. My good article contributions include: Pat Nixon, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Dick Cheney, Tear down this wall, George H. W. Bush, Laura Bush, Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, Iran-Contra affair, and Leonore Annenberg. Many of these I completely rewrote and I created Mrs. Annenberg's. Other major contributions and articles that I have written can be found here. I was very honored to have what I feel are my best contributions written about in the Signpost here.

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: Well yes, I have been involved in edit conflicts. This largely stems from my interest in political articles, where things can get quite contentious. Of course I try not to edit war; I've never been blocked and never violated 3RR. I will not hesitate to stand up for what is right and what abides by core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Previously, I have brought the pending issue(s) up at the article discussion page; there, I am always willing to discuss it with users who disagree with me or others in an attempt to end the edit war and make peace. A few months ago, a large edit war got underway at the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, wherein three users were failing to abide by an established concensus and 3RR was violated many times. I requested full protection so that users may cool down and reach a compromise. I was personally attacked by two of the users who engaged in stalking and disruptive behavior, so instead of firing right back, I reported the primary user at WP:WQA, where questions arose regarding sockpuppetry. Citing the evidence, I requested an IP check at WP:RFCU. The results proved that the users were indeed sockpuppets and resulted in four permanent blocks. As a concensus from both sides of the political aisle, the editors of that page have been able to further improve the article.

I know that additional edit wars will erupt in the future, but I believe that I have enough sense and the proper judgement to keep the discussion focused on the matter at hand. It's what I've done in the past, and what I will continue to do in the future.

Additional {Required ;) ) questions from NuclearWarfare

4. Please define notability in your own words.

A. To me, notability is what a Wikipedia article is all about. It is, in essence, the starting block criteria that distinguishes why a particular individual or object merits an article.

Please explain further. How would you classify a subject as notable?

A. Well it depends on the subject in question. Most biographical figures need to have significant, third party media coverage from reliable sources to ensure verifiability. But just appearing in the news does not grant notability; a figure who appeared in a the media for a relatively short time is not necessarily notable. Then again, notability does not expire.

5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A block is a way that administrators prevent users from editing Wikipedia for a number of reasons. But blocks are meant to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not punish or scold users. A ban is a formal revocation of the ability to edit, usually for prolonged periods of time, and blocks can be used to enforce these.

Why are bans issued?

A. Bans can be issued for many reasons, though most are results of WP:DR or as remedies by the WP:ARBCOM. Ban times range from temporary to indefinite and potentially permanent. Partial bans are also possible; these ban users from editing a single page or area of work usually because said user is disruptive when working in those fields. The blocking comes into play when a user evades a ban, and the block is meant to enforce it.

6. When should a cool down block be used and why?

A. Cool down blocks really should not be used. If anything, they just add fuel to the fire. I understand that there is a discussion currently underway regarding it, though it has not changed my position on the matter.

7. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A. Please see User:Happyme22/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

Optional questions from User:Filll

8. What should be done to encourage calmer environments around RfAs and similar polls? For example, would you support the Peaceful Polling Pledge?

A. Well I am all about respect. Heated conversations, shouting, and arguing, serve no prurpose other than to cause stress, hurt feelings, and make others upset. I think that the proposed peaceful polling pledge can be considered a step in the right direction; I agree with question 5 that participants should not be harassed, but I do feel that if you want to vote anywhere on Wikipedia or give your input, an explanation is needed.

Optional question from xenocidic

9. As an administrator, you will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. You'll come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. And you will sometimes be tasked with considering unblock requests from the users you block. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond.

A: Well in this particular instance, I don't think that we can assume good faith as this user has gone over the level three warning (he/she was blocked twice and committed a number of actions justifying them). Per WP:BLOCK and WP:Blocking IP addresses, indefinite blocks should very rarely, if ever, be used on IPs. IP blocks should begin as a few hours in the hopes that the user will move on, as was done, but if he/she comes back, as again occured here, the block may have to be extended. I think that the user's unblock request should be declined for now, as it is evident by the fact that he/she cursed the blocking admin and Wikipedia in their second unblock request and then deleted it and posted an appology message which, due to their past editing histoy and that single telling action, should not be considered with much credence. He/She appears to be simply out for vandalism. So I would decline the unblock request, and after that time is up, the IP can show us, hopefully, that he/she is dedicated to building the project.

Additional question from BigHairRef

10. Regarding WP:CONSENSUS, when required to judge consensus, what weight do you give to a "Support/Oppose per X" or a similar !vote (X being another user who has !voted) without further explanation; assuming that the reason that X gave was not obviously applicable and the only likely reasoning?

A:This depends on what X said in their statement; if, as you said, X's reason was not applicable to the discussion, then I would view both supports/opposes with a less weight. This is because the editor citing "per X" would be, in essence, giving the same reasons as X. If X gave a thought out, well complied answer and another editor !voted "per X", then I would be inclined to weigh that as equal as all the other well thought out, reasonable answers. Happyme22 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Hellboy

11. Seeing that you are doing very well without admin tools (as you stated in Question 1) could you give me your confirmation on why you need the tools?

A: Certainly :) First off, and most importantly, since I work a lot with political articles, vandalism is very frequent. Being able to protect pages enables me to safeguard the accurate information in those articles, protect the reputation of Wikipedia because many of the articles are very frequently viewed, and bypass the WP:RFPP process. Second, I would like to further expand my area of work on Wikipedia, so the tools can help me in WP:XfD; that is place that I have gotten to know much better over the past few months.

Optional question from User:Rlevse

12. The main reason you're getting opposses is the fact that you've been compromised more than once. This is a major concern with an admin account. How did these occur? What have you learned from these incidents? I know you can prove it won't happen again, but how can you assure us you will do all reasonably possible not to have it occur again? Merely having a strong password isn't enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. Well thanks for bringing this up, because this should be addressed. It occured the firt time because I was neglegent and did not log out of my account. But I've learned a lot :) First, I always need to log out of my account, wherever I am, and anytime I leave any computer if only for a minute. I also will only work from controlled environments, i.e. my home. I've established a {{User committed identity}}; I hope that I will not have to use it, because I have learned so much from this experience, but it is a beneficial tool. I am also looking into a public account. Happyme22 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See Happyme22's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for happyme22: Happyme22 (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/happyme22 before commenting.

• I don't understand tombstone's oppose. Surely someone who's account is compromised will be less likely to have it compromised again because of they fear it happening again and will have stepped up security dramatically. It's fairly obvious that the owner of a compromised account will do all in their power ot make sure it never happens again, whereas someone with no history of compromised accounts will just go about as usual.--Serviam (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think having your account compromised a month ago is a good reason to deny adminship. The chance of a user getting his account compromised twice are very slim (it requires the stupidity to not learn from the first incident). Personally, I trust happyme22 to not let it happen again, and I think he'll make a good admin. Maxim_(talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As auburnpilot notes below, this has previously occured (aside from the recent event). The particular edits can be seen here, which was a result of the account being left logged on. Rudget (logs) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my fellow dedicated editors have expressed concern over the temporary compromising of my account. Because I am a big believer in fairness, openness, and keeping accounts secure for the good of Wikipedia, and I am an editor who devotes a lot of time and effort to building the project, I regret that this wasn't addressed in my nomination and want to clarify now. I used the restroom at a Memorial day family party and found my brother (everyone knows how siblings are), who doesn't know how seriously I take this project, had played a joke on me and made two edits that are considered vandalism. I reverted them immediately, contacted all the involved parties to clarify that it was not me, changed my account password, and made myself a personal pledge not to log onto Wikipedia unless I am in a "controlled environment", i.e. home. I regret that respectable and reputable users may not trust me over something that happened in the past and I can't change. Because my account was compromised, I feel that I am in a better position to ensure that it will not happen again; I am now definitely more alert to this eventuality. I have learned two things: a) always sign out when leaving, or b) don't use the restroom haha :) In all seriousness, I have learned my lesson. I support every editors' right to !vote however he or she feels. Best as always and to all, Happyme22 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you (now) using a strong password, combining both UPPER and lower-case letters with numb3rs and $ymb@ls mixed in for good measure? –xenocidic (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the above scenario, the "strength" of the password does not seem relevant. The candidate just needs to remember to log out at every session. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, but account security in general is A Good Thing™. Admins ought have strong passwords. I want to know that the candidate has or will implement one should this RFA be successful. –xenocidic (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest xenocidic, and your question is relevant. I am using a password of mixed letters and numbers, it is not a word, and it is not something that anyone I know knows about me. Happyme22 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers to this concern is fair enough. Just make sure you take care of this always in future. -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 08:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to update my fellow editors on some other measures that I have taken to protect my account. I have established a {{User committed identity}}, which can be found on my userpage. I am also looking into creating a public account in the event that I do indeed become an administrator. I believe that I have taken the necessary steps to ensure that a compromising of my account will not occur again. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. It seems like a very prudent thing to do.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should desysop everyone if we're going to oppose people whose account is hacked. Anyone's account can get hacked. Your account could be hacked right now. The opposition for that reason is totally invalid, in my view, which I believe the closing 'crat should share. —Giggy 04:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC) It's {{CURRENTTIME}} - do you know here your children are?[reply]
  • In all seriousness, I agree with Giggy's tongue-in-cheek comment that admins should be desysoped if their account is compromised. WP is no longer the small town it used to be; it is now verging on being a mega-opolis. It only goes to follow that security concerns should be increased accordingly. For that reason, Giggy's logic is invalid, and I beleive the closing 'crat should keep that in mind. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - Sure thing. Meets my criteria. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Can't see any problems here. – iridescent 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Excellent candidate Baloonman! Good find! Easily surpasses my criteria. An article builder, sane and competent in contentious areas? Exactly what Wikipedia needs! I fully expect some POV editors to join the oppose section, prima facie evidence of a clueful editor. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. FAC is usually a spot where nominators show their true colors; the fact that HappyMe22 remained cordial throughout the 5 Ronald Reagan FACs and the Nancy Reagan FAC (which was restarted) says a great deal about his character. After Nancy Reagan achieved FA status, a user I did not know chose my talk page to complain about HappyMe's "POV Pushing". I investigated pretty thoroughly and found that, even in the face of blatant POV-pushing by anon users, HappyMe kept his cool and reasonably discussed policy and the merits of the disputed edits. I have full confidence in his judgement and think he will make an excellent administrator. Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per the nomination and Wisdom89's criteria.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Co-nom Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Basically what Karanacs said. Anybody who can keep their cool through a process as bruising as the Reagan FACs is going to be able to handle adminship. Was also incredibly impressed with HappyMe's commitment to neutrality on Ronald Reagan in the face of almost insurmountable attempts by others to have the article written with an agenda in mind. --JayHenry (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support I was on the fence until I saw your Userboxes.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support With nominators like Balloonman and SandyGeorgia I can safely say you will make a great admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Support per TomStar81. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support: Candidate looks good. Has well rounded contributions and it's nice to see a candidate interested in American politics as well. It's quite a controversial area and it's nice to see an editor taking initiative and editing the articles in an appropriate manner. I think this user will make an excellent administrator.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Happily support Happy is a level-headed editor with a maturity that is often in short supply around here. I have found him to be cordial, thorough, and - most importantly - always willing to listen to another point of view and negotiate a compromise. He has helped out on FA review of articles I'm involved in that are not in his own typical editing focus, but done so with integrity, fairness, and insight. I have seen him withstand unfair attacks that many would have responded to with anger - Happy remained calm and polite, while standing up for his own (correct, as it happens) position. My only criticism would be that he was too nice - responding to unreasonable requests in a FAR that he could have just ignored or declined and no one else would have objected. As an admin he may sometimes need to be tough - but I am confident he will meet the challenge. I enthusiastically support this and look forward to calling upon his administrative tools which I know he'll use with care. Tvoz/talk 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support: I have only worked with Happy as the reviewer for a GA nomination for Iran-Contra scandal. I was impressed with how he handled such a controversial topic. Although I thought the article had serious problems and the nomination was pre-mature, Happy worked diligently to fix all issues in short order. He handled the POV and vandalism issues that inevitable creep into such an article in a mature fashion, enough to give me confidence that this user can be trusted with the admin tools. Dave (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. You da man. Vishnava _talk 06:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. If you're trusted enough to get a ridiculously good nomination from Balloonman you're trusted enough by me to let me support you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 07:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Happily support. Good user with 11,000 edits and lot of experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. zOMG yes. —Giggy 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Per dilligence, knowledge, and clue necessary for adminship. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 07:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 08:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 08:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. —Dark ^talk 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. But given your brother's behavior, you might wanna be more paranoid about signing in and out from your account... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support ^_^ -- RyRy (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Happy to support. — Athaenara ✉ 10:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. I worked with Happyme22 on several parts of Nancy Reagan, and have run across him on a number of other American politics articles. He works well with constructive editors even of opposing views, is willing to stand up against nonconstructive editors, and has the wisdom to know the difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support as candidate appears committed to building the project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Strong Support per Diligent Terrier's persuasive, convincing and well-written nomination. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support: A well-rounded candidate who has great experience with editing and maintaining articles to a very high standard. seicer | talk | contribs 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support I know this user had a sort of coach, but I can't see any edits I would associate with the "classic" coached admins, contribs look fine, okay.--Serviam (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strongest Possible Support - I know Happyme22 rather well and I must say that this editor is one of the nicest most helpful editors I have ever come across. I originally noticed his excellent article building work so asked for assistance on a copy edit. Needless to say, he copy edited a 100,000 bytes article he had never before edited at the drop of a hat and I was a complete stranger. I have a huge amount of respect for this person, I also thing we could do with another strong admin in the field of politics. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Weak support - great editor, and meets my numerical standards, but tends to obsession about a certain former President. I'll assume good faith in POV. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support This user's willingness to heavily edit politics-related articles and his ability to keep his cool while doing so demonstrate an ability to deal with conflicts and pressure. I see no compelling reasons to oppose. Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Solid contributions, good editor, no problems, so it's an easy support. S. Dean Jameson 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support per his work to Mr Reagan's article. Good luck. --Cameron* 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per excellent comments of the three extremely reputable co-nominators, whose knowledge of the editor is better than my own, and whose standards might be higher than mine as well. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - a very good user. Terrific article work, excellent interaction with other users, despite the talkpage problems Balloonman mentioned in his introduction. Very good Wikipedia-space participation. Just don't forget to log out of your account! ;) Lradrama 21:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Though I continue to strongly question Balloonman's judgment after a still-recent debacle that I won't deign to name, the co-nom from SandyGeorgia and the candidate's answers to the questions make me feel comfortable enough to support. I'm glad the candidate will be taking the steps necessary to prevent his account from being compromised in the future. GlassCobra 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - I have known Hap since he was a newbie, and I have seen him emerge as a very good editor (whatever little I have done towards this end is not really worth mentioning). While I am notably concerned over his ability to be neutral in political articles outside the relative confines of political conservative articles, he does allow for his own mistakes and never forces his beliefs on others. I am also concerned that he hasn't a lot of experience outside his article comfort zone, but then, as we aren't being paid, we are better off sticking to what we like. I would suggest that Happy's interest in RFPP and MfD successfully sidesteps this concern. If he makes an editorial call in an article in concerning American politics, it wold be expected that he consult other admins for guidance before doing so. Personally, I disagree with him is virtually every discussion I have had with him concerning content, but he is one of those rare individuals who can keep matters civil. Poking at him for forgetting to log off his account, thereby inadvertently allowing an apparently juvenile person to act as him, is unfair. What was missed in the criticism was that these lapses in his typical demeanor were immediately noted when they occurred, for the simple reason that they were so unlike how HappyMe22 usually edits. It was a mistake, as no one typically expects a family member to screw them over. That Hap should log off his account when using a community computer is a lesson he has no doubt severely learned (and, if I remember my own interactions with my own brother, the appropriate level of payback administered). It isn't a reason to fault his ability to act appropriately. I think he should be monitored for a bit, as all new admins are, but he is ready for the mop, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I was hesitant to support at first, but then realize I was confusing Happyme22 with Happy-melon, who is unfortunately already an admin. Looking over his's contribs, I see a great deal of good work and considerable evidence that Happyme22 has a firm grasp of policy (and how it should be applied). The account security issue doesn't concern me, as it isn't as if he is offering his admin account up for the highest bidder on eBay. We've had accounts maliciously compromised in the past, and what little damage they caused was cleaned up in minutes. I suspect Happyme22 will take the necessary precautions (always log out, even if leaving the computer for just a minute or two) and his little brother/sister/friend will not gain control of his account again. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Nothing but positive things to say about this nomination. When you see Happyme22's name, there's bound to be some neutral and helpful stuff attached to it. But why the 22?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong Support. I've always had my eye on nominating Happyme, but I might as well just give the strongest support I've every given. Helpful, neutral, and dedicated, I have no doubt that Happyme will continue to do good here. bibliomaniac15 23:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Per Sandy's nom Gary King (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - I have every reason to believe that this user will keep a watchful eye on their account and avoid a repeat of their past mistake. —  scetoaux (T|C) 05:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support No reason to oppose. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Happyme22 edits on some high-traffic articles that evoke strong opinions, but he always manages to keep a cool head -- a good quality in an administrator. He's also an active writer of articles, which is another good quality. Coemgenus 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Rock-solid nominations. I believe candidate will address security concerns - we're not giving him the codes to nuclear warheads, we're giving him Wiki admin tools. Clearly has the temperament and knowledge needed to use them effectively. Tan | 39 15:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Wait, we can get codes for nukes as admins? Excuse me while I prepare my own RfA...goodbye, Texas! Muwah hahahh! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

53. Support MBisanz ^talk
54. Support – I have re-evaluated the neutral I posted earlier in the RfA when I discussed the possible problems arising from a potentially 'unsafe' administrator account and some other concerns about experience and some lack of deletion work. I now feel that, as I say, a review of this, I had unfortunately come to the wrong conclusion about this particular user. A focused, well-mannered, and overall compatible individual Happyme22 shows good signs of being an excellent administrator, this being further evidenced by a rigorous and somewhat, one can only imagine, tiring process of the FA system for the same article five times. That really shouldn’t be the be all and end all for Hm22 though, I've also been reflecting upon their contributions and some fine examples of following process (outside the Reagan’s) are notifying IPs of refactoring comments on talk pages, relevant notices about test-editing, vandalism warnings etc. There were others concerns, which I did feel where preventing me from supporting, below in the struck-out neutral but now with this more detailed review I believe there is a very good chance that not only will Happyme be an administrator, but an excellent one too. Rudget (logs) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Great work on great articles. If Sandy and Ballonman both approve, who am I to say otherwise? Please get a committed identity, though. Paragon12321 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support A generally cheerful and unflappable editor. Can't imagine him/her misusing the tools. --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 22:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support -Per the rather poor opposes. I can think of a few admins whos accounts have become compromised and still have the tools, and use them just fine. I mean its not the end of the world, admins can be temp de-syoped and their actions undone. Now in saying that I hope Happyme will understand a need for secuirty and as such will take steps to ensure that his/her account will be secure from here on out. Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Seen this user around alot - especially at WP:AFD recently - keep up the good work. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - Garion96 (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Notably per answer to question #8 WilyD 15:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support - great content contributor, pleasant attitude. Trustworthy too; I take his word he'll be more careful with logging out. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support After reviewing the user's contributions, I wouldn't hesitate to trust them with admin tools. --Laser brain (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Lack of security awareness enables terrorism. Right, piss off to Fox News. In other words: I trust the candidate to have learned his lesson and always make sure he logs out. I also suggest threatening with violence. If it works for the U.S., it will work for you. user:Everyme 02:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Chimeric Glider (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. Editors who are capable of bringing contemporary political articles to featured status are exactly the kind we need to evaluate and take action against disruptive activity. Security concerns seem entirely overblown. Skomorokh 14:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. No reason to oppose presents itself except for the security issue, and I'm convinced he's learned a lesson from that incident and will not allow it to happen again. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Good editor with lots of content contributions. Appears to have a clue and grasp of policy. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Good admin candidate. --rogerd (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support: I dont really see any reasons why I shouldn't support you. Please do take care of some of the concerns raised by those who oppose you. Otherwise I feel that you will not misuse the power buttons a.k.a the mop :) -- TinuCherian ^(Chat?) - 06:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support would make a good administrator. Ostap 07:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. Some good points have been raised by opposers, but on balance I think you've learned your lesson about account security and I see nothing else to concern me. Your general contributions to Wikipedia have been excellent. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 09:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, has been upfront (enough for me, at least) about the account compromisation, and appears aware of the problem, and to not let it happen in the future again. Mistakes happen, eh? Including to actual administrators. Everything else looks great. -- Natalya 15:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support--LAAFan 19:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Sure ( Ceoil ^sláinte 22:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - I've been very impressed with Happyme22's work on challenging featured articles and the manner in which he has communicated and worked toward consensus, two things I feel are very important skills for administrators. The security issue had me hesitating a bit until I remembered a few occasions when I'd left myself logged in while stepping away from the computer for "just a minute" too. I see that Happyme22 has taken the bull by the horns and addressed the issue with the committed user identity, and I think he's learned the hard way why one should log out whenever leaving the keyboard (and I've been reminded by his lesson, too). Risker (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - An excellent candidate from contributions, etc. even by the admission of several opposers below. I would like to ask some of them how one goes about proving that something won't happen in the future? Accidents happen, and if his account were compromised, it would be noticed, the account block and any intervening damage undone. Since this wasn't the result of foolishness in, say, a public library or by having a weak password, I don;t see the big deal Fritzpoll (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Very good user. In addition, it's nice to see another person that I've granted rollback to at RfA. :) Acalamari 02:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support — clearly clueful, and the reassurances about the account security are enough for me. –xenocidic (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support While I missed the security issue, that would not have changed the fact that I think Happy will be an excellent admin. For those who oppose, I wonder how many log off everytime they get up to use the bathroom or do something at their home (family's home.) I know that I don't, and I doubt if even 10% of the opposes did. We've had admin's whose accounts have been broken into, while it can cause problems, it isn't the end of the world as we know it. Beyond antagonizing others (which non-admins can do). There is very little that even an admin can do that can't be undone...and most of those would require somebody familiar with the tools.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Weak support: per me (below). Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Strong Support candidate seems likely to do a fine job...Modernist (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Weak Support Per my Netural comment. I do however feel that this user will not abuse the tools, but then again security is a big issue. America69 (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Having the courage to admit when you're wrong, then to go and correct your error, is a sign of strength and not weakness. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support: Went from "oppose" to "neutral" and now to "support". Reasons are given (in my history) here on this page. --Floridianed (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Strong nomination statements, good answers, weak opposes. I'm comfortable trusting you with the tools. --Dweller (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support per Sandy's nom and my own opinion of the candidate; admittedly I have not had a personal experience with Happy, but I see no reason to oppose him over a family member gaining access, assuming he has learned from it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful Oppose (SWITCHED TO NEUTRAL--Tombstone (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)) I rarely vote on RfAs unless I've heard of the user, and I was going to whole-heartedly support based on HM22's attitude and magnificent FA efforts, but just over a month ago your account was compromised. Your explanation was: "I was at a Memorial Day party and did not sign out of my account, enabling my brother to vandalize the page." This begs a couple of questions: 1) How can you prove you will not be this careless with an account granted admin tools? 2) How can you prove you will not be this careless when researching for an article? If you have a malicious or mischievous sibling, while it is not directly your fault, if your account is again compromised then it is your fault. I see no committed identity notice on your userpage. What steps have you taken to ensure this will not / cannot happen again? It also peaves me that there was no disclaimer about this in your RfA nomination or discussion, suggesting it is being swept aside. Even if the other users openly know about it, I didn't, so it easily could have been snuck passed me. These concerns, unless sufficiently addressed, incline me to believe now is not yet the time. Admins need to be responsible for their own account, just as police officers need to be responsible for their loaded gun. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When an unforeseen event happens during a holiday, is it AGF to ask the editor to "prove" it can't happen again? Isn't the fact that it happened an indication that the editor now knows not to put his account in that situation again? If you can lay out the steps that you would like to see Happyme22 take to assure us that his account will be safe during future holiday travel, I'm sure he'll comply. I don't know what those steps would be, so it would also be helpful to me; otherwise, this seems to be an AGF issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think Happyme22 will make a good admin, and am likely to support, the recent compromised edits from his account can't be considered an unforeseen event. This wasn't the first time his account was used by somebody else to vandalize the Nancy Reagan article.[2] - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I definitely respect your view, Tombstone; I, like you, feel that admins do need to show the community why they are fit to "hold the tools". But I am upset at myself most of all in this particular instance. After the fact that my account was very briefly compromised (by my brother of all people, and believe me he will hear about this! :) I apologized to the multiple users involved, changed my password, and made myself a pledge not to go onto Wikipedia at any more holiday events, family get togethers, parties, etc. So that's my pledge to all of you as a fellow member of the Wikipedia community who was the victim of an unfortunate error. Happyme22 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose — Rfa-game coachee. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak oppose per Tombstone. The fact that this account has been recently compromised makes me considerably nervous, but the fact that no mention of this incident came up in the nominating statement or other discussion is equally worrying. RfA is a time for full disclosure, and something like that ought to have been disclosed by either the candidate or the nominators. Were it not for this incident I'd easily be in the support column, but given the potential for damage caused by compromised admin accounts, I'd like to see a little more time pass as evidence that the account security is being properly looked after. Shereth 15:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Weak oppose — You seem like a nice enough person and your edits have been good. That said, security is a big deal to me in what I look for in an RfA candidate. A lot of damage could be caused if you were an admin and you 'forgot to log out' again. Best of luck in the future, perhaps when you can indeed prove it won't happen again. — CycloneNimrod  ^Talk? 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   How can you "prove" that it won't happen again? By it not happening again? How long? If he goes, say three years, without it happening again, has he proved anything? It could happen the very next day, best we should oppose. This is a bit like "prove you're not a witch by sinking to the bottom of the lake with this stone tied around your neck. If you float, you're a witch." Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps I said that in a bad way. I shouldn't say "When you can indeed prove it won't happen again" but "Until it is proven that it won't happen again", e.g. until there is a reasonable amount of time that has passed with correct security measures. If there were some way to immediately be guaranteed he wouldn't do it again, of course i'd support. — CycloneNimrod  ^Talk? 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Just above, happy said Well I definitely respect your view, Tombstone; I, like you, feel that admins do need to show the community why they are fit to "hold the tools". But I am upset at myself most of all in this particular instance. After the fact that my account was very briefly compromised ... I apologized to the multiple users involved, changed my password, and made myself a pledge not to go onto Wikipedia at any more holiday events, family get togethers, parties, etc. So that's my pledge to all of you .... I think a bit of AGF-ing is in order. What else can an editor do other than be embarassed, change passwords, change editing habits, and apologize? Seems he has perfectly addressed your concerns, at least in my opinion. I won't badger you though, I apologize if this is coming off that way. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I am also struggling to see the sense in opposes per security. One, this could happen to any of us whose friends' don't understand how seriously we take the project. Those of us to whom it has not happened have generally been luckier, not more responsible. Honestly, everyone logs out of Wikipedia every time they step away from the computer if somebody else is in their home, and you are unfit to be an admin if you do otherwise? Two, in the entire history of the project, how much damage has been caused by compromised admin accounts? With the exception of one evening where four admin accounts were hacked because of weak passwords, this has been a trivial problem, resulting in only a few minutes (in 7 years) during which the Main Page was deleted, and a handful of blocks that were swiftly overturned and caused absolutely no lasting damage. And the Main Page can't even be deleted anymore. --JayHenry (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Per Kurt, an admin should have the qualities necessary for adminship before they ever create an account and should not need to be taught. I haven't looked into this particular case closely, but what annoys me most about many coaches is that they teach how to pass RFA, not how to be a good admin.--Serviam (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Forget it, I just saw you had a coach and assumed the worst, my apologies, I've looekd over your contributions and it looks fine. Sorry :-)--Serviam (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't feel that I was taught by my admin coach as much as I was guided by him. I was the one answering all the questions, making the decisions, and researching policy which enabled me to further understand it. In fact, I was going to decline the admin coaching until SandyGeorgia, an avid opponent of admin coaching, recommended that I go with it for a little bit, to help me with work in "adminly areas". It's not like I went in for a weekly session and plotted about how to deceive the RfA voters... Happyme22 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Weak oppose, per Tombstone, and Shereth. Security is a serious issue, much more so for users who are admins. As AuburnPilot noted, this was not the first time this account was compromised and used for vandalism. I would have liked to see a longer period of breach-free editing since last month's episode. Moreover, as Shereth's noted, the breach episode should certainly have been brought up either in the nomination or in the candidate's opening statement. Nsk92 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak Oppose When considering whether to support or oppose someones Rfa I ask myself "Can I trust this person with the tools?" If I can trust this person with the tools, I support them, and if I can't trust them, I oppose them. I trust you not to misuse the tools when you're editing, and I believe you won't act inappropriately, but I have serious doubts you'll keep your account secure. Your security track record isn't great. Your account has been compromised multiple times, and one of those times was just over a month ago. This wouldn't be a huge deal to me if it happened once and/or a long time ago, but that isn't the case. Otherwise you're fine, and I'm not 100% opposed to you ever becoming an admin:-) Go at least 6 months, preferably more, without any security issues, and I would happily support you. Also, keep up your good work here. You're a true asset to the project, and I would be saddened if you left. Sorry about opposing you this time:-(--SJP _Chat 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Security concerns. SashaNein (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak Oppose per Security issues. Sorry dude. I go to great lengths to make sure I log out each and every time I go to a public/shared location. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Even with family? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Ooo, especially with family. My niece is 11. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 22:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I always log out for that issue, even if i'm only going to be gone a few minites. America69 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose per security concerns - a major issue with new access. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose for now. Security is a concern. There's a difference between assuming bad faith and not wanting to take chances (e.g., I AGF with my fellow customers at the grocery store, but I still lock my car door), and I simply see no harm in waiting a while to ensure that things go smoothly with this account. Also, I would like to give this editor some time to demonstrate a commitment to NPOV not only in theory but also in practice. His response to Question #3 (about edit conflicts) seemed a tad too self-defensive; I much prefer to see an example of a mistake that the nominee himself has made, followed by a statement about how the nominee has learned from that mistake. Also, from what I can tell, he rightfully reported a belligerent user who disagreed with his own positions, but I would like to see him demonstrate a willingness and even a readiness to report infractions by those who share his point of view. So, not now, but possibly in the future. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong oppose, per me (above) and User:Ssbohio (below). Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Cosmic Latte, I'm wondering if you've factored the seven combined FACs, where Happy worked with significant opposition to the Reagan articles to achieve NPOV, as evidence of "demonstrat(ing) a commitment to NPOV not only in theory but also in practice"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: I'm glad that he helped out with a FAC--but all FACs require some degree of compromise, and I'm not looking for some general ability to compromise when one has no other practical options, anyway. What I am looking for is evidence is that he is equally respectful or harsh to equally good-faith or bad-faith editors, respectively, regardless of whether or not they share his POV. Ideally, this sort of evidence would consist of four edits: A) Happy responds to GOOD-FAITH editor who AGREES with Happy's POV; B) Happy responds to GOOD-FAITH editor who DISAGREES with Happy's POV; C) Happy responds to BAD-FAITH editor who AGREES with Happy's POV; and D) Happy responds to BAD-FAITH editor who DISAGREES with Happy's POV. What then needs to be demonstrated is that A and B show comparable respect, and that C and D show comparable sternness. This would probably be too much to ask in the average RfA, but when the candidate focuses on controversial/political articles, this sort of question is a must in a WP:NPOV endeavour. In this case, an extraordinary answer is also a must if I am to soften my opposition, which has increased significantly upon reading User:Ssbohio's well-stated opposition below. The ball is in your court, but I've served it quite fiercely upon reading that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak oppose: I'm impressed with Happy's response to Sbsohio, and I'm not impressed with my own overreacting, which I have struck through. But I would still like to see some specific instance(s) (i.e., links to specific edits) that Happy or others believe to be exemplary of his commitment to NPOV. If I can be shown such instances, I might even be inclined to change to weak support. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well for starters please, by all means, feel free to read over this discussion we had at the Reagan talk page, and later, after working with mulitple Republican and Democratic editors, we were able to work out this paragraph regarding any possibility that Reagan had Alzhiemer's disease while president. The pararaph has not changed much since then. Happyme22 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Here, here, and here I removed loaded words that were describing Reagan's funeral; this article passed GA not long after. Happyme22 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Here I added about the Reagans being audited by the IRS. Here I removed an excessive quotation regarding Reagan's contributions to the end of the Cold War. Here I added that many felt Reagan was indifferent to poor and minority citizens. Happyme22 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it would be helpful to distract any suspicion of POV concerns by pointing out more recent edits (on articles and discussions) in election related articles. With doing so you'd be able to proof your NPOV. You know, I changed my vote from "oppose" to "neutral" but (still) would be appreciated if you could provide such kind of edits you made . Besides that I'd like to say that your at some point "compromised account" is a non issue for me since I'm sure you can (and have to) manage that it won't happen again. --Floridianed (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Floridianed, have you had a chance to go to Talk:Ronald Reagan, click on the Article Milestones, and browse all of the old FACs to see the kinds of things requested of Hap, how he responded, and that opposers eventually struck their opposition? He did this throughout seven FACs (on Nancy and Ronald). Not sure, but browsing those FACs might give you the answer you're looking for. Also, it's unusual to see someone asked to "prove" their NPOV, particularly when he already had to achieve NPOV on two articles in order to have them featured, against significant opposition, and he did that largely alone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Sandy. I think I made my point and interest clear so please don't take it out of context. First of all, I changed my "oppose" to "neutral". Second, I ask specifically about edits he/she made to articles about recent election candidates. It's easier to compromise on articles of politicians that are not involved right now in the election; So here he/she can proof real NPOV if he/she wishes and can. I gave him/her a slack with going "neutral" but that doesn't mean I'm not interesting in more information. I could search and find things for or against him/her but I leave it up to user:Happyme22 to pull out her/his positive edits. Sounds fair, doesn't it? So please let Happyme22 answer him/her-self. There is no need to somehow "bully" me in a certain direction since I already changes for her/his good after he/she replied to me in person. Alright? I don't think Happyme22 needs your help and as a matter of fact, you do quite the opposite in my mind. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment: Floridianed has a good point, but I'm impressed enough with the Reagan edits to switch my position to weak support. Still not the (ideal) kind of evidence I was looking for, but we all have our passions, and I think the edits shown demonstrate reasonable commitment to WP:NPOV in light of those passions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to Floridaned: I have also waded into a few articles regarding the current 2008 U.S. presidential election, though I've not spent excessive time on them. I now tend to contribute only to talk page discussions at John McCain, but my involvement with that article started when User:Ferrylodge asked me to take a look it back in March. I gave a peer review, highlighting areas that needed work and many of my suggestions were implemented. I watch the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article mostly due to maintenance, such as with this edit. I’ve also visited the Barack Obama talk page, where, at the request of main Obama article editor User:HailFire, I introduced a list of suggestions that I felt would help the article retain its FA status, as it was in the midst of an FAR. Many of the issues I raised were discussed and changes were made, and I strongly feel that my list contributed to the close of the FAR and the NPOV tone of the article. Happyme22 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Happyme22. I looked into those edits of yours and also checked again on your edits that initially made me to oppose your admin application (before I switched to neutral) but they have no weight in comparison. So now I'm confident in giving you my support and wish you the best. --Floridianed (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. Sorry, I can't let a person to become an admin if he is not going to do his part to prevent someone from using his account. While he could say it's his brother or young cousin who did it, there's no way to proof his innocence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Ohana, and thanks for addressing your concerns. I am a bit perplexed, however, that you feel that I was part of this act. I compeltely rewrote both the Ronald and Nancy Reagan articles, so the two edits (here and here, respectively) hopefully speak for themselves and demonstrate that they were not something that I did, or was proud of. I take this project very, very seriously and the events were very unfortunate. Happyme22 (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Happy, he didn't accuse you of doing it. But rather states that we don't know who did it. While AGF would have us accept the fact that it was family members at a closed environment as you describe, he is concerned that may not be truthful and that somebody made those edits on a public terminal at a library or something.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Umm, no. Just so we're clear here people - Ohana actually doesn't believe Happy. His position is untenable. He's assuming bad faith with this remark: "there's no way to proof his innocence". If that's his stance, that's his stance, but let's not try to paint a different picture than what was said. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It would be better to continue this on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose at this time for multiple incidents in which your account was compromised and vandalism resulted. With admin tools added to the account, this would be a truly serious issue. If the security problme had just happened the one time, I might be able to believe you had learned to be wary, but it has happened again. Sorry, but I therefore cannot support at this time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose -- Per the arguments above, the answers given by the candidate, and the following reasons:
    • One needs admin tools at articles for deletion if one intends to make deletions; Anyone can close a discussion as Keep or otherwise. Another admin interested in deleting articles is pretty far down on my list of the things this project needs.
    • The account compromise incident is, to me, a minor concern, and I'm satisfied by the editor's statement on the matter.
    • In light of the above concerns about the possibility of coached responses, recent talk page comments indicating Happy is communicating privately off-Wiki with early supporters of their RfA seem unwise, whether or not there is actual impropriety.
    • Recent work on the Ronald Reagan article is the most troubling of all the issues. Happy removed criticism of Reagan's statements on race. A trivial Google search established sourcing for the Reagan quote. It reinforces a concern I have about the impact of WP:BLP on controversial biographies; The Reagan bio seems to be a bit hagiographic, and edits like the one I mention effectively keep it that way. The possibilities I see: mistake, taking the easy way out, POV (unlikely), and article ownership.
    • Given what I've seen, I don't think we'd be similarly aligned on issues of article policy, such as I dealt with at Justin Berry, adult-child sex, and Neil Goldschmidt, nor on certain admins' imposition of undiscussed quiet bans under the auspices of ArbCom. I really would like to be wrong, as I'd like to support this otherwise-good editor. --SSBohio 15:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Just a comment on the Reagan matter, assuming you're referring to this edit. While I don't work on the Ronald Reagan article, I work on others like it, and if I did, I would have done the same reversion. The cite given isn't formatted at all correctly, especially for an FA article, and it's to a blog opinion piece, not a WP:RS. Even if Reagan actually did say it, the context isn't clear; was he espousing a libertarian position (discrimination is eventually self-defeating economically for the discriminator) or a cynical segregationist position? And finally, as Happy's edit summary indicated, there's no evidence given that this added statement relates to the previous one in the article (about Reagan not being popular with blacks); the given cite's context is just a long rant against the "2005 Republican Freedom Calendar", whatever that is. Note that Happy's edit summary also says "rv for now", indicating that he's open to the possibility that in some other formulation, with much better citing, this quote might have a place. But this is not it, and I believe his reversion correct. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      None of the issues you raised with the edit Happy reverted actually required reversion; That's why I specifically cited {{sofixit}} as part of my rationale. Formatting issues are fixed with the [edit] rather than the [revert] button; A trivial search produced a much better source; The context of the statement is inherent, as he espouses a right to racial discrimination; We're not expected to check our common sense at the door -- espousing the right to discriminate against "Negroes" would, inevitably, make him unpopular with black people as surely as water would make him wet. Reversion is a shotgun; editing is a scalpel. If this editor would rather remove than improve, then that's reason enough to oppose extending their authority to remove content. Also, I raised five issues; You addressed yourself to one. Even if I conceded that one, I'd still be bound to oppose based on the other four. --SSBohio 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I note with some dismay that the candidate has responded to subsequent opposition, but not to any of the points I've raised. I'd like nothing better than to be able to withdraw my opposition, but, without a thorough explanation of the issues I've raised, my concerns would not only stand but be reinforced. --SSBohio 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi SSBohio, and thanks for addressing your concerns here.

      First off, deletion discussions should be closed by non-admins only if there is a clear concensus to keep the article. Of course I am not out there for the sole purpose of deleting articles; I would much rather it be improved or merged than deleted. But if concensus decides that it must be deleted per the general deletion criteria, then I hope to help the Wikipedia community by aiding in the process.

      Last I checked, any editor is allowed to have off-Wikipedia conversations with anyone that they please. That is what having an email is for, per WP:EMAIL. I've communicated with Balloonman and SandyGeorgia, two of my co-noms. That's it.

      I am not a protector of Ronald Reagan who is out to eliminate any opposition to him or criticisms of him; as I explained in question 2, I have repeatedly worked with Democrats and other critics of Reagan at the article talk page to produce an overall neutral article. Regarding the "negroes": The sentence was written without any context, it came from a less than reliable citation, and it was not supporting the statement of why Reagan was unpopular with some blacks. Reagan supposedly said this while he was Governor of California, but according to this source black opposition had nothing to do with that, rather it was because not all blacks benefitted from his economic policies while he was president. And the hagiography charges have no legs to stand on, in my humble opinion; it took me 5 FACs to get to FA status, which I think is a good first indicator that all POV has been exhausted. Also, if User:Arcayne, a self-described liberal who I have worked with repeatedly, approves of the article overall, then I think it's pretty darn NPOV. I certainly don't own the article; after going through what I went through to get it where it is, I keep it watchlisted of course, though.

      So I'm sorry that you feel how you do about me. I hope that this has cleared some things up, and none of this was meant to be demeaning toward you at all. No hard feelings :) Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose -- reason: I'm really surprised to find her/him here. Her/his edits don't make the editor appear to be "admin material" in my opinion. --Floridianed (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you could expand on what you feel is wrong with my edits? Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't sure if I should go with staying neutral or oppose and that is also the reason I didn't want to go into details but I admit that my vote might be outdated since I didn't check out your recent edits (and neither your long-term history) and just went with the ones I knew/saw personally. That is the way I usually handle such things but since you ask me, even so I don't think my vote would make a difference, I take it back and go for the neutral to be as fair as possible and wish you good luck. --Floridianed (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose - a great article writer, but unless he can demonstrate that his account isn't going to be compromised (ie, go something more than a month and a half since the last compromise), I must reluctantly oppose. (And just to add, by the way, this is ONLY about account security. I've seen Happyme22's work before and really think those finding fault with his edits are barking up the wrong tree. I encountered him on Nancy Reagan awhile back where he was doing a great job of working to make the article neutral.) --B (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose - Too short of a time since his account was compromised for my liking.  Asenine  19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose - POV pushing on Ronald Reagan, just look at this. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what you're getting at there, Bramlet. He took a sentence with POV weasel words ("a number of scandals") and cleaned it up so it specified the main scandal of the period. Pretty clean edit, as far as I am concerned. Risker (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a content editor and I approve this edit. Gary King (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    POV weasel words? There were multiple scandals, and they were directly linked. He didn't describe Iran-contra as the "main" scandal, but he made it sound as if this was the only one. And on top of that, he made that edit with the dishonest edit summary "slight wording"! Reducing multiple scandals to one is not "slight wording". And that's just one example of his endless POV editing on the Reagan article. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides it being a weasel worded phrase, it was not entirely factually accurate. As it was worded, "Reagan's second term was marked by the ending of the Cold War, as well as a number of administration scandals, notably the Iran-Contra affair", it implies that all, or many of, the Reagan administration scandals occurred in the second term which is not factually correct. This edit was made in an attempt to, as Risker said, clean up the sentence and be accurate. Happyme22 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I like this editor's generally cheerful attitude but am a bit concerned about giving adminship to a person with 38.75% mainspace edits centered around one person (Ronald Reagan). --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's edit count at Ronald Reagan is likely inflated because of vandal reverts but also because it was his first article, and there were a gazillion little edits there to correct MoS and citation errors, that Happy now knows about (I, too, have an inflated edit count at Ronald Reagan because I helped with those corrections during FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why it matters one way or another if the candidate has a majority of mainspace edits on one article. Obviously, as volunteers, Wikipedia attracts us because of our familiarities, interests, hobbies etc..etc..and perhaps this is one of his. With that said, why would a lack of let's say "versatility" in the mainspace have any bearing on this editor's ability to carry out administrator functions? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that an editor with a large proportion of concentrated edits may be overly-invested (as in WP:OWN) in the subject matter and may end up using admin tools inappropriately. We do have a few admins like that and, though I don't see Happyme22 falling in that camp (which is why this is a neutral), I do think this is a concern that needs to be expressed. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if you chuck out RR, he has about 5800 mainspace to other articles....so there's evidence that excluding his main passion, he is still well rounded. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get workerd up about this, it is only a neutral after all :-) Regent's Park is just saying he hopes you don't start to care too much about Ronald Reagan because admins like that then tend to become over-protective of articles and hinder imrpovement, even using their tools innapropriatly. ;-)--Serviam (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. When I got PlayStation 3 to FA status in January, I had around 130 edits on it. I now have nearly 225. I suppose it's a natural tendency for FAs, especially those on potentially divisive topics, to gradually "devolve" unless someone keeps an eye on it. Because Happy got RR to FA, imho it's only natural that he would want to make sure it stays that way by making sure that any new data is accurately cited and formatted and that vandalism is quickly removed. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral leaning towards Support(Switching to last day support) I can't support right now due to the oppose comment from Tombstone, but I can't oppose either. Basically - Can we trust this user to maintain his account so it is not compremised with the admin tools. Sorry. America69 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am slightly inclined to agree with the (minority) opposition here. My account, as has yours, been compromised in the past leading to much discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard. I should really note that on some form of userpage, but I haven't, nevertheless you are going through RfA which was up-coming which should mean that you would make sure to mention it. I don't feel its more a 'sweep aside' sort of thing, more an unopenness with the event. I am surprised by your deleted contributions also; the last 100 stretching back more than a year. This suggests an inactivity in both applications of CSD tags and thus a unreliability to carry out 'good' speedy deletions, which, along with underwhelming arguments in AfD makes me feel uncertain that the user can accurately judge whether an article should be deleted or not, and this is an area which the candidate has expressed interest in. (Recent AfDs viewable here) There are, however, some impressive answers to the aforementioned questions, in particular #3, #4, #5, #6. It is with regret I am neutral, but there is a certain gut feeling that I feel you may not be ready for the administrator tools just yet. Rudget (logs) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm abit confused by this Rudget, are you saying that you are neutral on your own admin-status because your (already admin at the time) account was compromised? And how has happy "swept" anything away (rephrase): been unopen? (/rephrase) By not mentioning it here? It's right on his talkpage, with an apology. It's not on IRC, or by private email. It's right on his talkpage, undeleted, unarchived. I'm confused. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equally confused and feeling responsible if I should have counseled Hap to bring this up, but it's in plain view, was explained, was a one-time situation, so didn't seem necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, it should have been brought up. If you are being presented for adminship, you should make sure to be open about that which has happened in an individual context. There are other reasons why I have gone neutral, which I've noted above. Rudget (logs) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, you may also note that I have not stated that he has "swept anything", in fact, I have downplayed that reference which has been made in the oppose. Rudget (logs) 16:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I misread, and apologize. I reworded my post to reflect what you said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That point mainly reflects those comments which have been voiced by Shereth and auburnpilot above. Rudget (logs) 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I may reconsider this neutral at a later date. Rudget (logs) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a later date, it's now the tenth ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I'm feel like this user still hasn't given enough detail for most of the extra questions I asked him, as well as for the AFG. Ideally, I would have like to see far more written. NuclearWarfare (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Three separate nominators for the same candidate? I realize that's well within the rules, and this isn't an oppose, but I gotta wonder why the candidate desires the persuasive influence of that many co-nominations for one RfA. No offense intended to candidate or nominators, it's just an eyebrow-raising approach. Townlake (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Three has been the traditional limit for a while...four or more is where people have traditionally brought up concerns.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Well and good, but the vast majority of nominations carry less. Again, this isn't an oppose, it just grabbed my attention. I wish the candidate well. Townlake (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral This account has been compromised twice. A compromised admin account can do more damage than a regular user's account. I don't see a committed identity template, it is a way to regain control of ones account if needed, anywhere on their user pages and it leads me to believe they don't take security strongly enough or are not aware of the risks. — Ѕandahl 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. Would be a support, but this is more of a warning to watch your account safety and such. Otherwise, no problems. Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. The account security issue is a big deal for me, this would be a support otherwise. Wizardman 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Still on the fence, but thank you for answering my question. You were the first. –xenocidic (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC) switched to support[reply]

   Neutral. For reason see above (was "oppose #14") --Floridianed (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)(changed vote to "support". --Floridianed (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) )[reply]

   Made a comment at what was "oppose # 10", now # 9 and keeps changing, (which was changed to weak oppose-at the time of my edits) --Floridianed (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Repeated and reinstated my comment after SandyGeorgia tried to answer for Happyme22, pointing me out on already given examples Happyme22 posted (which of course I observed and led me to my first, and now my second reinstated attempt to get an answer from Happyme22. --Floridianed (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll write you a note at your talk page (regarding my question). --Floridianed (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral (switched from oppose) <soapbox>Despite temptation to stand pat and stick it to the RfA bullies who badger anyone who dares oppose someone already with their foot in the door to the the admin "clique"</soapbox>, I cannot in good conscience oppose this editor. Happyme22's attitude, maturity, patience and neutrality are just too good - and the FA writing is too deserving. And hat's off for taking practically every step possible to ensure future breaches will be unlikely (although this should have been done prior to the RfA). However, IMO, I feel one and a half months is just too soon after the "incident". I can't support, for the reasons listed in my oppose, but the candidate is just too (otherwise) qualified to oppose. --Tombstone (talk) 11:49, 15 July 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.