Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hahc21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Hahc21

[edit]

Final: 7/21/6. Withdrawn by candidate. WilliamH (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Editor review/Hahc21

Nomination

[edit]

Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – Saluts. I have been a Wikipedian for over four years now and active since for almost a year now. I know self-noms usually have a low success rate, but after some encouragement from other users, I decided to write my own RfA. I joined the English Wikipedia back in March 2008 after an unsuccessful and lackluster time working on nowhere-to-go projects on the Spanish Wikipedia, and started to work here constantly since mid-2011. I also like to work on other Wikis from time to time, mainly the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias, since I am knowledgable in all of those languages.

I spent most of the time since March 2008 to mid-2011 reading the policies, getting used with how Wikipedia works and watching the GA process. I constantly work on music related articles, and i'm a member of the Wikiproject Latin America Latin American Music Task Force. I have also worked on other areas such as New pages patrolling, fighting vandalism, and correcting grammatical errors with AWB. FWIW, I'm a graduate of the CVUA (and now instructor). —Hahc21 22:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have thoroughly reviewed the comments in this application and reached a conclusion: I withdraw the nomination. Now I know where my weaknesses are and i will work to get them up and running. Regards. —Hahc21 17:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will mainly work at Article for Deletion and the other deletion processes, as well as on page protect requests. As I already have rollback and file mover rights, I will still do the work I'm used to doing with said tools. I have not much experience at ANI, but may also like to work there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions on Wikipedia are Ricardo Arjona-related articles, as well as some other works on music. I have been invovled as a constant reviewer at WP:GAN and recently coordinating the 2012 June-July drive along with Wizardman. I work a lot there and help in anything I can. I have also worked constantly on template creation, such as {{BillboardID}} and {{Albumchart}}. Overall, I have created more than 50 articles and collected 4 GAs, 5 DYKs and a pending FL (Ricardo Arjona discography). The work I am most proud of would be: Ricardo Arjona, Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album), Ricardo Arjona discography, List of works of J. J. Benítez, {{Albumchart}} and Somebody That I Used to Know.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been in some minor conflicts over editing myself, and actively involved in disputes regarding other users. One of them happened recently and involved some admins and some users, who were blocked for edit warring and some other reasons. It lasted for days and made me reach ANI with a report that brought many encountered feelings about several policies. Eventually, the issue was solved and all went back to normal.
Additional questions from Status
4. Are there any areas of administrative work you have little intention of taking part in, and for what reasons?
A: I will be always open to work on any administrative area when i feel completely ready. I have no intention to work yet on CSD and Blocking users since i'm still developing my knowledge base in relation to those two areas. Also, as i fell those areas might only be worked when you are completely confident of your actions and the consequences it may take on the community, i think it's better to work on them later.
5. In the event that someone alleges that you are abusing your administrator power, what will you do?
A: Difficult question. That depends if the claims are founded or not. Either way, I might study the case form an outside perspective and evaluate my actions to see if I really abused, or being less critic, mistakenly did something beyond the usual behavior for such situation (whatever it might be). As I always look everything from a neutral perspective, it may be easier for me to evaluate such situations, although I'm pretty sure I will hear those claims often, as any admin does.
Additional questions from Dennis Brown
6. Please explain when it is appropriate to use WP:IAR by providing one or two brief examples.
A: IAR might be used when the existing policies are not enough to solve an issue or the prevent the improvement of the encyclopedia. Of course, it may not be used lightly and only on special cases where needed. As an example, I developed an article from stub to C-class but for unknown reasons I forgot to nominate it at Did you know. I later nominated it being aware of the 5-day restriction, and another user considered it was not a good action to regect the article. She then used IAR to promote the article and it was eventually featured.
7. An editor has just reverted for the 7th time in 24 hours on the article Newt Gingrich, and you are the first admin to notice it. What do you do?
A: Thanks for the question. Reverting 7 times is well over WP:3RR and also is a very alarming sign of WP:EW, so a block is needed per both guidelines. So, if i'm the first admin to notice it, it is my duty to perform the block to the user and explain him the reasons of it.
I've commented below to keep this section uncluttered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support – Outstanding editor who is qualified and trustworthy. Statυs (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Great editor with wide understandings and knowledge of the Wikipedian policies and also a problem resolver. His attitude is also one of his main qualities. — Tomica (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Great editor, I don't see why I should oppose →Bmusician 01:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I think Hahc has been here long enough, is qualified, and has an even better attitude about editing on Wikipedia (unlike some). Till 01:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongest Support Ever I cannot say enough about Hahc21. First of all, he is involved in just about everything here, from anti-vandalism, to GA reviews, to content creation, to AfDs, you name it. Second of all, he has been extremely helpful to me as my content creation coach and I see no reason why he wouldn't make a great admin. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, moved from neutral Hahc is obviously fit for this role and extra tools. Admins need to be able to distinguish between good faith edits and actual 3RR violations. Good egg from my perspective. Keystoneridin (speak) 04:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I have not seen him much, but seeing his contribs, he can be trusted. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. It's hard to believe that I'm opposing someone on the basis of relative inexperience, but it seems as if this RfA may have been a bit rushed. Hahc21, I think you have the potential to be a great admin someday. My advice is to wait a few months time and continue to be active in places like AfD and RFPP, so that you'll be more experienced and have developed a better understanding of those processes and their associated policies. After that, I have no doubt I'll support you. Good luck! =) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose:Hahc21 is a solid editor and seems to be a very thoughtful and mature individual. However, I'm concerned about his/her overall understanding of the nuances of policy. In a recent discussion, I pointed some of this out to Hahc21. S/He quickly got it and was clearly receptive to my bringing it up. The problem is we don't want folks learning things like this with a mop in their hand. I think after a few months of active editing and involvement in many more nuanced discussions, this individual would make a great admin, but not quite yet. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. While I see a lot of quality work, I only see consistent activity since March. I'm concerned with the apparent lack of understanding or misinterpretation of policies and guidelines that are needed in order to accurately perform administrative tasks. The AFD started for Savan Kotecha is a bit alarming and shows a lack of knowledge about the notability guidelines and AFD procedures. While the article lacks significant sources in the article, sources are readily available. As an award-winning composer with several chart-topping songs throughout the world, the subject clearly meets the notability guidelines. There are just so many concerns here. Not to mention the failure to provide edit summaries. I'm also puzzled with the variance between the answers provided here and the ones provided in the editor review, completed less than a month ago. I would recommend waiting six months and spending time learning and participating in the processes that you wish to be involved as an administrator. Spend some time in CSD, AFD, and NPP, so we can see how you interact with new editors, and interpret and apply the deletion policy. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regretful Oppose I've seen him around lately doing some pretty good work. However, I think he needs a few months' more experience before becoming an admin. To be sure, he will do a great job when sysopped, just needs more time to really make sure he knows policy, which I have confidence he will do in the next few months. I will be very very pleased to support when I see his name up again in a few months. Don't take this to heart - you are a great editor and will be a great admin in time. Best wishes, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - You have done just amazing with GA reviews but, I m sorry, I have to oppose merely due to inexperience and due to few problems at AfDs of late. You have got 10K edits which is great but 8K of it came in the last 3 months which is too low and too soon for me with RfA's point of view. I'd still support if it were good 6 months but not 3 months. On the other hand, voting at AfD makes me little uneasy. You have got only 63% votes matching the real consensus and this has occurred recently. This gives me a slight view of lack of judgement which is a must in an admin. I'd love to support you after 8-10 more months of continued editing and showing good judgement skills (taking care for noms, votes, etc.). All the best! →TSU tp* 01:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose – While I disagree with the above user's description of the nominated's GA work, I agree this is a bit rushed, not just because of inexperience, but because of rushness back after 3 months. While I won't comment on the AFD stuff brought up above, I wasn't really appealed in the situation with User:Status. I would love to support you in the future, but there is still some holes I'd like to see cleared. Nothing says I won't not support in the future. ;) Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 02:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose- Relatively inexperienced until recently and has some problematic AfDs. To repeat what Toddst1 said, we don't want an admin learning on the job. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose While you do good work, I will have to agree with most people here; There are some concerns with experience and AfDs going through your contributions. Tell you what, get a few more months of experience, and I will support you if you ever decide to run for adminship. And just like Bzweebl quotes from Todds1, we don't want an admin learning on the job. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose with regret, largely based on a review of his past 50 AfD nominations. I've made bad nominations, it happens to anyone, but when I see a number of AfDs where the nominator is poked about WP:BEFORE, that is worrysome to me, e.g., [1], [2]. etc. The candidate is doing a lot of great work, and hope that I'll a chance to support at some point in the future. --j⚛e deckertalk 03:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose for inexperience and unfamiliarity with notability guidelines and conflict resolution. The user in question identifies AfD as an area in which he or she would work if an admin. However, some of his nominations indicate a gross lack of understanding of the general notability guideline and WP:BEFORE, as demonstrated here and here. In response to Question 4, he states that he is unfamiliar with CSD criterion and counter-vandalism procedures relating to disruptive users. To echo other opposes here, I believe this is a situation in which way too much learning-as-you-go would occur. I also find the responses to Q3, Q5, and Q7 worrisome per ambiguity, and thus cannot trust that the user fully understands appropriate conflict resolution. Awesome content work, but not cut out for the mop (yet). --IShadowed 03:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I first encountered you fairly recently and I must say it did not leave me with a good impression at all. Comments like, "The fact thet AfD is not a vote doesn't give you open doors to double-vote on every AfD you start." just made me think...what? Communication is a key element in being an admin. The problematic AfDs others have mentioned are also part of my oppose. And the answer to Q7 is not very satisfactory. Sorry, better luck next time. OohBunnies! (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Hahc21 doesn't seem to deal well with confrontation. In response to SplashScreen's concerns, Hahc21 repeatedly stated that he was saddened by the accusations [3] [4]. There was little to no attempt to discuss the specific concerns. I understand that the comments by SplashScreen has since been retracted, but I would expect a more mature response in this given situation. -Cntras (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose due to the AfD issues that have arisen and the need of admins to be knowledgeable about the many spheres in which they'll be working if approved. Michael (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Alarming response to question 7 was enough for me to conclude that there's still some policy to learn and some seasoning regarding communication that need to happen first. Zad68 04:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose reluctantly. I know you mean well, and I think you would make a good admin in the near future, but I'm a bit concerned because it seems like you don't have the fullest grasp on relevant policies / guidelines. I would suggest waiting a few months, and putting some work in admin-related areas, before renom-ing. --Rschen7754 04:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I also you realise you mean well and agree that you will make a good admin in the future. But I am concerned over the seeming lack of experience in admin related areas. As with User:Rschen7754 I suggest you get some experience in these areas, and re-nom in a few months. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Q7 was a trick, but it was a damn good trick. And one I think this user needs to think about before their next RFA. I have seen too many new admins, not to mention overzealous "pre-admins" that start dropping warnings on anti-vandals for edit warring. Not only is this annoying, but shows a very disturbing lack of situational awareness from someone who wants community trust. I hope that you consider the criticism you have heard here today, and I very much hope to see you back in a few months. Trusilver 05:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strongest possible oppose The combination of the editor's general cluelessness here, and (whether you agree or not with the original decision) their unfathomable continued escalation of the situation through their actions shows a) a lack of policy knowledge, b) a lack of judgement, and c) a lack of the diffusion skills needed to be an admin, or some combination thereof. Whipping an editor into a frenzy is never the actions we need on this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - answer to Question 7 is problematic. I would like the "instant block" method not to be used on any editor, and would also like the user to attempt to discuss this on the talk page of the article AND the users talk page. Also, not many edits and only becoming active in April. ⇒TAP 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose You've mentioned that you want to work in AFD related areas but I see no non admin closures from you. I suggest you getting a bit more experience in that area. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to badger here, I just have a small comment. WP:NAC is just an essay. It's an opinion that some editors think that non-administrators should be able to do the same things administrators can as long as tool use isn't required. If this editor doesn't share that view, naturally they wouldn't be doing a NAC (I have no idea if that is their view or not). And even then, NAC are supposed to be for obvious cases such as unanimous keep results. Should we really oppose an editor because we havent seen them close a no-brainer case at AFD? What would we be judging them on? That they know how to copy and paste the templates from another closed AFD?
    If you want to see them judge consensus in an AFD related area, then oppose because of lack of participation at WP:DRV or something. Closing an obvious keep AfD demonstrates no consensus judging capability. Or why not judge them based on their participation at AFD overall and their knowledge of notability guidelines? That would be fairer then judging them for not closing a few. Don't you think?--v/r - TP 17:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Based on the responses to some of the questions the user appears too inexperienced. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I lean too early. I think they do excellent work from what I've seen... but major edit history began only in April. They do great content work and have been very helpful at GAN which are points in their favour. --LauraHale (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm a little worried about being out of consensus 32% of the time at AFD, and that you didn't even participate at AFD until recently so this is pretty recent stuff. What worries me most is that fully half of your total English contributions came last month, 5,152 out of your total 10,191, and literally 95% of your edit total is since March. This gives me pause, so having to stay neutral until I can look deeper at your contribs, and the contribs on the other wikis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Hahc21 for answering Q6 and Q7. Q6 was a good example. Q7 is very problematic on two levels. First, I gave you a BLP, and there may have been very good reasons to revert 7 times and be completely within policy. Vandalism and gross BLP violations are two exceptions to 3RR, and on BLP articles, particularly one of a polarizing political figure, this is always a possibility. The second point of failure is that you didn't consider warning them first. You were the first admin to come across it which means no one has warned them (whether they are new or not) we should always try to warn first, even when they are well over the line. In some circumstances, full page protection along with warnings for all offenders is the best solution. We shouldn't block just because we can, we should only block when it is the best possible solution, and most of the time it isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my!. I completely forgot it was a BLP. I said block because i didn't noticed it was BLP. You're right. I usually like to warn to see if the users stop edit warring or reverting. I'm aware that blocking may only bring more problems when done, and it's always best to use some alternatives. Thanks for the explanation. That's one of the reasons why i'm not very keen to work on blocking users. Regards. —Hahc21 00:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind, vandalism and BLP violations can happen on any article as well. Even song articles, where you are talking about the artist, and someone adds something about having 23 kids by 20 women, or was involved in a hit and run, etc. Or just plain vandalism. I used a BLP because I was giving you a softball opportunity. Understanding the words of policies isn't that hard, but the core of WP:IAR (the most important policy we have) is that we should understand the intent of the policy more than the words. And good people screw up sometimes. Warn them first, show them respect, give them a chance, and then if they revert again soon, you block them. Always give people the chance to do the right thing when it is possible to do so. Blocking is important because it is the most damaging tool in the admin kit, so you need to know how to use it before you have it. All the other tools can be undone rather easily, but not blocking because it affects the human more than the database. I don't see a need to pile on, but I tend to think you need just a little more time before becoming admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with Dennis Brown on the basis of being too early. But give it time and I'm sure you'll be accepted with no problems. :) Erick (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to SupportYou have over 10,000 edits which is pretty good. You also have some tools such rollbacker which is given via a request for special permissions. Generally speaking, someone other than yourself has to approve that meaning you have at least some backing of others on Wikipedia. My concern is with your answer to the question regarding the 7 edits to Newt Gingrich. Wouldn't you want to at least contact the user to see if they may have tried to keep something in good faith, but did not know the proper avenues for telling others?Keystoneridin (speak) 04:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually i answered that question way to early and didn't read it twice. By now (without the mop) each time I see edit warring or vandalism, i always issue warnings and write on the talk pages of the involved users to notice them. In some cases, i had to request comments on talk pages to reach consensus. As I said to Dennis above, i'm not too keen on blocking users as I know it may make more harm than good, and other alternatives might better solve such issues. Thanks for the comment. —Hahc21 04:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I'm having trouble trying to strike through my Neutral comment. If someone could go ahead and do that for me, that would be great!Keystoneridin (speak) 05:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Regards. —Hahc21 05:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pretty much per Laura's comments above. I actually think that Hahc21's answers to the questions are good. While I think that Q7 was asked in good faith, asking RfA candidates 'trick' questions such this is a poor practice in my view: I presume that Hahc21 would have reviewed what the edits in question were, and not blocked if it was clear that it was vandalism. We don't - or at least we shouldn't - expect candidates to be perfect, and angling for 'gotcha' moments like this is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I take exception your claims. It wasn't a trick question, it was a softball question using an article that is a perfect candidate for vandalism or BLP exceptions. I wanted to see if he understood that there are exceptions to 3RR. In his answer, he focused on it being a BLP but still missed the finer points. This is admin 101 stuff, nothing tricky at all. I didn't expect perfection, just him saying "there are some exceptions to 3RR" and there is no easier article I could think of where it would be possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see others think it was a trick, so retracting that portion. It wasn't a trick question as that isn't my style. It was meant to actually be an easy, obvious and opened ended question that would allow him to fully explain his understanding of how to deal with reverts on a controversial page that is likely to attract BLP violations and vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see it as a trick at all. Open-ended questions allow the candidate to show more knowledge. I think the candidate just needed to take his time and read carefully. He'll know for next time anyway. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey. Just wanted to note. I know there are exceptions for 3RR and I usually check if the edits (or reverts) made in the page i'm watching fall into such exeptions. I learned most of it when i got my rollback rights. I know i made a big mistake when i answered that question wihout taking into consideration all the possibilities related to the reverts and just said "block". Now i see it wasn't good for me. Regards. —Hahc21 15:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a reasonable chance that I will support in a future bid, as you seem to have good intentions and some to think highly of you, likely for good reason. I'm still concerned about the contribs history and AFD. Think of my staying neutral as "maybe next time", with no prejudice against a future bid. If Q7 seemed "tricky", keep in mind that every decision with the extra tools will be more so, which is why each decision requires thoughtful and careful consideration, and RfA is the only way we can see how well you do this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Generally good contributions, but AfD work needs to be stronger. The answer to question 7 isn't great either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Although I think he would make a good admin in time, the answer to Q7 wasn't well answered. I also agree with Toddst1 in the oppose. On a lighter note, the editor has good anti-vandalism work and a reasonable content creation record. I can see myself supporting in 4-12 months, when more experience is gained.--Chip123456 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hahc21&oldid=1226904029"