Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HangingCurve

Add links
Source: 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.

HangingCurve

Final (8/12/3); ended 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC) - candidate withdrew Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

HangingCurve (talk · contribs) – Greetings from the artist previously known as Blueboy96. I stumbled on Wikipedia a little over seven years ago by accident, and decided to take the plunge and get an account after a few anon edits. That was some 44,000 edits ago. I was granted the mop on the third try in March 2008 (first attempt, second attempt). However, after almost two years, I felt compelled to stand down in May 2010 due to two instances where I blocked new users based on information that was available to me at the time. However, I probably wouldn't have based on what I now know. After more than a year to reflect, and deciding to get a new start with a username change, I wish to offer myself before you again. I'm still very much an article-writer at heart--while I was an admin I continued to be active in the mainspace, and I intend to continue to do so if granted the tools again. I know I made mistakes during my first tenure as an admin, but I feel I've learned from them and ask for the community's trust again. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum In response to some of the neutrals and opposes--I was open to recall before, and I will definitely be open to recall if granted the tools again. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 13:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my candidacy, at least for now. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 18:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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: As before, I plan to do a lot of vandal-whacking. I've long since lost count of the number of times in the last year that I wished I could block a vandal myself rather than hitting the ARV button. I plan to do more about unraveling socks as well--before coming to Wikipedia, I was a moderator on several political sims, and I can sniff out a sock fairly quickly. I'm also willing to accept mentorship from another admin, especially since I want to avoid missing any clues like what happened that previously led to me resigning.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel most proud of expanding and creating articles that depict important events in a way that does them justice--for instance, Drexel Burnham Lambert (which didn't go into enough detail into its role in the 1980s takeover madness) and KCBS (AM) (which didn't include enough on its pioneering role in radio). While I was an admin, I was the primary author of Southern Methodist University football scandal and Binghamton University basketball scandal. Additionally, regarding several NCAA scandals, I went as far as to go to the NCAA Legislative Services Database and read the actual infractions reports in order to make related articles as accurate as possible. I'm also the primary author of several Charlotte radio and television articles.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The most recent instance of this occurred when a user appeared to reactivate his account after a two-week break to reinsert poorly referenced information into a BLP. The user appeared to have recruited another user to insert this material. After several reverts, I got the article semi-protected and opened a SPI case that resulted in a finding of likely meatpuppetry. While I handled it pretty well, I think in hindsight I might have requested semi-protection a little sooner in the process.
Additional question from CharlieEchoTango
4. Could you explain the circumstances leading to your resignation of the tools in May 2010?
A: In February 2010, an editor recruited several people to influence an AfD on open-source software. The arguments of those who were canvassed in this effort appeared to be so disjointed that I interpreted them to be blatantly disruptive SPAs and indef'd them all. However, it emerged almost a month later that many of them were actually well-established editors on the Russian Wikipedia. The only reason their arguments at AfD appeared disjointed was because of their lack of experience with English. Had I known this at the time, I wouldn't have blocked them. The second instance was in May, when a user created several articles about live art and performance art, including Gob Squad. They appeared to be spammy in tone, so I blocked the author as an apparent role account. However, she was actually part of a project to improve articles related to these topics. As with the February-March instance, had I known this, I wouldn't have blocked. Those circumstances, in particular, are why I am willing to accept mentorship from another admin if I regain the tools--if there were signs I should have spotted, I want to know when to spot them.
In response to Mato--there was no way in the first case that I could have known that the editors recruited to influence the AfD were in fact users whose English wasn't that strong. In the second case, the first I learned of this project was in the ANI discussion.
Follow up questions from
Sven Manguard
5. Can you point to any diffs that showed that you tried to engage the parties you blocked, before blocking them, to try and sort out the situation?
A: The situations appeared to be so clear-cut, based on what I knew at the time, that I went ahead and blocked. However, normally in areas where situations aren't so clear-cut, I would have definitely engaged them before issuing a block. For instance, when a new editor made a series of edits that were blatant BLP violations ([1], [2], [3]) I warned the offending party rather than block.
In response to Mato--when I saw the responses of the users tagged as SPAs, they all used arguments that, at first glance, were disjointed and didn't advance valid reasons for why the article should be kept. This is classic behavior exhibited by votestacking sockpuppets and meatpuppets, at first glance. As it turned out, they only appeared that way because of their weak command of English, and not an attempt to shout down the discussion. In the second case, Gob Squad was the first article created by the user, and her userpage gave the impression she was editing on behalf of a group, which is not allowed under this project's licenses. There was no way I could have known more at the time.
6. Were the editors at the AfD breaking any policies? If so, which ones? If they were breaking policies on English Wikipedia, why would their status on other projects matter?
A: The editors at the AfD appeared to be
meatpuppets
, as they had been recruited specifically to influence the outcome of the AfD and had practically no edits in areas unrelated to the topic. However, when I learned they were editors in good standing on the Russian Wikipedia, I realized that their intent was not disruptive. As I mentioned earlier, their statements only appeared disjointed because English wasn't their first language. When a user shows up here who doesn't have much experience with English, if all possible s/he deserves to be helped.
7. There are generally two camps at RfA when it comes to admins that resigned under a cloud, users with block histories, and users that have made notable egregious mistakes in the past; the "you can never be forgiven" camp, and the "you can be forgiven if enough time has passed and you've been good" camp. Please put forward your best arguement that enough time has passed, and you have done enough good work, to make up for the prior incident.
A: In the last year, I've spent a lot of time improving articles in mainspace, as well as on patrol for vandals and username violations. I've also helped save four articles that were headed for deletion, and also helped unmask at least one user with no regard for copyright.
Follow up questions from Wifione Message
8. In your answer to question 3, what exactly was the stress you experienced?
A: Having to stay patient while I explained BLP to a user who didn't seem to understand it even after I explained several times why information couldn't stay.
Follow-up question from Philosopher
9. Your answer to Q1 indicates that you intend to return to the area which got you in trouble before. How do you intend to avoid ending up in a similar situation again?
A: I realize that I may have been a bit too zealous in the past, and in situations that aren't as blatant I intend to engage more before raising the banhammer.
Additional question from Cloveapple
10. Are you willing to seek an admin coach or mentor now instead of seeking one only if (and only after) your RfA succeeds?
A: After having some time to sleep on it, I am willing to seek a coach now.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Strong Support. A great editor who deserves a re-promotion, especially for his anti-vandal work. --
    talk | contribs) 14:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Strong Weak Support -- Has experienced on tracking down spammers and blocking users who were troubled in Wikipedia such as vandalism but I think you can request it at the BN becuase you are back. However you can request resysoping at the Bureaucrats noticeboard because you are back. Thanks --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Seems good enough. Baseball Watcher 16:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support. Glad to have you back. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I see no problems, so I support. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support — Yes, Blueboy96 has made some mistakes in the past, but he's acknowledged his shortcomings and appears to have learned from them. He should definitely be given a second chance!
    Talk) 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Weak Support the candidate has made sufficient mistakes to be presumed human. However HangingCurve appears to have learned from his mistakes and I hope if given a second chance will be a little more cautious with the delete and block buttons. I never thought I'd say this, but this might be one instance where it would be useful to have the candidate commit to being open for recall. Nice to see that the candidate will be open to recall. ϢereSpielChequers 06:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support Seeing that he's stepped down as an admin before, I'm hesitant here, but I think he's proved that he can be trusted with the tools again. HurricaneFan25 15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The self-nom is a bit disingenuous; you resigned voluntarily, but you're required to return to RFA to get the tools back. (#115 on the list.) Can't see myself supporting this given you already had the tools once and resigned under less-than-clean circumstances.
    Townlake (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "disingenuous," I don't see anything in the self-nom that suggested that he wouldn't have to return to RfA to get the tools back. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    According to M-W, "disingenuous" means "lacking in candor," also "giving a false appearance of simple frankness." If you can't see why the word is appropriate here, I can't help you.
    Townlake (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Oppose for several reasons: (1) Lack of candidness in self-nom statement and in Q4- "I felt compelled to stand down"... did you mean you were
    bit a newbie by blocking her for having a role account an hour after she posted this on her user page. You say her userpage gave the impression that it was a role account yet she started it with "The articles I am creating..." Isn't a discussion warranted when someone posts "If we are doing something wrong please advise" on their user page? I think you should at least open a dialog with someone who posts that before you block them. Bottom line: You are a good editor who showed really bad judgement when they had the tools, but you haven't shown you've learned from your mistakes. A mentorship would help, but I'm not comfortable supporting a user who suggests one during the Rfa instead of completing one before the Rfa. VictorianMutant(Talk) 01:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Did you feel compelled to stand down because you made a mistake, or because you simply were unable to deal with a recall at the time? Parts of the story have been left out of your nomination, and if I have to dig through diffs to learn the whole story, then I'm already feeling unsupportive. As VictorianMutant stated above, mentorship should also be sought before an RfA—not during it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Just as VictorianMutant expressed, I also feel that HangingCurve is shifting blame away from himself, which is strange because there may not be significant blame to even want to shift it. I do not understand the details of whatever went wrong, but being an admin is about being in a place which can alienate users. If anything goes wrong, it can almost always be made right by acknowledging a problem and stating what steps one will take to make sure it never happens again. The answer to question 7 above is a non-answer to the most pressing issue in my mind - has enough time passed? It is good that HangingCurve can do good work, and wow! this user has done so much good work! What a time commitment and dedication and awesome record! But I do not vote admins in for doing good work - I vote them in when I am sure that if something goes wrong, they will not upset any other users. I am not seeing the responses I expect to be able to give a vote of support. The response I would have liked to have seen is personal accountability and rather than a list of accomplishments, a description of what this user has already done to safeguard problems in the future. Proposing to get a mentor or review in the future is not ideal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose What a trigger-happy person! I would probably demand a guarantee before supporting him for adminship. Fleet Command (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, with regret. I've had a good look over the desysop incident, but unfortunately even now I don't see a proper understanding of why all those blocks were wrong. They were not wrong because the accounts turned out to belong to editors in good standing on another Wikipedia, they were wrong because the mass blocking of suspected canvassed editors at AfD as a first resort is always wrong -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose per VictorianMutant. I think the candidate's resignation pending a recall is actually a good thing. Saving the community the drama of a recall and also voluntarily releasing the tools shows that the candidate stands by their commitment to be accountable to the community. However, as VictorianMutant points out, the candidate was in fact close to a recall and that should have been mentioned by the candidate for full disclosure. The candidate seems to have tried to cover it up and hoped no one would call them out on it. Also, blame shifting seems apparent too. Sorry.--v/r - TP 14:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Had your answers to questions 5 and 6 been better, I would not have opposed, as I believe in second chances. However, your answers to questions 5 and 6 were not good enough for me.
    Wha? 15:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Oppose - Unconvinced that the candidate has sufficiently learned from previous mistakes which caused his desysopping. It's hard for me to support desyssopped users in general, unless it's crystal clear that they have changed and/or fully learned the lesson behind their previous mistake. If you try for RfA again, I would highly recommend fully disclosing everything that happened when you los the bit last time, with links and diffs (possibly on a separate page), so that people don't have to dig for themselves. Otherwise it appears that you're trying to make your past less accessible.
    squeal 16:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Oppose Much like the above, I'm not convinced you've changed your attitude much since those incidents, I don't think the explanations of them are clear, and I'm particularly worried about admins whose attitude to the encyclopaedia is to go "vandal-whacking" (it's not just that one phrase; it's the impression I get from the tone). An RfA candidate shouldn't be talking about maybe-possibly-getting-mentorship. Get a mentor, do good stuff, and then apply for RfA - be open about the past (explain it all in detail, and show what you did wrong, and why it wouldn't happen again)  Chzz  ►  16:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Thank you for expanding on the points I made, but it just confirms to me that you don't seem to understand why you were recalled, as Zebedee says. If the editors hadn't turned out to be editors in good standing, the way you went about handling the situation was still wrong. It wasn't a case of "you did the right/best thing, they turned out to be editors in good standing, they got unblocked, you made a mistake you couldn't have known about", I don't think anyone would try to recall you if that happened. The mass blocking was fundamentally the wrong solution. Mato (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - With editors who resigned/were recalled after an incident, I always look to determine whether they have learnt since the incident and if I trust them not to make the same mistake again. A brief look through the both the discussions at the time of the incident and the answers in this RfA suggests that the candidate still does not fully understand
    WP:AGF. "The situations appeared to be so clear-cut, based on what I knew at the time, that I went ahead and blocked", his current view, seems to suggest that he still believes he made a good choice at the time, based on what he knew. AGF would suggest that he should not block these users unless he is confident that they are disruptive editors - assuming good faith and waiting some time to obtain all the facts would have allowed a better decision to be made (and would not have affected the outcome of the AfD). He has not really indicated at all that he has learnt from his past mistake - he had asserted that he has, but then said he wishes to work in "vandal-whacking". The events leading to his desysopping and his current attitude to the decisions he made means that I am not confident he understands AGF and so I would not be comfortable in giving him admin tools. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Neutral

#Neutral for now. I'm torn on this. On the one hand, recognising mistakes and voluntarily surrendering the admin tools is to be praised, and I'm generally in favour of handing them back when it appears the lesson has been learned. But on the other hand, I'm a bit disturbed by "I am willing to accept mentorship from another admin if I regain the tools--if there were signs I should have spotted, I want to know when to spot them", as that's the kind of thing I'd expect a returning candidate to pursue before re-running for RfA, not after. I'll reserve my decision, pending further responses and answers to questions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)I have to move to oppose, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#Netural - I'm a bit confused for a few reasons. I'd have expected a fuller explanation plus diffs with regards to the incidents that led to resignation of the tools to make the events crystal clear. Regardless of this, the explanations that have been given confuse me. HangingCurve seems to think that s/he made the right decisions in these situations based on information known at the time, but hasn't elaborated on whether s/he should known the rest of the information at the time before placing the block. I also think that, with regards to Q5, more useful diffs to provide would be ones showing how "clear-cut" the situation was...not some diffs showing that the concept of warning a user about vandalism before blocking them is understood. Mato (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC) - moved to Oppose. Mato (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral - Acknowledging shortcomings and past mistakes and taking responsibility for your actions are Good Things in my book, and I'm all for second chances. That said, the self-nomination is weak, I shouldn't have had to ask q4, and even less should Mato have had to ask for diffs. Boing! said Zebedee also makes a valid point in that you were ill-prepared to come here. Considering your history, and since you seem to think mentorship would be necessary, your RfA should have ideally been nominated by a trusted and experienced administrator, one who would give assurances and have accepted to serve as a mentor. Another concern I have is your answer to q8 (or else please define stress). I do not think opposing will do any good; my concerns do not outweigh your fine contributions and overall record, and I think you will do a good sysop. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've interacted with Blueboy many times mainly because we have some of the same interests. But looking back on your circumstances which led to your recall, I don't see the full truth about it in this RFA. I'm confused with the mentorship by another administrator agreement, plus some of what I've seen from him as an admin, and after were a shoot first, deletionist mentality (can dig of diffs if needed). I totally agree with Fetchcomms but with my interactions with him were positive, I can't bring myself to oppose neither. Secret account 03:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I came here to support, but my God the stuff in the Oppose section is worrying. I have therefore elected to sit squarely on this rather uncomfortable fence, probably for the whole seven days. — Joseph Fox 10:47, 27 November 2011 (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/HangingCurve&oldid=1142575817"