Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hghyux

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

Hghyux

Final (0/14/0); ended 21:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn; originally scheduled to end 18:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

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

A: In my honest opinion, I think my best contributions to Wikipedia have been all my vandalism reversions, which make up the majority of my edits. This is the area of the field that I think I am strongest in. I have started a sockpuppet investigation on user that is suspected to be a sub-account of Grawp. less than 2 minutes after the sock was created. I am also quite proud of my involvement of holding this user at bay until an admin came to block him. These thing are my most memorable because I think I did a good thing on getting that sockpuppet visible so fast, and the other user was just being very disruptive. Those are the two things that I am most proud of with, but I think my overall large mass of vandalism reversions are my best work overall.

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: Unfortunately, yes. My first dispute was a dispute in which another user accused me of "Article Piracy" after I copy-paste moved his article from his userspace to mainspace. This was in my best intent, as my account was only one month old, and I had not yet achieved my broad knowledge of the site that I now have. I believe I handled it quite well for how it went down. My next dispute was a "Speedy Deletion" conflict which involved another user who was upset that I had mistakenly tagged his article. I have a very high success rate with speedy tags and this was the only trouble I have had with them other than when I was new and was learning. I think I had a decent way of handling this one because I admitted I was wrong and we all eventually moved on. My most recent dispute was at the Barack Obama talk page regarding the neutrality of the article. Numerous users disagreed with me and I eventually closed the discussion because the community clearly said I was wrong. I wrote an essay on my thoughts regarding the dispute for those who wish to see my point of view. I believe these disputes have made me a better Wikipedian, and I think that it gives me an even broader field of knowledge on how things are handled here, and how I can look ahead to new opportunities.

General comments

• Links for Hghyux: Hghyux (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Hghyux can be found here.

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

Discussion

• Can you please opt in to month counts and page counts of your edits by creating User:Hghyux/EditCounterOptIn.js. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose -
   WP:NOTNOW, 17% of edits in article namespace. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. WP:NOTNOW - 260 Mainspace edits is not enough of a record to indicate your expertise in countering Vandalism. Achowat (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC) moved from support because I edited far too quickly Achowat (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Oppose - - Not enough experience yet.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I disagree. I think I have had enough interaction and understanding of the rules to become an admin. But that's your vote and I can respect that.

   talk to others) 19:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Others have mentioned some of my other concerns below. I didn't see the need to bring them up in my initial Oppose, but the MF exchange and some templating of experienced users were also major contributing factors in my vote.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - You need much more experience in wider areas of the project before anyone will consider your admin request. You have good intentions, so keep up the good work you're doing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose
   WP:NOTNOW. I've seen some good anti-vandal work; however, you haven't shown enough work in various areas to prove that you have the experience required of an administrator. While this is about a month old, I found this on Malleus Fatuorum's page. It occurred during the middle of an ANI discussion. This is an example where an administrator would have understood not to template the regulars as it can only escalate the issue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Can an administrator take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Comox Bay Sailing Club. It is probably unnecessary at this point, but my curiosity is aroused. It is an approved article for creation which was subsequently speedied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It's a pretty long and detailed article about the club, but I don't think it really makes a claim for notability. It's a tad flowery, also. There aren't any sources that could be considered significant coverage, just a link to a table of results that mentions the club and the site of the club itself, etc. Ryan, is there anything in particular you wanted to know about it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose - not ready. In addition to relatively little work in article space, just a few days ago we saw "My belief is that trucing is in fact an immature act because it shows that you do not have the developmental ability to continue to stand your ground. Even if your wrong". User's participation in disputes raises questions of maturity. Then there was
   biting a newbie, generally badly handled. Needs some serious encyclopedia-building time before trying to become an admin. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Just for the record, I was trying to get rid of personal info of a minor, not bite a newbie.

   talk to others) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

   ]

7. Oppose per Ryan Vesey. --John (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Editor for 3 months!? Rollback granted 15 minutes ago. Joke. Stop wasting people's time. Leaky Caldron 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I have been using Twinkle to rollback edits, I never needed to request rollback.

   talk to others) 19:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

   ]

9. Oppose Besides the absolutely low edit count, and zero experience in admin-ish areas, the improper MFD of someone's userpage recently (and then they CSD'd the MFD page?!), plus the entire way they mishandled the MF's situation noted by Ryan Vesey (including the appeal to Jimbo) shows that there's a long, long way to go to have both the skills, maturity, and policy knowledge required to be an admin. I'm not saying it will never happen - but very very recent issues have shown it (
   BWilkins ←track) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   That was a learning experience. I believe I have learned from it and can move forward. The tools will be used properly.

   talk to others) 19:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

   ]

10. Oppose as per recent interaction with this candidate, mentioned above.
    Fatuorum 19:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Oppose. The Malleus interaction shows serious lack of judgment. I do hope you have learned from it; time will tell (one month is not a lot of time). Then, there seems to be a tendency to be quick on the trigger (CSD, vandalism), and a very, very, very low percentage of article edits. I am not convinced of the editor's thorough knowledge of policy either. But all of that is probably needless: this will most likely be closed by someone citing NOTNOW. Good luck; I wish you the best. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. I read the Obama talk exchange and, um, no thank you not now. --regentspark (comment) 19:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that I closed the discussion in good faith because it was getting out of hand and that I understood policy.

    talk to others) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    That's true. But my main issue with the exchange was that your tone was unnecessarily combative and your attempts at counting negatives and positives show a lack of understanding of neutrality. However, I was being a bit unfair above and have modified my oppose accordingly. Apologies. --regentspark (comment) 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You keep telling us that you "understand policy", but in order to be able to trust you with the tools, we need to see you put that understanding into practice. (And please, when commenting on someone else's comment, use #: as to not ruin the coding). Achowat (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per
    WP:NOTNOW. Very low edit count and little to no evidence of actually adding to Wikipedia beyond simply maintaining it. Concerns about judgment and knowledge of Wikipedia. Also very little experience in adminship areas.--Slon02 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. No. The user can't seem to take the hint that this RFA should be closed now, and seems to view adminship as a goal. I'm also sorry to assume bad faith, but userboxes stating that you "attend or attended Harvard" and "own a Lamborghini" seem at total odds with some rather immature edits and language structure. Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Oppose - respectfully,
    collegiality. I would want to see significant growth and improvement before this editor applied to be an Admin again, vice 2 months from now: [1]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:44, 20 April 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.