Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hahc21 2

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

Hahc21

Final (8/13/1); ended 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. 28bytes (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedia Editors, I am very proud to introduce to you all Hahc21. He has been on the project since March 2008 but didn't start to edit actively until September 2011. Hahc21 has most of his contributions in the article main space, and with his article work he has managed to promote several featured lists, featured articles, featured pictures, good topics, good articles and several DYKs. In Articles for deletion, 94.2% of his votes accurately matched consensus. Recently, Hahc21 also become a trainee clerk for the Arbitration Committee. From the above, I am more than proud to call Hahc21 a very impressive user and a great candidate for a administrator. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Hahc21 has a solid record of high-quality content contributions and sensible input to behind-the-scenes aspects of the projects, and it's my pleasure to co-nominate him for adminship. He is a tireless article writer, contributing articles on topics ranging from Venezuelan history to French music to video games. He often contributes to Wikipedia-space discussions, where his input is measured and sensible. He has excellent knowledge of image licensing, and is an OTRS volunteer. In addition, he serves as a trainee clerk for the Arbitration Committee. He unsuccessfully ran once for adminship before, and I believe that he has taken the feedback he received from that attempt to heart. Overall, I think Hahc21 is a solid candidate for adminship. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Co-nomination

My experiences with Hahc21 have been all positive. From his tireless input in article creation, to his massive Good Article backlog elimination, in all ways he deserves to be an administrator. He has been active for over a year now, contributing to discussions and Good Article reviews, and has racked up over 20,000 edits. He is also active on Wikimedia Commons where he is an image reviewer and has uploaded over 150 photos. Along with all this work, he is an active OTRS member and an Arbitration Committee Clerk in training. And yes, everybody can see the "2" in the page title, but as Mark already said, I believe he has learned from his mistakes and is ready for another run. He did have an edit restriction imposed against Non Admin Closures, but this has been lifted by the community for good reason. To sum up, Hahc is sensible, experienced, and would benefit the Wikipedia community if granted the sysop flag. Vacation9 00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am thrilled and grateful. I accept this nomination, and thank the nominators for the trust they have in me. If successful, I will commit myself to do my best to serve the community, and to be of greater help when needed. Thanks. — Hahc21^talk 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• I withdraw. I understand the concerns here, and I don't want to waste community's time. Thanks. — Hahc21^talk 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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: First of all, I intend to work on the files area, given that I have a considerable knowledge of image licensing. Alongside that, I would throw myself at PERM, an area I have studied closely the last several months. As a third option, I would work at Articles for Deletion, an area which I have dedicated a big amount of time, and where I always enjoy participating. However, given the recent events I had, related to closing AFD discussions, I would venture there very slowly, following the guide of two admins I trust, Mark Arsten and Elen of the Roads, before going ahead by myself. Finally, I intend to keep working on content just like I currently do at WP:GAN, WP:FAC and WP:FLC (if granted the tools, I could also help with the housekeeping tasks of those areas), as well as performing the duties I currently have with the Wikimedia Foundation, where I serve as a member of one of their Grants Committees, and at OTRS.

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

A: I believe that my best contribution, and the one I'm most proud of, is all the content work I have done on this Wikipedia. I have been honoured with several featured articles, lists and pictures, as well as good articles and topics. They are, for me, a work of art what has great significance because they resemble the very purpose of this encyclopedia. Apart from that, I am very proud of my work at templates; my contributions at the Good article nominations project, where I have co-ordinated two drives and have been doing a tireless work to try to find solutions to all the problems we face out there; my work helping at Articles for deletion; and finally, my work with files. I have a personal interest with files, and I enjoy working with them. I spend a great quantity of my wikitime uploading, verifying and working with files here and on Wikimedia Commons.

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 rarely been in a editing conflict. I have had several situations that caused me stress; the first time it happened was before I ran for adminship the first time, and involved several users that edit closely to me (Status, Till, Tomica and Calvin999). After that, I was involved in the dispute that led to my now-lifted restriction, although it didn't cause me stress. Since then, I have hardly been involved in any dispute; I am a very calmed and patient person that avoids conflicts and stressful situations. I prefer to drop the battle sooner rather than later and avoid as much drama and damage as possible. After all, when I joined Wikipedia, my main goal was to dedicate myself to write content, and it has mostly been my work here, despite the very wide variety of things I have done that are unrelated to content creation.

Additional question from GiantSnowman

4. Your first RFA was just over 6 months ago, what makes you now ready to try again?

A: When I ran for adminship the first time, I was not aware that I wasn't ready. I was still learning all the nuances of the core policies and procedures of Wikipedia and, although my goal and intention was to help, I admit that I did it while being very inexperienced. Now, seven months have passed, and I believe that I can safely say that I have grown as a user, and that now I can step forward to see if the community believes that I can help as an administrator. I admit that I was scared of running again, but I realized that not doing so was preventing me from offering myself as a volunteer to the project as a whole. Finally, I believe that I am ready again because I have faith in what I have learned in the past seven months, and I will be very pleased to see what the rest of the community thinks of it.

Additional question from Andy Dingley

5 Any comment to make on WP:AN#Request to lift restriction and WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Inappropriate_discussion_closure? In particular, why didn't you consider these relevant matters to note in the nomination itself? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A: I did mention my restriction on question 3, although barely. Here is the long answer: I made a mistake back in November. I wanted to help at closing AFD discussions and in doing so, I violated the spirit of what non-admin closures were intended to be. NACs are entitled to be only performed in clear situations, when the discussion is uncontroversial, and consensus is visible. I went further and closed several discussions that were not covered by that guideline. I was restricted after I closed the AFD discussion of Personal (album). It had only keep votes, and consensus was leaning to that, but I closed it before the 7 days passed. The nominator, Till took me to ANI, and after a not-quite-long discussion, I decided to accept the restriction that was proposed and avoid more drama. Since then, I have actively working to improve, to avoid making the same mistake again, and to become a better user each day that passes. I have worked hard at AFD, trying to polish myself and to better understand everything I didn't when I was restricted, and to try to demonstrate that I have learned form that mistake, and that I won't be making more mistakes like that again.

Additional question from Demiurge1000

6. Where and how did you ask John F. Lewis to post this report, which talks about you being an "Arbitrary Clerk" and discusses "Ways to Overcome" your NAC-closure restriction as an obstacle to an RfA candidature?

A: He has spent the last few months studyding my contributions. I don't exactly know where he finished his report, but he asked me some time ago if I wanted it stored on Wikipedia, and I said yes. If I'm correct, he finally saved the information yesterday, which was the first time I read it. I think that it was a bit obvious that a restriction is an obstacle for any RfA, and given that he showed me his willingness to be my nominator some time ago, I think he put "ways to overcome" as a personal expression of what he believed I should do (or have done) to remove my restriction. Finally, I wanted the restriction gone not because I want to start closing discussions, mopped or not, and even now that I am free to do NACs, I have no desire to do them. I admit that I would like to work at AFD, but the fact that I am given the mop doesn't mean that I will stop voting and start closing; honestly, I think that I enjoy more voting at AFDs rather than closing them. I hope this answer satisfies your concerns.

Thanks, that makes some things clearer. A followup question; he only started editing at the end of July 2012, so he's spent around six months on Wikipedia. If you agreed to his being your RfA nominator some time ago, and he then spent "the last few months" studying your contributions, how long had he been editing when you decided he would be a good person to nominate you at RfA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Hahc21: Hahc21 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Hahc21 can be found here.
• For clarity purposes: I have an alternate account named Razr Nation which I often use to do maintenance work such as AFD, patrolling new pages, making automated edits, among other things. I also use this account to welcome new users, and when I am using a computer that is not mine. — Hahc21^talk 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Status 23:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Support I would be a pretty bad nom if I didn't Vacation9 14:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - Obvious. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Support I find the oppose rationales unconvincing. Had he said he was going to jump into AfD, then I would oppose. He promised he would stay away and very slowly ease into the process with the 2 admins assisting him through it. I am AGFing on his word and supporting because of this. I am well aware that I am in the minority but this how I feel and I stand by it.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Be my Valentine} 14:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Since as nom is no longer convincing, I shall address the opposes. I have to agree with Cyberpower the AfD one. Hahc21 has not said he will cease his work at AfD or that he is requesting adminship to go up and over the NACs (as proposed by the opposes). Hahc21 is a genuine content creator and has sufficient knowledge policies. Granted his recent lift of the restriction can be viewed as troubling but I prefer to view it as a way for him to positively contribute. There is a rise in the concern of the nominators (more specifically me) communications and position on Hahc21's nomination but from myself, I nominated Hahc21 purely for his contributions and this was done in my best judgement and I see no reason to put Hahc21 down due to a restriction regardless of his past or nominators. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Support as co-nom. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Support. If this had been a self-nom, I likely would have opposed it, as that would be prima facie evidence of the trophy seeking behavior noted in the oppose section, below. But the fact that this candidate was nominated by multiple trusted editors? Honestly, I'm sold. Obviously, be careful around AFDs until you get the hang of things, but every admin has areas where they are weak. That's not a reason to oppose. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   Ultra - it wasn't that he was weak in AFD's that led to the original restrictions; it was his attitude when challenged about his NAC's that led to them. Just wanted to clear that part up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

8. Support. Per the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not-now Oppose. From where I sit now, I'm not comfortable handing the bits to someone who has literally only just had a restriction lifted that had been imposed due to their poor judgment in admin-related areas. It may well be that Hahc21 is, post-restriction, competent to be an admin, but given that we've not even had any time to evaluate that before he jumped into an RFA, I'm not confident in making that leap of faith. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   I see your point, but that restriction was unanimously lifted for a reason: Hahc has contributed to many AfD discussion since his restriction was imposed. Hahc has also said he will be careful closing AfD's at first, taking guidance from his admin mentors. Vacation^nine Public 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   Well, it appears that at least some of you voted to lift his restriction so he could get through RFA, rather than because he had or hadn't shown expertise in AfD-related editing. As Tom Morris notes below, that three of the people who supported the lifting of Hahc21's NAC-ban had already finished writing his RFA before the NAC ban was even lifted makes this look a lot like it's less a matter of him having improved in his understanding of policy and more a matter of the timer having dinged and you guys being ready to pop him into the RFA oven. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose for now per Fluffernutter. I have to wonder, what's the rush? KTC (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Bit hasty. Given your history of NACs, it would be better had you waited and demonstrated that you can do a good job of judging consensus. Looking over the AN discussion, I can't help but note that you "don't plan to to be very active with non-admin closures" and here you're seeking the ability to do admin closes! That doesn't sit right with me. Like Fluffernutter, I'm not confident I can make the necessary leap of faith. --regentspark (comment) 15:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Strongest possible oppose Recently-lifted (not unanimously) restriction, argued based on "I promise not to close ANY AFD's" - which is actually a key role for administrators. The whole reason the restriction was put in place a very short time ago was because of overall attitude and knowledge. I'll concur that Hahc has grown, but for crying out loud this is at least a year too early considering the recent attitudinal problems. Combined with Hahc's absolutely surprising recent appointment as clerk on a major board, this now appears to be nothing but trophy collection. This RFA is horribly misguided at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   Bwilkins, I accept your oppose regarding the NACs and the promise to avoid AfDs, but I want to question how his recent appointments can be seen directly as trophy collecting? This is not a self nomination so in all honesty should trophy collecting actually apply? John F. Lewis (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   Did you appraoch him to suggest he become an admin, or did he approach you? If you approached him, did he say "yes", even if it was clearly not the right time for him? That's trophy-collecting This nomination was a bad idea all-around ... and what clearly stinks more is that the 3 nominators all commented in favour of his restriction-lifting on AN. Wow. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, exactly. I should probably stop thinking about this nom, because the more I think about it, the more unhappy I am with the candidate and the nominators. Looking back at the AN thread with a new perspective, I think that the words of the candidate and his nominators during the AN thread were disingenuous, considering that this RFA was being prepared at the same time. "I don't plan to make many NAC closes", indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, Bwilkins, obviously if Hahc was to become an admin, he would do closures (and deletions). He was referring to non-admin closures. Status 16:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

   The idea of an admin using such sophistry as an excuse is even worse. We have enough wikilawyers already. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose - the recent NAC issue is too recent for me, sorry. If you could not be trusted without the tools, then you cannot be trusted with the tools. GiantSnowman 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
6. I don't know how to say this publicly without sounding mean. But I've seen at least two episodes of poor judgement in the last few months, and in my experience, people don't mature that quickly. One of them was the problem with NAC closings of AFDs; it wasn't just the closes, it was the approach to criticism and lack of judgement shown in his responses. I'm not actually thrilled about the lifting of his topic ban there, and only stayed silent because Elen and Mark are going to be looking over his shoulder. But I'm not comfortable with such monitoring for adminship. Seems to be headed in the right direction, but this seems way too early, on the scale of one to two years early. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Yes but no but yes but no but yes but no... I've seen Hahc21 around at AfD. He seems reasonable. I've had a look at his user page and statements above and there's nothing that screams out to me as being problematic. Indeed, there is much to praise about his work: eliminating the Good Article review backlog, positive work in the article namespace (FAs, GAs, FLs) etc. But such a rapid progression from having one's restrictions lifted to turning up at RfA is concerning as it puts the statements made at AN into sharp relief. "I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures"... indeed, if you become an admin a week after your restrictions are lifted, you can merrily get on with closing things without having to deal with WP:NAC anymore. Three of the fifteen people participating in the AN thread happen to be your nominators less than twenty-four hours later. With turnaround times that quick, you should be running an airline... —Tom Morris (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Eek. The restriction that has only just been lifted (today, I would note) I personally think has much the same weight as a block would - the candidate needs to give it some time before subjecting himself to an RfA. It beggars belief that he would imagine himself passing so soon after something so major. — foxj 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
9. No. Promising to cease non-admin closure because of problems your closures caused and then promptly accepting a nom at Rfa shows poor judgment. Maybe later, but now? No. KillerChihuahua 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Moral support, but not now. I like the candidate and believe he's made of the right stuff to serve the community well as an administrator, eventually. However, I feel that this nomination simply comes too soon after the editing restriction at AfD. Promising not to engage in AfD closures and then immediately filing an RfA doesn't make much sense to me, and it's impossible to evaluate what Hahc21 has learned from experience as he has had no time to show us. A few months to learn, and I'm sure I'll be ready to support. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Strong oppose per Fluffernutter and Bwilkins. Far too early considering recently lifted sanctions.--Staberinde (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
12. oppose Not because of the recent restriction, maybe because of the haste in running to RfA so soon afterwards, but mainly because of not mentioning it in the nomination. Were we expected to not notice it? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose Poor judgment skills. You seem desperate to get admin access by running so soon after having the NAC restriction lifted, and it almost seems that you thought that the NAC restrictions was the only thing keeping you from getting in. —Soap— 16:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Fucking meh. Think the opposers are beating the kid up too fast. This place can really get into chewing people up and going after them if they've had some sanction (maybe the kid had grace to take it, unlike the typical dead ender arguers around here). That said, the 3 month end thing seems a little fast. See you in a year, Hahc.TCO (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.