Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hexagon1

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

[edit] Hexagon1

Final (2/14/2) ended 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hexagon1 (talk • contribs) – Well, I thought I might give administratorship a try. I've been active in vandalwhacking (I've even saved Bill Clinton and the sun :), article maintenance, such as with the Czech kraj's (regions), translations (eg. Mikulčice), contributing images to Wikipedia articles (such as at Kensington, New South Wales), and just general contributing to articles. I will use the mop generally for deleting patent nonsense or speedy-deletion, general article and image maintenance and vandal-whacking such as blocking vandals, or semi-protecting articles recently heavily vandalized. I think I could make a good adition to the administrators here at Wikipedia. If you vote oppose, please give a reason, so I can improve. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Naturally I accept my self-nom. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Support

Support I don't see anything that goes against my different standards. However, I find the end text in your signature quite confusing, particularly when it goes onto two lines, even though I am familiar with the Australian and Czech flags. And one other question: how did you create this RfA? The neutral section header was missing. joturner 04:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. :) Thanks for fixing it. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 04:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Support. Meets my criteria. It looks like the user is trustworthy and experienced, and I don't see any reasons why this user can't be trusted with using admin tools in the correct manner. DarthVader 08:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Meets my criteria. I am confident that he has enough experience with xfD to make the admin tools usefull. Answers to questions demonstrate knowledge of policy and readiness to use tools in specific tasks. High User and User Talk edits shouldn't be a concern as long as other namespaces demonstrate experience (as they do in this case, IMO). Welcoming newcomers is a good thing. Eluchil404 16:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongish Oppose candidate's lack of consistent involvement in AfD process and his/her near, if not complete, lack in participating in WP:CSD lends to the reasoning that he/she will not use the extra tools as stated in Q1. Also, while I don't think an addiction to VandalProof or popups is at all necessary, there are relatively few vandalism reverts. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   I use speedy deletion quite often with images, and have voted in AfD several times. I haven't been that active in vandalwhacking very recently, due to focusing on contributing and article maintenance, but check my older contributions. Have a look here. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 04:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   Hi! I scanned your contributions to Wikipedia before casting my vote and while you have definitely voted in some AfD (and other fD's), I didn't feel that it was at all consistent or often enough for me to think that you would devote a chunk of your valuable time to the project in closing AfD's or doing RC patrolling to delete articles that were db tagged. Upon my return visit to your RfA, I came across your interaction regarding your signature and that threw me off a bit, as well, given your somewhat flip nature to what was a very reasonable request. You seem to be a very good editor, however I don't feel that you need the mop at this time. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the feedback! I think I would close AfDs, as it's a relatively simple task, and the reaction was partly due to me opposing Nathan's block for a sig with images, however I recognized how an iamge in a sig would adversly affect Wikipedia in general, and removed it. It appeared on far too many user talks as I frequently welcome new users. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   PS: I've changed my sig due to the comments left at this vote. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose, I agree with the person above. Also because of your low edit count. A lot of those edits (about 500 or 1/5 of those edits) are userspace. Not a good thing. Milo 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   I used to have one of those status indicators, but got rid of it, when I noticed how many edits it was causing. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 04:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose not enough mainspace experience. Great job welcoming new users, but would do well with (1) more contributions to articles and (2) more project space participation. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 04:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Oppose Milo makes a good point (and so do others); the edit counts weigh too heavily towards userspace and user talk-space (from welcoming, I presume). And that issue is in my different standards. joturner 06:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   How does contributing in one section of the encyclopedia detract or worsen my contributions in the other parts? If you are unhappy with me welcoming new users, then please, feel free to substract those edits from my total edit count and work with that number as my total edits. Also, user talk is filled up due to vandal-whacking, and that does play a big part in adminship. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   Edit count does not matter and so I'm not going to subtract your userspace edits and say "2000 edits is good enough". The problem that others have highlighted is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. From your recent contributions, your contributions to the encyclopedia have quite minor: changes of image, grammar fixes, minor changes using AutoWikiBrowser. In addition, they tend to be narrow in scope, almost entirely to Czech subjects. As a side note, not to rub the wound with salt, but I found this edit summary unappealing. I noticed one like that from awhile back and originally said that's from too long ago to oppose, but this was less than a week ago. So, in summary, from my standards: (g) I commented on your signature and (h) I took into account some of the reasoned oppose votes (and YankSox's below) to conclude that (p) your scope is quite limited and (w) you don't seem to take criticism well (I didn't like the tenor of your response above, that edit summary, and the incident YankSox mentioned below and you confirmed). Perhaps in October after widening your scope and handling criticism a bit better I'll support you in an RfA. joturner 07:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   My scope is not limited, I would gladly contribute to other topics, but I have simply found the Czech side of things to be lacking in articles. And I do cope with critique, and accept the common policy and consensus. (eg. see [1]). I find myself slightly frustrated with people that practice mild revisionism on the Slavic articles, so the summary was mean, but the f-bomb was used to express more surprise then anger. I will however keep it from my summaries in the future. I wouldn't even call the Cyde thing an incident, just extremely mild hostlility, however you will notice that I obeyed Cyde, even though the signature rule is a recommendation, not a policy. And if you sense any tone in my replies, my appologies, I simply try to be inquisitive and get the most from this RfA, so I can improve in the future. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose, Sorry Hexagon1, but got to admit, Milo (Milan B.) has a good point there. Truely, over 1/2 of your edits focus on user and user talk space, which isn't good. Try getting more edits in the main space and others besides user and user talk. Then try again on an RfA. Crna ^t_e^c Gora 07:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   Why isn't it good? Adminship is just advanded vandalwhacking (with a few exras), and lots of user talk edits show a lot of vandal warnings (and welcoming new users). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   I meant that you had more user talk edits that main space edits. As Milo said, you have about 1/5 of your edits dedicated to your userpage. You should have more mainspace than usertalk, I think. You just have too few mainspace edits and focus on user-related edits. That's why all these people are opposing your RfA and you becoming an admin. Besides, you should wait for someone to nominate you, that's how you get more support, unlike you nominating yourself. Big mistake, though have seen some RfA's with self-noms that have actually won. Though, don't do a self-nom if you below 1k main space edits and below 2000 edits. Just a tip for you. Crna ^t_e^c Gora 08:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   I figured I'd give it a shot. If I failed, I will have at least picked up a few tips for editing, and try again when I'm wiser and got more edits under my belt. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose. While it's patently obvious that Hexagon is enthusiastic about Wikipedia and would be unlikely to abuse the tools, I don't see that s/he has enough experience to act appropriately. I'd definitely like to see more mainspace edits and involvement in the AfD process. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 07:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose I would have liked to see continued RC patrolling and AfD involvement. You are editing the encyclopedia well, but I don't see any real need for admin tools. Viridae^Talk 08:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Milo and Samir. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Not enough maunspace edits. Try again in about 4 months time. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Milo and Samir. --Guinnog 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
12. Strong Oppose not enough experience for me, with less than 3000 edits in over a year, I don't know if he has the time to be an administrator. Also, many of the points above have persuaded me. --WillMak050389 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, lack of experience and projectspace edits. I don't think you're ready to be an admin. Roy A.A. 22:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

    While participating in projects and collaboating on projects seems to be a big thing to everyone, I don't think it's essential to administrator tasks. I am familiar with several projects, however I try not to focus on one aspect of the Wikipedia, and contribute all round. And could you clarify what you mean by lack of expirience? What would you like me to get more involved in? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

    Maybe you have the experience, but you still don't seem active enough. Roy A.A. 01:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Milo and Samir. SushiGeek 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Seems eager to help with tasks. However, projectspace edits are a concern, and also butted heads with Cyde over images in sig. Yanksox 04:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

   Ultimately I listened to him and removed the images, replacing them with characters. I only realized the significance of images in sigs after I noticed on how many user talks the images are being included, mostly due to my activity welcoming new users. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 04:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Merovingian {T C @} 03:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See Hexagon1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• See Hexagon1's edit count from Interiot's tool2.

Username Hexagon1
Total edits 2597
Distinct pages edited 1393
Average edits/page 1.864
First edit 18:38, 29 May 2005
 
(main) 743
Talk 260
User 494
User talk 804
Image 13
Image talk 2
Template 63
Template talk 30
Category 4
Wikipedia 161
Wikipedia talk 23

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As I stated above, I'll most likely use the mop for deleting patent nonsense or speedy-deletion, general article and iamge maintenance and vandal-whacking such as blocking vandals, or semi-protecting articles recently heavily vandalized. I hope to get involved in some of the other aspects of Wikipedia, such as clearing backlogs and the such. I strive to be involved in all aspects of the Wikipedia community.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I don't tend to focus specifically on one article, however I would have to say I'm pleased with my additions to the Czech-related topics here at Wikipedia, such as Czech nationality law and občanský průkaz (both of which I started).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been frustrated by some editors, such as with the usage of Czech Republic over Czechia, and caron over háček. I try to get a community consensus on the issue (eg. my move request at caron), and I tend to generally follow the community in these cases.

One other notable incident in this case is an editor who used to participate on the Czech Republic talk page, claiming Czech revisionism and other peculiar ideas. I got frustrated with the editor, and allowed some emotion to enter my responses, however I calmed down and posted a rational response (if you're looking over the discussions there, check the date-stamps too, as it's very disordered).

Optional question from Where

1 Can you go into more depth as to what you will do in the future to make sure that you keep your cool during conflict?

In the past on a tiny few situations, I allowed some emotion to seep into my responses, but I never acted on it, and as soon I realized I may be going off at the other person a bit, I try my best to rectify the problem and agree on a solution. I always try to keep my head cool during conflicts. Once or twice, for example, I talked to the vandals who vandalized my user page, and explained that it doesn't matter whether or not they're just imitating Willy on Wheels or joking, it's the same thing to us at the 'pedia, still vandalism. I didn't instantly try to get them blocked, or yelled at them on their pages, like some editors do. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:05, 3 July 2006 (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.