Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Hybrid

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

[edit] The Hybrid

FINAL (7/7/2); Ended 04:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hybrid (talk • contribs) – I feel that I am a good editor. On November 30, I put myself on editor review. The responses have all been very positive. I do my best to follow policy, and very rarely do I slip up. I am helpful and kind to newbies, and hard on vandals. I have been approved for VandalProof, and have received the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. I have also received the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. I am a member of WP:PW, as well as a semi-active member of the WP:PCP. I think that I would be a good admin, and I know that I would be able to use the tools well. -- THL 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Needless to say, I accept my own nomination. Though thus far there have been as many people for me as there have been against me, I have come to realize that I am not ready yet. I withdraw my nomination. -- THL 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: I would do my part in cleaning out the backlogs. I would close AFDs, and patrol the pages for speedy deletion, although I wouldn't delete any pages that I nominated unless it was something as simple as a collection of random letters. I would take care of old pages that are nominated for merger, and look at requests for (un)protection. I would monitor all of the noticeboards, and block vandals. I would also enforce arb com rulings.

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

A: I am pleased with all of my vandalism reversions. These have earned me the respect of the editors around me, and more recently the hatred of sock puppets and IP vandals. I am also proud of cleaning up the Pikachu article a short while back, as it took care of many criticisms brought up in a previous FAC.

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: My first dispute was a content dispute with User:TJ Spyke about the Kurt Angle article. The entire dispute is still on the talk page. Looking back on the dispute, I see how foolish I was. After I finally realized that I was wrong, I publicly apologized. Since then I have looked to TJ Spyke for advice with wrestling articles. My next dispute was with confirmed abusive sockpuppet User:Twentyboy. This took place on a user subpage I have since had deleted, and his talk page. He later returned in a new sock, User Talk:Lonelyboy, and has since had his IP blocked for six months. User:Yandman and I decided to give him a second chance after I got a confession out of him seeing as he was being a good editor, but he reverted to his trolling ways. More details about these disputes are available at Wikipedia:Editor review/The Hybrid. My plan for dealing with disputes in the future is to diffuse them in the same way I diffused a possible dispute with User:Cuke monster. I see disputes as unnecessary and easily avoidable if a little effort is put into avoiding them.

General comments

• See The Hybrid's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Looking over your editor review, Talk page archives and contributions in the various spaces here at WP, I don't see much to object to. You revert vandalism, warn vandals and contribute to XfD discussions on a regular basis, so the admin tools would be useful. (aeropagitica) 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Weak Support Well I would prefer a higher edit count which would indicate more experience, but after reviewing your contributions I got a good impression of your work and character.--Húsönd 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support Looking at the immediate and persistent quality of his edits should alleviate any concern about quantity. He's a workhorse who will probably learn to be a great admin just as quickly as he learned to be a great editor. Intelligent, perceptive, and most importantly, open-minded and willing to admit mistakes. --Tractorkingsfan 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Weak support per Tractorkingsfan, though I'd like more WP namespace experience. However, working in the pokemon arena satisfies my desire to see an editor who knows what cruft is and when to get rid of it (and what to keep), and probably has given him some experience in dealing with contentious editors as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Edit count/breakdown is fine. Saying "come back in 3000 edits" is counter-productive and excessive. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Good balance of edits, I don't see any problems with The Hybrid collecting a mop and bucket. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Per all above. Mirror, Mirror, on the wall... 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I am not convinced you have enough experience in the WP namespace to warrant becoming an admin. Come back in 3000 edits and you'll be more well versed in both policy and modes of procedure. Jpeob 00:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. In question one, you state that you'll close afds. I found the following diff, which stated that "This is to everyone who doesn't have an account. Just to make you all aware, if you don't have an account, your votes aren't counted." First of all, the articles for deletion process is not a vote. It's a system used to build consensus on what to do with an article. Secondly, being an anon doesn't automatically mean what they say is worthless; it means "their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." (Emphasis mine.) Furthermore, your statement about when you'll speedily delete something doesn't seem to show that you have confidence in yourself about when to speedily delete things. You might be admin material at a later date, but I have to say, I don't think you're ready now. Picaroon9288 00:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   You're right; I misunderstood the AfD process in consideration to anons. As far as not deleting my own nominations, I do have a lot of confidence in my nominations, and I mean a lot. As far as speedy deletion nominations go, in my opinion I think that it would be best to let a third party come to the page with fresh eyes and decide what to do since achieving consensus isn't taking place. Whether or not to delete an article is, in my opinion, so important that anything other than vandalism shouldn’t be left up to one person. -- THL 01:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks for your response; however, it entrenches my view that you don't know quite enough about the speedy deletion process. Wikipedia would be cluttered with many thousands of articles that obviously don't meet inclusion criteria, but aren't vandalism either, were it not for admins taking the sensible step of just deleting them according to the host of CSD criteria that are unrelated to vandalism. I'd suggestion reading over wikipedia:criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Picaroon9288 01:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah, you're right on this as well. -- THL 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose I've been looking through your treatment of vandals and I think you're really too quick on the trigger in a substantial proportion of cases, putting block-warnings for single relatively minor acts of vandalism (this apparently in response to this and this apparently in response to this which was removed by the anon); I'm speaking from gut reaction to looking at several dozen interactions with anon-ip folks. Certainly not all of your warnings are heavy handed - they are mixed - but I get the feeling, reinforced by the nature of your user page, that you are undesirably quick on the trigger. Statements like "You're a vandal, and you deserved to be blocked" (diff) and "So, User:2wordsforya, how are you?" (diff) added to an anon talk page apparently based on the anon's editing pattern don't seem quite right to me (if there were other reasons for making the association, please let me know). Perhaps I'm 'soft on crime', but I'd like to see a bit more professionalism among the admins. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Anything that has to do with adding sexually graphic material to articles that will be read by children warrants a strong warning in my opinion. As far as 2wordsforya goes, based on his contributions it was obvious that this was a banned user in IP form. Heavy edits to his former user page, in addition to the same pattern of vandalism convinced me. After the "So, User:2wordsforya" comment, he confessed on my talk page, and said that he was going to create a sock account after mentioning the he was a good editor. That person was always showing up on my watchlist vandalizing articles. In no way was he a good editor. After saying that he was good, I told him that he was actually a vandal, and that he deserved to be blocked. I added the stuff after the comment because he had previously asked an admin to unblock "his friend Eric's account". Maybe I was a little harsh, but everything that I said was true. I don’t see how being kind to confirmed sockpuppets and vandal IPs is a part of the job description. -- THL 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Also, if you look at the reason I was given the RAoK Barnstar, you'll see that I am kind and AGF until they are confirmed. -- THL 02:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Flipping through your diffs, I agree that I was indeed pretty harsh. However, in most cases vandals aren't block immediately after receiving a bv warning. I only use that when the vandalism is blatant. True, they can be blocked after receiving it, but they usually aren't, and I was taking that into consideration. Note that I have never reported a user after only giving them a bv warning unless they were adding sexual material to children's articles. As far as the only warning goes, the IP vandalized another user's page as well, so I was warning that previously blocked user for both of those. -- THL 02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, after reading over WP:DINV, I have to agree with you. I'll be less block-warning prone ot the future. -- THL 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Nominee is still a little too green and needs to become more familiar with policy. The candidate's answers, including his responses to other editors, gives me concern that more experience is required before this nominee can be entrusted with the tools. There's no need to rush to adminship, a few more months shouldn't hurt - it will do nothing but help. I'm willing to reconsider at that time. Agent 86 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose Lack of wiki-space participation suggests an unfamiliarity with wiki-process. Xoloz 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose - a little bit too inexperienced IMO. Seems a good editor otherwise though. Mikker ^(...) 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Too new, lack of major article edits Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Basically per the Support votes but the low wikispace and the opposers make me put me here. — Seadog 01:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. A good user thus far, I just want to see a bit more experience and involvement in article and project namespaces. You might want to take a look at policy guidelines again, if you haven't done so before. Nishkid64 03:39, 13 December 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.