Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hu12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Hu12

Final (51/15/3); Ended Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:34 UTC

Hu12 (talk · contribs) - Hu12 is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and WikiProject Spam who earned two barnstars last month for an exceptional investigation that identified a complex AdSense spam campaign. Seems to have enough experience to satisfy editcountitis worries and, to my knowledge, hasn't been in any significant user conflicts. The tools are handy to a vandal fighter. Let's mopify this user. Proudly nominating and voicing my support. DurovaCharge! 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
With gratitude to my nominator and fellow Wikipedians, I accept this nomination--Hu12 00:33, 8 February 2007 (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 participants:

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: As a Spam and vandal-fighter there are many areas of Wikipedia that I could assist with. Most notably WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, these areas seem to get backlogged quite quickly, and any additional assistance, I'm sure, is always welcomed. Understanding that Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and the community does look to administrators to perform various other types of chores, my contributions in those areas would be in a neutral capacity, by carrying out the consensus of the community. Except however in cases which clearly demonstrates misuse of Wikipedia.--Hu12 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, as Durova mentioned, uncovering the Adsense spam campaign was particularly pleasing. ref Reference Spam, 8 Months of S.E.O. AND Community ban of sneaky spammer. Although this took many days to uncover, I feel this particular contribution was more than just uncovering one vandals abuse of Wikipedia, It also shows how sophisticated vandals have become. My belief is by bringing this awareness to how citations and references are being abused in Wikipedia articles, the greater accuracy and verifiability the articles within the encyclopedia can become. I think that vandalism in all forms is a hindrance and deterrent preventing editors from collaborating freely on articles to build the encyclopedia, as it should be.--Hu12 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
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: Being Spam and vandal-fighter, I receive many messages about revisions from users frequently. I've had many users be extremely uncivil towards me, even to the extent of vandalizing my user page, However I handle these situations the best I can, in a courteous and professional manner, by explaining policies and/or guidelines to help them understand why a situation was an issue and what they can do to help prevent repeating the problem in the future. I think that, in any conflict, communication is the first step in resolving future misunderstandings. I also believe that despite any conflict one must assume first that all editors have the good of the encyclopedia at heart.--Hu12 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Dekimasu (talk · contribs):

4. You show interest in using administrator tools to handle spam. What criteria should be used to distinguish a useful external link from a spam link?
A: Most of what I've encountered are Links normally to be avoided and mass Spam campaigns by individuals adding Linkspam over multiple articles. Because I cover a wide spectrum of articles, consensus from the main article editors is very important in distinguishing a useful external link from a spam link. Links that may be outside the scope of the External links policy, but may contain some meaningful, relevant content, beyond the scope of the article, should be determined on the articles talk page by those who know the articles subject best. --Hu12 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Want to add one common issue. Most often Links contain some advertising, which isn't a violation if the link doesn't contain objectionable amounts of advertising, per WP:EL. Many of these "objectionable" links can contain unduplicated information that can benifit the article. A solution to this situations, when an alternative link cannot be found is the "print" version of the link. Most reliable sites have a "print" version, which almost never contains adverts.--Hu12 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 16:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

5. If you encountered an editor who was also the subject of a biographical article editing their own article, how would you handle this situation as an administrator?
A: First step would be to point out WP:COI, WP:NPOV explain specifically to them Wikipedia:Autobiography. If the article lacks specific factual information that is citable, then direct this user to contribute those facts or material on the articles talk page and let independent, neutral editors incorporate it into the article itself.--Hu12 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Can you name at least one circumstance where it would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article?
A: It would be inappropriate to semi-protect an article any time blocking could be used to combat an unusually high level of vandalism, from a specific account or static anon IP. It is also not appropriate to semi-protect an article as a preemptive measure to vandalism or to prohibit anonymous editing in general.--Hu12 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: First would be determining whether the business article is in fact a blatant advertisement for a company, product or service. General criteria states for WP:CSD#G11 that simply having a company, product or service as its subject does not qualify an article for a speedy delete. So secondly I look at the articles contribs. If its an article say is titled "Bobs Auto parts" and the only contributor is "Bobauto123", this may raise a flag for deletion and certainly raises the issue of WP:COI. If it fails the first two, the third step would be determining if the article meets WP:CORP and would it require a substantial rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. If the article passes these three criteria, I would not delete under WP:CSD.--Hu12 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from llywrch

8. Can you imagine yourself deciding ever taking a day off from Admin duties? Just deciding to let someone else worry about the countless vandals, troublemakers, and personality disputes in order to spend that entire day simply improving Wikipedia's content? -- llywrch 03:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
A: Many editors can forget how routine or monotonous some duties can be. I wouldn’t actually call it a day off because it would be taken for a specific purpose, Improving a specific article or category of articles, join a new project or maybe Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. So yes, I would schedule a day out for myself, have a cup of WP:TEA then delve into new areas and improve Wikipedia's content and feel.--Hu12 04:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments
  • To the oppose voices: the only significant objection seems to be a shortage of article space contributions. Sometimes that's a good reason to withhold support if an editor has gotten into tussles by treading too early into areas where he or she isn't experienced. Here's someone who specializes in one area where the project truly needs help and who doesn't seem to have crossed the line anywhere else. The opening paragraphs of User talk:Durova/Admin outline the serious decline in the admin to user ratio at this site. Mopification shouldn't be too big a deal. Would you consider changing to conditional support if Hu12 pledged to be open to recall for the first six months of adminship? I'm convinced this is a good candidate and I'd like to win you over. DurovaCharge! 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would pledged to be open to recall for the first six months of adminship.--Hu12 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • General comment To article space oppose voices: Many have voiced a concern of the shortage of article space contributions; I have begun to address this immediately. I do not interpret those who oppose nomination based on that single issue as criticism of my past contributions to Wikipedia. I do however, feel that this is oportunity to learn from the more experienced editors, in which areas to grow strengths. I clearly enjoy doing what I’ve been doing and have begun changes based on input from those oppose voices. This morning I did a rewrite and cleanup on the article Market liquidity and created the articles National Futures Association, Grain Futures Act and Commodity Exchange Act. I plan much more of this and build the strengths in those areas I lack. However, this may not please all who oppose based on that one fact alone, but hopefully it can show versatility, and the ability to adapt an learn from those of you who are truly gifted in writing great articles. The tools that come with being an admin will certainly help in the repetition of vandal fighting, but most of what counter-vandalism is, includes many hours of reading through hundreds of articles, research, screening, project page discussions, checks for open proxies, AIV in some cases, tracking down sock account, and of course the many thankless strawman arguments one receives from angry spammers. From the outside it only appears be a few reverts with automated edits (Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof), but much more goes into the type of counter-vandalism I participate in along with other WikiProject Spam volunteers and is much larger in scope and effort than simply pulling the trigger on a couple bad links. I do hope some of you reconsider. Thanks.--Hu12 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)




Discussion

Support

  1. Before the starter gun strong support --A. B. (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: See the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist administrator backlog: there are requests dating back to October. Probably 1/3 are legit, 1/3 are spammers with new accounts making disingenuous appeals and the other 1/3 -- who knows? It really helps to have a spam specialist working through this stuff who can tactfully and patiently separate the sheep from the goats (and who already knows the story behind many of the blacklisted domains.) --A. B. (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Also, a sidebar comment to admins reading this -- perhaps some of you can whittle away at some of these in the meantime? (Note, I am not suggesting anyone go through them, making snap decisions just to clear the list). Most cases will be documented either in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam or m:Talk:Spam blacklist archives. Occasionally stuff goes straight to the blacklist without documentation except on the m:Spam blacklist itself. If all else fails, just Google "wikipedia.org OR wikimedia.org + spamdomain.com" (Google search is better for this than our own). A few requests I've already annotated with comments if that's any help, but only an admin is allowed to make a final decision. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Beat the nom support for an excellent spam fighter.-- Heligoland 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Beat the nom clearly a great user. ~ Arjun 04:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Changed to oppose; per nishkid64
  3. Beat-the-nom support. Great user and fights spam like me (kudos!). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support without any reservations.--Jersey Devil 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Would use the tools appropriately. Drmaik 06:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Whack vandal, get support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. (Quick!) knowledgeable answer to my question has me convinced that this user will surgically remove spam instead of picking up a shotgun. Dekimasuが... 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support definitely. Excellent vandal fighter. PeaceNT 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support because you're good at what you do and you should remain good at it with the mop. Good luck. The Rambling Man 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. An administrator's role is to make the encyclopaedia a better place for everyone to contribute. There are many ways to do this, and I believe Hu12's lack of actual article writing doesn't mean he would make a poor administrator. Proto::► 10:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. 'suppose I can trust anyone who is nominated by Durova. I hope he's not the same chinese guy. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Terence Ong 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. I think you should work on your contribution to articles in addition to anti-vandalism and anti-spam, but I can't oppose since I am confident you'll use the tools responsibly and to good effect. Coemgenus 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support This seems to be an excelent vandal fighter.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support In economics, trade is beneficial because it provides for division of labor. On Wikipedia, we should consider whether "the specialization of cooperative labour in specific tasks" will "increase efficiency of output" as well. Xiner (talk, email) 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - based on convo. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - this user has a thorough knowledge in the areas of spam, conflict of interest and external links and has been quite helpful to the project in this respect. We particularly need more admins who understand the difference between dealing with vandalism and spam. ✤ JonHarder talk 02:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong support - this is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, not Wikipedia:Editor review. We are in dire need of more admins right now and if someone is unquestionably a trusted user and has demonstrated a willingness to do some of the grunt work of the project, I, for one, will offer my full support. --BigDT 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. As a general comment, this case show's why it's good to be nominated. If Hu12 were going it alone, I would say no. But with Durova's intelligent and enthusiastic support, I can only agree that Hu12 will do fine. YechielMan 04:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, his work with spam has been meticulous and as accurate as you can get with such a thankless and nebulous task. His answers address any concerns I have about how he draws the lines and indicates he's certainly thought through the tasks he would most likely to perform with the extra buttons. Kuru talk 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, Devoted editors make good admins, I am strongly for article writing but 4K+ vandalism reverts is good enough mainspace contribution for me. Alex Bakharev 07:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Trustworthy and experienced. Opposition concerns are trivial. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, Good user, has done great job fighting spam. Would benefit from admin tools, and won't abuse them. --Aude (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. (changed from Oppose) I've been doing some thinking, and I guess I can appreciate that each administrator will have a different mix of strengths and weaknesses. While I still wish you had more experience in writing articles, I'm glad that you are willing to address that inexperience. Your strength is clearly your dedication in fighting spam, and the admin buttons can only help your efforts. --Kyoko 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Well, I will give this candidate the benefit of the doubt. He is a very trustworthy user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support per Siva, and because I think we can rely on Durova's good sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with specialising, but variety is the spice of life, and "Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird." Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, we need more administrators, and it would be great to have this spam specialist among us. Kusma (討論) 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Mostly per other support comments above. Pigmantalk 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support, no problems here.--Wizardman 19:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to oppose per Nishkid's oppose.--Wizardman 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support There's nothing wrong with specializing, and this candidate has done impressive work. J. Spencer 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Weak Support but could still have more wikispace edits. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, unlikely to misuse tools, likely to use them productively. Picaroon 00:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Weak Support. The CSD stuff worried me at first, per Nishkid, but your reply shows that you have at least gained a better understanding of the criteria since this RfA began and you explained the situation in a clear and articulate manner. Please be careful with CSD G1s though. "Nonsense" is a word that gets over-used, just like "cruft". Otherwise, solid contributor, no reason not to trust. IronGargoyle 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  33. Weak support per anti-spam efforts. Article contribution could and should be higher, though. —Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Weak Support Wikipedia needs more vandal fighters. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Strong support. We need more sleuthster admins. It leaves more time for other editors to do more glorious tasks, such as article writing. :-) Grandmasterka 01:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Unlikely to abuse the tools, and there's nothing wrong with specialist admins. BryanG(talk) 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Strong support specialist admins in areas like this are always needed. ViridaeTalk 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support I encounter Hu12 almost daily in his dedicated work at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam. I have no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. I don't buy the lack of article writing argument - an admin should not have to be all things to all people, but simply trusted to use the tools in the areas he works in. In my opinion, we're not talking about some kind of badge or status here, simply a request for trust to use a couple of extra buttons in the course of work the user is already doing demonstrably well. CiaranG 11:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support I like the answer to question 2. The question is not just about article writing as many seem to see it, but about "articles or contributions." I see the spam fighting as an extremely valuable contribution. - Dan D. Ric 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support--MONGO 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support---Sluzzelin 07:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Hu12 and I had a disagreement over a spam issue, and, while we still disagree, I came away from the interaction thinking s/he was a knowledgable and dedicated editor who was willing to communicate. I think we need admins willing to engage with the growing spam problem, and, based on my experience, I have no concerns that Hu would abuse the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Support I've only started noticing this candidate during the run of this RfA (sorry!), but I've liked what I've seen. Civil and dedicated, a good candidate. riana_dzasta 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing support per concerns raised by Nishkid64. riana_dzasta 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support sounds like he can help out with the mop. Cheers Lethaniol 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  46. Strong Support To an excellent vandal fighter. Geo 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  47. Strong support - I've had experiance with this user in the WP:WPSPAM project and I've alwase been impressed by his intelegence and gumshooery. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  48. Weak Support Just because a user isn't active everywhere, doesn't mean they are untrustworthy. Hu12 should brush up on policy before preforming any admin actions though. Prodego talk 01:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support, good user. I find the opposing concerns dismaying, meaning the 5 that came in a period of 11 minutes just before, from 01:22 UTC to 01:33 UTC. --Majorly (o rly?) 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support I am disgusted at my friends for doing something that I am not at liberty to discuss. It seem that you just made a tiny easy mistake and I forgive you for it, just be more careful in the future. I expect you not to abuse the tools and see that you have a need and use for them. Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support his work as a vandal and spam fighter will be more efficient if he has the tools. semper fictilis 04:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Moral Oppose. I was going to support based on the spamfighting, edit counts, etc., but then I saw that your answer to Q2 also dealt with your anti-vandalism efforts. I don't see any articles that you actually wrote, neither on your usepage nor in Q2 nor in the edit-counter thingie. I cannot support a user who does not actually write anything. While I think you will cruise through to adminship, I feel compelled to register my oppose. Of course, if you trash your answer to Q2 and replace it with actual "articles . . . with which you are particularly pleased", I will be happy to change my vote. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Seriously, why does lack of article writing mean a bad admin? Vandal-/spam-fighting users are an asset to the project; not all people have article writing as their focus or strengths. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Funny, that's not what you said here. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    LOL, now that's funny. 22:20, 8 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veesicle (talk • contribs).
    Tragic Baboon, your 1049 contributions since creating your account last month are truly commendable, I with ought question applaud your dedication, particularly to the article Daniel Friedmann. I ask that you review my comment in General comment To article space oppose voices, hopefully this clears up those concerns you've stated. Thank you, for being open in your opinion.--Hu12 17:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose - While I certainly applaud vandalcrushing, and while I usually don't mind much about the article writing, examining this user's contributions reveals a very large lack of actual article writing in any capacity. Admins are expected to handle things besides merely reverting vandalism, which can be done -- as this user has shown -- without the tools. I also don't like the EXTENSIVE and almost total use of automatic tools , which make up almost all of the user's contributions. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Switched to support based on conversation with user. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm not seeing any contributions, remember Wikipedia is not a battleground against the vandals and spamdalizers. Contributions as a user and as an administrator are very important, as I explained to another user: "A lot of people doubt it but contributing to articles is very important. Mostly because to be a good sysop you need to still be an editor as well, as for example if you help mediate a dispute between two users its always going to be best to approach it from an editors perspective to understand both of their problems." - I'll reconsider in six months, therefore you'll have plenty of time to find a balance between contributing and vandal-fighting. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Please don't wait six months to reconsider your misuse of WP:NOT. The section of that policy that you link to, about not being a battleground, says Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. The section says nothing whatsoever against removing spam and vandalism; and it says nothing whatsoever about editors who decide to spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia by doing this. In short, the section is totally irrelevant to the discussion here, unless you are accusing the candidate of "holding grudges", importing conflicts, or nurturing hated or fear. Are you? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    The candidate has pledged to be open to recall for six months. Does that satisfy your concern? DurovaCharge! 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Low activity in project-space suggests candidate is not yet adequately familiar with wiki-process. Xoloz 15:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Xoloz, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by project-space -- if you mean WikiProjects, I did a count of edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎ since 1/1/2007 -- Hu12 is one of the top 3 participants (80+ contributions; the other 2 of us need to get a life)[1] [2]. Unlike some WikiProjects, all the action happens on the talk page, not the main project page. --A. B. (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Xoloz, please have a look at Contribution Counter results, it shows my contributions to WikiProject Spam talk as 164 project edits, second only to A.B. with an amazing 317 project edits. Hopefully this helps clear up your concerns. thanks--Hu12 16:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Hi guys! :) "Project-space", in my old-timers' jargon anyway, equals "wiki-space" -- edits that maintain "THE Project," Wikipedia, as opposed to article-writing in the main-space. Xoloz 15:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. According to the wannabe Kate tool, mine are certainly not as impressive as yours. However my edit counts on Image, Mainspace, User talk, Wikipedia talk are all higher than yours. My friendly point only being that I hope you find some value in a candidate who has contribution areas of which your participation is less. I would expect my participation in that area you make mention of to substantially increase, if adminship is successful. On a side note, I agree with your stance on WP:AIR as I too feel it violates the spirit of Consensus. Thanks again--Hu12 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not sure this user has a clear understanding of CSD guidelines. Just two weeks ago, I had to revert about two dozen articles incorrectly tagged as CSD G4. I also caught a few mistakes with CSD A7, and some other rules, so I cannot support until I know this user clearly understands CSD policy. Nishkid64 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes I remember this. One of those which still remain was discussed, James Rumsey Technical Institute, and was an error on my part as it did have context when i marked it, and was deleted previously as "little or no context ". Of those article that were marked CSD G4, I believe there are only 4 that remain, as they were not substantially identical to the deleted version. WP:CSD#g4 states the clause does not apply if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, however the previous speedy deletion criteria, did still apply and that "The given reason is: It was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)". XfD reads "Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes". This in fact includes speedy deletions [3] as a part of the three main processes for deleting articles. All that were marked by myself, in fact were previously deleted by administrators, as a result of an XfD deletion. This is why they were marked as CSD G4. If there were any confusion, those would be why. However in an administrative capacity I would only delete after I checked the page history, the page log, and any revisions of CSD policy before deletion and if the recreated material was substantially identical to the deleted version. On the other note, the mistake was WP:CSD#G1, with Operation: F.U.T.U.R.E. (Codename: Kids Next Door) (although a legitimate article, and not a CSD after you informed me) I think any one who reads the "Operation xxx etc etc" articles could, in good faith, wrongly think it was Patent nonsense and gibberish and incoherent content. Thank you --Hu12 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Quoting the policy is all fine and dandy, but applying is what I was trying to get at. You said "Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes." "these processes" refers to IfD, CfD, TfD, etc. It does not refer to CSD, and CSD#G4 is not applicable in this type of situation. IIRC, there were around 20 articles which you had tagged as G4, and I believed I only deleted a few of them under other CSD rules. Nishkid64 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    The policy was your concern, stated twice in your "oppose". These processes are defined clearly in XfD and refers to the three main processes CSD,PROD,AFD, along with other types of deletion IfD, TfD, RfD, MfD and SfD. Deletion processes states Collectively, these processes, together with Articles for deletion, are sometimes referred to as the XfD processes.. My intent was to explain why those actions were taken, and where any confusion may have taken place. I believe there are only 4 of those article that remain, as they were not substantially identical to the deleted version, which means 16 were in fact deleted as the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, applied (CSD#g4). --Hu12 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Regardless of what you think you may have deduced is meant by "XFD", it should be clear what is meant by CSD G4 - material deleted through a consensus process. -- Renesis (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    I simply clarified through discussion why a good faith error may have taken place in tagging several of those articles. A tiny error in my 7,682 edits. Are you scolding me?--Hu12 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per several people whom I generally can't tolerate. This candidate's low number of non-automated edits, make it difficult if not impossible for the rest of us to measure his true abilities. I suspect too much blood in the eyes, too little understanding of the dynamics of our wonderful site. —freak(talk) 15:35, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)
    Automated edits? The kinds of complex spam investigations Hu12 and some other WikiProject Spam volunteers undertake may involve multiple hours of screening 100s of edits per article spammed to identify the multiple socks adding these links and then identify what other links they're adding. Once in a blue moon, an innocent editor may unthinkingly add a link to one of these useless sites, so you have to make sure you're not engaging friendly fire. There may checks for open proxies (although final determinations are made at WP:OP). After all that it may take just an hour or two issue all the warnings, write something up for WT:WPSPAM, make the appropriate requests if necessary at WP:OP, WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Then sometimes, there's a withering counterblast of accusations from an angry spammer of WP:AGF and vandalism violations that you have to deal with calmly. In this type of work, there's none better within Wikipedia's 3 million editors. --A. B. (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'd like to address that too: Hu12's investigation last month showed a subtlety that represents old fashioned gumshoe investigation. I do gumshoe work of a different sort and I'm quite impressed. DurovaCharge! 02:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. I agree with Elaragirl and Matthew Fenton, prospective administrators should have some article writing experience in order to better appreciate how and why conflicts occur, especially because admins may be asked to mediate between people who have very different points of view. I think you've done a lot for Wikipedia by removing spam, but please gain experience in adding content to the encyclopedia too. I wish you well. --Kyoko 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC), modified per Elaragirl's change of opinion 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Changed to Support. --Kyoko 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Nishkid echoes my concerns about a lack of understanding CSD. This is especially concerning if we are discussing entrusting Hu12 with the ability to speedily delete articles. Also, I haven't seen much article writing from this candidate, which is of considerable import with regards to what I look for in a potential admin candidate. If he could point me to some articles he's worked on or some collaborations with other users on article talk pages that I may have missed when looking at his contributions, it would be beneficial for me, and potentially any other participants in this RfA that value article-writing in a potential administrator. I'll also note that the candidate does appear to be very well-intentioned, but perhaps a bit green in some of our most important areas. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    You have very impressive Main space edits in your two months at Wikipedia, I particularly like the creation of Iñaki de Juana Chaos, I remember hearing of this years ago and did not know he had been released in 2004. I have added a response to Nishkid64, since he's echoing your concerns of CSD, also some examples of a few articles I have created are located above in General comments under General comment To article space oppose voices. My response to Xoloz should hopefully clear up any concerns about collaborations with other users on article talk pages. I hope these can help more in your decision. Thank you for your feedback, well formed and it is appreciated. Hu12 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Hi! Thanks a lot for spending some of your valuable time to clarify about the CSD issues, as well as for directing me to some articles you've created. Incidentally, I actually edited one and left a question on the talk page! I looked over your responses, and have taken some time to reflect upon what the supporting participants to this RfA have mentioned about how being a "specialist" is as good, if not better than being more of a "well-rounded" Wikipedian (not to lump people into groups, or anything). I've always liked to see well-rounded candidates on RfA, but it appears as if the community is starting to feel that specialising in a particular aspect of the project is not only great, but necessary! Given my own mixed feelings about this and your obvious good intentions and dedication to the project, please consider my opposition to be withdrawn. Good luck! gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, Not significant contributions to other spaces than mainspaces. Shyam (T/C) 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose good spam fighter but lack of article writing, sorry Jaranda wat's sup 07:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per lack of editorial contributions. ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose candidate lacks editorial contributions. Dionyseus 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose at this time: whould like to see wider range of edits first, including more participation in policy pages and building articles. Jonathunder 15:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose. You're a good editor, but like what Nishkid says, your version of the speedy policies worry me. If something that is speedy deleted is recreated, that is not an auto-delete, as CSD is not part of the AFD process.--Wizardman 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per NishKid64. Speedy is not XFD, and I don't think I'd like an administrator arguing that it is. -- Renesis (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Never Implied that claim, please explain.--Hu12 04:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Per Nishkid64, and I would like to see more article writing. ~ Arjun 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Not enough article writing. That helps to identify spam more thoroughly, when spam is disguised as refs, for instance. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Blnguyen, I respectfully disagree. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. As some one who also deletes a lot of spam while also doing a fair amount of article building, I'd say I'm more scrupulous about the quality of the references I use as a result of all the analysis and discussion of links we do. I'd say Hu12 probably knows ins and outs of WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:V better than most of us. I've seen Hu engage in very insightful discussions about the encyclopedic value of various links. While fighting spam mostly involves finding less useful, deliberately spammed links that are usually campaign-spammed, we get dragged into discussions of non-spammy but unencyclopedic links. Editors frequently bring links to Hu12 and to WT:WPSPAM that fall into this "good-faith/poor editorial judgement" category, engendering discussions of the value of such links. Hu12 is an expert on the whole encyclopedic value spectrum of gray scales -- not just black vs. white (spam vs. academic journals). As for inline references, it's pretty hard to sneak spammy refs past anyone knowledgeable about spam -- Hu12 in particular. --A. B. (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Seems to just fight vandals. Needs more experience writing, policy, etc. --- RockMFR 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral nothing compelling to support, especially with no article contributions. Sorry. - Anas Talk? 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)#Neutral per opposers. Cbrown1023 talk 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Impressive anti-spam work and potentially an excellent admin. But I'm concerned that nom seems premature as there hasn't been enough experience with CSD, XFD and DRV? (Perhaps I'm not so concerned about the lack of article writing experience...?). Bwithh 03:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    To be candid, it would be like asking a podiatrist to do eye surgery if someone wanted me to perform any of those chores. Specialization can be a good thing: I wouldn't uncover the complex vandals if I spread myself too thin. To mix metaphors, an orchestra hires a cello player for being an excellent cellist - not for also being mediocre at the trumpet. DurovaCharge! 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per concerns raised by Nish. Perhaps more experience around XfDs is necessary. riana_dzasta 01:33, 15 February 2007 (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.