Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hazard-SJ

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Hazard-SJ[edit]

Final (6/20/4); ended 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC) - The consensus here would appear to be that this RfA is somewhat premature and, given that this is turning into an unpleasant pile-on, now would seem to be a good time to close it. Seriously people, do we have nothing better to do than berate a candidate whose RfA is clearly not going to succeed? Some (not all, I hasten to add, but some) of the opposers should be ashamed of themselves. - HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Originally scheduled to end 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC), closed early at 23:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs) – Hello, fellow Wikipedians, I am Hazard-SJ, and I have, for some time now, been an admin hopeful. I have, after exploring more of Wikipedia, decided to make a request for adminship, and will be appreciative of your consideration. I am currently a rollbacker and reviewer, and have recently gained access to the AutoWikiBrowser. I am primarily involved in the combat of one of our major problems, vandalism. I would love to help out more in administrative tasks, and would, Of course, continue my anti-vandalism role.  Hazard-SJ  ±  17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: I intent to take part in aspects like blocking vandals, especially those reported on WP:AIV. I also intend to take part in deleting pages under criteria for speedy deletion. I also intend to help with the clearing of administrative backlogs, such as protected edit requests and requested moves. I will also, if made an admin, help out on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I would consider my efforts to combat vandalism my best contributions to Wikipedia at the moment. This is currently my main task, and if there were vandals, but no one to intervene, especially on an online encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", this project would have been an immediate failure. We also need to make Wikipedia more reliable.
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 not been in any conflicts, and have not been caused stress by any user in the past. In the future, if I would have to deal with any conflicts, I would try as much as possible to be civil and follow dispute resolution processes. I will not attack them, nor will I engage in edit wars with them, but I will keep a cool head.
Additional question from Banana04131
4. Before helping out with the backlogs at protected edit requests, requested moves, and requests for page protection, do you intend to familiarize and learn more about these processes?
A: Yes, I indent to familiarize and learn more about those processes and other processes, but, of course, I will have to take them one step at a time.  Hazard-SJ  ±  19:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from MauchoEagle
5. What is the difference between a softerblock and a spamublock?
A:
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
6. When, if ever, should you block a user/IP address that has not yet received any or "enough" (three or four) warnings?
A:
Additional question from Boing! said Zebedee
7. Someone mentioned it below, so what on earth are all these "blue links", "recovered place names", "recovered names (non-redirect)", "red link names", etc sections you've been adding to disambiguation pages (eg [1], [2], [3])?
A:
Additional question from Mtking
8. When judging the notability of a subject, what is your view of the primacy of the WP:GNG over other WP:SNG, specifically should a wikiproject be able to set a lower standard of inclusion than the WP:GNG?
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I don't see why not. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support - Hazard-SJ is a great editor. This would be a good asset to the project. Mlpearc powwow 01:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong moral support as the candidate has done good work here and has valuable contributions ahead of him. However, I think this RfA is premature; the candidate would be best served by withdrawing the RfA now and getting more experience, as suggested by some of the opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is not 3000 edits racked up over a couple of days. It is rather consistent editing spread over a significant period. I see the candidate as a net positive, and do support their endeavor. My76Strat (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, no reason to believe that this editor would abuse the tools. 3000 edits is a hell of a commitment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Support You're doing great work and I think you'll be a very good administrator. Basket of Puppies 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - You have made many useful contributions looking at your edit history however taking into hand what you said you would be involve in. Could you please look at this: [4]. You say you want to work with requested moves but looking at that diff how could you if you don't even know how to close them. Going through your contribs I only see a handful of speedy tagging in the last month. And I see absolutely no edits relating to Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. I also see very few edits to WP:AIV. I would suggest you continue editing, work in the areas you say you want to work in a little more and in oh say 6 months you will pass RfA in flying colors. mauchoeagle (c) 18:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As for WP:RM, I would read up to find out what I need to, and as the majority of moves have to do with moving over redirects, I rather not involve myself there too much as yet. If made an admin, I can assure you that I would read up what I haven't as yet read as it relates to WP:RM. I have, in the past, worked with semi-protected edit requests, so please recheck your information about that. Also, my only edits to WP:AIV as far as I can recall are reporting, but if made an admin, I could help out in blocking where necessary.  Hazard-SJ  ±  19:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I striked-out the comment about you not making edits relating to that category however I think you need to demonstrate that you have already read the policy regarding requested moves by making moves that do not have to be over redirects or simply ask an admin to delete the redirect and move it there. Also I see in the last month that you have tagged only a handful of pages for WP:CSD. How are you to work in this area if you don't have any edits relating to CSD tagging. mauchoeagle (c) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As for moves, I understand your motives. Also, for CSD, I actually intend to keep the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion clear, removing tags and deleting where necessary.  Hazard-SJ  ±  19:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is what any CSD admin does. How much actual experience do you have dealing with speedy deletion? Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Could you please be more specific? I have tagged pages for speedy deletion, but, as we all know, have never actually delete them, because of a lack of rights. I sometimes notice that pages are tagged for speedy deletion for a long time before any admin decides to delete them.  Hazard-SJ  ±  19:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what in good faith I will ask you a question: What are the actions, as an administrator, would you take with the article Alejandro E. Del Real which has been tagged for speedy deletion. mauchoeagle (c) 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I would have deleted under A7, as, from what I read in the article (I saw it before it was deleted), he is not significant enough. I would have also made reference to the deletion log and talk page.  Hazard-SJ  ±  20:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Good vandalism work but you don't have enough experience yet, not just in admin areas but in the whole project. You've never created an article, for example, and you've made about 1400 total non-automated edits. You also, per above, don't seem to realise how CSD taggers and admins work together; admins have to be well-versed in deletion policy in order to evaluate the CSD claim. I would say gain experience of CSD, AfD, and other deletion areas if you want to use admin tools to help out there; the 6 months suggested above is a reasonable timeframe for reassessment. Keep up the good work Jebus989✰ 19:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Considering your main focus is anti-vandalism patrolling, I'm not sure your current level of experience is enough. Given that you have less than 3,000 edits (which anyone could rack up in one or two days using Huggle), less than 1,000 mainspace edits (and no content development), and little activity in projectspace, I'm not sure why you need +sysop right now. Also, I'm a bit put-off by the list on your userpage of other wikis on which you are active—it makes me feel like you're just listing places where you have "important" userrights, like admin or steward or dev. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do a lot of projectspace reading sometimes when I am online instead of editing. As for my userpage, I actually only keep that list for my own reference, but I can remove it if you like. I have it on a subpage.  Hazard-SJ  ±  20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I can't judge your reading—only what activity I see. As for the subpage, I don't care whether it exists; I was simply stating the feeling I got from seeing it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose You have less than 3,000 edits and almost half of your edits are semi-automated. I can't really support you by that. Baseball Watcher 20:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Not quite yet. Do a bit more work and come back here in 6-9 months. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. You seem to be doing pretty good anti-vandalism work here, but I agree that you need more experience. I'm not opposing because of your lack of content work, as I don't think every administrator needs to be a content editor. However, many of your edits do show inexperience. Perhaps I'm confused on this one, but what exactly are you doing at this disambiguation page? Section headings such as "templated red links" or "recovered names (non-redirect)" are not useful at all, and certainly don't follow MOSDAB's guidance to chose subject areas carefully to simplify navigation. I see similar edits at many other disambiguation pages: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I also agree that it comes off like you are trying to "collect" userrights, as shown by the extensive list of participation and userrights on other wikis. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 21:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. per above. Concerns with experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I am concerned about a few things, 49.1% of edits are automated, very little article work with the most edits spent at one article being 9, only created one article (which is a disambig page). Overall he is a good contributor but not one that should be an admin, at least not yet.  Adwiii  Talk  01:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not enough broad experience across this wiki, at this time.  Chzz  ►  02:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Very little experience. Adminship would be a disaster. I am also concerned about some anti-vandalism edits with Huggle. Why was this horrible section overlooked? It's just like you saw most of the content missing and immediately hit the red button without thinking. The IP who removed most of the content probably noticed how bad the section was and attempted to remove it in good faith but missed some of it, or something. Removal of content (even while unexplained) is not necessarily always vandalism. Most IPs are just inexperienced and are trying to help. Also, why was this content reverted? Both are legitimate films that, through my research, do have drug references and therefore qualify them to be included in that list. The second film was a redlink (even though it is a real film), however there are other films on that list that are redlinks too. I know both were unsourced, but just simply adding [citation needed] to both additions would have sufficed, in my opinion. I just don't see anything that would lead me to believe this candidate is ready for adminship. Inexperience aside, I don't even see hardly any edits that add to this wiki in a constructive and helpful manner. - Uhai (talk · contribs) 03:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose You'd make a great admin, but not yet. I'm sorry, but 24 edits to AIV and only 5 to RFP is just not enough for an admin wanting to get involved in those areas. As for your work on CSD, I cannot judge you there, as I cannot view deleted edits. Keep working at it. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - I'm sure that you would not abuse the tools, but I have concerns that your work to date does not demonstrate broad enough experience. However, as soon as you can meet my criteria you can be assured of my support next time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose He has been around for a year and has two barnstars, but experience wise (in particular looking at MauchoEagle's diff) he isn't ready. Also, I've noticed that he shouldn't have intended to use rollback for this edit, as this wasn't called vandalism. Minima© (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose -- concerns about experience, particularly those brought up by Uhai. – anna 12:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - 2655 edits, half of which are automated; a Wikipedian for less than a year -- simply not enough experience. I do see a bright future, however. Try again in 9 months after solidifying your credentials--Hokeman (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Juvenile Pass a Method talk 14:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    :S Orphan Wiki 15:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What i meant by that is Hazard is not experienced enough. Dont know what an S means though. Pass a Method talk 15:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a colon followed by an "S". It's an emoticon which makes an uneasy face, in the same way that :) makes a happy face. You're comment had echoes of a decision based entirely on an assumed youth with regards to the candidate's age. Thanks for the clarification :) Orphan Wiki 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Not enough content contribution and too many automated edits. Also the links provided by GorillaWarfare makes me think, that you don't even know how to use the Dabfix tool. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per others above - TBloemink (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose My concerns have already been stated. Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose − Sorry, but there seems to be a lack of experience. Reading the replies to the questions does not fill me with confidence. I don't get the impression that this candidate is a knowledgeable, well rounded Wikipedian. I get the feeling that s/he wants to block vandals. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Per WP:NOTNOW and others above, I see no reason to grant you admin tools at this time, especially since you have no content work to speak of that would indicate you clearly understand our content policies. Neutral to avoid pile-on. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNOTNOW – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 07:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Experience, I feel, is still somewhat limited, and I feel you would benefit from a bit more time racking up the experience. However, what you have done is exceptional, and there is no doubt that the 'pedia has benefited hugely from your efforts. Keep up the good work, and hopefully we'll see you here again sometime in the future. :) Orphan Wiki 12:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For someone planning to get involved with article deletion, I would expect more previous experience with CSD tagging or activity at AfD. While I think it is perfectly reasonable for editors whose primary contribution is counter vandalism work to be made admins, I still think its a case of WP:NOTNOTNOW on the basis of insufficient contribution. Monty845 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support I think it's clear that this is a WP:NOTNOTNOW case, hence I am not piling on my oppose, but I cannot offer you real support at this time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:23, 1 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Hazard-SJ&oldid=1147870985"