Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hahc21

Hahc21

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (2/4/2); Scheduled to end 22:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Editor review/Hahc21

Nomination

Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – Saluts. I have been a Wikipedian for over four years now and active since for almost a year now. I know self-noms usually have a low success rate, but after some encouragement from other users, I decided to write my own RfA. I joined the English Wikipedia back in March 2008 after an unsuccessful and lackluster time working on nowhere-to-go projects on the Spanish Wikipedia, and started to work here constantly since mid-2011. I also like to work on other Wikis from time to time, mainly the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Wikipedias, since I am knowledgable in all of those languages.

I spent most of the time since March 2008 to mid-2011 reading the policies, getting used with how Wikipedia works and watching the GA process. I constantly work on music related articles, and i'm a member of the Wikiproject Latin America Latin American Music Task Force. I have also worked on other areas such as New pages patrolling, fighting vandalism, and correcting grammatical errors with AWB. FWIW, I'm a graduate of the CVUA (and now instructor). —Hahc21 22:17, 7 July 2012 (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: I will mainly work at Article for Deletion and the other deletion processes, as well as on page protect requests. As I already have rollback and file mover rights, I will still do the work I'm used to doing with said tools. I have not much experience at ANI, but may also like to work there.

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

A: My best contributions on Wikipedia are Ricardo Arjona-related articles, as well as some other works on music. I have been invovled as a constant reviewer at WP:GAN and recently coordinating the 2012 June-July drive along with Wizardman. I work a lot there and help in anything I can. I have also worked constantly on template creation, such as {{BillboardID}} and {{Albumchart}}. Overall, I have created more than 50 articles and collected 4 GAs, 5 DYKs and a pending FL (Ricardo Arjona discography). The work I am most proud of would be: Ricardo Arjona, Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album), Ricardo Arjona discography, List of works of J. J. Benítez, {{Albumchart}} and Somebody That I Used to Know.

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 been in some minor conflicts over editing myself, and actively involved in disputes regarding other users. One of them happened recently and involved some admins and some users, who were blocked for edit warring and some other reasons. It lasted for days and made me reach ANI with a report that brought many encountered feelings about several policies. Eventually, the issue was solved and all went back to normal.

Additional questions from Status

4. Are there any areas of administrative work you have little intention of taking part in, and for what reasons?

A: I will be always open to work on any administrative area when i feel completely ready. I have no intention to work yet on CSD and Blocking users since i'm still developing my knowledge base in relation to those two areas. Also, as i fell those areas might only be worked when you are completely confident of your actions and the consequences it may take on the community, i think it's better to work on them later.

5. In the event that someone alleges that you are abusing your administrator power, what will you do?

A: Difficult question. That depends if the claims are founded or not. Either way, I might study the case form an outside perspective and evaluate my actions to see if I really abused, or being less critic, mistakenly did something beyond the usual behavior for such situation (whatever it might be). As I always look everything from a neutral perspective, it may be easier for me to evaluate such situations, although I'm pretty sure I will hear those claims often, as any admin does.

Additional questions from Dennis Brown

6. Please explain when it is appropriate to use WP:IAR by providing one or two brief examples.

A: IAR might be used when the existing policies are not enough to solve an issue or the prevent the improvement of the encyclopedia. Of course, it may not be used lightly and only on special cases where needed. As an example, I developed an article from stub to C-class but for unknown reasons I forgot to nominate it at Did you know. I later nominated it being aware of the 5-day restriction, and another user considered it was not a good action to regect the article. She then used IAR to promote the article and it was eventually featured.

7. An editor has just reverted for the 7th time in 24 hours on the article Newt Gingrich, and you are the first admin to notice it. What do you do?

A: Thanks for the question. Reverting 7 times is well over WP:3RR and also is a very alarming sign of WP:EW, so a block is needed per both guidelines. So, if i'm the first admin to notice it, it is my duty to perform the block to the user and explain him the reasons of it.

I've commented below to keep this section uncluttered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:40, 8 July 2012 (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.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats are pasted on the talk page. mabdul 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support – Outstanding editor who is qualified and trustworthy. Statυs (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - Great editor with wide understandings and knowledge of the Wikipedian policies and also a problem resolver. His attitude is also one of his main qualities. — Tomica (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It's hard to believe that I'm opposing someone on the basis of relative inexperience, but it seems as if this RfA may have been a bit rushed. Hahc21, I think you have the potential to be a great admin someday. My advice is to wait a few months time and continue to be active in places like AfD and RFPP, so that you'll be more experienced and have developed a better understanding of those processes and their associated policies. After that, I have no doubt I'll support you. Good luck! =) Master&Expert (Talk) 23:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Hahc21 is a solid editor and seems to be a very thoughtful and mature individual. However, I'm concerned about his/her overall understanding of the nuances of policy. In a recent discussion, I pointed some of this out to Hahc21. S/He quickly got it and was clearly receptive to my bringing it up. The problem is we don't want folks learning things like this with a mop in their hand. I think after a few months of active editing and involvement in many more nuanced discussions, this individual would make a great admin, but not quite yet. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. While I see a lot of quality work, I only see consistent activity since March. I'm concerned with the apparent lack of understanding or misinterpretation of policies and guidelines that are needed in order to accurately perform administrative tasks. The AFD started for Savan Kotecha is a bit alarming and shows a lack of knowledge about the notability guidelines and AFD procedures. While the article lacks significant sources in the article, sources are readily available. As an award-winning composer with several chart-topping songs throughout the world, the subject clearly meets the notability guidelines. There are just so many concerns here. Not to mention the failure to provide edit summaries. I'm also puzzled with the variance between the answers provided here and the ones provided in the editor review, completed less than a month ago. I would recommend waiting six months and spending time learning and participating in the processes that you wish to be involved as an administrator. Spend some time in CSD, AFD, and NPP, so we can see how you interact with new editors, and interpret and apply the deletion policy. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Regretful Oppose I've seen him around lately doing some pretty good work. However, I think he needs a few months' more experience before becoming an admin. To be sure, he will do a great job when sysopped, just needs more time to really make sure he knows policy, which I have confidence he will do in the next few months. I will be very very pleased to support when I see his name up again in a few months. Don't take this to heart - you are a great editor and will be a great admin in time. Best wishes, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. My experiences with User:Hahc21 only began within the past week, but they have demonstrated to me that he is the totally wrong candidate to be a Wikipedia administrator. It all started when I nominated Deseo (fragrance) for Speedy Deletion. I informed Status (talk · contribs), the article's only contributor[1]. Months previously, I had (successfully) nominated Personal life of Jennifer Lopez for deletion. Out of the blue, Hahc21 informed Status that he'd "saved the article on [his] userspace... in case it gets deleted"[2]. I then nominated this page, which included fair use images, for MfD[3] and a rather bizarre incident occurred in which a random SPI IP defended the article from deletion[4]. Through a sockpuppet investigation[5], it eventually transpired that this was Hahc21; he claimed that he had accidentally logged out, but Toddst1 (talk · contribs) noted that the IP had spoken in the third person, rather than in the conventional first person[6]. Despite this rather odd chain of events, I was neither particularly shocked nor outraged by Hahc21's conduct.

It was afterwards, however, that strange things started to happen. The aforementioned Status began !voting on a number of AfDs that I had started (which is fairly standard, but his noted vehement criticism of my nominations and personal editing style made me quietly suspected WP:REVENGE after the aforementioned incident). What became very strange is when many of his !votes were followed by Hahc21 !voting in exactly the same way just hours or even minutes later; in all but one of my AfDs that Hahc21 has involved himself with, he has followed Status by sharing his viewpoint[7][8][9][10][11]. On that one exceptional AfD, Status has yet to !vote at all (I assume he will eventually pop up, as he has a habit of doing so).

This suspicious behaviour is not all. Some of the reasonings behind Hahc21's !votes on the AfDs I've started have been suspect at best and outrageous at worst. This has included "If you have lots of money, you are notable"[12], "AfD is only for articles that cannot be improved in any way and therefore un-fixable"[13], fairly standard violations of WP:ITSNOTABLE[14] and accusations of me having a personal vendetta against (you guessed it) Status and JLo herself [15] (for the record, I do not). Hahc21's comments on the AfDs I've started (and I really do advise editors to have a look through them) show not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the AfD process but also a strange and naive view of the inclusion criteria, which is the very bedrock of Wikipedia. This seems strange of a person who has desires to become an administrator of the website. Concerned editors may wish to contact Kww (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 as they have both dealt with the user's editing; this comment is particularly interesting to read[16].

This has led me to look at Hahc21's wider conduct. Regarding his behaviour towards me, he continually suggested that I failed to grasp basic policies and guidelines when voting against my nominations at AfD[17][18][19]. However, instead of leaving a friendly message on my talk page (in order to educate an uninformed user, stop what he assessed to be a continuing problem and make Wikipedia a more functionable place in the process), he decided to ignore it and let me continue in what he deemed to be an incorrect manner of editing. This is another example of odd behaviour from someone who wishes to be an administrator. Again, his editing here has been strikingly similar to that of Status; the two suggested I had failed WP:BEFORE without specifying when, how or where[20][21]. I also note that he has a habit of surrounding himself in WP:DRAMA, alongside Tomica (talk · contribs) and Till I Go Home (talk · contribs), involving himself in debates around blocks imposed on Status and Calvin999 (talk · contribs) by Toddst1. This included Hahc21 making some pretty insinuatory and bad faith comments against Toddst1's conduct that seemed to have no evidential backing[22] whilst World War Three broke out on ANI[23].

As well as his bizarre behaviour, it is the cronyism between Status, Till I Go Home, Tomica, Calvin999 and Hahc21 (all of whom seem to enjoy editing articles relating to young, female pop singers) that make me disapprove of the latter's quest for admin-ship. The group frequently comment on each other's talk pages, about Wikipedia editing and other topics, in a clique-ish and exclusive manner. This has included Hahc21 coming around to Calvin999's talk page for a chinwag whilst the latter was blocked - for someone wanting to be an administrator, this seems like a trainee policeman making friendly visits to shoplifters in prison[24]. I've mentioned the AfDs I've nominated; take a look at the following table. Whilst the specific votes may be agreeable, the pattern of behaviour certainly raises some eyebrows.

Movie	Actor
	Status (talk · contribs)	Hahc21 (talk · contribs)	Till I Go Home (talk · contribs)	Tomica (talk · contribs)	Calvin999 (talk · contribs)
Feelin' So Good (video)	Keep	Keep	Keep	Keep	Blocked
2012 Summer Tour (Rihanna)	Delete	Delete		Delete	Blocked
Mathew Knowles	Keep	Keep	Keep		Blocked
Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud	Keep		Keep		Blocked
Controversy of the Born This Way Ball	Keep		Keep		Blocked
Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue	Keep	Keep			Blocked
Bennifer	Keep			Keep	Blocked
Idol Gives Back	Keep		Keep		Blocked
Personal life of Jennifer Lopez	Keep		Delete !vote sturck-through after Status disagreed	Keep	Blocked
Parkwood Entertainment	Supported Hahc21's argument	Keep			Blocked

As well as his own questionable editing, I feel that awarding admin-ship to Hahc21 would give a voice to the disruptive behaviours of his friends. Just my two pence. SplashScreen (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I lean too early. I think they do excellent work from what I've seen... but major edit history began only in April. They do great content work and have been very helpful at GAN which are points in their favour. --LauraHale (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm a little worried about being out of consensus 32% of the time at AFD, and that you didn't even participate at AFD until recently so this is pretty recent stuff. What worries me most is that fully half of your total English contributions came last month, 5,152 out of your total 10,191, and literally 95% of your edit total is since March. This gives me pause, so having to stay neutral until I can look deeper at your contribs, and the contribs on the other wikis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks to Hahc21 for answering Q6 and Q7. Q6 was a good example. Q7 is very problematic on two levels. First, I gave you a BLP, and there may have been very good reasons to revert 7 times and be completely within policy. Vandalism and gross BLP violations are two exceptions to 3RR, and on BLP articles, particularly one of a polarizing political figure, this is always a possibility. The second point of failure is that you didn't consider warning them first. You were the first admin to come across it which means no one has warned them (whether they are new or not) we should always try to warn first, even when they are well over the line. In some circumstances, full page protection along with warnings for all offenders is the best solution. We shouldn't block just because we can, we should only block when it is the best possible solution, and most of the time it isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

   Oh my!. I completely forgot it was a BLP. I said block because i didn't noticed it was BLP. You're right. I usually like to warn to see if the users stop edit warring or reverting. I'm aware that blocking may only bring more problems when done, and it's always best to use some alternatives. Thanks for the explanation. That's one of the reasons why i'm not very keen to work on blocking users. Regards. —Hahc21 00:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

   Keep in mind, vandalism and BLP violations can happen on any article as well. Even song articles, where you are talking about the artist, and someone adds something about having 23 kids by 20 women, or was involved in a hit and run, etc. Or just plain vandalism. I used a BLP because I was giving you a softball opportunity. Understanding the words of policies isn't that hard, but the core of WP:IAR (the most important policy we have) is that we should understand the intent of the policy more than the words. And good people screw up sometimes. Warn them first, show them respect, give them a chance, and then if they revert again soon, you block them. Always give people the chance to do the right thing when it is possible to do so. Blocking is important because it is the most damaging tool in the admin kit, so you need to know how to use it before you have it. All the other tools can be undone rather easily, but not blocking because it affects the human more than the database. I don't see a need to pile on, but I tend to think you need just a little more time before becoming admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)