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

Hallows AG[edit]

Final (3/12/2); ended 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Hallows AG (talk · contribs) – I mostly have done vandalism reverts but have weaned away from it for the time being and focused myself to be of help in other parts of Wikipedia Hallows AG (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdraw this request, and thank the community for the input I have received. After perusing the comments herewith on this nomination, I have deemed myself to be not ready to be an administrator.--Hallows AG (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 will mostly use the admin tools in deleting pages and blocking users who persist in vandalism. My work on Huggle has thought me on how to identify pages that qualify for deletion per CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Vandalism reverting is what I consider to be my best contribution. Reviewing articles at WP:AFC is also what I am proud in.
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: Dealing with vandalism, I routinely receive personal attacks against me. However I have not actually been in a dispute that has caused me stress.
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
4. As a participant in AfC, how do you explain the three articles, all in substandard condition, that you have created, none of which would/should not have passed an AfC review?
A: I wouldn't consider the articles as in substandard condition BRIDEX was properly referenced and is notable. The same goes to Telisai-Lumut Highway. The one reference to the article shows that it exists, the only requirement for notability.
Also, I have addresed the issue on COOL Seria--Hallows AG (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But what, in your opinion, makes that church notable? That it exists? Malleus Fatuorum 03:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I consider it as notable as it is one of only three parishes in Brunei.--Hallows AG (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But what makes any of the parishes in Brunei notable? That they exist? Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Notability is generally established by the existence of reliable secondary sources discussing the subject in detail, rather than the existence of the subject itself. You still haven't "addresed" the problem with the church article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question from — Ched :  ?  (apologies for this minefield, but I don't see much on which to judge your knowledge of our policies and guidelines)
5. In your own words, how would you define the difference between a block and a ban.
A: A block is a temporary or indefinite suspension of editing rights, a ban is not a suspension of editing rights, merely the community asking the user to refrain from thier editing activities on Wikipedia.
6. In your own words please explain the concept of WP:CSD A7.
A: When there is a shred of importance in the article, even a small one, an article is not eligible for this criteria, even if it is not notable.
7. What are your views on our current WP:BLP policies and their effectiveness?
A: I would view the current BLP policies as not really effective as some attack pages still pass through procedures. (i.e:NPP)
8. What are your views on our Civility policy, and how it is enforced?
A.The current civility policies effective as most of uncivil persons in Wikipedia are warned and blocked if the user persists.
Additional questions from MC10
9. When, if ever, would you block a user with only one warning?
A: I would block a user with only one warning if a user is a suspected sock puppet check user has deemed a usertot be onet.
10. In your opinion, what is the most misused CSD criteria, and why is it misused?
A: I would say that the A7 is the most misued as many user misinterpret the "importance" of an article


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. Support While Hallows AG has been on Wikipedia for 5 months, he has done good work here, both at Articles for Creation and in anti-vandalism work. His dedication to AfC is commendable. When an AfC submitter asks a question on his talk page (i.e. asking him about one of his reviews), he is polite and willing to explain his actions. So although he has only been here for 5 months, I believe he would be a net positive. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support -- Since you have only been at Wikipedia for 5 months, you can help with us. I would be glad to support an Indonesian speaker for admin, but not until you are much more expereinced if it is not successful. In the meantime, keep enjoying Wikipedia in several months and helping out wherever you can but you have the experience but I support you for now. Great work with the AfC's! --Katarighe (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support - I've seen Hallows around the project and I've seen nothing but fantastic work. Fantastic vandal-fighter and AFC participant. -- Luke (Talk) 01:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. I do not think that a contributor can have amassed the necessary knowledge to be a competent administrator in only five months of active editing. AfC is useful but creating articles oneself is an entirely different experience. For example, the article Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Seria is completely unreferenced and does not even have a period at the end of its sole sentence. BRIDEX is not in much better condition and Telisai–Lumut Highway is in need of more references. These three articles by themselves are enough to disqualify an administrator candidate in my opinion. I also don't see significant content development or enough breadth and depth of activity in administrative areas outside of AIV. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Five months is plenty of time. James500 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Clearly in this case it wasn't, as the candidate has no understanding of Wikpedia's notability guidelines. MalleusFatuorum 06:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    'No understanding' is not correct. How could you explain the passing of articles which I have deemed to be notable and the failing of those that weren't? Besides, those article that I made were made some months ago. In those few months I have learned a lot.--Hallows AG (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, "very little understanding of" if you prefer. Malleus Fatuorum 06:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd prefer if you'd not make any comments on my understanding on notability, please.--Hallows AG (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you trying to censor him? This is a RfA, not la-la-la-I-didn't-hear-that-land. Your understanding of notability is in question, and is front and center of this RfA. Requesting that it be not commented upon reflects poorly on you, as does much of this RfA, from uninspired self-nom to short and unthoughtful answers to questions. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have I censored him? I'm not even trying to censor him, I just asked him to refrain from making judgements about me based on a three month old article.--Hallows AG (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just about takes the biscuit really. It would be a sad day for Wikipedia if you ever became one of its ubermensch. "I really would prefer it if you didn't criticise me". Malleus Fatuorum 07:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, as per Fetchcomms. Malleus Fatuorum 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Moved from neutral, per answer to Q4 : "The one reference to the article shows that it exists, the only requirement for notability." If this was a general statement, then this is a significant misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. If it was specifically in reference to highways, the answer is not consistent with my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (highways). In any case, the answer is worrisome. Combined with the above by Fetchcomms, and my concerns already stated below, I must oppose. Strong oppose, per above. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose Too soon. Candidate needs experience and seasoning.--Hokeman (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose per Fetchcomms --Guerillero | My Talk 03:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose for now re Q4, but try again after a few months more. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Inexperience. Townlake (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per my (and others') concerns about a general lack of experience in various areas. Furthermore, per CharlieEchoTango, the nominee clearly has some issues with determining notability. This, in general, feels to me like an RfA into which the nominee didn't put a lot of effort, and I think that that reflects poorly on the candidate. Logan Talk Contributions 04:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Candidate seems to need more experience. MJ94 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose per Fetchcomms --Kangaroopowah 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. —SW— comment 05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. OpposeThis user didn't follow the general guidelines for nominationg on RFA.So,opposing.1 year of experience is mandatory for all RFA candidates.Better luck next time.That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 07:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't recall a criterion set in stone that requires all candidates to have been on WP for over a year. If there's something I'm missing, could you give me a link to it? →Στc. 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose per Fetchcomms. Minima© (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral -- Since you have only been at Wikipedia for 5 months, it is certainly too soon to be applying for adminship. Contrary to the comment below, I would be glad to support an Indonesian speaker for admin, but not until you are much more expereinced. In the meantime, keep enjoying Wikipedia in several months and helping out wherever you can but you have the experience. --Katarighe (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC) moved to supportReply[reply]
Neutral so far. Good work at AfC (perhaps a bit hasty, I had to cleanup The John Gardner Fellowship Program that was accepted two hours ago with a signature in the article, and other accepted articles I've checked could use cleanup too), but has limited experience in other areas of the wiki and I feel it's perhaps a bit too soon to request adminship. Not much content work besides AfC. Half-baked self-nom is not inspiring either. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)moved to opposeReply[reply]
  1. Don't have the heart to pile on here, but I do encourage Hallows AG to continue his great efforts here. Brush up on policies and guidelines, join some talk on those pages .. work on communication .. expand your skill set; and I'll gladly support in a few months. Thank you for all you do. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, what you're saying is that if the candidate does those things you suggest, regardless of anything else (s)he might do in the interim, you'd be an enthusiastic supporter at the next RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 05:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I encourage this editor to consider withdrawing this RFA and spend some time expanding, improving and referencing the three articles discussed above and studying what notability means here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category