User:Razr Nation/Things to learn from

My editing restriction (now lifted)

Inappropriate discussion closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few days ago I started an Afd for Personal (album) because I was unable to find sources for it. Status (talk · contribs) obviously followed my contributions and commented on the Afd, stating that the topic had some notability and should be kept or redirected. I was, quite frankly, astonished to find Status' best friend on this entire project Hahc21 (talk · contribs) to have closed the Afd three days early, with the rationale "The article meets both GNG and NALBUMS." This closure was completely out of line for multiple reasons. Firstly, he clearly presented his opinion when he closed the Afd by stating that it meets both GNG and NALBUMS. The discussion showed absolutely no evidence that the album met these guidelines, as both editors pointed to the album charting as evidence for notability which is not a requirement for WP:GNG. Then, just seven minutes after the discussion was closed, Status was hasty enough to created a DYK nomination for the article, seven minutes later. Obviously there was some sort of WP:COI involved for him to close the discussion and his friend to get credit for a DYK. I undid the closure with the rationale "Keep closure in error" (which it was). He then notified me on my talk page, acting like he is an administrator and has authority over me; stating, "If you are not happy with my close, come to my talk first and we can discuss reopening it or not. Going ahead and reverting a close without being an admin or asking me to do so first is not the way to go." I then responded to this, telling him not to talk down to me and act like he's some admin with power, and explained why the closure was wrong. The closure was also reverted by IP 86.44.24.94.

I request that this user be forbidden from making non-admin closures from here thereafter. Till 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Hahc21 (talk · contribs)'s contribs, you could see he closed a bunch of AfDs at the time; he just didn't randomly close one that I had expanded. Such absurd claims these are. I saw the AfD had been closed, and decided to nominate it for DYK, as I had been nominating several articles I expanded within the past few days for DYK, check my contribs. Whether or not it was closed at the time I would have been nominating it. You can nominate DYKs for articles that are under AfD, it just won't be promoted until the AfD has been closed. As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme. Statυs (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been pretty consistent closures should be done by admins; as the closure has been reverted I don't think any further action is needed. NE Ent 23:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such consensus is true, but I am good doing non-admin closures [I have made 68 closures, by the way]. I understand that Till might be mad because the outcome from that AFD is leaning to keep and he is interested in seeing the article deleted. Also, as Status said, I closed 4 AFDs within an hour and 14 AFDs since yesterday night. Assuming that I ramdomly closed the AFD is "original research." — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is that non-admin closures should be reserved for XfDs that have very clear outcomes that could not reasonably be questioned. The one that is the subject of this thread did not have such an unambiguous result, certainly not at the time you closed it early. I don't think any formal action is required in this thread, but please be more conservative in making non-admin closures only in appropriate cases. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your comment, Newyorkbrad. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I am confused as to why it is being hinted at the IP user is either myself or Hahc21, when he accused another editor of being the IP just yesterday, not even a full 24 hours ago. Statυs (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

? No one is accusing you or Hahc21 of being the IP. Till 01:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also this isn't personal or about you, it's about the flawed Afd closure. Because policy says that I have to notify you. Till 01:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When you add "Status' best friend on this entire project" to it, it adds a certain personal flare, don't you think? Statυs (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The closer claims that he has made good non-admin closures in the past but just seconds after searching his list of closures, I immediately found another controversial close done just last month. He shouldn't be closing Afds that have an even number of !votes as "no consensus", that is for an administrator to decide. Further, he didn't even write in the closing comment that it was a non-admin closure. Again, can't some sort of ban be placed on him making NACs from now on? And claiming that I'm angry because it will be closed as keep is quite ridiculous, to be honest with you. Till 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I guess I will just warn you once: The enforcement you are trying to apply over me won't happen anytime soon. I have made mistakes at AFD, I know, but what you are requesting is just ridiculous. Why should I be banned from closing AFDs when only 2 of my 68 closes have been considered as controversial and that matter was handled by an admin [who served as my instructor, sort of I should say] long time ago? Just because I closed an AFD of yours? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  Here are some more. You are not an administrator so stop trying to be one. Till 02:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  Uhm... make that THREE. That we know of. And your tone in the preceeding post confirms my conclusion in my post below. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I know I am not an administrator, and I am not willing to be one anytime soon. My first RFA gave me what I need to know about myself and my work here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be luck of the draw, but I have to say that I have noticed this editor three times in the past few weeks, all in the context of serious lapses of judgement.

The first was with regards to a non-admin closure as no consensus that was later reversed, with a final admin decision as delete: [[1]]. The editor should have known not to mess with a hotly contested AfD that clearly needed closure by an admin.

The second was stepping out of his role as a DRN volunteer to throw his weight around on the talk page for Australian Christian Lobby, probably because he was disappointed that no wanted to particpate in the DRN. He made a bad call about sources and article content in this case.

The third was today, when he !voted in an AfD using WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which were reliable for establishing notability (press releases and concert announcements). See [[2]].

I'm sorry, but I think this editor needs to hit the policies and guidelines a lot more carefully before he enganges in activities like non-admin closures and DRN. Based what I've seen, I don't think he's ready for that level of responsibility. It would be a good idea for him to find a mentor if he wishes to continue semi-adminsitrative activities, and to refrain from them for a reasonable length of time to insure assimilation of the policies and guidelines, say three months. After that point, his competence should be assessed by his mentor and two ininvolved admins, and should he be deemed competent for the task, he could resume at DRN and non-admin closures.

Frankly, this editor has gotten a bit cocky and overestimates his own competence, and that is not good for him or the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG. I did not expect this. Lack of judgement? Three months? Two admins? Mentorship? I don't undertand this. I am a mentor myself and I have worked in some policies by myself too [As well as 97% accuracy at AFD while !voting]. Sorry but I don't get any of this. I will refrain myself from answering here, as it may make more harm than good. I have already apologized for the AFD close, so I have nothing else to say. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just follow NYB's advice. Additionally, if you NAC close an AFD and someone questions or reverts, then that's prima facie evidence it's not an appropriate Afd for non-admin closure. NE Ent 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus' proposal, refraining from making NACs for a period of three months seems suitable. Till 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, Hahc21 made a few bad calls in AfD closures. That's it. I'm sure he will remember this for next time. That does not equal to being banned from doing non-admin closures. Additionally to Dominus Vobisdu, how does "The third was today" relate to the closure of AfDs? Now you're just going off topic. And FYI, that wasn't even today, that was several days ago. "Frankly, this editor has gotten a bit cocky and overestimates his own competence"? He appears to be pretty level-headed to me. Statυs (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of Hahc21's phrasing comes across as a little off, so I'm thinking he may be appearing more combative than he intends to be. e.g. "I will just warn you once" strikes my (Northeast USA) ear a bit oddly; specifically the use of the term "warn" in this context. I think if he agrees to be a little more judicious in which Afd he closes and agrees not edit war if someone reverts a close we should close the thread and move on. NE Ent 02:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not combative at all. Also, I try to be as polite as possible. I apologize if I made some aggressive comments. Till is being a bit aggressive lately and I couldn't avoid writing such things. Also, I never edit war =/ I agree I have made some mistakes at AFD and I have, by myself, looked for admin help when I know I may breach some hot water. Why I should be a bit mad or upset? Because this went too far. A message from Till saying "Hey Hahc21, I reverted your close because i think it was inappropiate and it's not inside NAC" would have done the trick, but no. He just reverted without giving me a notice or something. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp the gravity of making innapropriate closures, and the consequences thereof. And yes, your tone does come across as combative and defensive, and fobbing off responsibility for your actions on Till is not an appropriate response. You can expect to see this matter revisted if you continue to make mistakes, which I hope you do not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no big gravity on this [nothing that cannot be easily reverted, although that's not an excuse to make mistakes of course]. Also, I know I am responsible of my acts. Sorry if I was a bit too harsh here, you may note I never wrote like this back at DRN. Although, It seems like you have a disturbed vision of me, like I am some kind of disruptive newbie or something like that, which I am not [of course we all make mistakes, whichever how long we have stayed here]. I am pretty sure this won't be revisited, mainly because it wasn't before, and mainly because of other things you may notice as time goes by. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that most closes by Hahc21 have been pretty reasonable, so a ban from NACs seems unnecessary. As someone who has closed a lot of Afds over the past three months, I've found that it is often difficult to predict which closes will be "controversial"--someone will get upset about pretty much anything. That being said, I'd suggest Hahc21 limit his NAC closes to snow keeps of discussions open over 167 hours. (Till has been unhappy with my deletion work in the past, so I guess this should be taken with a grain of salt.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with your previous Afd closes is irrelevant and not germane to this thread. The proof lies within the many links that I have provided above which demonstrate the user's inability to exercise sound judgement while closing Afds. Till 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that 4 of 68 NACs are proof of "inability to exercise sound judgement"... — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It sure is. If you're doing non-admin closures, you had better be 68-for-68. Perhaps one error could be overlooked. Four is absolutely inexcusable. NAC's should only be done when there is no chance whatsoever of erring. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually seven, including the one that ignited this thread. One two three four five six. And these are only the ones that have been brought up in this thread. Till 07:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@Haha21: If you don't agree that stepping in to close the AfD on Rashmi Singh (author) was a major lapse in judgement, then you shouldn't be doing non-admin closures, period. What in God's name possessed you to step in to an AfD like that? And yes, it's a big deal. Other editors spent many hours working on their arguments for AfD, and here you come along and flush all that work down the toilet.

For the simple reason that you're trivializing what you have done, you've convinced me that the ban proposed above is the best move for hte project, and hope that the administatrors here reconsider. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the ban is the way to go, I will accept it. I guess I have said above that I have made mistakes and I looked for administrative help when it happened [my first NACs were very controversial, indeed]. If that's not enough, and the work I have happily made at AFD trying to give a hand is not good enough by community, then I will step out of AFD completely right now. I guess that this has gone too far, and before a ban is proposed on me, I will do it by myself. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to propose one yourself, when we're already !voting on one below (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the vote. I can enforce myself not to edit AFD-related pages. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's no need for a !vote, then I'll be happy to close the vote as enacted by the community - you've shown your unwillingness to abide by the policy until a !vote had already started - you can't wiggle out of a restriction like that. A closure of the !vote right now will be considered to be a community consensus, and will be registered accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban from making non-admin closures. Till 09:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction from NAC's in any forum. The editor has been shown the policy, and is in this very thread refusing to abide by it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction form non-admin closures. It's disturbing how the editor seems to think this is a trivial and to minimize the impact his errors in judgement have made. His responses indicate that he just doesn't get it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction, per all of the above concerns. The user attempting to put a stop to this !vote while it's in progress doesn't sit well with me either. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to lift restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am here again, three months after my restriction was enacted. During the last three months I have dedicated myself to learn from the mistakes I did, and to try to improve my understanding of the deletion policy and the non-admin closure guidelines. I recognize that I made several errors in judgement in my closures, and that I did some I shouldn't have. My intentions were always to help, as much as I could, but I understand that while doing so, I violated the spirit of the NACs, and caused problems I could have avoided. Also, I have tried to do my best to become a better Wikipedian and to not make more mistakes like those I did, and to help other users not to make those same mistakes.

Therefore, I am here, asking the community if enough time has elapsed since my restriction was enacted and if it could be lifted now, three months later. I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures (although I may seek guidance from an admin, likely Elen of the Roads or Mark Arsten, if I decide to perform a close); I believe that I have learned from that restriction: I have changed, and I hope I did it for the best. Finally, I'd like the community to consider this request as an apology for what I did, and as a commitment that I will do my best to improve further from that experience I had back in November. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restriction, as Hahc has really improved his skills and knowledge in the past three months. The restriction is no longer necessary.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to be relevant. Crazynas t 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In the linked discussion where the restriction was enacted, you described the complaint as "Such absurd claims these are" and "As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme" - have you changed your mind about this, or do you still believe the complaint had those issues? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Unsure why my opinion on the original compliant has any relevance to its request for being lifted.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Because it contradicts with your statement here which implies that the restriction was at one point necessary Till 04:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC) The restriction was made by consensus; not everybody involved in a discussion must agree, but if there are more "support" than "oppose", it's so. That doesn't make a difference. Per the consensus (not my own opinion on the matter), the restriction no longer applies. Simple.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC) IN B4 "YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) All I'm saying is that here you said the restriction is "no longer" necessary (which means it was necessary at 1 point), but in the original thread you said that it is not necessary at all. U can't go by 2 statements which contradict each other like that. Perhaps you meant "the restriction is not ncessary"? Btw—the restriction was not entirely made by consensus—Hahc agreed to it Till 04:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Again, I was basing my comment on consensus, not on my own personal opinion. I never said "I feel that it is no longer necessary." Per the consensus of his restriction, it was deemed that it was required because he hadn't known enough about policy. Clearly he has improved on such.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC) There's not much of a "consensus" if u agree to it, duh Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC) @Till: this thread is for discussing the lifting of a restriction on Hahc ... this thread is not about Status, and certainly not about Status' state of mind a few months ago. --Noleander (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I wasn't the one who brought that issue up. Till 05:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restriction - I have seen Hahc21 around quite a lot and I would be quite happy to put my opinion towards lifting the edit restriction. This vote made by his alternative account is a good argument and matched closing consensus as did this one. This was not as extensive as I would expect but it does weigh a bit and matched closing consensus. At this article for deletion he picks up and give a good depth. I can not see at the moment a valid reason to keep this user under the restriction, Granted they now understand the policy that is responsible for AfDs. John F. Lewis (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support lift of restriction - Hahc21's been doing some fine work recently, and his apology seems sincere. --Noleander (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question for Hahc21: I think it would probably be a good idea to relax the restriction, but before I commit one way or the other I would like to see how your understanding has improved. If you are willing, could you pick any three AfD discussions that are currently open and that are eligible for non-admin closure, and tell us how you would close them? (Please understand that there is no need for you to answer this question if you don't want to; if you would rather not, that is absolutely fine.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I am not willing to do more NACs, I'd be glad to answer your question. Give me a day to find and evaluate three discussions and come here with a response. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Answer: I have found the next discussions that may be considered for NAC:
    1. Moncton Christian Academy: It has only Keep votes, and all of them are based in policy and previous outcomes regarding high schools.
    2. Jenny Hill (politician): It has three keep votes. Although I'd prefer to see this relisted, the first Keep vote relies on a note from the notability guidelines for politicians, and the two subsequent votes echo this.
    3. WS FTP (2nd nomination): This one has four Keep votes. The first two stated how the topic may meet notability guidelines, and provided sources to back up these claims. The third and fourth votes echo this by stating that reliable sources are found and notability has been achieved. I don't expect this to receive any delete votes, and relisting it may not be necessary.
  • I took those three from the February 6 log, which means that 7 days have yet to pass. I did that to avoid having them closed before you check them. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. One of the underlying problems in the original thread was that Hahc could not admit to his wrongdoings of making poor and problematic NAC closures. Now that he has acknowledged these errors it appears that the restriction does not seem necessary as it was before. However, I just hope that we won't see that kind of judgement in the form of closing discussions in the future Till 05:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Switch to support. Have fun! Till 22:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I am inclined to think the user has learned from his mistakes, however I would be slightly worried about letting him resume doing NACs freely when the community has previously agreed he shouldn't; however, if Stradivarius' question above is answered successfully I see no other obstacle to the lifting of the restrictions. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good day Salvidrim, in case you missed it but in the openening paragraph Hahc21 stated 'I don't plan to be very active with non-admin closures', Which should address your concern. Should that be the actual concern unless you are pointing some else out. John F. Lewis (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Either he doesn't plan on doing NACs, in which case lifting the restriction is pointless, or he plans on doing NACs; the amount and regularity of them have no impact on the restrictions themselves. However if he agrees with Elen's offer just under to run the first few NACs by here, then I would personally have no other concerns about lifting the restriction. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉

It's not all about the act, you know. He is listed on a restriction list. And who would want their name there?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Full support considering reply to Stradivarius with examples of potential NACs. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support lift of restrictions. Hahc21 has had considerable discussion with myself and also I believe with Mark Arsten about what went wrong and how NAC is intended to work. He has also shown himself very competent as a clerk trainee, which is way more complicated to pick up. I've suggested that run the first half dozen he thinks might be suitable for NAC past either myself or Mark, as a backstop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hahc21 made some mistakes and learned from them. We all make mistakes, it is part of the learning process. Time to move on. With Elen and Mark in the wings, the likelihood of a major mistake is pretty low. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Per the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think he can be trusted to be careful with the closes from now on. Note that Hahc contacted me off-wiki about giving guidance if this is lifted, which I plan on doing. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support If there's an issue down the road it can be restored, but I don't think there will be. --Rschen7754 22:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support This user has obviously learnt from previous mistakes. -- Cheers, Riley 23:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support and exactly what Rschen7754 said above ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support ending restriction. There wasn't either evidence of a massive problem or massive participation advising the restriction in the first place. AfD needs closers, although Administrators would be preferred. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support lifting restriction. No longer needed, as many people above have said. Vacation9 01:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support See how they go this time... (Should be OK, I think.) Peridon (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.