Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Unionhawk

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

Unionhawk

Final: (15/15/11). Withdrawn by candidate at 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Unionhawk (talk · contribs) – Seeing as there are no current nominations, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and put in my request to receive the Mop & Flamethrower™. I've been around since March 2007, really actively editing since September 2008. I've made over 8,000 edits, many of which are vandalism fighting and new page patrolling.

You may notice that I haven't been incredibly active recently. I have been working on my term paper for U.S. History class, so I have been busy. The paper is due Friday, so I should be active after that.

Well, here goes nothing...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm Unionhawk, and I approve this message.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Well, it looks like recent misworded edit summaries and relative inactivity are too great of concerns for this to have a chance of passing. I hearby withdraw my request.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend on working at CSD, AIV, and UAA, of which, I am already active as a non-admin. I intend on getting back into AfD, so I will start out by !voting in them for a while to observe, then eventually move to closing them, as I have done previously.

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

A: I am very proud of my contributions to Wikipedia. In particular, I'm proud of my work at RuneScape, which I am working along with User:1ForTheMoney to get it back up to Good Article status.

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 a stressful conflict. I was involved in an arbitration case surrounding ADHD. I was extremely frustrated throughout the whole case. Two weeks away from the Wiki (also partially because my laptop was gone), and I was fine. ArbCom is extremely stressful, and I do not wish it on anybody. Ever.

But, to answer the point of this question, yes, I can take the heat, and I can take a lot of it. I might need a day or two after the matter to relax, but I can handle it.

Additional optional question from Unionhawk

4. (for the sake of transparency) Are you above the age of majority in your jurisdiction?

A: I am not. I am 16 years of age.

Additional optional question from Amorymeltzer

5. Since you are in the category, I imagine you wax at least slightly positively about them, but I would like if you could explain your feelings about Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls and Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. What advantages has it/could it have held for you, or others? Do you perceive any negatives?

A: Um... I don't know that there are any advantages or disadvantages, honestly. If somebody wants to nominate an editor, it's unlikely that they're going to go to said list or category first. They're going to look at actions, not "I want to be an admin!"

Additional optional question from Hi878

6. Could you please explain the deleted edit summary that is mentioned below?

A: That is an excellent question, and, as a non-admin, I can't exactly see it. I'll request to see it via e-mail, and explain then. I am very curious as to what I said to cause so much concern, actually. Wow... it was posted on this page... *facepalm* Ok, yeah. That was probably completely inappropriate. There is absolutely no excuse for that.

Additional optional question from Mike Cline

7. Unionhawk, if Admin roles were compartmentalized, in other words a bureaucrat assigned Admins to various Mop and bucket tasks in WP based on the Admin’s experience and desires and you could only work in those areas, which one of the following compartments would you chose to work in and why? (chose only one):

a. The Deletion department, where your job was to close CSDs, PRODs, and AfDs.

b. The Vandalism department, where your job was to patrol for vandalism, revert it and block vandals.

c. The Article Improvement department, where your job was to find ways to help new and old editors improve WP articles and bring them in-line with WP policies and guidelines and prevent their deletion.

d. The Dispute Resolution department, where your job was to help resolve disputes between editors on WP.

A: If I had to pick only one, I would work with deletion. Closing CSDs is an important job, and a job that is sometimes delayed due to the sheer number of nonesense and non-notable articles written daily. Easing the backlog will allow other areas to operate smoothly.

Additional optional question from True Pagan Warrior

8. Would you (or someone familiar with it) post a link to the arbitration matter you referenced in question 3? (Fair warning: follow-up questions possible.)

A: Of course. The ArbCom case is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

9. Would you see it as part of your admin's role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: A single admin by himself is not in the place to issue orders like topic bans, but to enforce those orders, issued from the larger community or Arbitration committee. Of course, the appropriate places to discuss a potential topic ban are ANI and ArbCom.

General comments

• Links for Unionhawk: Unionhawk (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Unionhawk can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Unionhawk before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats on the talk page.  7  03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Weak Support. Not a fan of this edit summary, but he seemed apologetic. Seems cordial aside from that incident. Not a fan of the maturity demonstrated by this deleted edit summary. Appears to have a solid grasp of policy from my poking through his contribs. Seems to know the speedy deletion criteria pretty well. Overall, he's not infallible, but seems pretty good. It's getting kind of late, so I'll probably just come back to this later. Useight (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Can you elaborate on the deleted edit since those without administrator rights may judge? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   His deleted edit summary I linked: "(e/c) re-LAX. BLP is SERIOUS F***ING BUSINESS (sorry... I'm from the internet. I couldn't resist), and warning 2 on NPA". Note, that his original edit summary did not substitute asterisks for letters. This was from nine days ago. Useight (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Ah. Right. I forgot about that little bit of misplaced humor. That kind of stuff belongs on 4chan, not Wikipedia... Re-reading that a couple times now, that sounds really, really stupid and immature. I can't believe that it's something that I said, honestly.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 14:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

2. I've seen him around, and what I've seen has been good. Ray^Talk 04:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong support. In the few months I've been his admin coach, I have found him to be a reasonable and trustworthy person. I have to apologize to you for going inactive the past winter (I was kind of busy in real life); sorry for having left you hanging. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
4. c'è una luce, una speranza I too poked through contributions and Unionhawk is helpful. That Useight censored the cited edit summary in including it here for non-admins is not so favourable. Having seen Unionhawk around and allowing everyone a bad day i still offer a modest support. Sometimes it is better to ponder an edit than rush to get it in in the heat of the moment. delirious & lost ☯ ^~нuɢѕ~ 04:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   I wonder if you would mind saying all that in English. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   there is a light, a hope. delirious & lost ☯ ^~нuɢѕ~ 06:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Really? Under the age of majority? Can't have that... Kidding. :) The user seems to know what he is doing, always seems polite. Don't see any problem with him getting the mop. Hi878 (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose after seeing deleted edit summary. Hi878 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

5. Normal support - a teenager can be very addicted to Wikipedia. So let him/her addicted to this Wikipedia.  Kenrick  Talk 08:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   ...seriously? I do hope this is a joke.  f o x  08:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

6. Weak support. Concerned about this editor's maturity levels, but that kind of thing usually improves with time. Nonetheless I'd counsel the candidate to avoid such odd edits as the ones that have been linked in this and the oppose section. With respect to the concerns about opportunistic timing: hardly an issue. RfA used to receive a burst of nominations precisely because there were no candidates. Shall we just write off those requests because they were opportunistic? Honest answer to Q3 too. I'd like more experience but I think Unionhawk is good enough for the tools. AGK 10:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Support More politeness would be nice, yes, because some of us are really sensitive, but I'm sure you would be a net positive as an administrator and that's all that matters to me. Besides, i'm sure you can control your use of edit summaries when you know that people are watching. —Soap— 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Whilst I've taken into consideration the many concerns (which are by no means trivial), I haven't seen any evidence that this editor would abuse the mop. Reviewing Unionhawk's contributions may show a few instances of a poor choice of words or an "attitude" - but really, intent, tone and attitude are impossible to determine through a a font on a computer screen. Unionhawk has demonstrated, overall, long-term positive contributions to the wellbeing of Wikipedia. In future, just think twice when choosing words and interacting with other editors - that's something I've too had to learn the hard way. --Pumpmeup 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - after looking more closely I see an intelligent and knowledgeable editor who can look at issues with reasonable neutrality. He has been less active of late, but not so much so that he has lost his grasp of policy; I have no concerns in that area after reviewing the answer to question 8. The flippant edit summaries are in a gray area between sardonic wit and sarcastic smackdown, but I'm pretty sure that he will err on the side of caution no matter which way this RfA goes - he gets it.--~TPW 17:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Support. I am confident that whether or not the RfA succeeds, the candidate will take everyone's comments below into account in his future editing. Realistically, though, it would probably be sensible to withdraw the current request, and seek adminship at a later time when you have a more recent record of active contributions and some distance from the loss of temper that is concerning the opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    Switching to oppose, based on low edit count the last few months, which I missed earlier.

    NYB beat me to it, so I'll add: this is a real support, not moral support, because the couple of problems pointed out were cases of saying the right thing using the wrong words, and I really expect based on the record that the candidate won't make this mistake again. Linking to WP:NOCLUE isn't helpful because it mentions "stupidity" right off the bat, but yes, it's helpful to point out that people assume bad intentions much more often than it's helpful to assume bad intentions. Regarding "fucking", with or without caps: my main objection to the word, and I'm surprised that I get so little support for this on Wikipedia because it goes without saying elsewhere, is that it's sexist, or functions in a sexist way. A workplace where the guys are spitting and making casual sexual references and cussing is considered by a lot of women to be a "boy's club", and alienating women when only about 15% of our most active editors are women is not productive. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

11. Weak Support Recent editing activity is below what id like, however; i can go +1 on this based on the editors past (but input of mine is to be considered weak and borderline neutral in this particular case). Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Support I'm just saying that people are capable of learning from their mistakes and regardless of whether he may have lost his temper in the past, I trust him enough to not do it again, especially considering that he had practically nothing else wrong that I can see. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Seems alright to me. I've seen the edit summaries above and the LA one seems tongue in cheek so I'll forgive the f word. My main concern is the editor's age and I share some of the concerns expressed regarding not having reached the 'age of majority in their jurisdiction' thing, but, as long as we don't have a policy reason to vote against young editors, I'm not going to use that as a reason to oppose. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Support The issues mentioned in the oppose section are just minor details, and what's done is done. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 22:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Weak Support - For A6 - at least he's being honest; at this point, I think he needs some good comments instead of pile-on opposes. ceranthor 23:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    Weak support I considered going neutral or even a weak oppose, but I do see some good new page patrol and anti-vandalism work. However, I have concerns about maturity, lack of content creation, and the fact that this users month counts indicate that he is not consistently active on Wikipedia. However, despite these concerns, I support. Immunize (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - User appears petulant. Sorry, but no. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose. User has not made significant contributions in 6 months. While that isn't an indicator of a problem, it's harder to tell if this position is sought for a trophy or because the user would make significant contributions. This contribution is not a good sign of maturity (at any age!) either. That's not to say the changes on RuneScape aren't appreciated. tedder (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Tedder -- is there any way non-admins can get the benefit of seeing your diff?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Useight commented on it too, and did a better job of linking to it and a response to it (see the support section). tedder (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Ahah. Just so. That's what I get for reading the Oppose section first. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Seems like he knows what he is doing, but having an edit summary like that, from only nine days ago... I don't think someone with that level of immaturity should get the mop. Hi878 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I admire Unionhawk's bravery and enthusiasmfor his selfnom. He's contributed to a lot of RfAs and he knows what he's got coming. At first view, a balance of allround participation although perhaps not enough on Wikipedia talk. Understands the need for edit summaries but tends to use the summaries as a substitute for article/user talk page comment. Very, very low on creations, which are mostly very short stubs, or even unreferenced articles. Low traffic on his talk page and an annoyingly monthly archiving of just one or two posts. 30% automated edits does not demonstrate a solid knowledge of policy and significantly reduces the real edit count. There's really no substitute for the kind of experience that can gained through making and discussing major contributions over a longer period of time, and more participation in Wiki talk and policy making. And that is what is needed here. He appears very polite, helpful, and civil. but it is marred by too many WP:BITE and snarky comments. Reading between the lines, I'm sure his intentions are good, but I'm opposing because I believe he can do just as much good work with the editing tools already at his disposal until he has more experience.--Kudpung (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Hey, Kudpung. Help me here ... a very polite, civil, bitey, snarky editor?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   The keyword is 'appears'. I was not contradicting myself; it depends on how many discussion posts are checked out to be representative of an editor's trend in communication.--Kudpung (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose Sorry I'm a big fan of Edit summary's ( my pet peeve ). You need to change your current habits on that issue. Mlpearc Pull My Chain Trib's 05:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, I'm a big fan of people finding a way to express themselves on Wikipedia using words other than F**K. There are lots of other good words in my dictionary that haven't been worn out yet. And yep -- it's against policy. Wouldn't want someone walking around w/a mop, flinging that word about. This isn't San Quentin. We just lost a sysop for his use of the word; can't see making one who already exhibits that tendency.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   We did? If so, that's absolutely ludicrous. There is no policy against swearing, unless of course it's directed.  f o x  08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Incivility includes rudeness. The "directed at" language does not purport to reflect the only instance in which profanity is a problem - it describes where a single act of incivility can cross the line if it is severe enough. And yes -- Tan was just de-sysopped for doing a San Quentin jail guard imitation.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

7. Oppose: Deleted edit summary, but also misjudgement of launching an RfA just before a deadline in RL. Timing seems opportunistic, but unfortunately not appropriate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Per Stephen B Streater. The timing is indeed regrettable. Use this time to focus on APUSH ;) -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
9. I don't think the user's maturity quite reaches the threshold for adminship quite yet.  f o x  08:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - I think everyone above me recognizes too that the "edit summary" issue is a red herring. Nothing wrong with it, and even if there was, it's not a reason to oppose. The reason to oppose is a lack of maturity, lack of content creation, lack of non-automated edits (around 2,500), and other ethereal qualities. But don't blame it on a single "mistake" (that I don't think was one). Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    For the record: I count 5800 non-automated edits. --Pgallert (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

    Good point. Thank you for pointing out my error. Shadowjams (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

11. Weak oppose, primarily because of the fairly low level of activity in the last 6 months. Nsk92 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
12. The good things I said about the candidate in the support section stand, but I'm switching to oppose over the low activity over the last 6 months, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose You don't meet my minimum criteria. I'm also concerned about the sporadic activity levels. I'd like to think that someone who gets the tools would be someone who's already online quite a bit and doesn't drop off for months at a time. Also edit summary, because it's pretty much required to do any serious editing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose I do not feel we should be having teenage administrators, as I feel that they cannot handle the responsibility. I also have major concerns about lack of content contributions, irregular month counts. Immunize (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose: It’s all about the right kind of experience and you don’t have it yet. You said I would work with deletion yet you’ve only created 4 new articles in your entire WP experience. Three of those are still stubs and one has been tagged for notability and references for a year here. Yet, you believe you are qualified to delete other editor’s work when you haven’t proven you even know how to create a quality WP article. Frankly you've have not demonstrated through content creation that you understand how WP works and will give new editors the benefit of the doubt when judging their early creations. An admin’s role is part of the quality improvement cycle of the encyclopedia and that role is far more encompassing than merely deleting stuff. This may seem harsh, but I suspect you are reacting to these comments exactly the way many new editors react when their first article is nominated for deletion immediately after they’ve created it. Sustain your passion for WP, but spend some serious time creating serious content.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

    In my defense, a lot of articles that I could be remotely qualified to start have already been created... Seemed a tad harsh, but comparing it to a newcomer getting their article deleted really put it into perspective... I had honestly never thought of it that way... but I guess you're right, the best way to understand deletion is to understand creation... I will keep that in mind.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Good number of Deleted Contributions, however, only 71 reports at AIV and only 13 to UAA. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   I might be reading you wrongly here, but deletionism is not the main criteria for being an admin. Also, a lot, really a lot, of combatting vandalism can be done without having to get noticed and get a medal for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose' - I admire Unionhawk's bravery for his selfnom. He's contributed to a lot of RfAs and he knows what he's got coming. At first view, a balance of allround participation although perhaps not enough on Wikipedia talk. Understands the need for edit summaries but tends to use the summaries as a substitute for article/user talk page comment. Very, very low on creations, which are mostly very short stubs, or even unreferenced articles. Low traffic on his talk page and an annoyingly monthly archiving of just one or two posts, but always, it appears, very polite, helpful, and civil. 30% automated edits does not demonstrate a solid knowledge of policy and significantly reduces the real edit count. There's really no substitute for the kind of experience that can gained through making and discussing major contributions over a longer period of time, and participating in RfC and policy making. And that is what is needed here. Reading between the lines I'm sure his intentions are good, but I'm staying neutral for the moment because I believe he can do just as much good work with the editing tools already at his disposal. --Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I can't support at this time due to the deleted edit summary. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral Has clue, sure, and knows policies. I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about temperament. Probably one of the most important qualities in an administrator is patience (one several of our current ones could use a little more of). All administrators are going to get into stressful situations, especially those where the party on the other end either doesn't get it or refuses to get it. I've been an admin for, what, two weeks now? And it's already happened to me several times. However, in dealing with those people, sudden loss of patience like this and this is only going to escalate a situation. I realize that whole situation was stupid, and I agree a namechange was best for everyone, but the manner in which it was dealt with I am not entirely satisfied with. I find that to be of utmost importance in an administrator, and for that reason right now I can't support. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
4. neutral– Cluefulness and contribs are mostly fine, so I don't feel that I can oppose based on tact alone. But even this RfA itself gives me a feeling that it was put together with a "what the hell, I'll just wing it" attitude. (Which works fine for me in real life... but is not reassuring in a position that requires a high level of prudence. That said, it was a very brave self-nom.) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral Good number of edits, but I can't support the edit summaries. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral at this time. Edit summary issue is an understandable concern, but not sufficient for an oppose. Launching an RfA half-cocked is something I did myself, so I at least understand why. Contribution history is filled with a lot of good stuff and some snarkiness, which is concerning, but I suspect is more about sense of humor than meanness - but the recent contribution history isn't sufficient for me to be clear. If not now, then please try again in a few months.--~TPW 10:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

6. Neutral - Good initiative, but a bit quick on the trigger. Bold isn't necessarily bad, but I'm honestly not seeing enough to back that boldness. --Alan (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral − I'm stuck between Pumpmeup in the support section and Shadowjams in the oppose group. Wholeheartedly agree to both and am therefore neutral. Generally though my requirement is met, so I'll be happy to support in three months' time.--Pgallert (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC
8. Neutral leaning support per Sonia. The careless attitude is a bit too much of the 'no big deal' for me. You should not be running with your main reason being that there are no current nominations. ^Pepper∙_piggle 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral - I love his/her edit count but i cannot support right now due to the edit summary. Dwayne was here! ^♫ 20:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral. A brave self-nomination, and many useful contributions. However the edit summary is a little concerning. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral I see a young and energetic editor who is not quite ready for the mop. Not willing to pile on in the oppose category. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:43, 11 May 2010 (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.