Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoppyh


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

Hoppyh
Final (0/6/3); ended 08:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC) - Per WP:NOTNOW L0URDES  08:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination
– YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Hoppyh (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * self-nom Hoppyh (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2018 (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 recognize that the admin role has a learning curve. I am comfortable working on menial issues as well as being able to participate with good writing in controversial areas. I would like to begin as an admin by addressing backlogs of a less complicated nature—for example, articles with dead external links or articles with unsourced statements. WP has offered me a much appreciated platform for writing and I will enjoy the opportunity to give back, in the area of backlogs.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: We were able to obtain promotion of Abraham Lincoln to good article – a controversial and high profile subject which required a lot of work by willing collaborators. I also enjoyed expanding George Tucker (politician) from a stub to an FA. As often is the case, the subject gets the credit for creation of a great article as much as the editor. It is gratifying to improve the quality of resources for those interested in our nation’s leaders as well as other subjects.


 * 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: The United States presidents tend to be magnets of editorial passion. I have been able to deal with the edit combat constructively for the most part. I have had a couple of occasions where I’ve violated 3RR but I believe I have learned from them. One rule for dealing with stressful situations is the acronym “HALT”—hungry, angry, lonely, or tired?—put the problem aside and come back later.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.


 * Additional question from Power~enwiki
 * 4. To expand on your response to #1: do you plan to delete pages; block users, protect pages; and/or edit fully-protected pages?
 * A:


 * Additional question from TheSandDoctor
 * 1. As was mentioned by Kudpung below, this (self) nomination appears to be lacking a rationale. Was this accidentally transcluded early or do you not plan to include a rationale?
 * A:


 * Additional question from Hhhhhkohhhhh
 * 6. Why don't you write descrption?!
 * A:

Discussion

 * Links for Hoppyh:
 * Edit summary usage for Hoppyh can be found here.

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

Oppose

 * 1) No (self)nomination rationale. Is this transclusion complete? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) I expect someone who self-noms to spell out a case for why they need the tools, which is stronger than my standard criteria. It’s what we expect of the unbundled rights, so we should expect as much at an RfA self-nom. Per Kudpung, that standard hasn’t been met. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per above and no activity in AfD or any other maintenance boards. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  06:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Appears to not be able to perform simple Wikipedia tasks such as completing an RfA nomination properly without needing to ask for help. If something that simple is a struggle then I don't see how the tasks of an administrator, which requires care and attentiveness, could be performed by the candidate without difficulties. King And God  06:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose No description given and inexperienced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose -Inexperienced. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral This obviously doesn't fit the standard profile of a successful RfA candidate, but the editor has a long track record of content creation.  I feel I must give the candidate a chance to respond to the various concerns (or to withdraw) before I oppose. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral The nominee does not appear well prepared. My friendly suggestion is to consider withdrawing and possibly trying again after more thorough preparation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I will update my rationale after 10-12 hours from now. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

General comments

 * Now that I have done a more in-depth research, I concur that  while the content  work  is certainly not  without  merit, there is absolutely  no maintenance work that can demonstrate the required level of judgement or a need for the admin tools. There is also  an issue of a self-awarded barnstar. I  do  not  believe that  the candidate has read any  of the advice pages, such  as WP:RFAADVICE, or the caveats met while attempting the transclusion before attempting this RfA. Perhaps this RfA can be closed early. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kudpung. It may well be demoralizing to a good content creator to hear an outpouring of "opposes". Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:51, 22 April 2018 (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.