Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HyperSonicBoom 2


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

HyperSonicBoom
[ Voice your opinion] (talk page) '''Final (0/11/1); Closed 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC) per WP:SNOW and the attacks being made on other users. Nick 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)'''

- I've been a user at Wikipedia for almost 2 years now (including before I registered) and I really like to help this encyclopedia. I recently have been reverting lots of vandalism, and I actually enjoy having to deal with it, oddly. I really have to hand it to Lupin for that great tool. Now, I would like to be an administrator. Hyper Sonic  Boom  18:35, 12 October 2007 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to take part in blocking all of the blatant vandals out there and continue my work as a vandal fighter, but I would also like to help other users out in big situations. I would also like to help out with other things, too, like page protection.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are vandalism reverts. I've been reverting a lot lately and I will even be reverting whether I succeed as an admin or not. I also like to contribute normally - I'm really smart and I can add to the encyclopedia.


 * 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: There's one admin in particular that caused me trouble 8 months ago and I left Wikipedia for half a year as a result. However, I'm just going to ignore these future conflicts or deal with them in a necessary way.

Optional question from Wikidudeman
Why do you continue to claim that User:Wizardman is a vandal for blocking your for a 3rr violation?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I was using fair use images, Wizardman tore through my hosted userboxes and vandalized them, then blocked me for 3RR, which is the dumbest croc I've ever heard of because I wasn't flooding or vandalizing, and he blocked me. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So do you still believe that User:Wizardman is a Vandal or was a Vandal for doing what he did?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blatant vandal. That's all I see him as. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not WP:AGF?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh. He's a blatant vandal who blocked me when I never vandalized anything. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He blocked you for violation of the WP:3RR rule, not for vandalism. You should WP:AGF as far as his intentions go, not call him names. Perhaps he was right in blocking you and you were wrong? Is that possible?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See HyperSonicBoom's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for HyperSonicBoom:

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

Discussion

 * Question Why did you make your vote count 12/10/2007? see . I think you confused it with today's date.Rlevse 18:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops. I thought that was the date. Change it if you want. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  19:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All opposing users: You are clearly failing to notice that all of my namespace contributions this week were to revert vandalism. You are also failing to understand that the other RFA was 8 months ago, doesn't matter now, does it? Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. You've made a dozen or so vandalism reverts in the past few days but that doesn't mean you have vandalism fighting experience. I see no reports to AIV or any other noticeboards. The fact that your previous RFA was 8 months ago doesn't nullify the fact that you still seem to have the same attitudes, I.E. blaming an admin for blocking you for 3rr and calling him a "vandal".  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake. How do I get it through anybody's head?! My block and my last RFA were 9 months ago. How is that possibly supposed to pertain to now? Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't much since then to judge you against. --Kbdank71 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Kdbank71 is correct. Most of us however are judging your overall contributions.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You still say the admin was wrong for blocking you for 3RR/edit warring over the readdition fair use images/incivility. It doesn't matter how long ago it happened as long as you still refuse to admit your own mistakes.  Melsaran  (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not really an advisable thing to do during an RFA. This process is meant for the community to evaluate you as an editor to see whether you are a suitable for being an administrator, and rallying for "votes" is discouraged.  Melsaran  (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * RFA isn't even a vote to begin with. It's supposed to be a discussion.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Sorry, but I cannot support someone who has a mainspace edit count of 101 and a Wikipedia namespace edit count of just 32. That shows me that you lack experience in both editing and in sysop-related discussions and that it seems you have not learn much from your previous RfA. nattan g 19:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose  east .  718  at 19:28, 10/12/2007
 * That's precisely the conflict with the admin that I mentioned, but that was 7 months ago, there was really no reason to put that. 24.121.73.22 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (HyperSonicBoom, not logged in)
 * 1) Oppose - 6 months of mostly low editing. Need to gain some additional experience. As far as the above posted diff, that was quite a while ago.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those 6 months? I was gone from Wikipedia, and it was the fault of the admin who was in the link that east718 gave. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "The fault of the admin"? If you really want to blame something, blame the 3-revert-rule. If Wizardman hasn't blocked you, someone else undoubtedly would. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose but I don't believe you're ready. You haven't edited that many articles, the one article that you have edited most is Vmigo and you've only edited that 10 times. You have no experience with AIV, Usernames for administrator attention, Deletion debates, Policy discussions, or anything much else for that matter. Records show that you've only made 3 edits to any Wikipedia talk page and the vast majority of your edits have been made to your own userpage. You also tend to rarely use edit summaries and seemed to have disappeared after your previously failed request for adminship, which shows that you don't take rejection very well. I see no evidence of article creation ability, Collaboration ability, No evidence of Featured articles you helped created, or even Good Articles. I see little to no evidence of vandalism fighting either. While I generally don't believe that actual edit count can determine admin ability, your edit count is less than 700 and most of them have been on your user or talk page and hardly any have been used to improve articles or fight vandalism or anything else. I would suggest all of the above be worked on for improvments. Good luck, perhaps next time.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that I didn't revert vandalism? You must be blind. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No sir, I was looking at your actual log. Those instance of vandalism seem to have occurred in the few past day or so, and I see only a few instances of vandal fighting and no AIV activity.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per East and hoax markups aren't helpful or funny really, especially on an admin account. Dureo 20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a harmless prank. What's wrong with that? Have you seen this prank? No harm. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: Looking at this editor's userpage, I'm instantly struck by a fake (or prank) "You have new messages" toolbar, this is not something any administrator should have on their userpages when there is a strong change of editors being left confused by such a prank. I then followed through the link to your talk page and looking back through the history, I see evidence of behaviour that is completely inconsistent with that expected of an administrator, and I see no real history of this behaviour being firmly put behind the editor in question. I'm also noticing a refusal to accept that this editor was in the wrong at the time of their block and I'm disappointed that have decided to attack the administrator in question above rather than show the maturity to accept they were in the wrong, have learned from their mistakes and can now be trusted. A refusal to comply with core policies such as our 3RR policy and our non free image policy are hugely serious problems and they need to be fully rectified, the first step is accepting wrongdoing, and if you can't do something as simple as that, there's no reason you should be trusted not to edit and wheel war if promoted. I'm seeing a lack of editing in the key namespaces, I can't find any image work at all and am unable to determine if this user knows anything about image policy at all, basically. In light of the maturity concerns and lack of evidence you would be able to use the tools correctly, I'm regretfully unable to Support at this time. Nick 20:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry, but there is barely anything to point toward you being ready for the sysop tools or pressures. Indeed, your mistake over the tally and the date and your response to Q.3 clearly indicates that you still have much to do to address these issues. The only positive is your clear enthusiasm for the role - all you have to do is improve everything else. LessHeard vanU 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I'm not comfortable with your attitude, either here or in dealings with others elsewhere, especially with regards to your block.  --Kbdank71 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) (edit conflict) Oppose. It is true you do revert vandalism, and you do get style points for having Sonic in your name, but you don't have enough overall experience yet.  Very rarely does an user become an admin with fewer than 2000 edits.  It's not editcountitis, but enough time is required to give evidence of experience.  Edit summary usage is also not great, these summaries are very helpful to understand what an editor was doing.  Your comment above, "you must be blind" is also not very encouraging, since it sounds kind of bitey.  The mistake with the tally is not a big deal, since the RFA process doesn't really explain what it's for, anyway.  I recommend taking some more time to gain experience, especially in admin-like areas, one of my favorites is WP:AFD, in order to gain a good handle on policies and procedures.  If you ever have any questions, I'm always available on my talk page.  Useight 20:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongest Oppose: I doubt I can ever trust you after my original experience with you, unfortunately. Though you're at least starting to contribute positively to wikipedia, there's that. Wizardman  20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, I'm the admin in question that he "had trouble" with, but he was violating guidelines, it's a shame that he still thinks he was in the right. Wizardman  20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Stay out of this, jerk. I don't care if you're an admin or not, I am still mad at you for vandalizing my userpage, whether I was using fair use images or not. I'm also still ready to tell Mr. Wales that you don't deserve to be an administrator for your vandal actions. Hyper  Sonic  Boom  20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Insults and threats really aren't the best way to solve disagreements.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else to say, HSB. You can ask Jimbo about our fair use policy at WP:NFCC, and for his opinion on the matter. Note that you're violating another policy now in WP:CIVIL. Wizardman  20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I was initially going to stay out of this since I don't like piling on, but the above comment was grossly unacceptable. Apparently, you have learned nothing from your last RFA. Disappointing.  Melsaran  (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to help out but you may want to wait until you've put in some more experience and become more active with the project. I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination (it will not pass), getting actively involved and trying again in a few months.  It might be a good idea to find a wikiproject you'd enjoy and make some more contributions that way, and by all means, keep doing what you can to help revert vandalism in the meantime! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but I fight vandalism a lot and I don't know why nobody is supporting me. I'm not going to withdraw just yet (if I do withdraw), though. 24.121.73.22 19:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (HyperSB)
 * The above 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.