Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chrishomingtang

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

Final (8/16/5); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrishomingtang (talk · contribs) - This user has been in Wikipedia since January 2005, and has contributed to many articles, mainly NBA and San Francisco-related articles. And not only that, he is a very good 3RR enforcer, telling out people not to violate their 3RR or they get blocked. I think he will be a good administrator in the English Wikipedia. So, ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Chris! -Goodshoped 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks User:Goodshoped35110s. I humbly accept this nomination.

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: As an Admin, I wish to take part in various Wikipedia processes, namely the WP:AFD, WP:AIV and WP:AN/I. I have already afd some article for deletion, participated in discussion or !vote for afd, reverted many vandalism and warned users for their disruptive behavior, etc. I think i can do more if I am an admin.

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

A: I can't really think of one because I have edited so many articles. But if I have to choose one, then that is Islais Creek since this was the first article that I created and really took the time to improve it. I also consider many of edits on NBA and SFBA some my best contributions since I work hard to improve articles and at time work with others to fix problems.

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: Yes, I have been in conflicts with several users on editing issues before. Even so, these conflicts never caused me any stress. I guess I am not a confrontational person. If I ever get into a heated argument, I assume good faith and try to ignore any inflammatory comments or personal attack by others. If I am the one who made these comment, then I apologize at their talk page. If I can't resolve the problem, then I ask for others to comment or make some suggestions. If I still can't resolve the problem, then I try to bring it to WP:ANI or even the mediation or arbitration. I never really got to that level. Well, I did participate in a request for mediation, until recently. I mean, I will just follow the dispute resolution procedure lay out by Wikipedia.

4. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith ^T/C 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, I want to Wikipedia to become a better source of knowledge for everyone in the world. That is, students can use it to help them learn just about everything, teachers and schools can use it as a resource and aid their teaching, and researchers or people writing academic papers can conduct their research here.Chris! _ct 07:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from WinHunter

5. As you have mentioned WP:AIV in Q1 but have only 5 edits to that since September. I am wondering how you decide if an editor should be blocked and the length of the block? --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. I think an editor should given a short block, if it is the first time he/she violates a policy repeatedly after being warned. A long block should be given if the same editor after being unblock still violates a policy repeatedly. That is the basic rule that I would follow. But in some cases, it really depends on the situation. A block is really the last resort. I would try discussion or warning first before consider blocking.

Optional question from User:dlohcierekim.

6. I was recently granted adminship. An essay I have particularly found useful as I adapt to my new role is WP:DGAF. Please read and critique this essay, stating how you feel about it. Please be as thorough and thoughtful in your response as possible. Dlohcierekim 17:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. The essay is a good one because it teaches or remind editors to stay cool in an argument, which is basically another essay of WP:AGF. Redirect editors who involve in a heated argument to this essay can defuse the hostile situation, which is beneficial to Wikipedia in the end.

Optional question from Hdt83

7. With regards to what you know about policy, how do you interpret WP:IAR? --Hdt83 ^Chat 23:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.

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

• Links for Chrishomingtang: Chrishomingtang (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

• Could you please elaborate on your answers to the questions, especially question #3? Just like in English essays, "show not tell." Adding more to your answers helps others in better evaluating your fitness for adminship, as terseness and shortness of answers often means that you don't have much to talk about. Just a friendly note... —Kurykh 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Chris! _ct 02:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris, could you please provide some diffs to accompany your answers to questions 1-3? It's completely optional, but as Kurykh is saying, it would provide evidence that you're capable of understanding process and are experienced at keeping cool during conflict. Also, could you be more specific about what you mean in the answer to question 1 when you say that you could "do more" as an admin? To put the question another way, how would adminship improve your contributions to Wikipedia? Thanks. Tijuana Brass 07:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nom. -Goodshoped 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, seems to be a safe pair of hands. Lankiveil 02:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
4. Support: Great editor. No reason not to support. - Rjd0060 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support A good editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Exellent editor who will help with administrative tasks. However, edit summary usage can be increased. Marlith ^T/C 04:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   He's right. -Goodshoped 04:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy and helpful and has authored some quality articles. Majoreditor 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. The two current opposes seem too ridiculous for me not to support ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And may I ask what's so ridiculous about it? --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   They seem to me to be nitpicking. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is unnecessarily bitey, and "because they are policies, there are no way around it" shows a lack of discretion when enforcing policy. The warning of 3RR was also bad judgement as you are an involved party in the edit war, also violating 3RR on Golden State Warriors. From my point of view, the editor is just trying to help but with misguided intentions, so an explanation might be more helpful than to warn the editor repeatedly. I also find nominating this page for deletion to be bad judgement, and, as Kim Bruning pointed out, a wrong process. There's also some incivility and bad faith shown here, which I am uncomfortable with. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, behavior at Talk:Premier_of_the_Republic_of_China shows a lack of understanding of WP:V ("There is no need for source. It is obvious to see that more non Asian English speakers recognize ROC than those recognize EY"), as well as a stubbornness that I would not like in an administrator. ("Whatever you say. I will continue to oppose the move.") --D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you feel that the first two diffs you provided are an accurate representation of this candidate's demeanor? I agree that both were worded poorly, but one is from August and the other October - if two irritated sounding comments are the worst he's got over a period of several months, that's not bad at all.

   Regarding the discussion from the Premier page, looking over it, Chris appears to be making a point in discussion rather than trying to reference an academic source, so WP:V shouldn't be applied here. I agree with the common sense argument that he was trying to make: that English speakers would recognize the term "Republic of China" more often than "Executive Yuan" when referring to Taiwan. Do you have other evidence demonstrating that he truly misunderstands WP:V? Tijuana Brass 05:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't disagree with him that Republic of China will be easier for people to recognize. But does Chris speak this for the entire English speaking population or himself? Proof is needed to show his assertion. Without reliable sources backing this, it is ridiculous and untrue to assume that the entire population reflect your way of thinking. A person might think something's true based on his/her personal experience, but OR is unacceptable on Wikipedia and needs the backing of a reliable source. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not intend to speak for the entire English speaking population. I think you misunderstood my intension. I am merely pointing out this possible problem to the other editor. As for source backing up my statement, frankly, I don't have any because it is an opinion. Sadly, nobody comment on it or even take that into consideration. And to respond to your other questions, I admit that I was a little bitey on the issue. But for vandalism policy, that is really no way around it. I can't think of a bad reason to point out the obvious. As for 3RR, I am just reverting a link spam, a form of vandalism, I believe. According to 3RR, reverting vandalism is an exception to the policy. Does this answer your concern? I hope it did. All I can say is that I made mistakes sometime. And I hope those mistakes won't cost me this rfa. Thanks. Chris! _ct 07:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Any edit that is done in good faith, and with the intention of helping the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Misguided yes, vandalism no. On the point of spam, a level of discretion is required. Can the link to the blog be really classified as spam? Spam is classified as "external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product". Taking a look at the contributions of the editor, he doesn't seem to be promoting his blog. As shown here, the editor asked for an admin's advice on what to do in this situation. Would a spammer be doing this? Did the editor add the external link after Daniel Case asked him not to? In my opinion, the editor is trying to add information in the form of a blog. It isn't reliable, but the source is far from spam. The behavior of the editor should be regarded in the future before classifying the links as spam. In the end, although the editor is still misguided a bit, he does seem to want to be a editor in good faith, not a spammer. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Questions are very weak, very focused in a few pet areas with little apparent exposure elsewhere, and about 25% of his edits are left without edit summaries. Somebody who is so into vandal fighting should know that edit summaries are very helpful. Failure to have one means that people are undoubtably checking his edits to see if they are vandalism or not.Balloonman 06:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not quite sure what you mean by me not using an edit summary when reverting vandalism. Because there is the Reverting vandalism button on the diff page. So, that should have generate an automatic edit summary saying something like "undoing ... vandalism." Am I supposed to add more comments of my own? I don't know the answer to that question. But anyway, from now I will make sure that I have an edit summary for every revert. Thanks for your comment. Chris! _ct 07:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What Balloonman meant is [1] [2] & [3], your edits without edit summary makes other people doing vandal fighting having a harder time. --WinHunter ^(talk) 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose per DarkFalls, the candidates' replies to DarkFalls, and m:Talk:Don't be a dick#Proposal to rename article. My impressions of this candidate prior to this debate leaves me of the opinion that I don't trust this users' judgement and ability to act and interact with the appropriate decorum, subtlety and rational application of the facts at a sufficient level for me to support this nomination. Sorry, Daniel 11:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - mainly per Daniel, and the answers to questions aren't sufficient enough for me to show that the user has a good understanding of Wiki policies. — Rudget _{contributions} 11:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose – I agree with Daniel and the “Don’t be a dick” renaming proposal. An administrator needs to be objective, even if it offends her/him personally. Because of this persons prior actions with said controversy, I can not honestly say that I could support this person. The answer to Q1 “I think I can do more if I am an admin”, lends me to believe this person would not be able to make good decisions or would question their own actions. Also DarkFalls makes excellent points about this person asserting their personal views (again as can be seen in the renaming proposal). Oppose lacks maturity. --Jeanenawhitney 12:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose Move to Neutral. I look forward to supporting in the future, but nom needs to slow down a little and be more open minded. "That's the way it is" just comes across as too harsh. We need to try to educate those who don't know as much as we do. " Maintaining the collegial atmosphere requires patience. I also would have liked clearer, less disjointed answers to the questions, but I believe the nom is heading in the right direction. Is developing experience in the admin tool areas and is building articles. Just needs a little seasoning in the interpersonal interactions. Also, if the nom has not already done so, clicking his user preferences to require filling out the edit summary before saving will be helpful. Dlohcierekim 14:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose. Poor usage of edit summary. A little harsh and may become a fast blocker upon becoming an admin. Also needs a little more experience in the projectspace than 480 edits. Sorry, an good luck despite my opinion, Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sorry, no. There is an abundance of good and obvious reasons. I find Daniel's comment the most convincing (and very politely worded!), I would have summarised roughly the same as a "feeling of doesn't-get-it" and immaturity. To that respect, the proposed renaming of WP:DICK to "something nicer" is actually the most worrying to me. Wikipedia is not censored, and a dick is a dick is a spade, period. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:44, December 2, 2007
8. Oppose I don't see enough experience in admin related areas. Plus, you need to user your edit summaries more. Consider going into your preferences, click on editing, and check the last box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Icestorm815 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose My (observational, not direct) experiences with and perceptions of the candidate track roughly with those of Daniel (as well summarized by Dorftrottel), but I refrained from opposing straightaway because, having come to this RfA when it was being supported overwhelmingly, including by a few editors whose RfA guidelines seem generally to be rather similar to mine, I imagined that I ought to give more than a cursory look, lest I should miss something particularly redeeming; after further review, though, I don't find anything to suggest that my initial assessment was all that wrong. Joe 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I admit that my interpersonal communication skill is not good. I will try to improve myself in that area. But I read that a number of editors are opposing based partly upon on editing summary. And that prompt me to ask this question. Is editing summary mandatory for every edits? I mean when I edit I do not use editing summary unless I needed to. Chris! _ct 19:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Chris. Yes, edit summary use is considered important by many. Just click the tab under "preferences" to set it so you can't save w/o the edit sumary. Cheers19:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

   Done already. Thanks. Chris! _ct 20:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, I personally don't consider edit summaries (or lack thereof) a reason to oppose by itself, and I hope others don't either - this is because it can be easily remedied through Special:Preferences. Daniel 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Strong oppose. I was worried about the answer regarding AIV. The user did not seem to understand the warning process. Looking through the contributions to AIV, I find that the user does not. Three of his last four reports to AIV did not result in blocks, troublesome considering he only have five recent reports. In the case of all three delisting his reports the reasoning of only one edit and old warnings were given. The diffs can be found at [4] [5][6]. As such, I can not trust the user with the tools, other concerns raised above aside. SorryGuy 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per Jake (SorryGuy). Needs to improve the warning process. NHRHS2010 talk 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose as per DarkFalls and SorryGuy. Some improvement is needed, methinks. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Edit summaries and lack of understanding of their utility. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - Good editor overall but lack understanding of admin tools per Q5 answer. Would support in the future if candidate shows more understanding. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. I think several things here add up to a larger problem of inexperience in some important areas. I would suggest you consider withdrawing and coming back in about three months or so having worked on the areas noted. - JodyB _talk 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Sorry, not ready yet. Johnbod 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. He seems experienced enough in admin related areas, but I think he needs to get more used to leaving edit summaries. Epbr123 10:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moved to neutral. Nom has received sufficient feedback that surely will heed the advice. I look forward to supporting in the future, but nom needs to slow down a little and be more open minded. "That's the way it is" just comes across as too harsh. We need to try to educate those who don't know as much as we do. " Maintaining the collegial atmosphere requires patience. I also would have liked clearer, less disjointed answers to the questions, but I believe the nom is heading in the right direction. Is developing experience in the admin tool areas and is building articles. Just needs a little seasoning in the interpersonal interactions. Also, if the nom has not already done so, clicking his user preferences to require filling out the edit summary before saving will be helpful. Dlohcierekim 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral I see some great things in some areas, but I cannot support after reading through the opposing comments. Best of luck! Jmlk17 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral I don't think the fact that he's sometimes a bit sharp with other editors is necessarily important since it doesn't seem over the top. However, I'm staying neutral due to the weak answers given to the questions. --Strothra 22:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral - Some of the questions lack detail. Only 50% of the last 150 Major and 150 Minor Edits have Summaries. Otherwise, a good Editor. PookeyMaster 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[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.