Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hbdragon88

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

Final (51/1/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing since January 2005 and my primary interests are video games, specific novel series, and other topics that I, for some reason, come up with and happen to read up on Wikipedia. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 mostly plan to hang around CAT:CSD and Special:Newpages, since that is where I have worked the most. I have had conflicts in the past, so I am making a CSD Pledge: if there is any context whatsoever on an article I think is an A7 candidate, I will prod instead and leave the speedy tag on for another administrator to review. I will also only tag and not touch G11 articles, as I seem to have a too-broad definition of what "promotional" means.

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

A: My best article to date has been Duke Nukem Forever, currently a WP:GA. I've also reworked plot summaries for fictional articles and video games, adding context for readers unfamiliar with the world and expanding where it is not comprehensive, such as that for Taichi Kamiya, Kari Kamiya, Pokémon Colosseum, and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen. I also have a tendency to merge articles, and created most of the newer character articles for the Ender's Game series (Fig 1, Fig 2, and a ton of merger work for Fig 3). Most recently I've been adding reception information to articles like Blender Bros., Time Crisis: Project Titan, and Flash Focus. For the former, I consider them to be my best because they make the articles comprehensive and/or better abide to WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT, for the latter, it also follows WP:NOT#PLOT better.

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: If I am in a conflict with someone, and they revert, I usually fall back, usually leave it at their version, and discuss it on the talk page, solicitng either a WP:THIRD ro to the WikiProject that the article falls under for further input. I may also ask questions at the user talk page to notify them of the WikiProject notice or for clarification for why he or she did reverted me.

Followup Q The stress will get worse once you are an admin, so could you please list whatever examples have caused you the most difficulty, so we have some idea how you are likely to handle this.DGG (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent examples of conflicts include Jigsaw Killer, World War Z, and a relatively minor one on the List of Ace Attorney characters page. In the first two examples I posted the conflict on the WP:THIRD page, and they either agreed or disagreed.

Probably the most difficult conflict was on Need for Speed: ProStreet (back then titled Need for Speed 11), whewre I got into an argument over how much speculative information to trim and what was considered a reliable source (Fig 1). After a couple of reverts, I and discussed the issue on the talk page and left it at his version until he came back (gone from 4 March to 16 March). It was settled at WP:THIRD.

Another conflict was on GameFAQs on whether to include spinoffs or not. I was discussing it on the talk page (Fig 2), and I began edit warring only when the other party had not responded after a week after a posting to his user talk page [1]. This time, the THIRD agreed with RockMFR, and I respected the consensus and helped out in reverting since it is a recurring joke among anonymous uers to either remove the spinoffs bit or say that the spinoff doesn't exist. hbdragon88 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 Is there a reason you don't have a user page? Its frowned on for admins not to have a page and pretty unfriendly for new users who might be coming to you to raise a concern or ask for help.

A: I just never had it restored after I left for a week in April 2007. I still have it at User:Hbdragon88/userpage (the purpose was so that I could move it back without admin intervention). One Night in Hackney and Jeffrey O. Gustfason also lack user pages as well. With the new default signature adding a link to the user talk page, I think that new users can locate me without trouble. 03:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ONIH isn't an admin and Jeff has recently been subject to an arbcom case - I hope you won't be modelling your admin behaviour on him. At the very least will you do a redirect to your talk page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't? Huh. No, I'm just emulating his red userpage, nothing more. (And possibly a Shazam! moment.) But, it's been almost eight months...I guess I can recreate my userpage. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. I have already supported your Request with pleasure, but I'd still be interested in your response. Administrators are often subjected to enquiries from inexperienced, confused and often angry users, who are often fond of citing you deleted my article. Do you think you have the necessary skills to interact with these users? Can you give examples? What can an Administrator do to maximise the likelihood of a user understanding your response? Anthøny 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained to Magmagirl what our polciy was regarding fair use images and suggested contacting the copyright holder [[2]. I also responded to a copyright violation [3] [4] by explaining what kinds of cut-and-pasted text we could accept. When Evitavired queried about a page that I had tagged for speedy deletion [5], I responded by telling him how we could accept his text [6] hbdragon88 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See Hbdragon88's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Hbdragon88: Hbdragon88 (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/Hbdragon88 before commenting.

• Can you create at least an redirect of your userpage linking to your talk page, as leaving your userpage redlinked is frowned at This is a Secret ^account 21:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G would be something to look at? I have no problem with a lack of userpage. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or mine? Maxim 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, and give up the health benefits? Gracenotes^T § 01:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can make a list of articles you have created on your talk page in a template, like moi. Miranda 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan on deleting your page as soon as this is over? John Reaves 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, so I wasn't the only one with the idea. No, this is for real. I've been working on drafts of a new userpage for a few months, but was delaying it because I thought I might want to change my username, and didn't want the b'crat automatic "move page" thing to make it obvious what the new username was. I finally decided against the name change, and so here it is. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Anthøny 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. RFerreira (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - seems like a good user. Can find nothing to oppose with. Rudget.talk 12:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong support. All I see is good are great things. Good luck :-) —Qst 14:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support civil user, dealt with him several times before, excellent medication skills on video game related articles, which is one of least-underrated subjects there is on wikipedia. Would make a good admin This is a Secret ^account 20:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. I can trust you with the tools, and look forward to the benefits Wikipedia will recieve from your adminship. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Over 6000 mainspace edits and a regular editor no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Epbr123 (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support: No reason not to support this one. Good luck! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 06:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Keep it rollin'! Jmlk17 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Plenty of experience. Tiddly-Tom 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. support I appreciate the recognition that his view on some things (in this case , G11) is a little different from the consensus, and his clear statement of willingness not to use admin powers in that respect. DGG (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 22:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support good 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support MEH responsible and democratic. Does things sensibly, first user i actually ran into here. ætərnal ðrAعon 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Civil, explains himself clearly in discussion, trustworthy. — TKD::Talk 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - in my single instance of interaction with this user, he was very civil and responsible in what was a rather embarrasing situation, and earned my respect. Best of luck with the tools. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Seems good to me. John Reaves 06:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. 'Bout time, hm? :) ~ Riana ⁂ 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Meets my standards for edit count, etc. Knows how to fix an article per statement on User:Hbdragon88. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. I've interacted with hbdragon88 a number of times over an extended period, and have found him courteous and efficient. When he's been unsure of how something should go, he's asked first and this kind of treading carefully is useful in both new and established admins. Does plenty of article work, too. Plus, he had the good sense of humour to ask me to move Splash (disambiguation) to Splash. Splash - tk 17:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support NHRHS2010 talk 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Zaxem (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - hahnchen 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support no reason not to and too many good reasons already given above. , Dlohcierekim 23:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment- While Hbdragon88's dispute with Ssbohio is regrettable, I could find no evidence of similar problems in the recent past. I see in the answers above a willingness to step back from disputes and seek resolution from a neutral party. Hopefully, dragon has learned from this conflict from so long ago. States a knowledge of his limitations and a willingness to not act recklessly with the tools. , Dlohcierekim 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

34. Support - (ec) After discussing the situation with hbdragon88, I feel confident that he takes a different approach now than he did then. My concern was never with what happened in the past, but with the doubts it raised over future conduct. My doubts are gone. Hbdraon88's contributions to this project make me confident that he will wield the mop with distinction. --Ssbohio (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support having met my arbitary standards. Answer to optional Q5 and the diffs there was very good. Talk Page looks civil, I note the dispute highlighted below and that seems resolved. Certainly looks like the candidate will ask before acting if unsure, which is certainly good. Suggest the WP:NAS assuming this is succesful, and leaning on other admins or experienced editors if needed. But all in all, a pleasure to support. Pedro :  Chat  11:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Clearly a good user who can be trusted with the tools. Wryspy (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support haven't run across him/her but seems qualified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support From what I have seen of him, he is very even-tempered and responsible in his actions and words. He is an ideal candidate for a mop! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. SupportLooks like a great candidate to me, won't abuse the tools and will be an asset to the admin staff.
    Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. Good answers, excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I have faith that this user won't abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support--Jusjih (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - I can't see any problems with his history. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support experienced and capable, likely to make an excellent admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Well reasoned level headed editor. Whispering 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. I weakly support this nomination. The reason for my "weak support" is because I came across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Leana Risa, which was an MfD where you nominated a newish user's user page for deletion when it wasn't even worth deleting. You had previously prodded the user page and it was declined. However, my reason for supporting this nomination is because you are a good user, and should be an admin, but I hope you'll take more care when MfD'ing or prodding newish/new users' user pages. Acalamari 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support, looks good. Wizardman 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support have no worries about the tools being abused and this user acts in a civil manner Whitstable 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support User has a good track record; I think they would make a find admin. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Hbdragon88 has shown himself to be pedantic and incivil in his dealings with me more than once, describing my edits as fracking ugly as hell and objecting to my use of wikilinked dates to allow user preferences to determine date displays, rather than forcing all users to adhere to his notion of what a proper date should be.

Later, Hbdragon88 broke multiple reference links in an article in a quest to make a point about proper English usage. We were unable to effectively discuss or resolve the issue on his talk page, my talk page, or the article talk page. Peace was restored when an uninvolved editor stepped up to provide a third opinion.

An admin needs to be able to get along with some difficult people, even those more difficult to deal with than I. From my personal experience, Hbdragon88 isn't the person to do that, and hence, isn't the right person to be granted admin tools. I'm open to rethink this, but, as it currently stands, my personal expericne shows me little or no potential benefit to granting this editor adminship. --Ssbohio (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That conflict dates back to about 17 months ago. I guess I'm still a bit pedantic about things (most recently on Talk:Pokemon where I undid someone's cut-and-paste archiving to do the move page archiving, in a similar fashion to how I insisted on TOCleft instead of TOCright on Talk:Justin Berry), but I stepped away then and will continue to step away and disengage/refrain from conflict instead of edit war, or in the case of being an admin, not edit war and abuse tools. In terms of disputes, I think you have your opinion and I have my own, and the only way to break the deadlock is to have a THIRD offer his or her opinion. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to support your nom, but you haven't spoken to the issue I raised about your conduct in our previous interaction. Yes, the conflict arose 17 months ago, when you made an impression on me that still stands. I was prepared to reverse myself to support, as much of your contribution history looks good. However, even in the face of WP:MOS & WP:MOSDATE, there was never any acknowledgement that your approach was lacking or even wrong in some way. That's why I worry about the tools in your hands. If I can't be confident that we both believe that the MOS carries more weight than either of our opinions, then how can I be condfident in your approach to more substantial policies, like NPOV? I really want to support your nom, but you haven't spoken to my concerns. --Ssbohio (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support. Hbdragon88 has allayed my concerns about this situation. --Ssbohio (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. oppose - due to edit wars, states that he has been in them. this is not a candidate for admin. give the admin position and who knows what he will do with it. --Jeanenawhitney 18:08, 30 November 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.