Login
Login

Wikipedia:Editor review/Hghyux

=[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Hghyux|Hghyux]]=

{{user2|Hghyux}} I had an RFA about one month ago and it failed. Miserably. I had some harsh feedback and for a short period afterwards, I was really upset. Since then, I have decided to take that criticism that was given to heart, and have done numerous things to improve my image and overall quality as an editor. I want to know how the rest of the community thinks I am doing, because I do intend to try again in a few months, and I want to make sure I am heading in the right direction, not only on the path to becoming an administrator, but as a quality editor in general. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
  2. : Antivandal work is what I mostly do and I have no one contribution that I value because my belief is that it is one's overall impact on the project that one truly should value. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
  5. : Yes, but not recently. I believe that I dealt with the disputes that I had in "A rough way, but not totally incivil" If I for some reason that I had a dispute in the future, I have been coached by my adoptee, (who's program I am now a graduate), on how to properly handle such an issue. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

Reviews by TheSpecialUserTalkContributions

A thing that I loved about you is that the attitude of not-giving-up-easily. That is the greatest plus point about you.

I'll write you a short but meaningful review (3 positive signs and 3 negative):

Skills

  • My fav- Not giving up
  • Vandal-fighting- Good, in fact really good Vandal fighter
  • Wikibehaviour- Kind, and helpful, also dedicated in whatever they do

Concerns

  • Talk on talk pages- While I'd love to be communicating, remember we are here to built the encyclopedia and so 45% edits on talk pages is way too much as it will do no good unless you are asking for help or correcting someone. This is also a negative point resulting in a failed RfA.
  • Lack of content creation- Though you have 36% edits there, I can say that they most of them would have been vandal removal work. It is good to see someone dedicating their 36% edits for anti-vandal but still as we all are here to improve the encyclopedia, we have to show some skills in articles along with vandal fighting. Because your top-edited article has only 7 edits and this can be a big reason to built a great oppose at an RfA.
  • Wrong reverts- I saw that from your talk page. Not accepting the mistake promptly and giving an response in your favor was not the right thing to do. I m not saying that you should stand for what you believe but should also accept mistakes as it was. According to an admin, Worm that turned, an success rate less then 99% and causing mistakes recently will easily cause failour of an RfA so your record was pretty good though it created a negative impression about you there.

I'd love to see an vandal fighting admin like you. If you go again for an RfA after few months or some with this tempo, then the above reasons can be the main points to oppose your stand resulting a second failour. You are still learning though have finished 85% learning, if you are planning for RfA then take minimum 10 months to prepare from now and if you go before this anyone can oppose it thinking that your intentions are not right and due to inexperience. I m new here (3 days merely) but learned a lot about the encyclopedia. Take this as constructive advise and keep up your attitude. You'll be an admin one day but not in upcoming odd 6 months. Just need touch ups. Best. TheSpecialUserTalkContributions 09:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:My main reasons for the high talk page count is for each vandalism revision, a warning is given. Not just because I am being chatty. That's really all I have to respond to about your review. Thanks! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

::I wanted to refer to an comment by you on DBigXray's talk page. You asked him that can you nominate him. Well, I see no problem what so ever in that but won't it be too much too soon for you to do it or judge if the other person is qualified for adminship? TheSpecialUserTalkContributions 16:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Well, I read read the WP:Guide to requests for adminship and I thought that DBigXray would make a good admin. I really don't see anything wrong about that as it would mainly be him handling his own RFA, and I would just be the nominator. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 17:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

::::You are right about it that he will be handling his own RfA, but his RfA will fail due to number of reasons. There are many other things other then written in the Guide which is important to become an admin (I have seen many RfA which were unsuccessful and can compare those with DBX)

::::The reasons for his rfa to fail can be low level of activity in admin related areas. Only 3-4 % edits in wikipedia space is also an reason. He never showed his good judgement skills in afds, or any voting process. He only fights vandalism and no other admin related work and such candidates are rejected because of lack of experience or work in other areas (note: this can happen to you also). An recent example of it is rfa of Cable1992. He was only a vandal fighter, but failed. Another reason is that DBX has done nothing important in content creation (no GA, FA, FL or DYK). Having GA, FA, FL or DYK doesn't make anyone a better admin but still editors want someone who has skills in that as we are here to develope the encyclopedia.

::::These were the number of reasons which I would show in his Rfa and probably many more would. Your intentions were noble and he is a good editor also, but not so good for adminship. Take my comments positively and this points which I stated also go for you to (you are still better then DBX). If you also eliminate them from your weakness and start work in all this with keeping cool and avoiding conflicts, I don't see any problem in your 2nd Rfa. Take my comments positively, I can only suggest, but you can make it happen :) TheSpecialUserTalkContributions 04:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Review by: {{User|Cntras}}

With regards to your RFA ambitions, I suggest that you take a closer look at WP:NOTNOW and WP:GRFA. Also, note that generally speaking the recommended time between RFA applications is 6 months. Given that you've only been here for a short period, I suggest extending that to 10-12 months. -Cntras (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

:Well, Thanks I guess... But I assure you that a good number of people pointed me in that direction in my last epic failure. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Equazcion

About my only experience with you is this: User talk:Hghyux#Black Grape Global, which I arrived at because the other user involved contacted me for the same reasons. I think responses like this will probably preclude any RFA goals. If you're going to tag an article, you should also be prepared to back it up with constructive rationale when asked. This is clearly an inexperienced user, and although he also has a clear COI, that doesn't mean we brush him off. He was being clear and inordinately polite, and you responded with stonewalling, aside from one rather unhelpful link. Equazcion (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)