User:Djr xi/RfA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a copy of my first (and hopefully only) RfA. Please follow the link to vote.

[edit] Djr_xi

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Djr xi|action=edit}} Vote here] ending 00:34 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Djr_xi (talk • contribs) – After long consideration, I have decided to throw my name into the ring of potential admins. For a long time I was convinced that adminship was largely unnecessary in my daily contributions to Wikipedia, but I have increasingly become frustrated by my inability to deal with trivial matters such as speedy deletion of templates/categories/subpages created in error. After a long consultation of WP:ADMIN, WP:RfA and a bundle of linked pages, I have decided that, in myself, I am ready to take on the greater responsibilities that come with adminship.
I have contributed to Wikipedia since June 2005, signing up as User:Djr_xi on 31 August 2005. Since then, I have around 3250 edits and have contributed in a wide range of articles - generally my fields of (relative) expertise - music, schools, London, to name a few. My crowning achievement and ongoing project is Portal:London, which I created, maintain and update (through no real choice of my own!) almost entirely single-handedly. Early in 2006 I jumped on the userbox bandwagon and made a large number of edits through WikiProject:Userboxes. However, I soon became disillusioned by the lack of justification for userboxes, and decided to explain my thoughts for myself on my user page.
Most recently, I have become engrossed with the Categorisation system, and have spent hours upon hours sorting out the web of categories that seem to have spawned out of control. It was in this process that my need for adminship became most apparent. Finally, reverting vandalism, which appears out of control on certain pages, is a main cause of my edits, and admin tools would (obviously) aid the combat of repetitive obscenities and linkspam. Deano (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• self-nomination. Deano (Talk) 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Edit summary usage: 83% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• See Djr_xi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. Admin status would enable me to purge one of my biggest frustrations on Wikipedia - pages created my mistake. I have come across countless pages when redirects are dead, subpages are simply empty, or just repeated pages that nobody could be bothered to alter. As an admin, I would be able to delete these as I find them. On top of this, one of my biggest priorities would be keen to help put at end to the constant backlogs experienced at WP:AfD, WP:TfD and WP:MfD. Finally, the use of admin tools with regards to vandalism, particularly repetitive obscenities and linkspam, acts as a primary factor in my decision to request adminship.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Portal:London is definitely my greatest achievement on Wikipedia. The entire portal was created in around 2 days, and since then its entire running, researching and updating has been done solely by myself. The numerous participatory schemes within the portal have begun to see contributions increasing over the last few months, and the Portal's ascendency to featured portal status has increased its profile.

Other than the Portal, articles in which the majority of content has come from myself include Arctic Monkeys, The Judd School and Soccer AM.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past 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?

A. In my time as a registered Wikipedian, I have had one experience of stress that pushed me to breaking point. I have maintained an extremely POV version of events on my user page. The event was at Template:Infobox_Band, from here onward. Basically, someone added a new field to the template (which was used in around 500 pages), and I altered it. Accordingly, I began altering countless band pages to include this field. Unfortunately, User:Locke Cole did not realise that I had altered an existing field - he thought I had created the field altogether. Thus, he reverted my edit to the template, and then proceeded to alter every single page I had updated. I lost my cool - seeing 3 hours work disappear before your eyes as you watch your watchlist was pretty painful - and was blocked for 24 hours for violation of WP:CIVIL. Subsequently, all parties agreed I was right... and I definitely learned my lesson - since November I have backed down and used WP:AGF any time conflict has approached. I must say, however, that I would not be the Wikipedian I am today if I had not experienced that block back in November. It really opens your eyes.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?

A. Well first and foremost I would attempt to calm the user down and attempt to make them think clearly and logically rather than in the heat of the moment (as I know from experience). If the page was deleted through clear violation of policy, then I would explain this to the user. If (s)he does calm down and still persists, or if the article was deleted for some other reason, I would seek the opinions of other administrators by posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If some sort of consensus becomes clear then I would act accordingly. But I seriously doubt I would ever act unilaterally on a single complaint, and in this scenario I would be compromised by my inherent belief that the article should be deleted.

5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?

A. I would assume good faith first time, but keep an eye on the user/IP and post a message on his IP talk page asking to explain his/her reasoning for the deletion. If the user persistently repeats this then I would have to consider warning him about editting without summary as an anonymous user. In this situation, however, I doubt I would be willing to block the IP - it is not vandalism and you must assume good faith. We were all anonymous users once upon a time.

6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?

A. Take the abuse on the chin, and delete the stub again. I'd explain to the user why the stub qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, and warn him about his conduct with respect to WP:CIVIL. If the stub creation persisted, I'd use a three-strikes-and-you're-blocked warning system. If (s)he stopped the stubs but persisted with the abuse... well I guess that'd depend on how innovative the abuse was! People go crazy when they're angry, and the best way to calm them down (IMO) is to see the funny side.

7. Question from Hermione1980. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?

A. First things first, I'd double check my reasoning and basis for my action to make sure I was justified to do it. If it was my mistake, then I'd apologise and thank the admin for correcting it. If I was right in my action, however, I would contact the said admin and ask for his/her reasoning and attempt to find a compromise. Depending on the action, the importance/significance of giving ground will vary. Overturning a 24 hour block for vandalism, for example, would only be an issue to me if the offender immediately re-starts his/her campaign of vandalism - thus I would be fairly willing to accept compromise. However, undeleted a page or template that violated wiki policy - that is an issue and I would quote as many Wikipedia policies at the said admin as needed to convince him otherwise. Either way, however, a revert war is not appropriate. It would be up to the said admin to take back his/her actions - anything else without consultation is stooping to their level.

8. Question from Mozzerati please could comment about how you would act on copyright issues? a) in general b) if you came across an article which you believed was copied from another web site c) if a new user asked you for advice a page that the user believed was copied.

A. a) I would always seek a resolution that avoids deletion - all work one way or another can be traced back to copyrighted work, and it is important that we uphold the evolutionary knowledge process. However, any blatent infringement that cannot easily be modified (esp. non-fair use images) have to be deleted in order to avoid illegality - that is non-negotiable.

b) Make a note on the talk page to bring this to the attention of other users. I would attempt to re-write as much as possible using the copyrighted work as a guide. If the copied work is relatively small, this should not be too big a problem. However, if a massive amount of copyrighted text has been used then the offending material would have to be deleted. If the original location of the copy could be determined, I would seek their permission to use the text (if it is substantive/unique enough to justify the effort over simply re-writing).

c) I would direct them to WP:COPY - if feasible I would encourage them to re-write the page using the copyrighted work as a loose guide. Ultimately, the copied work is the past. The future destroys the past by building on it. If you protect the past, you destroy the future. If we can encourage the future - the evolution of the past - the development of work already done - whilst obeying the the laws of the state of Florida, then we'll all be better for it.