Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DaGizza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] DaGizza

Final (93/1/2) ended 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

DaGizza (talk · contribs) – DaGizza is a very experienced editor from Sydney, Australia, with more than 5500 edits since May 2005. Having self-identified as being a Hindu person of Indian origin, DaGizza has provided us with large amounts of knowledge of very high quality pertaining to matter such as Hinduism, Indian cinema and Cricket. This has resulted in him earning 3 barnstars, one cookie and a DYK, two of whom are from admins with 7000+ edits, and the other from another wiki-veteran with 8000 edits. At all times he is polite, warm, and welcoming to other regular users and also to newbies who make casual edits to articles related to the WikiProjects (project invites) in which he is participating (19 in all). His civility is remarkable, especially seeing as religious topics often stir emotions the most. DaGizza regularly cleans up vandalism, and interacts regularly on the projectspace, as well as AfDs and RfAs. I think this is why he and all of us at the Wikipedia community would benefit from DaGizza having access to admin tools. My first interaction with DaGizza was when he fixed up an error I had made on my userpage [1] when I had just arrived, which shows that he possesses an appropriate level of assertiveness and helpfulness which is a good trait for administrators. My fellow Wikipedians, I nominate DaGizza for promotion to adminship.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks a lot. I accept GizzaChat © 08:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - DaGizza has proven to be a valuable contrubutor and deserves this position. mdmanser 09:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support A very worthy candidate - go for gold! Brisvegas 09:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Contribs and talk look good. I'm not a fan of RFAs being "advertised" on WikiProjects but it's par for the course at the moment and not a reason to oppose. --kingboyk 09:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    Excuse me Kingboyk, you mentioned that my RfA is being "advertised." I can assure you that I didn't do it. May you please tell me where it is advertised so that I can delete it. I'm not a fan of it myself. GizzaChat © 10:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    May be, he's talking about this. I'm not sure if that would be advertisement. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, listing on noticeboards. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it as it's just my opinion; I'm happy for the thread to be moved to the talk page rather than clutter up your RFA. --kingboyk 11:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, I understand your point. I'll remove it. Done GizzaChat © 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. SupportDolive21 11:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support An excellent candidate who will do well as an administrator —This unsigned comment was added by Richardcavell (talk • contribs) .
  7. Support A good candidate and editor. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Jaranda wat's sup 11:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - Aksi great 11:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - Why Not! - Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Of Course. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support A good user. Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support - Ganeshk (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support, of course.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support--Jusjih 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support: It is a great pleasure to me. --Bhadani 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Really a great contributor. Shyam (T/C) 15:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Excellent editor; superb nomination also. Xoloz 17:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Absolutely; all around great editor. joturner 22:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Would like to see more communication with editors, but the all around good attitude of this editor is enough to make admin. Moe ε 22:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support As above. Nephron 00:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong support, an experienced editor, courteous, civil, level-headed and would make great use of the tools. -- Samir (the scope) 01:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support Unbelievably, you meet my requirements 100%. Good Luck on your campaign Crna tec Gora 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support - Obvious support here, a fantastic editor. Weatherman90 02:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Jumping on the bandwagon like a 2001 Yankee fan Support -Mask 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - Trustworthy and level-headed. --Muchness 02:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support - absolutely. Fine editor who has earned the responsibility--Looper5920 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support! fine editor, nice guy. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 05:33Z
  30. Support great edits and a thoroughly nice guy. Gwernol 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, he looks good. JIP | Talk 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support without reservation --rogerd 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Tintin (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support, I trust him with the tools. --Terence Ong 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support So do I. ProhibitOnions 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  36. Strong support — superb editor. Feezo (Talk) 08:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, looks good, adminship no big deal. Hiding talk 09:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Yes Just another star in the night T | @ | C 10:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Dafinitely. +sj + 10:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support No worries Deizio 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Jisha C J 11:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support as above. Seen this user around, good impression. enochlau (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support as above; excellent editor --Deville (Talk) 12:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support I gave him his first barnstar and thought of nominating him for adminship, but decided against it thinking that he was too young. I guess he is ready. --Gurubrahma 13:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Good work. pschemp | talk 14:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Da =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Yup ProhibitOnions 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support-a-rooney. Seems like a great editor who will be a great admin.--Alabamaboy 18:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. I go out of my way to support qualified antipodean editors that can mop up while the rest of the Anglophonic world sleeps (or binge drinks). youngamerican (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Great contributions. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support looks good, very congenial. Mangojuice 21:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Many good contributions. mmeinhart 23:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support good contributor --Jay(Reply) 00:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Strong Support — Oops. Sorry. Haven't been following this page for a while. Great editor, would do wikipedia immense good with admin powers. deeptrivia (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support --Mmounties (Talk) 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support of course. Jedi6-(need help?) 02:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. utcursch | talk 06:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support an awful lot of experience that can be put to good use by the community. Bucketsofg 06:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support --hydkat 06:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support Ahonc (Talk) 08:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support per everyone else! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wezzo (talk • contribs)
  63. Strong Support Girik has obvious commitment to Wikipedia, is willing to contribute heaps, and is a good guy. He deserves it. Sastrawan 10:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Deserves to get the mop. Cheers! --Andy123(talk) 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support Looks like a good candidate. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support Joe I 00:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support Good hardworking editor abakharev 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support Per above. AreJay 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support Have seen a lot of contributions from him in my time on Wikipedia, a good asset to the wiki, definitely support. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support Merecat 05:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. Need more publicity, not less. ImpuMozhi 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support Competent. michael talk 08:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Strong Support His contribs speak for themselves. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support. Why, certainly. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. Thought he was one. — Mar. 24, '06 [15:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  76. Support. — FireFox • T [18:42, 24 March 2006]
  77. Support. Looks good. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  78. Strong Support Rama's Arrow 06:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support great contributions--Aldux 11:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support -- Saravask 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support - Would make a fine addition to the admin, great editor. Weatherman90 21:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support from down under? g'day mate... Gryffindor 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support -- especially with new and improved sig. John Reid 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support - a trusted user. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Already voted
  85. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  86. Strong support for a hardworking and committed editor. Sorry I didn't get here sooner. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  87. Strong support Man, I can't believe I nearly missed this RFA! Amazing & extremely helpful. Deserves the mop. -Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. I have no problem with granting him a well-deserved mop. --Alan Au 19:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support. Looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  90. I think he's a good guy, having looked through his contribs. The incident with anonymous is slightly concerning. The reason it's not a deal-breaker, however, is the way DaGizza responded: he apologized immediately. That the subject of those remarks accepted the apology in quick time suggests to me that this was a reasonably good resolution. Support. —Encephalon 08:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support Good candidate, no hesitation in supporting. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support --Ugur Basak 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Makes too many mistakes still. Needs more time to adjust to the rules. For example.. WP:PA "Care to explain" --Masssiveego 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    That issue was dealt with here [2] and [3]. Like I stated below in that situation, I "remove my edits and apologise to the user." In that case I did it ASAP. GizzaChat © 12:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    Another comment. I am a bit of a pedantic guy and you mentioned "too many mistakes." In recent months, I am certain that my accidental attack on Anonym has been my only trouble and thought in the back of my mind that it would it brought out in my RfA. However, I can't think of anything else I have done ever which was worse than that. I still regret saying such a thing to Anonym, who is a great contributor at Wiki. GizzaChat © 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: Don't think it's time yet. Also, per apparent campaigning. The comment inviting people to demand explanations for edits is both pleasing and troubling; on the one hand, the user encourages feedback, a good thing. On the other; are there a lot of edits where the justification is not apparent? Not relating to this forum, but slapping it here; your signature's a bit bright...consider changing it? Ta, Rob Church 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think posting the fact that one was nominated for adminship on the project page where one is active is "campaigning". It merely lets those know who know you best. He did not say "Come vote for me" but rather "Hey, there is a vote going on, please cast yours" (...any which way). And your personal preference against bright colors does not present a valid argument against this candidate. In fact, it would speak against him if he did go and change his signature simply because it doesn't please you. --Mmounties (Talk) 01:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Different people interpret things in different ways. As for the signature, that was just a request given that it was a bit bright for me to read. This wasn't necessarily the appropriate place to ask it, but oh well. 86.134.49.239 11:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I have changed my sig and I removed that "advertisement" ASAP. GizzaChat © 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral: not sure because I'm still concerned about the personal attack that he made against me when I hadn't even talked to him before. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    anonymous man, nothing personal in it – if you wish you may take this as a joke! anonymous, sometimes, such things are not personal attacks – did I ever take all your attacks on me personally? I have become used to this… did I ever try to delete talks from my talk page like you deleted mine from your talk page at least twice within 24 hours. Do I keep my talk page and user page locked and protected like you for fear of personal attacks - never. Please be considerate man, and take things in the right perspective, please do not be so touchy of small things, and always assume good faith. --Bhadani 07:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)OK, I regret. --Bhadani 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Bhadaniji, you don't have to start anything now. It would be bad if RfA turns into an argument between a couple of users, especially when everything is going well right now. Anyway, out the the three people who didn't support me so far, the only person who I feel is justified to do so is Anonym. GizzaChat © 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 08:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See DaGizza'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. I would like to help in all ways possible! Obviously everybody at Wikipedia encounters vandalism and the rollback button would be of great use, especially since I am a Recent Changes Patroller. At the moment, I would try to focus on WP:AIV, CAT:CSD , WP:PP WP:RM and WP:CV. I would gladly perform any admin-related request given to me. Later on, I may close out various deletion debates. I am likely to participate in more areas after I have become more experienced.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My Userpage has some good lists for this. In short, one of the articles that I have worked on the most is List of nicknames used in cricket. I have cleaned up, wikified and added content to many Hinduism-related articles. I kept on updating the ICC Super Series article while it was a current sports event and currently keep on updating Sydney Grammar School, my school. Recently, I have been concentrating on Project namespace pages, such as involvement in WP:AfD, WP:TfD, WP:FPC, WP:RfA etc…


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. I haven’t been in too many Wikifights! Whenever a user has complained about my edits to a particular page, I would first check over my contributions again and then either explain to him/her why I made the edits in more detail or remove my edits and apologise to the user. I also always assume good faith. So far it has prevented any major edit-warring! There have of course been anons who have insulted me on my talk page for deleting some of their vandal/POV edits. I treat them in a similar fashion to well-established users, except most of the time they don’t respond back! Btw, if anybody comes across an edit which I have made and needs some "explaining," please mention below in comments or below.
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.