Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dangherous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Dangherous

Final (38/24/4) ended 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dangherous (talk · contribs) – Well, I've been granted admin on Wiktionary, which really helped speed things up for me. I have my finger in a couple of pies: Category:Copy to Wiktionary is the biggest current pie. And I do a bit of translation from German, writing about Cardiff, sorting out a big chunk of Category:Wales, and dabbling in some soccer-related stuff. I'd like the sysop buttons to help speedy delete some obvious vandalism, and I know how to use them, with my Wiktionary sysophood experience. --Dangherous 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Added one day later the following: The main reason for the RFA is so that there is someone who has sysophood on both Wikipedia and one Wiktionary, apart from User:Uncle G who does a good job in transwiki already, and User:Tawker, who's mainly just a vandal-buster (IMHO) --Dangherous 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Added midway through the vote: I've read all about wp:prod now, and I can now tell when to use that and when to use AFD, and when to use {db}. --Dangherous 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. --Dangherous 21:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This RFA is not going to pass, so I'll resign. --Dangherous 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. I'm going to support on two counts, one on moral support, and the other that you've been made admin on Wiktionary, that (at the very least) should tell us (or it tells me) that you won't abuse the tools. NSLE (T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-04-05)
  2. Support. I have seen plenty of Dangherous's edits and I've not seen any problems with them. My main reason for supporting though is to aide his excellent work in moving articles to Wiktionary - it is certianly needed. That he is a Wiktionary admin proves to me he can be trusted. Thryduulf 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. User is clearly unlikely to abuse admin tools; hard to imagine bad outcomes of giving him key to the toolbox. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support An admin on Wiktionary. Thus proving his capabilities as an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - This editcountitis is driving me nuts. He'd make a good admin. - Richardcavell 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support It doesn't matter how many edits you made, or how many months you've been on Wikipedia, all it matters is that you make an article that hopefully becomes a featured article someday! I don't know why you people oppose young users with less edits than you, but one thing is certain. Big things come in small packages Funnybunny 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    "Adminship is no big deal." - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral, sorry. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support; I trust Wiktionary. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Clearly would not abuse admin tools; he's an admin on Wiktionary, after all. Adminship would benefit him. Meets criteria in other areas too. Good user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, since he's an admin on Wiktionary, why not give it to him here? He will not abuse tose tools. --Terence Ong 08:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. I'm willing to accept the risk if he's going to clean up Category:Copy to Wiktionary. gren グレン 12:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. I don't see any risk involved here (already an admin on Wiktionary) so I'm going to support this request. Alphax τεχ 14:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Not much risk of misuse. -- JamesTeterenko 15:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. We need more admins willing to deal with huge backlogs like "move to Wiktionary", and this is much more important than meeting people's cookie-cutter criteria. There's also some extremely misguided editcountitis going on: people are opposing Dangherous for his edit count, even though he has over 3800 edits on Wikimedia projects. Don't be blinded by the lack of a single signon. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Candidate wants to help with backlogged cleanup tasks -- this is very good. I see editcountitis has reached new lows. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Wiktionary The ed17 (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Highly useful to have another sysop for both Wikitionary and Wikipedia. I would prefer if he had slightly more experience here, but his record on Wikitionary supplements his work here. The potential benefit to both projects of him being an admin on both is very large. JoshuaZ 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Back from Wikibreak Support. Would be a great addition to the team.--File Éireann 20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    Support per NSLE. Mike (T C) 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose, sorry! Mike (T C) 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per nomination. Also dosn't seem like a person likely to abuse power. ---J.Smith 23:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per nom. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, in large part because I think the reasons that many people are opposing are poor and I'd like to counteract that a bit. This user seems unlikely to abuse admin commands. kmccoy (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. The user has a good record at Wiktionary, and is planning on using adminship in an area that is greatly benefitted by cross-wiki adminship. RfAs are used to determine if we trust users with the mop, and if we're certain that he won't misuse it, there's no reason to oppose. That said, Wikipedia and Wiktionary policies are slightly different; please brush up on this wiki's policies before trying something you're not certain how to do (and checking to make sure that what you're certain how to do is indeed correct). Feel free to ask questions liberally too. That said, Tawker isn't an admin here... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Does plenty of good work, and seems like a responsible contributor. I think the opposition based on the edit count is misguided, an admin with 200-300 edits a month is actually a fairly active one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Leidiot 07:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - Good job on Wiktionary. --{{User:Wonderfool/sig}} 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support What I think is needed for supporting an admin nomination is evidence that suggests the user has the relevant competency to carry out admin tasks. Some good evidence here is the adminship on wiktionary. As that evidence exists, I see no need to have vast amounts of wikipedia edits to find further evidence. This RfA is the best example I've seen to date of why editcountitis can be fatal. MLA 13:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support StabiloBoss 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support to give him ability to delete transwikied articles himself. Conscious 17:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support per Conscious: there are aspects to the ways in which the candidate has been serviing the Wiki community that will be easier with admin tools. Bucketsofg 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Seems responsible and experienced, with plenty of Wikitionary experience. --NormanEinstein 21:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support -- This user's experience is marginal by my standards, but his overall attitude is very good and I like his responses to Question Time. I see a user who is willing to shovel through a lot of dull work: the ideal person to be given tools. John Reid 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support -- Trying to maintain Transwiki: with only half the needed delete buttons is frustrating, to say the least. It is not a rewarding task to begin with (even User:Uncle G gave up on it a long time ago!) --Connel MacKenzie 04:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (See: wikt:Special:Contributions/Connel MacKenzie.)
  32. Support. I can trust this user's work at both Wikipedia and Wiktionary.--Jusjih 05:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support as per above. --preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 06:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support A credit to the wiki project. Brisvegas 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. A Transwiki specialist will help greatly. BD2412 T 13:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Changed neutral vote to support. I agree with BD2412. Wikipedia needs specialists like these. Cannot keep my vote neutral or oppose because he doesn't know how to give "politically correct" answers. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. He's an admin on Wiktionary (see Wiktionary vote here: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Administrators&oldid=834120] and has been for 7 weeks now. Has over 2000 edits over there as well, which puts him at over 3500 edits in both projects. And if he does cleanup Category:Copy to Wiktionary, his presence as an admin will be invaluable. Pepsidrinka 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Category:Copy to Wiktionary needs all the help it can get. --Dragon's Blood 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose certainly enough time, possibly enough edits, but serious neglect of interaction with other users, and very short answers and introduction. Demonstrates inexperience and edit count inflating, KI 21:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose 200-300 edits per month is not even close to active enough to become an administrator. Increase that to 500-600 at least. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 @ 21:39 (UTC)
    Why does an admin need to make 500 edits a month? Is there some quota system? - Richardcavell 04:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    It seems ridiculous to give admin capabilities to someone who is not particularly active and will not use them. 500 is sort of arbitrary; I really just mean "higher". —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 15:37 (UTC)
    500 is sort of absurd. Admins who have a life outside of Wikipedia are a good thing, as I think they're more likely to be able to step away from disputes and realize they don't matter that much. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    I would be very suprised if there was a majority of current editors who have more than 500 edits a month, particularly if they contribute to more than one project. Thryduulf 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    So 6000 edits a year is your min for being an admin?!?! Wikipedia isn't life but rather a part of life. Mike (T C) 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    Call it that if you really want to, but I don't see it as fixed number; using a number was perhaps poor judgment on my part. Dangherous just has to be more active than right now for me to consider him. However, you have to remember that we are not discussing users, but administrators. An admin must have high standards applied, and should certainly be better than the "average user", as said above. Rspeer makes a good point about conflicts, but I don't see a higher number of edits as causing someone to become obsessed with Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 22:56 (UTC)
    Adminship is supposed to be "not a big deal" according to Jimbo and policy. I support having way more admins with lives... this user happens to be too new, but 300 edits is just fine. -Mask 04:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    My thought exactly, admins are to be held to the same standards as normal users no matter how large the wiki grows, it is no big deal. Mike (T C) 22:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, adminship is "no big deal". I know that. However, adminship is also providing a service to the Wikipedia community. An "absentee admin" is not providing a service to the community, and an average of ~230 edits per month is absentee, at least for an active, non-Wikibreak user. However, the edit rate was really only a small part of my oppose reasoning; I simply felt that it was a point that would be overlooked and so brough it up. I will not defend my argument further, but it stands. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 00:41 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Inexperience. --Masssiveego 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Not enough experience. Nephron  T|C 22:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose low User Talk useage. Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, not active enough. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. oppose more edits please Merecat 02:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Twenty-five User talk edits does suggest a lower activity level within the community than I'd like to see. More time is required to build an adequate record from which to judge editor's temperment. Xoloz 03:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, I strongly oppose nominating yourself. it should be an honor to have someone think you are worthy of being admin. i realize you had that honor with wiktionary, but now you must earn it here. Vulcanstar6 04:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, doesn't meet my admin standards. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Spend some more time on Wikipedia, and I will support you in the future. It's nice to have someone with connections to Wikitionary.Covington 06:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. While I believe you would be trustworthy, you need to spend more time here. Your user talk edits are much too low. Interact with the community more and become more familiar with Wikipedia and try again in 2-3 months.--Dakota ~ ° 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Prefer admins with more experience--Looper5920 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak oppose, I'd prefer to see more community interaction. JIP | Talk 10:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak oppose, just can't support yet given the relatively low experience and community involvement, despite the good intentions for the tools. A couple of energetic months and I'll support. Deizio 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    Weak oppose. I have supported this user at Wiktionary, but as English Wikipedia is structually much more complex, I would like to support some time later. It is getting much harder to administer here than Wiktionary.--Jusjih 16:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral.--Jusjih 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose the majority of the things the user wishes to do, he can do ATM. Also, this may seem a little pathetic, but Joshua's fifth question is poorly answered at a spelling POV. Substituting u for you isn't exactly what I'd do when I'm trying to convince everyone to vote for be to become an admin. Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: low overall experience, and not enough interaction with other users. Try again in a while! _-M o P-_ 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per answers to questions, we have PROD and AfD now, as well there are plans to have one account for all the wikis. Before becoming an admin here you probably need to brush up on some process issues, ESPECIALLY PROD. Mike (T C) 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. We need less admins in order to triumph over this sick dictatorship. When the number is reduced to less than 200, you MIGHT be elected. Von Van 19:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    This user is most likely a vandal. His only contribution is this oppose vote. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak Oppose mostly because of his answers, seems to unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Eivindt@c 21:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Too soon. Patience... Moe ε 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose --Terence Ong 11:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose agree with Deizio Trödel 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, good Wiktionary admin but Wikipedia is a different kettle of fish. Not a lot of interaction, and I am concerned that he may get a bit speedy-happy. You don't need Adminship to transwiki stuff. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - I want to support this candidate, am waiting for answers to questions below. I think this a perfect example of where we should rid ourselves of editcountitis. How can anyone say that he is not experienced when he is already admin on wiktionary and also has been contributing regularly for the past 8 months. So what if he has chosen an obscure corner of wikipedia to work on. Let us give him a mop to help with his area of speciality on wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't like answers to some of the questions below. I will keep my vote neutral for now. I need more time to decide how to vote. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral (S). — FireFox • T [11:03, 5 April 2006]
    Neutral - I would like to see answers to questions from JoshuaZ below.--Jusjih 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support.
  2. Neutral per above; inexperience; come back after another two or three months and/or when you double your edit counts/experience, and you'll have my support. — Deckiller 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I quite like the reason for you wanting to become an admin, and am starting to really dislike editcountis. However I also don't really like some of your answers to questions. So this neutral is a reflection of mixed feelings. Note to closing bureaucrat: This is a 'true' neutral, do not read my reason as an oppose or support if this ends close. Petros471 19:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, needs more experience. - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See Dangherous's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Could someone please tell me if moving articles to Wiktionary involves admin-specific tasks like article deletion? Conscious 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes it does. Certainly at present moving from one project to another is actually invovles starting a new page at the destination, copying the content from source to destination, and then deleting the page at the source. There is more to it than that, but to complete the process access tot he delete button is required. Thryduulf 15:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment in regard to Cuivienen's oppose vote: It is not clear to me why activity level is highly relevant to an RfA. It isn't like we have some limited supply of adminships. JoshuaZ 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, except that I see no reason to bestow admin capabilities on someone who will not use them effectively. Being an effective admin involves being active on Wikipedia, and a very low edit rate is highly indicative of inactivity or lack of devotion to the project, neither of which is desireable in an admin. We could, of course, give admin capabilities to anyone with over 1000 edits, but that seems absurd. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 00:42 (UTC)

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. Category:Copy to Wiktionary. There's so much detritus in there, it hurts. I've been trying to clear out one "letter" at a time, on certain days. Loads of pages in there can be speedy deleted.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I like The Pop Factory was fun to make. As was Goleo. Cologne carnival and Australian rules football in Nauru were a couple of German translations that I'm pleased with too, as the German was a little tricky, but I asked the help of a couple of users who guided me towards a better translation. And WP:RAOK was good too, although I dunno quite what to do with that yet.
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. Yes, User:Cryptic had a go at me for creating some AFD forksHere. I was a bit stressed by the relatively lengthy deletion process here, and dealt with it by agreeing with him (I tend to agree with users who argue good), as it's not worth reshufflin the deletion process.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 You have a very low edit summary percentage for minor edits. Why?

Well normally, I forget to check the minor edit button. Is it small? What's a good percentage? 65% seems pretty Ok for me. I omit big edit summaries when I do a big bunch of the same stuff, just cos it saves me time, and sometimes the computer doesn't automaticallt give a drop-down menu of previous answers.

2 Please expand on your answer to question 3 above, with specific difs if possible.

There's not much more to say: I made, a little naively, some templates to AFD (which I found in the history of {template:AFD} a page, cos the version of AFD I preferred was loads was loads easier to use, so I copied that template and used it for my own. But I didn't wanna argue, so I let it go.

3 You have only about 1400 edits in total right now. This is low for an admin candidate. Is there any reason that this number is misleading?

Misleading? I can't think of any reason why it is misleading. I've had a little search thru my edits, and there's an odd bit of "hitting the save button twice in quick succession", but a miniscule amount of it. So no, not so misleading

Added a little later, after a "nudge" --Dangherous 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC) - misleadingly low..... maybe so, because they'll be a good deal of deleted edits from the pages I AFDed.
4 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?

No need - I've heard that non-admins can get a rollback button from somewhere like the monobook thing, but I'm not tekky enough for understanding this. So, no.

5 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

Ideally, there'd be more than one way to AFD an article. But I'm not too fussed about that. I reckon my one thing to change would be if you create one account, it would be a meta-account that u can use on all Wikimedia projects in all languages.

6 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

If they're a first-time user doing a batch of vandalism, and show no signs of being helpful, then I'd not hesitate to block them for ever. If they had a hundred or more OK edits, then I'd lessen the block. However, I don't really intend to deal with blocking - there seems to be enough users on RC patrol to deal with that. Just deletion and rollback I'll deal with, for now at least.

7 Please explain in more detail how/why it would be useful to have another person who was an admin for both Wikipedia and Wikitionary. JoshuaZ 20:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The main reason I thought of when I wrote that is that ideally I could be some kind of ambassador between the two projects (Wikipedia:Wiktionary embassy anyone?). I thought that maybe if I'm deleting something that has been proved as a hoax on Wikipedia, then maybe the vandal created it on Wiktionary too, then I could just delete them both on the spot, without having the same arguments on both projects.

Questions from Computerjoe

If this RfA failed what you choose to do? Computerjoe's talk 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd be a little annoyed that I'd had to answer all these pretty tricky long-winded questions, after that, I've no idea.
Additional questions from Rob Church
  1. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    Answer I'm generally a stress-free kinda chap. I'm going to do my best to avoid the stressful parts of the wiki, as I've done so far. As for burnout - I'll worry about that when My to-do list has been reduced. If there got a lot of pressure, then in theory I'd take a break - I'm not one of these users who're on here everyday anyway.
  2. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    Answer To make my Wikipedia life a little easier. I'm not going to lie and say "I want to make the world a better place, and fight off the vandals who try to bring this wonderful project to a crumble."
  3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    Answer Err, can you rephrase that question? I've had a think and I've no idea how to answer this question.
  4. What do you understand will happen at the end of this seven day discussion process?
    Answer I'll answer this one later, promise
    New answer, after question was rephrased: Seemingly a simple one, here's hoping that it isn't a trick question... Well, a bureaucrat will come along, have a look at the votes for and against, and then if there is a good enough percentage of support, he will click on the "promote user" button, and Bob's your uncle, and I'll have a few more buttons. If it fails, then I'll get notes on my talk page saying "Better like next time", "I can't understand why people didn't support you" etc., and I'll grumble for wasting time on these stupid ;) questions

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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.