Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dark Dragon Flame

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.

Contents

[edit] Dark Dragon Flame

Final (18/14/7); Ended Sat, 05 May 2007 02:08:16 (UTC)

Dark Dragon Flame (talk · contribs) - I have been an editor in Wikipedia during the last five months. During my first two months I dedicated my time to learn and adapt to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. During this time period I joined three WikiProjects one Task force and founded the Devil May Cry Task Force. Today following a suggestion made by a fellow user, I humbly present my nomination for your consideration. 凶 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept per nom

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work, if any, do you intend to take part in?
A: I have been a frecuent contributor to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and I have noticed that there is frecuently a certain ammount of "Backlog", I will provide my help with that when available or needed. I have also noticed that some pages tagged with speedy deletion tags are often overlooked and they sometimes manage to survive a day or so even if they are clear cases of vandalism or nonsense, I will try to keep up with this kind of pages and monitor them to avoid recreation. I can also help in cases where pages are moved without prior disscusion and users are unable to move them back because the creation of a redirect page prevents the user from doing so, these kind of cases are frecuently seen in the Dragon Ball pages where characters are given a wide variety of names.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have contributed mostly to anime, professional wrestling, baseball, basketball and video games pages. The contribution that makes proud is the foundation of the Devil May Cry task force, a group focused on raising and improving all Devil May Cry related pages, as a group we have been able to raise three pages to Good Article status and one to Featured Article status as well as having one as a FAC at the momment, the fact that all this has been made within a month makes me believe that there is hope in our goal of making the internet a better place.
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:During my first month here I was in a mild edit conflict with User:Finsfan8499, where I reverted the page three times and warned the user in an edit not to do so in a manner that may not have been polite, the incident was ultimately resolved in the article's talk page. I was a little stressed out when I was attending Devil May Cry's featured article candidacy, but I tried to satisfy all the points presented and took it easy.

Optional question from Adambro

4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
A: Although such cases are rare, there are some instances where the Consensus rule needs to be broken, this includes when a number of users break WP:COI and gather to keep either a page or material that clearly violates POV or is a violation of copyright (some pages are copied exactly as found on a source, but it seems useful wich makes users vote to keep it despite it being a violation of intellectual property), other rules such as Don't infringe copyrights and Avoid bias should never under any circumtance be broken. Shortly a policy or headline should not be broken unless it conflicts with other policies or if doing so clearly improves Wikipedia as a whole. -凶 20:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
5. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce this?--Docg 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A: This one is specially important, if something can be considered libelous it should be taken out ASAP. I would try to talk to the user once without warning him or give him a {{test 1}} template, if this behavior continues I would warn him twice before proceeding to block, that unless the user has a extensive vandalism history where I would give a block based on his contributions and previous blocks. -凶 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Gwernol

6. After you've reverted vandalism by an editor, do you warn the editor? If so, why and how, if not why not? Please refer to applicable policies and guidelines, if any.
A: I often do, unless the user has vandalism history and/or is on a vandalism spree or if the account seems to be vandalism exclusive, in this cases I go directly to WP:AIV. -凶 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Where do you draw the lines between speedy deletion, proposed deletion and article for deletion? Could you illustrate your answer by telling me what you'd do with User:Gwernol/HillstoneLows?
A: I usually just add Speedy tags to pages that are clear nonsense or vandalism unless I found a page that is beyond hope I also tag those. I propose deletion when I find a page that is a good faith contribution but falls short of meeting the criteria, examples of these are pages that may promote something indirectly and those that are about a non-notable individual or organization. Articles for deletion should be carefully judged first and a AfD should be open if there is no way of expanding it, fixing POV and OR problems or other criteria violations, before nominating it should be researched if there is a place where they can be merged. With the page you present here I propose speedy deletion because it's unreferenced, there is a large amount of POV, there are critical grammar errors, there is not enought content to make a stub, and it fails to explain why the individuals are notable. -凶 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question(s)

8. I notice you don't seem to have email enabled. Is there any particular reason for that? Email will often be the only way blocked and other inexperienced users can contact you. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dark Dragon Flame before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

I have had personal experience with difficult administrators in Wikipedia, and feel that a more stringent review process is necessary to ensure that only patient, impartial people in the community are elevated to administrator status. I consider editing impulsively, or as the result of a vendetta, to be the strongest warnings against adminship. That said, I found a quite angry comment left as a result of a factual error in this candidates' beloved anime character biographies:

[edit] DON'T DO IT

Listen, Goku IS NOT 6'1 HE IS 5'7. If you have a source that states otherwise provide it or at least comment it on the DISSCUSION PAGE, it will be reverted no matter how many times you put it, so don't waste your time-Dark Dragon Flame 04:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that an administrator should behave in such a way, and recommend against promoting this user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.207.127.254 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 April 2007.

Please create an account to take part in this Rfa..Thanks..--Cometstyles 20:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that won't be necessary. Please read the part at the top of the page which states "Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions." (In fact, I think I was the one who typed that.) Picaroon (Talk) 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok..that clears everything..Thanks..--Cometstyles 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I already commented about this, it should also be noted that I asked a few other users of the Dragon Ball WikiProject before reverting his edits wich were clearly vandalism by a user with vandalism warnings, this edit was a error by me and it happened within my first three weeks here. -Dark Dragon Flame 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please provide a diff of where you have done this? Naconkantari 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment about that? in this same page, what I meant was that I'm not hiding it, I even added a link to the user's page. -凶 14:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is probably quite relevant when attempting to assess the intentions of this anonymous user. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - Your contributions indicate that you can be trusted and you have just over 4000 Edits and your contribution to Wikiproject is good and even though you aren't very experienced (5 months), I think you would be able to use the tool wisely..--Cometstyles 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't see anything that leads me to believe this user will abuse the admin tools. No, not even his spelling errors. Frise 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support A.Z. 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support- friendly experienced editor. Eaomatrix 11:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support Great user and good editor very friendly. Deserves adminship and will most definitally use it for good. DBZROCKS 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak Support - Good record, although I'd like to see more experience in projectspace. Nonetheless, adminship is no big deal. Walton Need some help? 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support My interactions with the user through the Devil May Cry taskforce leave me trusting him. While admittedly a little short on experience, I've got no doubts that he would use the tools correctly. Adminship is not a big deal, after all. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support You seem like a good, reliable person so why not support you? Shalom.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. --dario vet (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support I suggest all those with editcountitis/timecountitis get yourselves cured quickly. 241 is not mere. I was promoted with similar experience to this user. I see most opposers have given no thought past numbers, or any rationale why it matters at all. Majorly (hot!) 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, I must say I am quite puzzled at some of the comments below, and glad to see Durin is taking a role in defending against those puzzling comments. A mere 241 Wiki-space edits? that's double of what I had over a year ago when I was elected an admin, the standards are becoming way too high and this is really supposed to be no big deal. Keep up the good work DDF, even if for some strange reason consensus cannot be reached here. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    I strongly endorse this comment. Majorly (hot!) 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    As do I. Incidentally only one editor has replied to Durin. How are supposed to build consensus if editors simply fly by and don't respond to comments? How does the bureacrat know if any of these editors would change their mind upon considering Durin's comments? This should be taken into account. Wikipedia:Consensus is policy; we don't do polls Unless your Jimbo and its WP:ATT which I disapproved of (but took part nonetheless). --Iamunknown 19:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. The candidate measures up. Metrics are meaningless. Either the candidate "gets it" or they don't. Metrics aren't going to tell anyone that. Only bothering to review the editor's contributions will reveal that. Vassyana 08:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. User has demonstrated his trustworthiness. I'm really baffled by people who can say things like "I think your'e a great editor and your edit history shows experience and prudence - you just need X more edits/months/whatevers". I'd trust this user with the mop, his answers demonstrate he'd use it wisely. I say give it to him. Arkyan • (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per Arkyan and Durin. JoshuaZ 04:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. I trust this user to not screw up with the tools. —CComMack (t–c) 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Intelligent answers and real understanding... I think you'd make a great admin Think outside the box 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Why not?--U.S.A. cubed 22:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support, this was a hard choice for me, mostly because of the time you've been on Wikipedia. I don't think you'll abuse the tools, and I'm pretty sure that you'd put them to good use. If this RfA fails, don't give up hope! Be sure to try again in a few months. *Cremepuff222* 00:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, for now - Dark Dragon Flame, I'm sure you will make a good admin relatively soon (and I really like your answer to question #4 above), but the anon reservation above, along with your low participation in the Wikipedia namespace (a mere 241 edits), makes me want to see more administrative activity from you before I support. My advice is for you to become more involved in the Wikipedia community itself, such as at its desks and request pages, helping on backlogs, participating in policy discussions, etc. I'm sure you will do fine on these, and I look forward to supporting you for adminship in the future, say 3 to 6 months and about a thousand Wikipedia namespace edits from now. The Transhumanist 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure a robust 242 edits is the magic number then? Take a look at his contributions, not his edit counts. For instance, reports to WP:AIV: [1][[2][3][4][5]. All of these were reported properly, and all were blocked save one who should have been blocked but wasn't only because the vandal had temporarily stopped. I.e., he gets it. But, I suppose 3.7876352 more edits to WP:AIV will prove he is trusworthy. This user's been around for four months and has way more than enough edits for anyone to evaluate with an eye towards trustworthiness. 3, 6, or 28,923,812 more months isn't going to make a difference. --Durin 15:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I echo The Transhumanist's comments and want to point out that hopefully soon, you will run again with more experience and succeed then. Captain panda 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I just don't think this user is quite ready to become an admin quite yet. I have reservations against an edit war, and even though explained, just rubs me the wrong way. Jmlk17 21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose I am concerned about this editor's upload history; there are a large number of deleted images most of which appear to have been uploaded as "fair use" and subsequently deleted, and that concerns me. Also, the spelling errors in the candidate's comments suggest a careless attitude that is not becoming in an administrator. And I'm not exactly thrilled about the candidate's user page. There is no glaring problem, just a lot of little annoyances that leave me uncomfortable with any option other than opposition. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, lacks of experience, and not enough participation in the administrative side of things. Terence 04:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - a little too early. Metamagician3000 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What, thousands upon thousands of edits and four months of dedication to the project aren't enough? --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Interestingly enough, at the time of your RfA you had about the same time experience (~4 months) and fewer edits (3300) than this nominee. I'm curious. Why didn't you oppose yourself on your RfA? What it is about him that makes him less trustworthy, given his experience, than you were at that time, given your experience? Any diffs to show? --Durin 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose experienced editor but its a little too early.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Experienced but not experienced in other words? This doesn't make sense. --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the contradiction, let me rephrase that oppose comment. He is a good editor and all, but it is a little too early for adminship. Also I change my vote to neutral.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I have to oppose because there is no clear consensus emerging. These sorts of diffs - [6], [7] - make me think that the candidate's not there yet. - Richard Cavell 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm puzzled by your statement which seems to be saying that you are opposing because others are. Pascal.Tesson 20:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, I'm currently on a wikibreak but I feel the need to jump in because this RfA is neither clearly in support of the candidate nor clearly against the candidate. - Richard Cavell 06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose - You're a good editor, but it's a bit too early in my opinion.--$UIT 15:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • So you can evaluate that he's a good editor, but not whether he's trustworthy? After four months and thousands upon thousands of edits, what more can he do to prove it? You obviously can evaluate him. --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose candidates image and signature (it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents) policy knowledge seems to be in an inadequate level at this time. feydey 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Has not demonstrated sufficient dedication to the project for me to trust this user with the tools. Daniel Bryant 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • What might be sufficient demonstration of dedication? How are you evaluating this? --Durin 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose You say in your self-nom that you decided to apply today after another user suggested it. To me, and I may be wrong, it seems almost like an after thought. I would feel more comfortable knowing you had given more consideration to the task before applying. Maybe sit back and keeping working for a bit longer and then come back. I'm sure you'll breeze through then. JodyB 02:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Adminship is no big deal. It's not a special class of users that someone must train for and deeply consider before accepting the possibility of the extra buttons it grants. --Durin 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Inadequate understanding of WP:BLP. --Docga pox on the boxes 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. The bulk of this editor's project space contributions have been to WikiProject pages, which indicates a good familiarity with community but not with the policies here. The candidate wants to help with AIV, but only has 26 edits to that page. In four random reports that I looked more closely at, one was reported after only two warnings. I'm not sure he is fully aware of blocking policy, and I'm not comfortable sending him out to start blocking vandals right now. He also wants to help out with speedy deletions, but I see very little participation in XfD. Again, I don't feel comfortable sending him out there to start deleting articles with so little experience in such matters. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    XfD is not the same as speedy deletion. --Durin 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm aware of that. I think most users learn the ins and outs of deletion policy through participation in XfD. Make sense? --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes/no. You can't gauge how well someone understands speedy tagging since if they are *really* good at it, it looks like they've never done it. Also, XfD and speedy are quite different aspects of deletion policy. --Durin 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    You are correct, I can't gauge how well someone understands speedy tagging unless they have a whole mess of declines. So, barring that possibility, I look for other signs that someone has delved into the world of deletion policy. I submit that AfD is usually the first frontier, since most editors I know, myself included, first ran into deletion policy when an article we were watching got tagged. If it's okay with you, that will be my method of judging the candidate's suitability to start deleting articles. I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but just FYI your charging around here like a rhetorical rhino goring everyone in sight doesn't do much for changing people's minds. --Mus Musculus (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    That was completely uncalled for. RfA is about consensus generation, not so that every person with a position can post obstacles to someone becoming an admin. If you don't like my comments fine; that's part of consensus development, but there's no call to be attacking me personally like that. --Durin 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    Haha rhetorical rhino, I must admit Musculus that was pretty funny. But I agree with Durin on this one, he has every right to stick up for a user he feels would be a great administrator. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. oppose. Too early to judge. Trends of behavior in conflicts unclear. Mukadderat 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral: I think you are very close. A couple months and you will surely have a successful RfA. While you have a lot of contributions I think you need more time here. However I like the answers to your questions. Try in a couple months after trying to fix what's suggested above.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral you're definitely doing great, but I personally prefer you get a little more experience (time-wise) on Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 17:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I agree with Orphen that you are close, but I think you need to work on interactions more. Participating in an edit war is not a good thing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I don't see quite enough experience with admin-like activity but candidate appears to be trustworthy. Like Transhumanist, I would recommend getting a little bit more involved in project space but the suggested 3-6 months of extra activity with 1000 Wiki-space edits seems like a definite overkill. Pascal.Tesson 20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral You are doing well but as Pascal.Tesson said come back here withing 6 months, we'll support you. Good luck. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I do think you're well on your way to being ready for adminship, but I'm afraid you aren't quite there yet. I was looking for a more detailed answer to my questions, particularly the ability to quote the relevant policies: WP:BLOCK (which says you should be diligent in warning users who vandalize) and WP:CSD:A7. In particular the HillstoneLows example has enough of an assertion of notability (see WP:MUSIC's notability criteria relating to national tours) that it should be Prod'ed not speedy deleted (IMHO of course, its a deliberately borderline case). Its also worth noting that grammatical errors and fixable WP:POV are never reasons to delete an article. I really feel you're on the verge of having the policy knowledge that successful admins have, but you're not quite there yet. Another couple of months and some more improvement and I expect you'll sail through. Good luck, Gwernol 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I perfer more time on Wikipedia (6+ month) before applying for adminship.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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.