Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deckiller

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] Deckiller

Final (73/1/1) ending 03:38 March 10, 2006 (UTC).

Deckiller (talk · contribs) – Tireless contributor (is there anything he doesn't do?!) with more than 10,000 edits. I have nothing further to say. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Deckiller 03:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong support. Experienced user with over 10,000 edits. Helpful to new users and participates in nearly every aspect of WP. Would make a great admin. Gflores Talk 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Deckiller has worked tirelessly on many articles and reverting vandalisms. As BorgHunter said, he is a tireless contributor and would make an excellent administrator. Griz 03:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support a good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Very Strong Support Yes, yes, yes 10,000+ edits, excellent work with American Football articles --Jaranda wat's sup 04:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Nominator support —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Seems like a solid candidate. -- Jbamb 04:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Impressive answers. Joe I 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, good candidate, although he should use the preview button a little bit more. Kusma (討論) 04:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, looks good to me. VegaDark 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, sure. pschemp | talk 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Strong support. Great editor and leader; he will be a great sysop. -Xol 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support DaGizzaChat © 06:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Seems experienced and responsible. Celcius 07:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support do it. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support Deserves to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Everything seems to be in order, thought this user was already an admin.--Alhutch 09:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support: --Bhadani 13:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support so many edits? needs to be rewarded, good luck to you. Gryffindor 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --Terence Ong 14:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  21. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Very strong candidate. -Colin Kimbrell 16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Strong candidate. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. Meets my standards. I could wish he wasn't so merge-happy but I suppose nobody's perfect. --maru (talk) contribs 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Thunderbrand 18:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Moe ε 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support Mjal 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Good work! Splette Image:Happyjoe.jpg 21:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  30. 100% Strong Support. One of the most qualified editors, and one of the best nominations I've seen. His dedication and service to this project is invaluable, and his behavior is impeccable - I see no other choice better than support. People like him/her make the place better. Again: 100% Strong Support. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support We need more editors like this as admins. --CTSWyneken 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support --Latinus 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Not much to say really; exceeds my standards. --Cymsdale 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Seems like a good Wookiepedian. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  35. NSLE (T+C) at 00:37 UTC (2006-03-04)
  36. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support looks good to me.--MONGO 03:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support good editor --rogerd 03:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - lots of potential to be a good administrator and to demonstrate quality leadership by example. --HappyCamper 04:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. --Khoikhoi 04:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    Support --Terence Ong 05:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I voted twice. ;) --Terence Ong 05:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  42. Absolutely support without reservation. Excellent editor, very proactive, and gets along very well with other editors. – Seancdaug 07:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support a very excellent candidate. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-04 08:03Z
  44. Support, I thought this user already... Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - lots of good stuff here. Essexmutant 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support, nice work so far. --Tone 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support looks like Deckiller would make an excellent admin. Prodego talk 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Rama's Arrow 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Of course, jacoplane 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support--Jusjih 03:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Wow! Raven4x4x 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support more than 10k edits, that awesome! --Saluyot 10:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006
  55. Truppos. Sure, why not. :P --Imperialles 00:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  56. Yes, yes, yes please! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support --Ugur Basak 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support to make Phaedriel happy, if she wants this so much I cannot bear to think about how sad she'll be if Deckiller isn't made Admin. (that was a joke, for those of you with humor-disabled minds. The support is real.) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. Strong contributor. Jayjg (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. A hard working helpful wikipedian who shows no signs of slowing down? Of course I'll support. Jedi6 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  61. Strong support --Ixfd64 04:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Brushes and flosses his teeth every morning and only drinks pure Florida orange juice. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 21:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. Another great editor for the admin staff! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staxringold (talk • contribs)
  64. Support Competent editor, seems like he would handle adminship well. Pagrashtak 00:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  65. User:Go for it!/Vote Support I'm curious to see to what amazing use he'll put the admin tools. Let's give them to him and find out. Go for it! 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. Jonathunder 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support - I see no problems -- Tawker 01:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support - thank God we have a little vote here. We can see who's doing a good job, and who needs to, lets just say, learn a few lessons. (Rob, I know your one of the tech guys, who rights the code and all, but I still think you're a nut.) --Rob from NY 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    And I will leave my crappy writing up to illustrate that we all have faults --Rob from NY 02:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 21:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support! Sango123 (e) 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support Should be a good administrator. FloNight talk 02:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. I almost never vote on RFAs anymore, but my recent positive interactions with this user makes an exception. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. Deckiller is a great contributor to Wikipedia, and strives to make it a better place every single day. He has a great drive and determination towards keeping Wikipedia safe and clean, and deserves this honor. And he's also a Mofo.AdmiralTreyDavid 03:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Do not want "quick strike" anywhere near admin tools. ... aa:talk 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    What do you mean by quick strike? Is that a nick you know him by from somewhere else? --maru (talk) contribs 23:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    In my first answer, I said that I often revert vandalism and reply to comments quickly, hence "quick strike". Deckiller 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    All the better, the longer a page remains vandalized the more it hurts WP's credibility. This is a plus, not a minus. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Rob Church (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    Before I'm forced into giving a reason, here it is. Tireless contributors do not need to be punished with administrative duties. Stick to your strengths. Rob Church (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 87% for major edits and 89% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Deckiller'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 have about 2,000 items on my watchlist, which allows me to quickly deal with vandalism, WP:POV, unsourced statements, and other issues. I can carry this quick-strike habit over to sysop chores, such as reverting vandalism and changes that do not follow the WP:MOS. I also lurk the AfD pages, and I'm willing to spend at least twenty-thirty minutes checking out those pages. Moreover, as a member of the Star Wars and Final Fantasy wikiprojects, I often encounter pages that require speedy deletion. I will be willing to take care of pages that need speedy deletion in a quick and fair manner. Plus, the Final Fantasy and Star Wars WikiProject could use another sysop member to increase the quick-strike against issues. Also, a few other typical duties include adding categories, headings, and overall cleanup of pages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My work on the New England Patriots featured article is something that I am proud of. Furthermore, the creation of the Star Wars WikiProject has become a great success, and I look forward to working with that for a long time. I merge a lot of fictional things; merging is one of my favorite things to do on Wikipedia. Next, I'm happy that I set some time every week to greet a series of new users. Finally, I'm happy when I just hanging around the site and clicking on random pages; you never know when you can find something that needs to be merged, fixed, or deleted. As a side note, I don't know if this counts, but a few months ago I was involved in that Willy on Wheels incident, where he placed a series of phallic images on the page. I helped out with the discussions, reverting, and tagging for that. That was my first time getting my feet wet with reverting vandalism/sockpuppets, and I think it was a key step in my development as a well-rounded Wikipedian.
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. Usually, I try to stay neutral unless I am passionate about an issue, though I have gotten into a minor conflict with User:Krelian 88, a new user who dropped a series of unsourced pictures and claims on the Xenosaga lists. He spoke in Spanish and spammed my talkpage, so I calmly asked a series of Spanish-speaking administrators to help out. I've been involved in some heated debates on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy page (and all satellite pages), which rarely turned violent. I try to remain positive and fair, for I don't want to compromise someone's self esteem and cost Wikipedia a productive editor.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    First, it's important to weigh the truth here; Wikipedia needs all the productive editors it can get. Unfortunately, sockpuppet usage is a serious offense, as is explained in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (voting, policies, and so on) so this is a matter that I can not take on alone. I need to take a few steps:
    • Find evidence for my claims. I'd look for parallels in writing styles, emoticons (if any), stances toward various issues, and edits that are extremely close in time. This would require extensive research into both the puppet and the "main user"'s edit summary. In addition, Wikimedia has a checkuser function, which allows admins to check IPs and see if the master user's matches with the alleged sockpuppet. That can be worked on if necessary. HOWEVER, this may not work if the user is on, say, AOL, so if the match comes out negative, I will investigate whether or not the user uses AOL.
    • After going through that process and I come out with a positive match, I will compile all information into a case, and discuss it with fellow administrators.
    • After a brief discussion, I, as the investigator, will come forward with the information, notify the "head user", and notify that person that their sockpuppets will be blocked. I should give them a chance to explain themselves prior to the blocking, just for fairness.
    • Should resistance arise, I will talk to fellow administrators who agree with my case, and an WP:RFAr would become a realistic possibility.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    Even though I'd have administrative powers by this point, that does not give me eighteen extra votes. Still, I would discuss the situation with the administrator who deleted the page (and perhaps a few neutral admins, as well), and see if a regular deletion would be a better option. If I'm backed into a wall, I'd drop my case and move on; I'm not in the place to argue about trivial, blind causes when there is so much to be done with this encyclopedia.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    I'd still give them another chance. I've learned that users often erupt for brief periods of time, before cooling down. User:Krelian 88 gave me that lesson, as did a fellow member of a Star Wars club I help lead. I'd give him some more time, I'd post another comment on his page, let things cool down, and work from there. If time does not do its healing, I will block for a short period of time. After the unblock, I would try again. If that fails, then it's time for a more normal block. This is a lengthy process, but it might show the user that I am willing to listen to reason. Also, if I keep on this user, there should be no effects in the rest of the community. Deckiller 04:21, 3 March 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.