Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deeptrivia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a withdrawn request for adminship.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

[edit] Deeptrivia

Final (11/15/3) ended 01:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Deeptrivia (talk · contribs) – Deeptrivia has been here since May 2005, and vigorously active from November 2005. He has contributed widely across the length and breadth of wikipedia, and has accumulated 6,300 plus edits across different namespaces, including substantial contribution to Malwa which was selected to be featured. He is a regular and solid contributor. I have watched Deeptrivia for long; have interacted with him regularly, and found that he is like an open book. He has emerged as a mature and trust-worthy editor. I am confident that the time has come to elevate him, and to give him administrative tools. Bhadani 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. I have something to say about my past, which everyone should know before voting. Please see the discussion page. deeptrivia (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I fully understand the concerns of all those who doubt my worthiness as a sysop at this point. I am sorry that the fact that almost 6000 of my edits (that is, most of my edits), are from after that early immature period is not sufficent to gain the confidence of fellow editors, and to convince them that I am an entirely different person now. I would have really loved to share this responsibility, but I understand that I need to get the trust of more editors before that. I will highly appreciate your help in helping me become a better and nicer editor, and will be most delighted to receive any feedback about my performance as an editor, any time. Of course, I'm always here to contribute in all possible ways I can as an editor. Thanks everyone. deeptrivia (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Me of course! --Bhadani 14:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. He would make a great admin. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. I've been involved with this user from time to time, seen around on the reference desks, and was even a little involved in the dispute mentioned at Hindu-Arabic numbers. To be trusted. (not to mention my barnstar). -lethe talk + 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, I've seen this user around a lot. A lot of good contributions.--Deville (Talk) 18:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A quality editor with great potential. GizzaChat © 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Good contributor all around. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Good editor. No Guru 19:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Very helpful and good editor. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, Great contribution during last 4-5 months. Shyam (T/C) 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, I see no problems with this user. JIP | Talk 20:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Support, his misuse stopped by the time I became active here. He has clearly reformed and deserves a second chance. However, it is concerning that at any point he misused the Wikipedia. Computerjoe's talk

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose, user has used very abusive sockpuppets before along with anon IPs ( such as 130.203.202.156 and 70.105.188.134) that were used to vandalize articles and several user pages (including mine) and used to make racist attacks (such as these edits [1]). One example is Muwaffaq, who was used to vandalize articles and make racist attacks, including these very racist comments on a vote for my previous Rfa [2] [3] . Of course “Deeptrivia” too voted on that Rfa with an attack which was also as bad. Evidence of abusive IP addresses can be found here. The problem is that I see no guarantee of trusting this user. I see no reason why he still wouldn't express opinions that are strongly racist and won’t abuse his power even if he has stopped the blatant vandalism. I have seen some recent improvement in his/her edits though, but that could be to raise support for this Rfa. One thing I like is that he has changed his user page by removing the huge Nazi swastika that he had there for several months. Still this user needs more months before he can be trusted. I don’t see any reason why he needs these powers right now or that he won't abuse it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Deeptrivia was blocked for a week by David Gerard in October [4] after a user check showed he had used a sockpuppet, Muwaffaq (talk · contribs), in an RfA to vote against the candidate he opposed (Anonymous editor). He also wrote to the mailing list as Muwaffaq (with the name on the e-mail showing as "Noir Dezzir" and the e-mail address as mknopfler at ...), accusing people who supported Anonymous editor of sockpuppetry, and accusing me of abusing admin powers. Muwaffaq has also engaged in vandalism e.g. here. If this is behavior Deeptrivia is trying to put behind him, fair enough, but I'm concerned that neither he nor his nominator have even mentioned it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    He has mentioned something about the abusive sockpuppet, but not specifically what they did. And he never mentioned the four or five anon IPs that he used to vandalize user pages. Still knowing the very racist opinions he used those editors for, makes me realize that even if he has stopped using them, he still has those very strong racist opinions. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I accept, with great regret, my early behaviour, and I had requested all editors who vote here, in my acceptance statement above to please read the discussion page about my shameful past before they vote. I fully understand and appreciate the concerns of both of you. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Here are Muwaffaq/Deeptrivia's posts to Anonymous editor's RFA: claiming others are sockpuppets when he is one himself; implying that another editor might kill him for disagreeing because the editor is a Muslim; and saying that "by having double digit birth rate these people have garnered all these votes to get adminship", where "these people" refers to Muslim Wikipedians. There's no place on Wikipedia for this kind of overt racism. We wouldn't tolerate an anti-Semite addressing Jewish editors like that, and we likewise shouldn't tolerate it when it's aimed at Muslim editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I wish I had a way to demonstrate how strongly I agree with you, and that I've changed myself completely, SlimVirgin. deeptrivia (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I must say, the statements made above convinced me. While I can accept that you have put vandalism and sockpuppetry behind you, I do not think that such a short period of time is enough time to be certain. Wait at least another three or four months. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 20:44 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Far far too early from the past events. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - a cleaner record would be nice. --Jay(Reply) 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per SlimVirgin. Though I am impressed by this editor's article contributions, and his behaviour has improved somewhat, Special:Contributions/Muffawaq is extremely unsettling. However, what's past is past, so if a consistent pattern of good behaviour was shown, I coould support this candidate at some point in the future.--Sean Black (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. 'Oppose Can't support per evidence shown above. Moe ε 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per above. With that said, good faith ought to prevent us holding a user's past sins against him indefinitely. I am inclined to think this user will make an excellent administrator in six months or so, but right now he hasn't been "good" even for longer than he has been "bad." Users have been denied adminship for minor slip ups: this is an entire history! –Joke 22:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Concerned, based on evidence provided. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per all of the above. Will be quite sometime before I would feel comfortable giving a support vote for this user.--Looper5920 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Somehow sockpuppets and racism just don't do it for me. Grow up. -Mysekurity 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Vandalism is one thing, racist/religious vandalism disturbs me greatly. As better said above, it lets me into what he's thinking - and it's not good. Ifnord 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Slimvirgin. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Slimvirgin and a.n.o.n.y.m abakharev 00:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  15. Definitely not without prejudice per above. NSLE (T+C) at 00:50 UTC (2006-03-24)

Neutral

  1. Perhaps needs some more time on the English Wikipedia to convince those who oppose above. Otherwise, his contributions have been exemplery high in the past three months. Should try again in three more months. --Andy123(talk) 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hmm, I was not aware of that, so regrettfully I cannot support at this time. I certainly respect a lot fo the good work. The way that you can "demonstrate how strongly I agree with you, and that I've changed myself completely" is spending more time with great contributions and see what you can do to apologize to anyone you may have offended and improve the issues involved. - Taxman Talk 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. I can't help but notice that a lot of the edit count is made up of repeated edits to the one page, or reverts with no substantive contribution. He's only been 'power editing' since November. Not that there's anything to be ashamed of in any of that. But why the rush to be an admin? Would it absolve him of his sins if we made him an admin? Is the purpose of making someone an admin to give them a standard to grow up to? - Richardcavell 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See Deeptrivia's edit count and contribution tree with

Interiot's tool.

  • I fully understand the concerns of all those who doubt my worthiness as a sysop at this point. I am sorry that the fact that almost 6000 of my edits (that is, most of my edits), are from after that black early period is not sufficent to gain the confidence of fellow editors. I would have really loved to share this responsibility, but I understand that I need to get the trust of more editors before that. I will highly appreciate your in helping me become a better and nicer editor. I'll be delighted to receive any feedback about my performance as an editor, any time. Of course, I'm always here to contribute in all possible ways I can as an editor. deeptrivia (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2006 (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. In the first couple of months, I am planning to focus attention on janitor's work. I'm already using godmode-lite for rollback. Sysop privilege will enable me to get involved in WP:AIV, CAT:CSD, WP:RM and WP:CV. Once I gain confidence and good experience with responsible usage of these powers, and a reputation as a good admin, I'll participate in more areas, like closing debates, WP:PP, WP:RFP and content dispute mediation.


2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. History of the rupee, on which I worked non-stop for several hours one night, Malwa, which was my first FA, Indian cuisine and related articles, which got me my first barnstar, Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi, which I'm working on right now. I am also happy with my contributions towards the revival of the History of India wikiproject, which was created by an anon IP, but which no one knew about. I consider the responsibility of managing Portal:Buddhism and Portal:Hinduism to be a great privilege. My very recent contributions to Ziyaret also gave me immense satisfaction.


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. After getting serious with wikipedia, I've experienced stress on one occasion last December. I had proposed a name change for the Arabic numerals article, which was changed to Hindu-Arabic numerals by consensus, though, apparently a bit hastily. The move, however, was confused by some new participants to be a bad-faith part of the revert war already going on there. Thus, another round of voting was carried out. Over 60% editors opposed the change to "Arabic numerals" (requirement was 40%), but the article was still moved by the admin, due to some confusion. In the end, however, with the intervention of a bureaucrat, the article name was changed back to Hindu-Arabic numerals by the adminstrator. Later, the name was changed back to "Arabic numerals" by another editor, apparently unaware of the previous consensus. I've discussed the issue with him, and hopefully, at some point the move will be reverted. What disturbed me the most in this process was that many users who voted on either side thought this was a nationalistic issue/POV-pushing/religious or ethnic sentiment, etc; while I intended it to be purely based on WP:MoS considerations. My reasons for the proposal are here. I think all this confusion could have been avoided if I had just better timed my proposal. I think I learned a lot from this experience, and I am glad that I stayed calm during this process, which was, at times, a bit frustrating. I also received a wifflebat in appreciation of my attitude. I decided not to pursue the matter further for the time because I thought it surely wasn't the most productive usage of my wiki-time.
In the past two months, I've observed myself and other users, trying to analyse what exactly is the source of conflicts on wikipedia. I feel that a significant number of conflicts on wikipedia are rooted in different manifestations of ego-clashes. Looking at interactions on wikipedia as a Zen practice, and trying to be Mettāful at all time, I think I have succeeded in avoiding many conflicts, not only between me and other editors, but between other editors. I intend to further strengthen this Mettā practice in future.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.