Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deon555 2

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] Deon555

Final (18/16/8) Ended 02:55 2 November 2006 (UTC),

Deon555 (talk · contribs) – I have over 2,000 edits, and have been at Wikipedia for over 7 months. I use VandalProof, Godmodelite (Rollback), popups and Lupin's Anti-Vandal tools for vandal fighting. I do RC and NP Patrol, probably slightly more NP Patrol, to watch for small pages like "Wow can i really edit here",attack pages, copyvios and anything else that is Speedy Deletion material. I am involved in several WikiProjects, such as AfD closing, and stub removal, although I haven't been paticularly active in them recently. I'm almost always in #wikipedia-bootcamp on Freenode helping out users who add the {{helpme}} tag to their talk pages, I'm also a Channel operator there and help users who come in to chat. I try to answer questions at the Help Desk, and the Reference Desk where time permits. I have also been a verified user of the Wikiproject on Open Proxies for some time now, and that is one of my main priorities. I check there a few times a week for alerts, and then try to join the #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en channel to get an admin to block the proxies once verified. One of my other main priorities at the moment is Abuse Reports. From what you can see above I am very anti-vandalism, and Abuse Reports helps Wikipedia do that one more little thing to stop persistent vandals. I have both investigated and contacted in several cases, and am currently investigating a very large case of range vandalism.. I had an RfA in early July, which unfortuanely failed to acheive consensus at (0/9/1), primarily due to the fact that I had only 245 edits then. Thanks, — Deon555talkReview 01:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept — Deon555talkReview 01:40, 26 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I intend to help out primarily at WP:AIV, but also in the two backlog categories mentioned. Also, I'll be monitoring WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AN3 constantly. I'll also be using my tools first hand, speedy deleting tagged pages (and candidates), blocking open proxies, blocking vandals on RC Patrol etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My first real article was DECv. I'm proud of that because (if you look at the diffs), it started of such a crummy article when I made it, then overnight it became so much better, I put sources in, Image, Infobox, and I'm very proud of that, although I do realise I don't own it. I have made several templates that I'm proud with Template:CSDNotice (to alert people a page they just made is about to be speedy deleted), Template:Notaproxy (for proven Non proxies), Template:Unnode(for taken-down Tor node's).
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 any major conflicts. There are minor conflicts you have now and then with other editors.. but nothing major.
Optional question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)
4. How would you balance your contribution as an admin and as an editor?
A: I would try and fit in editorial tasks such as writing articles, RCP, Wikification, Cleanup etc, but at the same time would use the mop, I would try to make it the same amount of time, if not more on Editorial, because the vandals will evenutally stop: the editing won't.

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I'll be honest. I've never really understood IAR, and it looks like (well I hope) I'm not the only one. The five pillars of Wikipedia, the fifth in fact, states Wikipedia does not have firm rules, but they do say rules are there to be broken.. IAR points out that it's important to remember rules shouldn't be "broken" as such, they should be ignored, not ignorantly, but carefully and intentionally. As for SNOW, it's an essay, not a policy, so theres a different approach. We see SNOW put into practise regularly, for example the new WP:CSD additions, are there so such pages dont clutter AfD, because they have "not a snowballs chance" of bringing in an unexpected result.
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No. Not ever. I don't want to quote policy all day, but blocks are clearly there as a technical measure to stop the editor from well, editing. Blocks should never be applied as a punitive or punshing way, as that's not what they are there for. That's not to say that "In-blocks" aren't disallowed. (See [1] for example).
7. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A:



General comments
  • See Deon555's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • See Deon555 edit count using Interiot's Wannabe Kate Edit Counter. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you might want to duck out of here. You have around 400 article edits, the majority being marked as minor- mostly semi-automated vandal rollback and typo fixes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • People will also pile-on oppose based on the fact that your form was lodged incorrectly - that's unfortunate, I feel that people shouldn't be lazy in that way and simply oppose on the basis of a mislodged form, claiming "incompetence" but should investigate the candidate's record to see if this correct. However, they will do it anyway.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. Support A fine editor of Wikipedia - friendly, courteous, and helpful. He has a good record, and I think there's little chance of misusing the tools. I do hope that he can offer further clarification of the questions above, though. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 03:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support, a competent and intelligent user. If your RfA is successful, I would really like to see greatly increased involvement in admin activities - that is, so that there's a genuine reason to give you the tools - but on the basis that adminship is "no big deal" and a simple assumption that you're willing and able to learn, I see no compelling reason to oppose. Good luck. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support, the only thing that gives me pause is a slight lack in article contributions and XfD discussions. Otherwise, I think that you are well-suited to being an admin. Daniel.Bryant 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support This user meets my qualifications, and I'm not going to fret over the exact quality of contributions.-- danntm T C 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Moral support You seem like an editor who could use the tools and who won't abuse them. Some more experience would be nice though. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 16:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Moral support You have the right motivation and may one day make a great admin, but for now I suggest a withdrawal and concentration on experience, especially with encyclopaedia writing in the mainspace, TewfikTalk 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support unlikely to misuse the tools ` Doctor Bruno  20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Helps out users a lot. G.He 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support I trust Deon with the tools, but I agree he needs to work on his mainspace edits. My recommendation is he consider withdrawing at this point and wait until someone is willing to nominate him. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support I don't believe that this user would misuse the tools. Besides, adminship is suppose to be "no big deal", right? Or has it become de facto a gigantic deal? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 00:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. I have no reason to believe he'd misuse the admin tools, and he's a good-faith editor. --Slowking Man 01:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    Moral support I can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in Wikpedia;cleanup. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from. 66.230.200.131 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, IPs can't !vote. Please log in. MER-C 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    Wow. That was weird. Trying again after edit conflict. LOLCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    Moral support switch to neutral I can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in Wikpedia:cleanup. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Good dedicated user, unlikely to abuse the tools. Hello32020 19:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support nice guy, works hard, can definitely be trusted. As is the case with many, myself included, I wish he'd write more articles. -- Samir धर्म 02:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Great to work with, knows his way around very well, and very trustworthy. Will make a good addition! --Skywolf talk/contribs 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Good editor, diligent, and unlikely to leave us soon. TehKewl1 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. DarthVader 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support - admins dont need tons of mainspace edits to clean up wikipedia.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Geo. 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sorry, you appear to have some knowledge of Wikipedia's internal machinery, but your contributions denote that you might require some more experience. For instance, you have been involved with countervandalism only in the hours prior to this RfA. I also see no recent XfD participation. And your edit summary usage is also a bit below of what would be expected. :-( --Húsönd 04:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Hi. Countervandalism diffs from September [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I can assure you I didn't just "take up" Vandal fighting just before RfA. AfD's: Yes, I'll admit, the most recent is probably around late August: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Edit Summary Usage is 93% for Major and 100% for Minor.. Sorry if that's a little too low, although I don't think it's too bad.. — Deon555talkReview 04:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    Well, I didn't check your edit history beyond the last 500 edits as the past two months were already covered in that sum. Anyway, it is a big concern to me that in the past two months you did not fight vandalism (until today). If you haven't been fighting vandalism for so long, nor participating in page deletion discussions, then I can't see why would you need the tools. 93% edit summary usage for major edits is not too bad, but it's not too good either. You are a good user and your willingness to get involved with administrative tasks is commendable, but you must provide clear proof that you are experienced enough to be given access to the admin tools.--Húsönd 04:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Understood. — Deon555talkReview 05:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. There is more to Wikipedia than vandal wargames. Someone wishing to be admin should at the very least have a strong list of substantive contributions to the actual encyclopedia. Rebecca 06:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. However, if you were to significantly help a few articles reach FA status, I'd be the first to support you. yandman 09:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Per above. I'll also note that before today I've never heard of you (no offence). I have a good number of vandalfighters' pages watchlisted and I've never once seen you, so it's hard for me to make a good judgement on whether you would use the tools well. I'd definitely like to see more article contribs. – Chacor 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I would like to see more actions in editing aside from vandal warning. Michael 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I would also like to see more substantive article editing, as well as a little more participation in a variety of pseudo-administrative tasks. More edits on the whole would seem in order to show a real affinity for the project as a whole. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Low number of mainspace edits indicates vital lack of experience. Xoloz 15:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I'd hope also to see more article writing as it helps You to better evaluate other articles (speedy candidates). Why didn't You mention Your very first RfA attempt in late May [11]? feydey 15:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Hi. When I say "speedy candidates" I mean anything deletable under WP:CSD; as for the RfA, I explained that in my RfA, I don't even count that as an RfA. The non-existent page wasn't transcluded for 2 minutes, and I thought otherwise (WP:SNOW)— Deon555talkReview 23:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Not enough experience with article building. - Mike | Trick or Treat 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose candidate lacks experience in matters of substance. Pete.Hurd 04:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Rebecca. Dionyseus 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I would like to see more experience in the actual editing of articles. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Siva1979. A featured article of your topic of interest would be the best way to go. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, not enough experience with article creation. Per Husond. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Rebecca. T REXspeak 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Rebecca and Siva1979 --Trödel 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I suggest withdrawing this RfA and seeking an editor review instead. As mentioned above, 400 article edits, the vast majority of which are vandal reverts and spelling corrections, doesn't allow you to demonstrate your abilities to contribute encyclopedic content and communicate effectively. An admin needs to be able to perform both of those tasks to a high ability in order to interact with other editors and assist them in their article-building efforts. In order to build up more experience in these matters, I suggest joining projects such as the Featured Article and Good article drives. These will allow you to express your opinions from the point-of-view of policies and guidelines and also to develop your research and encyclopedic writing abilities at the same time. I would further suggest assisting new editors at the Help and Reference Desks in order to become familiar with the range of resources available to Wikipedia and the different experience levels of editors - postgrad/doctoral/faculty to high school - and effective means of communication for each. You can also patrol the new and recent changes pages in order to revert vandals, warn them and finally report them to WP:AIV or other appropriate place. This will allow you to become familiar with one of the big admin-related tasks, reverting vandalism. (aeropagitica) 04:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Aeropagitica sums it up for me. Think this user will be a great admin when a little more integrated into the editing of the encylopedia, although personally I'm not insistent about FA involvement. If this Rfa fails and you run again in a few months, please drop me a line on my talk page. --Dweller 09:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral — I have always seen deon to be a good editor, but there are a few reasons why I can't support at this stage. Firstly, appears to be very (IMO too) eager to get a sysop flag, and has applied previously on wikiversity and simple, as well as here. Also, I'm not a supporter of WP:1FA, but I think you should write some articles (not neccesarily featured ones, but stubs always help), because when it all comes down to it Wikipedia is still an encyclopædia, and we need articles. On a more positive note however, your project-space contributions have been quite good. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral — I'm in no way an advocate of 1FA; however before I could ever give someone my support I require a healthy ammount of contributions and good use of edit smmarys, come back in a few more months with a few more edits under your belt and i will definitley consider giving you a support. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral due to not wanting to pileon, but you don't seem to have enough experience of the sort of controversial areas (e.g. Afd) that admins need to get involved in. Cynical 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I'm not one of those "FA or else..." people, but I (and I want to be frank, not to discourage Deon, but simply being honest...) find it disturbing that a self-nom's answer to #2 is what amounts to a really long stub article. In many ways, this is the inverse of many failed Rfa's. Many of the opposes above usually vote nay when they see an excellent writer who isn't involved in the other aspects (Rfa, Afd, vandal fighting, etc.) You've got the hard part out of the way... now go write ! And write some more ! I'll be watching your edits over the next month. Once you show you are willing to help write this encyclopedia, I will nominate you myself. Jcam 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Switch to Neutral I can support a dedicated vandalfighter, but only with more total edits. One can quickly increase one's edit count vandal !fighting, so it takes more to convince me to support. You need more than vandal !fighting to become an admin. There are ~17,000 articles in Wikipedia:cleanup. I would suggest helping clear out that backlog. Some of those articles backed up from 2005 might need deleting, so this might be a good opportunity to gain experience sifting wheat from chaff. Find a niche. There is probably something you know about or can get information on that could be your unique contribution. Join a project and work with a team. There are many encyclopedia building ares to choose from.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. It looks like you've made great strides since your last RfA and I applaud you for it. Don't think I can support an admin position for you at this point, but please keep up the good work.--Caliga10 21:27, 29 October 2006 (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.