Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deryck Chan

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] Deryck Chan

Vote here (15/10/11) ending 15:12 October 7 (UTC)

Deryck Chan (talk · contribs) – Deryck has been with us actively since May of this year, first as Deryckchan, and presently as Deryck Chan. He has over 2600 edits between the two accounts, with edits spread out among the namespace. He is involved in editing and writing Hong Kong related articles and has contributed several FAs already. In addition, he has also helped me maintain WP:MIND. I feel that this is a worthy Wikipedian who deserves a mop and bucket. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination as a candidate for adminship. Deryck C. 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Guess I'll have to, eh? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support CambridgeBayWeather 16:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Sure, why not? SchmuckyTheCat 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Although I've only come across him via WP:MIND, rather than on articles, I've seen nothing that suggests to me he shouldn't be an admin. KeithD (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. When I've come accross him, he seems to be level-headed and a good editor. Titoxd 17:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support His help with me on Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia was above and beyond the call of duty. I'm going to vote for him 10 times, but you don't have to count the last 9. ;-) Karmafist 18:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Journalist >>talk<< 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Bart133 (t) 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support - dedicated to the project. No reason in my mind that he wouldn't make a good admin. --Celestianpower hablamé 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. extreme support--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 01:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strong support. He is very active and dedicated. --Microtony 1:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Pcb21| Pete 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Merovingian (t) (c) 05:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Extreme Heterosexualist(sic) support. Did stupid things once in a while, but he has always proven himself humble enough to apologize and learn from them. Has shown himself willing to listen to people's concerns rather than behaving stubbornly, which IMHO should be the #1 criterion for adminship. Borisblue 04:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Cooperative. Andre (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I just don't believe this person would be a good admin, from what I've seen. Private Butcher 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The "Support Me" signature smacks of campaigning, which I find distateful. --Rogerd 07:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Might be willing to reconsider if user removes RfA link from his signature, and stops using transcluded templates as a signature- the preferences page explicitly warns not to do this, and it is an easy vandalism target. Ral315 WS 20:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      Moved to neutral.
  3. Oppose I generally hate to do this but all this campaigning isn't a good use of judgment in my opinion, putting so much time in on WP:MIND when there's so many backlogs concerns me. I don't see much RC patrol/vandal fighting...I guess I'd like to see a broader particapation. Great energy and very positive though! Rx StrangeLove 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    To Ral315, Kelly, Rob and all others who oppose my use of transcluding signatures: that signature was originally an idea of Omegatron and others who thought my HTML-Wikimarkup blended signature was too hasty to be seen in source codes. Now I've changed them to the raw code form and removed all campaigning text. Hope you'll reconsider your vote. Deryck C. 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Use a less colourful and less intricate signature if people are going to complain. There again, the code for your signature doesn't appear to be to bad; I've seen far longer. Rob Church Talk 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I strongly dislike campaigning for adminship — an editor that has earned the trust of the community and edited enough for the Wikipedia community to be aware of him or her should be able to pass RfA without campaigning, and choosing to campaign when it should be unnecessary shows poor judgment (actually, it was the user's campaigning that brought me to this vote page). Additionally, the points brought up by the neutral and other opposing users give me further doubts about this request. —Lowellian (reply) 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Just little curiousity: Where did you find me campaigning? Deryck C. 16:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Originally, in the signature. Other voters here have pointed out other places. —Lowellian (reply) 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose still WAAAAAY too green in the political/user interaction aspect of the job of administrator. I dont know if this comes from his non-native use of the english language, or perhaps just inexperience, in either case I dont feel this is the appropriate time to promote him... perhaps in a few months.  ALKIVAR™ 07:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I like your enthusiasm, but think it's a little too early. You seem to act before reading the guidelines on what you're doing, like with those FAC oppose votes that people have mentioned, and I think that campaigning for support votes this blatantly was another example of this. I understand that you don't repeat your mistakes once they're pointed out, and there's plenty in your favour - eg going out of your way to welcome new people - but I'd rather you spent a few more months on here before becoming an admin. CTOAGN 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for reasons already stated. I don't oppose campaigning, but I don't like these complicated signatures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Please refer to my comments on the user's talk page. JuntungWu 11:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I can't say it better than was said by Juntung. The user's talk page is also revealing with it's quid pro quo dialogue with another admin candidate. --hydnjo talk 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    What should I do then? Refuse to answer him? Just because he's another RfA candidate and talking about the RfA? Deryck C. 17:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"The best way to give thanks is, of course, to vote back on my RfA ^^" is, in my opinion, campaigning. You don't see it that way so I will give you the benefit of doubt and strike my comment. --hydnjo talk 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I don't like the idea of campaigning. This isn't an election. Acetic'Acid 08:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral - until questions are answered. I would just not bother with voting yet but seeing as the nominated voted himself, we can be sure that he has seen the page. --Celestianpower hablamé 16:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Switch to support. --Celestianpower hablamé 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you very much. Deryck C. 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Neutral for now - I think he just needs a couple more months' seasoning and showing consistent cluefulness. I think his dedication to the project is obvious - David Gerard 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Difficult candidate to evaluate - most of the edits in the past 500 are all in the mind benders... which while neat doesn't help me evaluate at all. Also doesn't use edit summaries much. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    A little reply: You may choose "(main)" in the namespace drop-down to evaluate my work on articles. That page can actually reflect my work to the wikipedia according to your criteria. Deryck C. 02:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)`
  3. Neutral - needs more variety on articles he edits. aOnly 528 distinct pages is not enough IMO. Once he gets up in that counter, I will be happy to support. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral for the time being. I can see the overwhelming effort made by Deryck, particularly in Hong Kong- and science-related articles, and he's indeed a gung-ho wikipedian. But sometimes this young man might be too reckless in communicating with other contributors (maybe he should mind his language every now and then). I'll wait and see, trying to make my vote later on. Good luck! ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 10:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral for now, would be happy to support in a few months barring further incidents. Ral315 WS 13:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I was trying to remember why I had such a negative impression of Deryck, and then it occured to me that it originated with this and similar FAC edits he made in June (which he mentions in his answer to question 3). Additionally, voting for yourself doesn't show an ideal understanding of process, and despite a massive amount of Wikipedia edits, the total is misleading since the majority of them are connected with Wikipedia:Mind Benders, and he rarely seems to enter the really contentious areas. His contributions to Wikipedia:FAC recently seem obsessed with pictures only, and he rarely uses edit summaries. His edits also indicated some difficulty with English, and although this isn't a reason in and of itself to oppose, it could pose problems as an admin. If this sounds harsh, I should offset it by saying that I believe he's a good editor, but that I just can't trust him with adminship at this point in time. I'm also curious as to an example of an article that he thinks was "protected unreasonably". --Scimitar parley 16:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    First, about the voting-for-myself problem, I must say sorry, for it is quite impossible for me to understand an unwritten social custom before I get trapped by it. Second, a little reply for the "protected unreasonably" question. The article Kowloon Tong (MTR) was protected without any discussion or given reason from early June to September. Third, about the "no contentious edit" question. Rubidium hydroxide and Rubidium oxide are 2 examples of articles written completely by myself in terms of content. I understand the fact that I gave a really negative impression to you and no matter what I do you will not turn to support. What I'm doing with this reply is, simply, to clarify your concerns for other potential voters. Deryck C. 16:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Not that negative an impression. If I was so close-minded as to be unwilling to change my vote after reasoned discussion with a good editor, I wouldn't be much of an admin myself, would I? Would you be willing to commit to using edit summaries in future?--Scimitar parley 18:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Yes. May I ask a little question: Do I need to put an edit summary when I edit my own user page or use the "new section" button in talk pages? (In the latter you just can't have a summary). Deryck C. 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    I have been using edit summaries a lot since I became an admin, because I committed to doing so during my adminship discussion. I haven't been consistently using summaries in my own user pages, however. When you use the new section button, the edit summary doubles as "Subject/headline" field, so it's hard to avoid giving a summary there. I have some javascript which forces me into using edit summaries except on my user pages - let me know if you'd like to try it. Lupin|talk|popups 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    Scimitar, I think its bad form that you haul up Deryck Chan for his English. I see nothing wrong with his english, and I personally, can very well understand users who have rated themselves with "en-1" in commons:. Secondly, I think its a bit harsh to single Deryck for a single edit which happened in June. He was probably new to FAC then, he's learnt from his mistakes. I remember that edit very well, and let me assure you he hasn't repeated it in FAC ever since. User:Nichalp/sg 09:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'm afraid if I've come across harsher than I intended. The edit in June was the reason I remembered Deryck, and I merely noted his English, which is certainly passable, and I meant no offense by. Following Deryck's assurance that he'd use edit summaries, I've switched to neutral, as I don't feel strongly enough to oppose at this point. That said, I just don't know how Deryck would respond in potential conflicts, so I'm not confident enough to make this an outright support, either. I hope I've caused no offense.--Scimitar parley 14:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you. Also thanks to God who showed you the truth about me. Deryck C. 16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Use of transcluded signature is Major Bad Mojo. If editor replaces signature, will reconsider. Kelly Martin 20:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Editor has stopped transcluding signature; however, still have concerns about campaigning. Neutral. Kelly Martin 13:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Neutral this time as per the reasons cited above, but mostly due to campaigning. Hall Monitor 19:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Neutral. Only 31.5% of his edits are to articles; even if you add Talk pages in the article namespace, that only brings it up to 39%. The number of edits shows his dedication to Wikipedia, but it concerns me that he puts more effort into discussing policy than editing articles. Also, the number of distinct pages he's edited is currently only at 541 - considering the number of edits he's made to non-article pages, it seems like the number of actual Wikipedia articles he's touched is probably very low. - Brian Kendig 17:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - transcluding signatures is a drain on the system. Campaigning in that signature is not good form. Voting for yourself is not good form, either. Rob Church Talk 20:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to see him going and removing all instances of that damn transclusion everywhere to reduce the drain on the system further. However, I won't advise it because you'll bugger up the page caching and further drain the system. If possible, try to reduce any instances of this that you come across. Rob Church Talk 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Hope you may clarify: any instances of what? Deryck C. 16:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    I referred to instances of your template signature, which will still be lurking about the place. Vote changed to neutral, however, after a lot of reflection and consideration of the bigger picture. Rob Church Talk 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Per reasons stated above. Would possibly support in a few months. Carbonite | Talk 13:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • In addition to WP:MIND, I'm also an ad-hoc administrator in WP:HKCOTW and WP:SCOTW. I also contribute massively to chemistry related articles besides Hong Kong related ones (see impurity and sexual reproduction, for example). Deryck C. 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it a little distasteful that his user page says: Deryck for Admin!!!! Go and support me at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deryck Chan!!! Not "please have a look at what I've done and give your opinion of me," but "go and support me!"
    Thanks for your opinion. I will change the wordings as you find that distrateful. Just a little fact: I copied the approximate design from the notice when Essjay and Redwolf24 were on RfA and RfB. Deryck C. 16:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    Wording changed from "Go and support me" to "Come and cast a vote". Deryck C. 16:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Deryck's last words in this RfA: The RfA is about to close now, and I'm not sure if I'll be promoted (60% support rate, certain distance lower than the 75% conventional margin). However, no matter what'll be the result, I'll try to serve the community as hard as I can in the future. If I succeed, I'll take all your opinions and try to improve myself in building relationships. If I fail, I'll take this as an experience and have maybe one or two months of work, and come back in a brand new face which will not offend anybody. I hope everybody enjoyed discussing about my RfA and... Relax now! Deryck C. 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

From the pillbox I inquire:

1.The answer to Q3 indicates you learned something (swell!) about how the project works from an incident. Do you really think it's to the projects advantage to let "the other side keep their edits" if it means possible POV or falsehoods in articles?

I am sure about that, because only if both sides have considerable points and arguments in a debate will neither side tend to give up. Therefore, to compare between accepting one side's opinions or keeping the debate fiercely unconcluded, the former should be preferred as this brings both reading conveniece to readers of the articles and peace to the editors. Deryck C. 17:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

2.How would you act, as an admin, to help defuse situations between other editors?

I'll point out some neutral facts about the issue and draw the dispute to concensus with the support of these facts. (Thanks Scimitar for pointing out these questions.) Deryck C. 17:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A: I'll anticipate to help fighting vandalism. In addition, I will try to unprotect pages which have been protected unreasonably for a long time.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think Sun Yat-sen is my most-pleased contribution to Wikipedia. 2 months ago, I spot a project from another user (Borisblue) ,who doesn't know Chinese, is hiring a Cantonese man to improve this biography. I volunteered, and eventually, the article was expanded, split into sections, given more and more contexts, and later on even exploded out a section into another separate article! Per the advice of the Boris, I put the article onto WP:PR and later WP:FAC. In the FAC, many objections were raised and a big number of improvements were made. Now, the article is a featured article which is going to appear on the Main Page on 8 October. This article pleased me so much because this is the FA which I put the most amound of time and efforts into. It really pleased me much.
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: It was in June when I first encountered an FAC of the article Hong Kong. As it was the first FAC that I did anything with, I simply didn't know the rules and made tens of people angry. Hereby, I apologize for all those faults I made 3 months ago, and hope those I've made angry in June can support me by observing the fact that I've personally successfully nominated 2 articles into FA which is a sign showing I understand the rules now. In the end, with the help of a certain number of helpful users who explained me with all those rules, I gradually learnt to observe the rules. These days, edit conflicts seldom reach me anymore, but in case it does, I'll convert wars on article namespace to debates on talk namespace and seek for concensus. If a concensus is really unreachable, I can give up my own opinions and let the other side keep their edits.
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.