Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deryck Chan 2

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] Deryck Chan

Final (47/2/1); Ended Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:31:20 UTC

Deryck_Chan (talk · contribs) - Deryck has been at Wikipedia since May of 2005 (originally under the username Deryckchan). He has written or reworked many articles relating to Hong Kong and recently passed his 5,000th edit. Deryck is always civil (his last example of incivility was apparently in July of 2005; I searched and didn't find anything more recent). Flag of Hong Kong and Hong Kong are two articles which Deryck has helped bring up to Featured status. He is already an administrator on the Cantonese Wikipedia.

Deryck had one earlier nomination in October of 2005, here, which failed because he was "too green" and because he advertised that RFA. He's certainly learned a lot since then, and I have found his questions and ideas thoughtful during our work together. His e-mail, of course, is enabled.

Considering Deryck's background (already an admin on another language edition, can keep his cool, and a great editor), I would trust him with the tools. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I, Deryck Chan, hereby accept Firsfron's nomination. First of all, I'd like to thank Firsfron for sparing time to draft his nomination despite having thousands of pages on his watchlist to take care of; my fellow Hong Kong Wikipedians who helped me a lot in writing articles and organizing various other projects, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Second, I'd like to explain my current contributions. I usually write Hongkong- or scitech-related articles, and sometimes help out in WP:IFD to assess bot-added nominations. --Deryck C. 06:13, 23 February 2007 (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 participants:

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 will help assessing deletion and protection requests if I become sysop. Having unstable and slow internet access, especially after the December 2006 Taiwan Earthquake which damaged most connections between Hong Kong and America, I cannot respond to vandalism activities quickly, therefore RC patrol is hardly my way. However, being a scientific person, I am able to handle logical arguments, which is what deletion and protection requests require - strong and unbiased logical judgement. Moreover, being a Hong Kong Chinese and therefore an ethnic and cultural minority on the English Wikipedia, I can take a more neutral stance when judging debates between sides from different backgrounds. In addition, currently being an administrator of the Cantonese Wikipedia, I am familiar with these sysop-specific operations. Therefore, deletion and protection are the chores I will join if I become sysop.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The "reproduction article series" pleased me most. Starting from a Science Collaboration of the Week (now WP:SCOTM) on Reproduction (now Biological reproduction), along with many other editors, we found the need to split and reorganize various related articles, and link them up through {{main}} templates. After the collboration week, all the articles were properly linked to each other and organized into levels, from a main article to tens of child articles. I was especially pleased to see the articles about reproduction such organized, since without reproduction can no men be survived; without reproduction can no knowledge be passed.
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: Conflicts come in certain different forms. When another user reverts my edit with an explanation, I assume good faith, rewrite the idea and make another edit proposing the rewritten version. Then I leave a message on the talk page and the other editor's talk page in attempt of a personalized dispute resolution. However, if the other editor is anonymous, it is most likely that I bring up the issue to other editors or even WP:AN, because anonymous users are hardly traceable. In case another editor is against my personal behaviour, I make an apology on talk pages and user talk pages. I confronted all these situations before and I am confident that I will do better and better in the future.
Optional question from User:Taxwoman
4. You have changed your username, albeit in a pretty transparent way. There are recent reports of established admins abandoning their usernames, then starting new accounts with completely different names that are then given admin status without any RfA, thereby hiding their previous identities. What are your views on that?
A: First, let me give some additional situation about my information. I first created an account, which was actually the two-word "Deryck Chan", in 2004, and made three edits to some periodic table-related articles. I made no edits in the coming eight months. Then when I returned, I forgot my old username and switched to the concatenated "Deryckchan" until I rediscovered my old username and changed back. So instead of hiding my old identity, I actually unveiled my old identity.
Concerning your question, I would say that history cannot be changed; a new "identity" can hardly hide a person's past from elegant eyes. I personally wouldn't change my username because it is my real name and I love it; however if newly established sysops find themselves in danger because of their history and believe that changing username is a feasible solution, I would not stand firm against it. One can change names even in real life, so why not on Wikipedia? The only drawback I can see is additional administrative workload which add to the burden of the servers.
At any rate, I would prefer my past be retained, because I believe accepting the past is the best way to prepare for the future. Accepting my own past means accepting myself and welcoming others to accept me. Thanks very much for your question. It stimulated my thoughts and opened a channel to let everybody know more about me. --Deryck C. 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

  • It is now just a few minutes away from the conclusion of this RFA. I would like to take this last minute to express thanks to everyone who supported me, and many others who gave me comments which I believe will make me a better editor in the future. --Deryck C. 06:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support I see nothing terribly wrong here, the nominee seems like a good editor and the experience with the Cantonese Wikipedia is excellent experience. I lend my support. --Ozgod 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Sure, why not? Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Seems like a fair candidate who's long overdue. Ral315 » 08:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - BJTalk 08:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support after all, adminship is no big deal... The Rambling Man 08:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per experiance. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 08:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support--Jusjih 09:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support no problems here. - Anas Talk? 09:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Terence Ong 恭喜发财 10:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Experienced Editor -Mschel 13:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Sure -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. (＋) 我是米乐· 地阿伯， 我核准这个信息！-- 14:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. An obvious choice. --Fang Aili talk 14:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, clearly. Proto ► 14:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Right choice. - Darwinek 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support This editor has really impressed me with his edits over the last year plus. --Alabamaboy 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support-Seems good, and experience as an admin on another Wiki shows us he's responsible and won't abuse the tools —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs)
  19. Support looks excellent.-- danntm T C 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support The above say it. I think we should give him a shot. Just Heditor review 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Contribution is worthy of respect. Bravo!--Paukrus 01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - no problems, good candidate. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. PeaceNT 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Helped promoting two article to FA? Support on sight! Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 10:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Looks good and plus he's already an admin on another Wikipedia. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, good editor. Causesobad → (Talk) 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support appears trustworthy. Cbrown1023 talk 18:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. Experienced and trustworthy. The incident mentioned below is from about 4 months ago and strikes me as mere quibbling, not a good reason to oppose a candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    The history of the linked page shows that the image was never removed until yesterday by MECU himself. – Chacor 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. 支持。bibliomaniac15 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. Jaranda wat's sup 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 04:06Z
  33. Support Tres smooth answers, long history, a slight bobble on fair use. All considered, what's not to like? Be thou admin, says I. PigmanTalk to me 05:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Garion96 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Per contributions and above statements. - Denny 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Nominator makes a good case, and the nominee's record supports it. Agent 86 20:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support English is very good as well. Babel doesn't really mean anything, some people simply tag themselves as "n" due to ethnicity despite not having any functional skill in some language. Deryck has demonstrated a very good working usage of English. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. the wub "?!" 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support -- lots to like: admin experience elsewhere, English skills far> than the en-2 he modestly advertises, a good work ethic and very civil. We are very short of Chinese language skills on Meta, so I hope he will consider becoming an admin there in the near future as well. Thanks for agreeing to serve (and don't forget to review copyright issues very closely). --A. B. (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support, of course. Just wish I had more of a chance to help him in our admin coaching. Nonetheless, he's more than ready. Eric (EWS23) 06:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support No reason to oppose. Dionyseus 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support everything looks good to me. James086Talk 08:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support excellent user, and we do need more sysops with localised knowledge. – riana_dzasta 13:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support A very good Editor..--Cometstyles 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose for use of fair use image/logo in userspace. See [1]. Clear violation of fair use policy #9. User then used this page as a template posting it elsewhere further violating the fair use policy. --MECU≈talk 19:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    For the record, those edits were four months ago. I'm not saying your comments shouldn't be taken seriously, but at the same time, this was a while back. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Four months? The fair use policy restricting this has been in existence much longer than 4 months. Ignorance of the policy is not good for admins. While fair use may be complex, this aspect of it is certainly not. --MECU≈talk 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you Mecu for pointing out and correcting my mistake, which was not noticed by anybody for four months since I made it. Shall this RFA end, I really hope that you can give me a private tuition concerning conventional rules behind fair use policy which were not explicitly written on the guideline pages. --Deryck C. 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    Quoting the fair use policy: "9. Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. ..." If that's not clear enough, then you shouldn't be an admin on an English Wikipedia, or you could have asked for help in trying to understand it better. --MECU≈talk 15:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps we've misinterpreted each other a bit. Of course I reckon that the fault I made four months ago was fairly obvious. I asked for some private tutorial just because you said that "fair use may be complex". Hope you don't mind =] --Deryck C. 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I expect admins to at least understand why we don't allow fair-use images in userspace. Oppose per MECU. – Chacor 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Moved to NeutralIn this request for adminship, the candidate withdrew after his poor edits, and also it was said that his English wasn't good enough. At that time, he had eng-3. This candidate has eng-2. I feel that here, the community has ignored major problems (or flaws that would lead to oppose the RFA) with this candidate. I feel his english is not up to admin standards on en-wikipedia. Evilclown93 22:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    That is one of the worst oppose votes I have ever seen, just because an editor isn't a native speaker doesn't mean he can't have the tools. In many admins here are en-2 and en-3,there is no proof that Deryck Chan english isn't very poor nither, looks ok to me it's much better than mbralchenko that's for sure. Jaranda wat's sup 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    I can't comment on this particular candidate, but a number of admin functions involve interpreting debates and so require fluency in English. I am an es-2 and I know I'd have no hope of making a good judgement in any Spanish-language debate with nuanced issues. While it is discriminatory to judge someone on their native language, it is right to judge them on their communication skills. —Dgiest c 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    A person's language ability should not be judged by the template on his Babel box. Instead, one should skim through a person's writings or speeches and draw a conclusion. I use an en-2 template because I'm a non-native speaker of English who has never lived in an English-speaking territory for more than a month. I reckon that I am weaker than many others here, especially those born and raised in purely English-speaking environments, in terms of a few aspects of English language such as idioms. However, I sincerely hope that you'll not outrule the possibility that I can become a good sysop simply because I use a en-2 Babel template. --Deryck C. 11:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment#1: Fluency in English is a valid concern for non-native English speakers' RfAs ... on the other hand ...Comment #2: That one paragraph immediately above indicates to me that Deryck Chan's fluency >en-2 and sufficiently fluent to serve as an admin. Deryck, you're too modest. --A. B. (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not attacking the candidate on his language skills; I feel that communication skills are very important {per Dgies ) and I understand the candidate's point about the template and all. When I look from an ordinary user's standpoint, I feel the communication should be more confident. I AM NOT DISCRIMINATING AT ALL HERE. That is out of the question. Also, Jaranda, as a sysop himself should know better that to make PERSONAL ATTACKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilclown93 (talk • contribs)
    Hi Evilclown,
    For the record, I understood your point about believing an editor's English should be good to become an administrator on the English language edition. I agree it's important. I don't believe Jaranda made a personal attack, as he was specifically commenting on your contribution, not on a contributor, per WP:NPA. If it eases your mind any, in the little over a month that I have known Deryck, I haven't had any problem understanding his English, and I wouldn't have suspected he was a non-native speaker if he hadn't told me, and if he hadn't had the template. I've got eng-3 on my userpage, and I've been administrating (hopefully successfully) for a half a year. Deryck has successfully helped bring several articles up to Featured status, and the folks at WP:FAC are very stringent when it comes to English, so his level of English doesn't concern me. Anyway, just wanted to explain my view, as the nominator. Best wishes and happy editing, :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right that assessing language skills is much more complex than a babelbox. I was just trying to correct the implication by Jaranda that it is wrong to discuss it in a RfA. —Dgiest c 17:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I don't feel I can support the candidate, but I respect his contributions; this RFA is going to pass, even with a hundred sockpuppets against him. Therefore, I decide to change the Oppose to a Neutral, keeping my concerns in the oppose argument. Evilclown93 17:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your reconsideration. Shall I become sysop, I hope we can work well together. Welcome to comment on my use of language any time in the future. --Deryck C. 08:16, 26 February 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.