Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deskana

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] Deskana

Final (54/2/3) ended 16:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deskana (talk · contribs) – Well, I've decided to take the plunge and nominate myself for adminship. I have been here about 10 months now (first edit on 24th June 2005) and have over 2000 edits. I feel I would benefit from the admin tools as I sometimes RC Patrol, meaning I occasionally need to list the vandal on WP:AIV, which can be frustrating in certain cases as the person in question continues to vandalise and I need to keep reverting. I feel I am capable of being fair, as I have had a conflict with a user in the past (will go into more detail in admin questions below) and have defended his userpage from vandalism, as well as voting to keep the article on him [1] despite the conflicts with him. I have also participated in WP:AfC, a somewhat neglected area of Wikipedia due to the daily attention it requires, including creating a set of templates that can be used by other users to respond to AfC requests. I feel I have an ample knowledge of policy, and have listed things on WP:AN, WP:3RR before.

I realise that I may not live up to the adminship standards nowadays but I feel this is worth a try, and have faith that a fair concensus will be reached in my nomination. Darth Deskana (talk page) 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self nomination accepted. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Homestarmy 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. No questions. Has done good work reverting vandalism. Has on occasion helped people who had opposed him. Also voted to keep the Robert Steadman article which had been nominated for deletion, although he was certainly not a pal of the subject of that article (User:Robsteadman). Shows he can be fair. AnnH ♫ 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. edit-conflicted Support. Good contributor, unlikely to abuse the mop. Interesting answer to question 3! Kimchi.sg | talk 16:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Excellent user, calm temperment, completely trustworthy. Xoloz 18:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Hard working, doesn't blow his stack when wrongly accused of vandalism (see his talk page), and honest about his history (see his answer to question 3).--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 18:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Despite the negative talk from User:Robsteadman, Deskana appears to be calm and civil in the face of opposition. --Elkman - (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support as per AnnH and Elkman, and in spite of his issues with Robsteadman. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 20:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Have had a few interactions with and observations of this user in my duties. I'd trust them with the tools. --Syrthiss 20:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. It would have been even better if he had just a little more experience, but from my analysis, the candidate meets the criteria. Level-headed, and participates considerably in the project namespace. Redux 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Not the most experienced of users, but cool as a cucumber despite the mountain of garbage he's already had to put up with. I don't see why the streak wouldn't continue as an admin. --InShaneee 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support - no problems I've seen -- Tawker 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Umm... yeah. Great editor, unlikely to abuse. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Looks good to me.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support He puts up a good fight against vandals and although I think he has some stuff to learn (don't we all) he has shown that he can learn and move on from mistakes. I'm sure he'll be a big help to the overworked admins here. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Great work so far! DarthVader 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Joe I 23:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support have observed editor before and am very contented with experience. _-M o P-_ 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support - This talk page, and all the diffs that it applies to, demonstrates the candidate's ability to stay calm and make good, common sense decisions in order to enforce policy. - Richardcavell 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, very much so. Will do fine. Proto||type 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. I know from personal experience on other fora just how difficult Rob Steadman can be to deal with. You've probably done better than me at keeping your temper under control. David Underdown 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support, will make good use of the mop. Royboycrashfan 11:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support --Terence Ong 11:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support Anonymous_anonymous Have a Nice Day 12:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support: --Ahonc (Talk) 13:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Can't see any reason not to. --Tango 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support--Jusjih 14:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Jared W!!! | Write to me, why don't you? 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support--Canderous 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Good editor CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support, no worries Deizio 01:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Full Support. I don't know whether it's really my place to vote, but from what I've seen, this user has shown a considerable amount of grace under fire, and a willingness to forgive and act on the basis of fairness and righteousness, even when it's hard. I've been concerned about questionable admin behavior, but I firmly believe that this user will act responsibly within Wikipedia.Captainktainer 02:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. Great work. (^'-')^ Covington 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Looks like he'll do good here. --Shultz IV 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, will be fine. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support, I see no problems with this user. JIP | Talk 06:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support without reservation.--MONGO 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Very very strong Support A fine upstanding wikipedian. Probably the best there is. RobSteadman 13:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    Do I even need to say it anyone? Homestarmy 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    I've put a notice up on WP:AN/I. I feel this vote should be removed as a violation of WP:POINT, but I would like an admin to do it as I don't want to fiddle with votes on my own RfA. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    User blocked as sockpuppet, striking vote. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support; good record and excellent handling of current situation. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support seems good └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support No seeming about it, this editor is cooler than a cucumber. I should learn from this guy. --Knucmo2 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support Beyond a great editor, also a great guy. Cheers! --Avery W. Krouse 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Deskana is a great user. Jedi6-(need help?) 21:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support I'm not a big fan of self nominations, but there is no reason that this user shouldn't be an admin --T-rex 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. -- MarcoTolo 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. --Jaranda wat's sup 03:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support -- A very good mediator, ready to help, ethical in the face of abuse. All we want in admins. --CTSWyneken 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Moe ε 22:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Good editor, will be admin. FloNight talk 23:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Reviewed his contributions and talk page. Looks like a remarkable level-headed guys. Gwernol 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Quality contributor. PJM 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Good editor. Davewild 17:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Good, consistent work. Kukini 21:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yummy mummy (talk • contribs) .
I would appreciate any constructive criticism you could provide with this vote, if you would care to add some. :-) --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Four days old account. There may not be one to give. Redux 17:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have had limited interaction with this user. Provided for reference: [2] [3] [4]. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 17:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have been editing anonymously for a while. Look at Deskana's account- his talk page with numerous disagreements and people pissed off with his childish and silly behaviour. Look below at his own admission of vandalism occuring whilst he was logged onto a computer and yet he wasn't responsible. He's either very naive or very stupid or very dishnest. Either way unsuitable for adminship. Yummy mummy 17:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You'd have to provide differences (like the ones Deskana has provided above) to support your claim. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Robsteadman, as verified by CheckUser and sheer common sense. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose - his version of events about the vandalism to my userpage below does not hold up to scrutiny - he was resposible. Instead of being an admin he should be blocked, permanently. I had asked for my account to be permanently blocked and yet yesterday, I can only presume fro mischief, Deskana has aksed for my talk page to be unprotected. I wonder what he was planning. A direputable editor who has made freinds with the "christian" cabal and makes out he is doing good work when his own talk page show how many he is annoying with his selfish and abusive behaviour. Robsteadman 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-It should be noted, this user had previously left wikipedia apparently due to stalking, and asked for his user and talk page to be deleted. Now he's mysteriously back with no explanation. Suspiiiciiooouss..... Homestarmy 19
18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, and the rest of the cabal, please note the message on my talk page. It is nonsense like those who stalked me, those who have recently been imitating me, the dishonesty of the cabal and nonsense like Deskana being an admin that I am leaving WP. This will, if it's done properly, unlike Musical Linguist's failed attempt, be my final act on WP. Robsteadman 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that Robsteadman and Yummy mummy have similar editing patterns (both have edited Robert Steadman and Jesus-related articles, and one user actually said that Yummy mummy was acting in a manner similar to Robsteadman [5]. Robsteadman has also been blocked for using sockpuppets before (see Robsteadman's block log). I will file a WP:RfCU if it becomes clear that these votes will affect the outcome of the RfA. For now, I'll just wait and see what happens. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 19:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
And this is Deskana at his worst - although one of the pro-"christian" admins found me guilty of using sock puppets I never did. It is a lie and, in fact, is libel. Deskana's repetition of this untruth is very typical of his abuisive and bullying behaviour on WP. To suggest that I am now using another name shows how very silly and out of control this little boy is. He should bnever be an admin and, in reality,m should be perma-blocked fro vandalism and personal attacks. Grow up. Robsteadman 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a little ironic how you want someone to be blocked for personal attacks, yet you say "little boy" and "Grow up". Please try to be civil. --Elkman - (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's more than personal attacks - he was responsible for outright vandalism to my user page (but got a group of his edit pals to excuse it and accept a nonsense story so he escaped a ban) and has now been involved in unprotecting my talk page which I nhad asked (along with the rest of my account) to be permanently deleted - why would this user need my account to be unblocked - he claimed it was to contact me, but he didn't. He is a liar and should NOT be an admin. For the vandalism and otehr disreputable behaviour he should be removed from WP. He is a sily teenager out to cause trouble. That is why the description and a silly little boy is apt. Robsteadman 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
He also just posted this. I have put a request up on WP:AN/I for an admin to do something about his incivility and personal attacks. I did not want to turn this "Requests for adminship" into a "Requests for arguments", but I feel I have no choice. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 19:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so you want the truth about your vandalism and your general behaviour to be hidden while you're promotingh yourself on here? Grow up little boy. Robsteadman 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your user page and talk page were both deleted at one point, then recreated. Without the page history, I can't tell if Deskana (or anyone else) made an edit to your user page or to your talk page that would count as vandalism. --Elkman - (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Object Not very promising, it seems like you need more experience. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not enough mainspace edits abakharev 03:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, for now: please take off the link to this page from your signature. It seems a bit tacky, and I know of a few users who would oppose you just for that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Done. I was trying to strike a balance between making sure editors I know knew I had an RfA open, and blatently advertising, but I guess I'll just leave it out. :-) --Darth Deskana (talk page) 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Even though the user is an excellent RC patroller and mediator and certainly has demonstrated that will use the tools with good judgement I support candidates who contribute more content to the encyclopedia articles. Joelito 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Joelito. Willing to make an exception to my admin standards, but can't quite cross to support at this time. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • I want my oppose struck - Dan's the best and should be made into Jimbo's assistant immediately. RobSteadman 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admins: This user has now been blocked indefinitly for trolling (primarily here). --InShaneee 20:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The count now reads 34/0/2. Steadman was blocked after he voted oppose. So does/doesn't that count as a valid vote ? Tintin (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Steadman's vote should be discounted by the closing bureaucrat. Since it's already been struck out, I've update the count to reflect that. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 14:37, 26 April 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: Well, there are a few pages I would immidiately add to my watchlist upon becoming an administrator.
  • WP:AIV, as sometimes there is a response time there greater than I would like, from my own experiences. This would involve using admin blocking abilities.
  • WP:AN and WP:AN/I, to broaden my experiences as an administrator and help other users requiring an administrator.
  • WP:AN/3RR and WP:RfPP, to respond to requests for blocking users for 3RR violations and to protect and unprotect pages due to vandalism/edit warring etc.
Other than that, I feel I would benefit from the ability to temporarily block users from editing, and would benefit from the rollback features, as I fight vandalism (RC patrolling, and from pages I have added to my watchlist to fight regular vandalism of them).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I have made contributions to a wide variety of articles.
  • My contributions to Star Wars articles are mostly cleanup related- formatting, removing original research and superfluous information, etc.
  • I have contributed to the Subway (restaurant) article (I work as a Sandwich Artist in a Subway in addition to college), which included adding menu items and formatting them to look more encyclopedic/professional. This section has since branched off into its own article.
These are some contributions that jump to mind. I am not afraid to admit that I do not view my place in Wikipedia as a major article editor. Though I am happy to edit articles that interest me, and perform cleanup, and do enjoy it, I prefer to think of myself primarily as a vandal fighter, and advisor to other newer users.
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 often get anon IPs posting abusive messages to my talk page when I nominate their article for speedy deletion and other related messages ([6] [7] and more). I have also been involved with "the Dagobyte vandal" who, starting off with changing the race of Yoda in the Yoda article, moved on to vandalising Jimbo's talk page with DAGOBYTE. The vandal took to changing my user page. I have actually added inline references for Yoda's race into the article now, so that anyone changing the race will be able to be pointed to the reference and told that they are incorrect.
However, by far the most significant conflicts I have had have been with User:Robsteadman (I am having recall details of this conflict from memory, as his talk page was deleted when he left Wikipedia so I can't get access to the page history, and some of these conflicts were a long time ago, so please excuse any minor discrepancies.). Initially, I attempted to mentor him in Wikipedia policies. He was blocked for violating the 3RR, so I informed him that in my opinion, he was blocked with reason, but also told him that he could place the {{unblock}} template on his talk page to get a second opinion. The admin that responded to his unblock request concurred with the original judgement. Sometime later, his userpage was vandalised by an IP address that I am known to edit from (I am a college student and the IP was the address of my college). User:SOPHIA added a notice asking for me to be blocked to WP:AN/I. Evidence showed that I was logged into Wikipedia on this account at the time that the vandalism had occured. I defended myself, stating that the vandalism was not me, but that I had mentioned Robsteadman to friend at college and he had vandalised the page. I was advised to apologise to Robsteadman because I was indirectly responsible for the vandalism. At first, I refused, saying that I feel my reputation had been vandalised as much as Robsteadman's userpage. I reconsidered afterwards, though said I doubted that Robsteadman would accept an apology [8]. I'd provide a link to apology but it was on Robsteadman's talk page, whose history has been deleted.
After that incident, I still attempted to advise Robsteadman when he became irrationally angry, asking that he calm down to avoid getting blocked. I also defended his user page when it was vandalised, and reported the offender for a 3RR violation [9]. Since that, I have said to User:SOPHIA that I admire her as a Wikipedian [10] to which she responded that she thinks I am a "productive Wikipedian" [11]. I do not bear any grudge against her for reporting me on WP:AN/I as the evidence pointed against me initially.
That was lengthier than I expected...
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.