Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Djr xi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Djr_xi

vote rejected by bureaucrat Cecropia 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC) with (32/18/4) ending 00:34 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am archiving and restarting this nomination. At the time of closing this would have been bureaucrat discretion. Ordinarily we count votes until a bureaucrat closes. However at closing time after seven days of voting, we had a vote of (32,10,4) and then in the next two-and-a-half hours we doubled the opposes. The opposers are mostly substantial users but this is statistically disturbing. I am making no accusations and others may, if they choose, explore this anomoly. That's all I will say so as not to prejudice this candidacy one way or the other. -- Cecropia 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Djr_xi (talk · contribs) – After long consideration, I have decided to throw my name into the ring of potential admins. For a long time I was convinced that adminship was largely unnecessary in my daily contributions to Wikipedia, but I have increasingly become frustrated by my inability to deal with trivial matters such as speedy deletion of templates/categories/subpages created in error. After a long consultation of WP:ADMIN, WP:RfA and a bundle of linked pages, I have decided that, in myself, I am ready to take on the greater responsibilities that come with adminship.
I have contributed to Wikipedia since June 2005, signing up as User:Djr_xi on 26 August 2005. Since then, I have around 3250 edits and have contributed in a wide range of articles - generally my fields of (relative) expertise - music, schools, London, to name a few. My crowning achievement and ongoing project is Portal:London, which I created, maintain and update (through no real choice of my own!) almost entirely single-handedly. Early in 2006 I jumped on the userbox bandwagon and made a large number of edits through WikiProject:Userboxes. However, I soon became disillusioned by the lack of justification for userboxes, and decided to explain my thoughts for myself on my user page.
Most recently, I have become engrossed with the Categorisation system, and have spent hours upon hours sorting out the web of categories that seem to have spawned out of control. It was in this process that my need for adminship became most apparent. Finally, reverting vandalism, which appears out of control on certain pages, is a main cause of my edits, and admin tools would (obviously) aid the combat of repetitive obscenities and linkspam. Deano (Talk) 00:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
  • self-nomination. Deano (Talk) 00:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


Support

  1. Strong support so long as the nominee removes the image from his sig. Pet peeve of mine. Other than that, I'm really impressed with the answer to Q3 below. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Give me a break, we're now opposing people for images in signatures?! Being an admin isn't a position of prestige, the position entails helping the wikipedia world go 'round. Support, because this person seems capable of that. Juppiter 02:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
     ::blinks:: I don't see anyone opposing because of images in signatures. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Vary well rounded, sensible editor, I also like the image in the sig --Easier to recognise than names.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 03:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support A good editor. Siva1979Talk to me 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support following e-mail correction. Prepared to give the benefit of the doubt as user appears to have been misunderstood at times and has learnt from previous mistakes. Essexmutant 16:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. The reasons for opposition seem to all be out of date or insubstantial. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support as above. People seem to just vote oppose and then never look back to see whether their objections were correct or not. - ulayiti (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, seems to be a strong editor, and I am not convinced by the opposers. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't like images in sigs one bit, but I'm not about to oppose an RfA over it. Lord Bob 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, I change my vote after the candidate has allowed others to send emails.--Jusjih 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. I find none of the reasons to oppose convincing. He made a mistake, and has grown as a result. I find that commendable. --Ashenai 13:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support- His edits are well distributed across name sapces and it suggests familiarity with the processes here. Also, he clearly indicated his maturity by not skirting issues on past interactions with other editors. I give him the benefit of doubt. --Gurubrahma 18:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. support as per Ashenai William M. Connolley 21:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Mjal 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per BorgHunter (Q3). Rm image sig, though. No policy against this? John Reid 06:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - I did not realise the image violated WP:SIG - it has been changed accordingly. DJR (Talk) 17:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you. John Reid 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --Terence Ong 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, I see no need to limit this user's capacity to be constructive. // paroxysm (n) 23:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support --Latinus 00:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Valuable contributor. I like his stance on being open on POV. I didn't like the comment on copyright so much, but I don't think he was suggesting we should actually violate copyright if we disagree with it. And I'm not going to refrain from supporting someone because in their many, many edits, a month ago they used poor wording. --Malthusian (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 02:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support —Tarquin Binary Not just a matter of setting up Portal:London, but the portal was accomplished in a thoroughly good-humoured, unarrogant and collaborative way thanks to Deano organising it (I only did a tiny bit of work on said portal). Tarquin Binary 02:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Have enough faith in him -- DaGizzaChat © 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Always had good experience with him. Justinc 10:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Seems a very good editor, I could see him being a very good moderator. J.J.Sagnella 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support a) based on response to my question plus clarifications on user talk pages. b) review of random edits c) belief that adminship should be supported in general. Mozzerati 15:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, changed from neutral. I'm satisfied with the explanation he gave at my Talk page, and I'll readily assume good faith on his part, especially after taking note that he clarified his stance on the civility issue brought up at this RfA long before his nomination. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Normally I'd be wary of voting for such a relative newbie, but he's got plenty of edits and appears to have a good history of achieving consensus with others. And it will be refreshing to have an admin who's not just a sheep. --Aaron 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support has interacted well with other uses - some of whom have been pushing POVs at Talk:United Kingdom - coming up with well thought through and considered NPOV compromises. Clearly lost his temper at an early stage - but we've all done that once - and now learnt from it as a level-headed and fair user. Would make a great admin Robdurbar 09:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support I don't see any reason why you should not be an admin. premkudva 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Need more admins. This one will do fine. Haukur 12:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support, I've seen Deano about and he doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. Hiding talk 13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Mjal 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support: Because admin should be no big deal right? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Image in sig is peeve of mine as well. I was going to support anyways, especially after reading his answers to his questions. But then I went to his user page and read, "Person B is some idiot." And since it was already established Locke Cole is person B, the personal remark is uncalled for, and unbecoming an Admin candidate. Oppose for now. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

boggles at said blurb:: Eek. I missed that. I may need to re-think my vote, though pending comment from Deano I'm going to assume good faith and assume that he didn't mean to leave that there for so long, and it's a holdover from Q3 below that has cooled off by now. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've re-thought wy vote. It changes from support...to strong support. I have tremendous confidence in Mr. Ξ. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I totally agree that the personal attack is uncalled for - hence the use of "Person B". However, I should have clarified that those comments have been kept as a personal record of the incident - not as a statement of my views. I have moved it to a subpage and added a disclaimer to clarify its purpose. DJR (Talk) 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
As Person B, I'll state that while I found the comment at the time offensive, I find it refreshing that he keeps his dirty laundry out in the open. This is an event that was something like 3-4 months ago, and he seems to have learned from it (I don't see any incidents since then). As you can see, I also supported his self-nom. I hope anyone opposing only on this will reconsider their vote. (If, however, there have been more recent incidents that I overlooked, I hope someone will bring those to my attention). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I commend Deano for taking it off his user page, and for his kind explanation of the issue. However, I still have a problem with keeping it around, even on a subpage. The pseudo-guideline Remove Personal Attacks does not mean "Hide-on-a-subpage-to-keep-as-a-record-of-the-events". The incident could still be described well without the perpetual attack. Although Locke Cole has forgiven him, personal attacks do not just harm the person being attacked. They harm the whole idea of a community. If a newbie goes to the subpage of an Admin, sees him or her calling another editor an idiot, they might think that's appropriate behavior. They may feel WP a hostile environment that allows Admins to make personal attacks veiled as "records of events". I understand Deano no longer feels this way, but I would rather not have it on WP at all. This isn't the only issue I have with the user, so for now, I remain a weak opposition voice. While I am going to assume this RfA will pass, and Deano may go on to be a great Admin, I cannot support at this time. Oh, and sorry for the verbosity. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I pretty much agree with what you've said here, so I've decided to remove the offending words anyway. DJR (Talk) 22:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort and will no longer oppose. Just make sure you remain calm, and always use your edit summaries. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. Candidate is not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia practices, and has expressed attitudes in defiance of policies which could put the project in jeopardy. Choice quotes: "damn right I don't respect US copyright law - why would I? Not everyone here is American, so why should we give a rats about US copyright law?"[1] — "Open POV is the key to NPOV in articles."[2] --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment That is out of context. The pov/npov comment is about coming clean with your biases before hand. It is an effort to promote cooperation. If those are the worst quotes you can come up with, I'd be delighted to have this individual as an admin. Also, I think that copyright comment is hillarious, At times i've wished wikipedia would go register in the Caymans as well.--Colle|Image:locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - "open POV is the key to achieving NPOV in articles" is my guiding philosophy on Wikipedia - I am surprised and fairly disappointed that you consider this a "choice quote" to count against me. As for US copyright law, the fact that I don't respect it does not mean that I don't accept it. I thought I had made myself clear on the link you have given, but if not: we live in a free society where you can openly express your disdain for a law without retribution. Disagreeing with the law does not constitute breaking the law. US copyright law annoys me, but I wholly accept that it has to be followed on Wikipedia.
    Oppose, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.", I believe admins should have email enabled to get messages from people they have blocked. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral, as candidate has enabled this option.
    Oppose with the same reason as above.--Jusjih 04:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - Totally agree - all admins should specify an e-mail address to ensure openness and accountability. I have altered my preferences and my user page accordingly. DJR (Talk) 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per HWSNBN and Mark Sweep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: user page said to me he had not yet left a past problem in the past and is not ready yet. Jonathunder 19:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Not just yet due to civility issues as outlined above. NSLE (T+C) 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - I'm afraid I am at a loss as to how the above continues to be a civility issue. I have kept the page as a record because of my belief in openness... if it is that big a deal then I will get rid of it! DJR (Talk) 01:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    LV's comments about calling someone "some idiot" is the civility issue. Like I mentioned on your talk page, if you keep a cool head you'll get less opposes based on civility problems. That'd be the key. NSLE (T+C) 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose I've had positive experiences with Deano personally, but the above concerns make me think that a few more months learning time is not a bad idea. Will gladly support later, if even necessary. Xoloz 18:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose due to abrasiveness. This would be tested further under conflict in admin role.Blnguyen 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak oppose I had a miunderstanding with candidate, which was my mistake - and he handeled it fairly well. However, anyone who thinks polemical 'anti-admin' userboxes have a place on wikipedia needs more time to reflect on what we are about. [3] --Doc ask? 10:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose have to agree with xoloz - this quote from Deano's answers on copyright concerned me the most "If a new article contained only copyrighted material, then I would seek to reformulate it..." Some time will probably hone the idea expressed here to not suggest that creating derivative works is ok. will probably support later. Trödel•talk 13:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, user has numerous perjorative and divisive userboxes on his user page. Of particular note are: the 3 anti-EU ones, the anti-George Bush one, the many anti-USA ones (particularly the anti-American English one), the anti-Zodiac one, and the numerous polemic political ones. Will change vote if this is addressed, especially as he has, at least, subst-ed them. Proto||type 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. oppose userboxes EdwinHJ | Talk 00:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - The userboxen don't bug me for the most part, but the more-than-occasional general disrespect for other users does. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose civility issues, we have enough incivility at the moment, [4], [5], [6]. Rx StrangeLove 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose this editors stance on userboxes makes me nervous about giving them admin discretion. Physchim62 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, per above comments.--Sean Black (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose someone who calls admins doing chores "abusive" are likely to create more problems than the ones solved. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per others, mostly Drini. SushiGeek 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. as per recent behaviour. pschemp | talk 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Drini and others. Mackensen (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Moved from opposed based on lack of email, still reviewing this request. xaosflux Talk/CVU 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, would normally support, but the issues brought up at this RfA give me some pause. Not sure yet. Moved to support (see above). Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Same as Phaedriel, but my concerns aren't enough to make me oppose. Raven4x4x 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral. - moved to oppose based on recent behaviour. pschemp | talk 04:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. What I understood from self-nomination, it looks like the abilities of admin must be split into at least two categories: purely technical and political. Mukadderat 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • My responses to most opposition are found on my user page - specifically regarding POV, copyright and civility. I'm not going to bore you be repeating them again here if any come up again. DJR (Talk) 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This has now closed, but I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those who voted for me, and the constuctive criticisms made by those in opposition. I think around 76-79% of the votes (depending if you include votes after closing) are in support, but quite a few of the oppositions are "weak oppose". With regards to userboxes, my user page makes clear my views on POV vs NPOV, and until WP:UBP achieves consensus I would decline to comment further. I think Locke Cole has discussed civility for me - warm thanks to you - while my user pages also clarifies my views on US copyright law. In general, this RfA has been very encouraging and I look forward to a conclusion tomorrow morning! DJR (Talk) 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Edit summary usage: 83% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See Djr_xi's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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. Admin status would enable me to purge one of my biggest frustrations on Wikipedia - pages created my mistake. I have come across countless pages when redirects are dead, subpages are simply empty, or just repeated pages that nobody could be bothered to alter. As an admin, I would be able to delete these as I find them. On top of this, one of my biggest priorities would be keen to help put at end to the constant backlogs experienced at WP:AfD, WP:TfD and WP:MfD. Finally, the use of admin tools with regards to vandalism, particularly repetitive obscenities and linkspam, acts as a primary factor in my decision to request adminship.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Portal:London is definitely my greatest achievement on Wikipedia. The entire portal was created in around 2 days, and since then its entire running, researching and updating has been done solely by myself. The numerous participatory schemes within the portal have begun to see contributions increasing over the last few months, and the Portal's ascendency to featured portal status has increased its profile.
Other than the Portal, articles in which the majority of content has come from myself include Arctic Monkeys, The Judd School and Soccer AM.
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. In my time as a registered Wikipedian, I have had one experience of stress that pushed me to breaking point. I have maintained an extremely POV version of events on my user page. The event was at Template:Infobox_Band, from here onward. Basically, someone added a new field to the template (which was used in around 500 pages), and I altered it. Accordingly, I began altering countless band pages to include this field. Unfortunately, User:Locke Cole did not realise that I had altered an existing field - he thought I had created the field altogether. Thus, he reverted my edit to the template, and then proceeded to alter every single page I had updated. I lost my cool - seeing 3 hours work disappear before your eyes as you watch your watchlist was pretty painful - and was blocked for 24 hours for violation of WP:CIVIL. Subsequently, all parties agreed I was right... and I definitely learned my lesson - since November I have backed down and used WP:AGF any time conflict has approached. I must say, however, that I would not be the Wikipedian I am today if I had not experienced that block back in November. It really opens your eyes.

Optional additional questions from MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Consider the following situation (hypothetical, but realistic). A user contacts you with a complaint about an article that was deleted after a controversial debate on AfD, with strong opinions for and against deletion, accusations of impropriety involving sockpuppets etc. Assume further that you're conflicted: on the one hand, the AfD was clearly controversial and had apparent irregularities; on the other hand, you believe that the article in question should have been deleted. What would you do in this situation?
A. Well first and foremost I would attempt to calm the user down and attempt to make them think clearly and logically rather than in the heat of the moment (as I know from experience). If the page was deleted through clear violation of policy, then I would explain this to the user. If (s)he does calm down and still persists, or if the article was deleted for some other reason, I would seek the opinions of other administrators by posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If some sort of consensus becomes clear then I would act accordingly. But I seriously doubt I would ever act unilaterally on a single complaint, and in this scenario I would be compromised by my inherent belief that the article should be deleted.
5. You're patrolling recent changes and you notice that an anonymous editor removed a sizeable chunk of text from an article about a minor celebrity, without leaving any edit summary. You're conflicted: on the one hand, the information that was removed was unflattering, and it was not backed up by any sources; on the other hand, it's hard to discern the motives of the anon, since they didn't leave any summary and may be engaged in a whitewashing effort. What would you do in this situation?
A. I would assume good faith first time, but keep an eye on the user/IP and post a message on his IP talk page asking to explain his/her reasoning for the deletion. If the user persistently repeats this then I would have to consider warning him about editting without summary as an anonymous user. In this situation, however, I doubt I would be willing to block the IP - it is not vandalism and you must assume good faith. We were all anonymous users once upon a time.
6. You're patrolling new pages and you notice that a user recently created a new stub with no text except for an external link to some web site with more information. You speedy delete this article under the A.3 provision of WP:CSD. Fifteen minutes later the exact same stub has been recreated, and its creator has left a rude message on your talk page, accusing you of all kinds of nasty things. What would you do in this situation?
A. Take the abuse on the chin, and delete the stub again. I'd explain to the user why the stub qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, and warn him about his conduct with respect to WP:CIVIL. If the stub creation persisted, I'd use a three-strikes-and-you're-blocked warning system. If (s)he stopped the stubs but persisted with the abuse... well I guess that'd depend on how innovative the abuse was! People go crazy when they're angry, and the best way to calm them down (IMO) is to see the funny side.
7. Question from Hermione1980. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
A. First things first, I'd double check my reasoning and basis for my action to make sure I was justified to do it. If it was my mistake, then I'd apologise and thank the admin for correcting it. If I was right in my action, however, I would contact the said admin and ask for his/her reasoning and attempt to find a compromise. Depending on the action, the importance/significance of giving ground will vary. Overturning a 24 hour block for vandalism, for example, would only be an issue to me if the offender immediately re-starts his/her campaign of vandalism - thus I would be fairly willing to accept compromise. However, undeleted a page or template that violated wiki policy - that is an issue and I would quote as many Wikipedia policies at the said admin as needed to convince him otherwise. Either way, however, a revert war is not appropriate. It would be up to the said admin to take back his/her actions - anything else without consultation is stooping to their level.
8. Question from Mozzerati please could comment about how you would act on copyright issues? a) in general b) if you came across an article which you believed was copied from another web site c) if a new user asked you for advice a page that the user believed was copied.
A. a) I would always seek a resolution that avoids deletion - all work one way or another can be traced back to copyrighted work, and it is important that we uphold the evolutionary knowledge process. However, any blatent infringement that cannot easily be modified (esp. non-fair use images) have to be deleted in order to avoid illegality - that is non-negotiable.
b) Make a note on the talk page to bring this to the attention of other users. I would attempt to re-write as much as possible using the copyrighted work as a guide. If the copied work is relatively small, this should not be too big a problem. However, if a massive amount of copyrighted text has been used then the offending material would have to be deleted. If the original location of the copy could be determined, I would seek their permission to use the text (if it is substantive/unique enough to justify the effort over simply re-writing). If this is not forthcoming, then the copied text would have to be deleted.
c) I would direct them to WP:COPY - if feasible I would encourage them to re-write the page using the copyrighted work as a loose guide. Ultimately, the copied work is the past. The future destroys the past by building on it. If you protect the past, you destroy the future. If we can encourage the future - the evolution of the past - the development of work already done - whilst obeying the the laws of the state of Florida, then we'll all be better for it.