Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drdisque

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] Drdisque

Final (4/13/3) ended 18:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (original time ending 03:17 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Drdisque (talk · contribs) – I am here to nominate Dr. Disque as a wikipedian admin. Drdisque would do very well at this job firstly due to his outstanding edits for many articles, most particularly in the auto racing field. He helped get WikiProject NASCAR off the ground and has upgraded many Indy Racing League-related articles, as well as starting the IRL drivers category and the List of IndyCar drivers page. Not only is Drdisque an exceptional editor, he has taken strong measures against vandalism, and will surely continue that stance under his administrative powers. I trust Drdisque will be a fine admin and encourage all of you to consider adding him. Thank you for your time. D-Day 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination -Drdisque 03:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support He appears to be well-intentioned.--Anglius 04:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Spike in December is supported by January, with roughly 1/3 of December's edits through 1/3 of January. Plenty of edits, great contribution to project, which is spaced out over several months showing a relative amount of consistancy. My comments are below - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nominator. -- Eddie 11:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Although I like the project participation (especially with regards to AfD), this user has very little talk participation (Article, User, Project). One of the biggest things I like to see in a candidate is the ability to moderate discussions between users, and the appropriate experience with warning vandals (since that's what you seem to be interested in). For future reference, you should check out this template and stick it somewhere useful (like on your user page). JHMM13 (T | C) 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Low edit summary usage. Documenting your edits by using an edit summary is the house style and is very helpful for other people who see your contributions. So, putting edit summaries is some time spent by you which saves more time to others. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Huge spike in activity from December, Low edit summary usage, would probably support in a month if activity continues and edit summary use improves --pgk(talk) 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose for now. Decent activity across the main articlespace and user shows a willingness to perform maintenance tasks. However, there is a lack of edit summaries and lack of Wikipediaspace edits beyond AfD. I think you need some more activity on other Wikipediaspace articles before you're ready for adminship. --Deathphoenix 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above, needs more experience --Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above, needs more experience and a more consistent use of edit summaries. Johntex\talk 00:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose freestylefrappe 02:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Not enough experience and extremely low use of edit summaries. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per User:JHMM13 and User:PS2pcGAMER. — JIP | Talk 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose: nothing personal, but would like to see more experience and use of edit summaries. Jonathunder 16:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Will support whole-heartedly when concerns listed in other oppose votes are satidfied (ie I will probably voting "support" in a June 06 or so RfA for this user). Youngamerican 19:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Not many project-space edits, and has really been acive for only a short time. With more expereince, might be a candidate I could well support. DES (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Not sure yet. --King of All the Franks 17:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral appears to be a well intentioned user who will make a good admin in the future. Please use edit summaries more.--Alhutch 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral would like to see more edit summaries, Talk use (communications is important for admins). Good article edits by random checks, no specific reason to vote oppose. xaosflux Talk/CVU 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 13% for major edits and 15% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See Drdisque's edit count with Interiot's tool.
  • I realize that I sometimes have had problems using the edit summary box, I promise to work on this in the future, especially when making important admin changes -Drdisque 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I support, your downfall in this vote may be your lack of talk edits (this may be because there were little instances where a talk edit was needed, but it may not be seen like this) and the lack of edits prior to December (May-November 2005 adds upto just 619, 54% of what you did in December alone). - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. 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. I currently keep an eye on the newpages list, I feel that with admin tools I could more quickly and efficiently deal with issues in these pages, mostly involving vanity, nonsense, and improperly entered userpages. I also noticed that there is a very large backlog of copyright violations, I could help sift through this as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I created and populated Category:IRL drivers and created List of Indycar teams.
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 have been involved with the constantly editted Paul Bern and the constantly vandalized Rice burner articles. However, I still view wikipedia as a hobby and do not let it interfere with my personal life. I know that I can't change the world and that consensus will eventually rule here. That's why its so great.
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. They were fun to think about.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

5. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. test1 would be used for a first-time editor, even if he appears to be a blatant vandal, it doesn't mean he or she is one until it is done again and again. bv would be used with a block warning after 3 or 4 instances of vandalism, especially on the same article.
6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. I would see why they did. If it was simply to revert actual vandalism, I would understand, someone should not wait to not revert vandalism to simply avoid going over 3 reverts. However, if the revert is to reintroduce their vandalism or POV to the article, that is unacceptable.
7. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. CSD is for when no credible claim of notability is made, AFD is for when the claim is in doubt or weak.
8. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. A sockpuppet typically uses the same edit style as another editor and frequently edits the same articles using the same type of POV or vandalism. All users should be treated as new users until their character is shown. A malicious sockpuppet is just as worthy of blocking for being malicious as it is for being a sockpuppet.
9. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. NPOV is one of the hardest parts of wikipedia. Consensus is an important tool to achieve NPOV. However, I try to make sure that there is no "oppression of the majority". The best way is to use FACT and avoid opinion, even if it is generally considered "true". If opinion must be included due to the nature of the article, it should be noted as such.
10. I would like to ask the candidate's view on Wikipedia:Process is Important? DES (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A. Wikipedia is not merely an encyclopedia, those have been around for a long time and only consist of a few writers view points, usually from the same culture. Wikipedia on the otherhand, is a constantly evolving process in and of itself, editing through consensus and discussion is the lifeblood of wikipedia. Additionally, wikipedia is an experiment in cooperative writing, the intended process needs to be followed for the results to represent the intended outcome. -Drdisque 23:12, 12 January 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.