Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DOSGuy

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

DOSGuy

Final (talk page) (3/9/5); Ended 03:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DOSGuy (talk · contribs) - During the past year I have mostly devoted myself to correcting the millions of spelling and grammatical errors in the Wikipedia. I choose a commonly misspelled word, such as "received" or "retreived", and then try to correct every instance of that word in every article. During these searches, I often come across vandalism, which would be somewhat easier to revert with the rollback button. I also find many articles that are candidates for speedy deletion, which I've been content to nominate, though I would like to be able to help eliminate some of the backlog in a number of lists.

That's it, really. I know how to rollback, delete and move pages because I maintain my own wiki at wiki.classicdosgames.com. I understand that adminship is not a trophy. I consider the Wikipedia a very valuable resource, which I use almost every day, and I just want it to be of the highest possible quality, and I feel that typographical and grammatical errors -- and vandalism -- damage the quality and reputation of the Wikipedia.

By way of voluntary disclosure, I would like to confess that I chose the word "barbeque" for correction a few months ago and had a number of edits on Australian pages reverted. I meant no harm, and have no intention of editing that controversial word again. I also recently posted in a talk page in support of a correction to the colour of the Canadian flag and made a comment that was a bit too passionate. I used the word "idiots", in reference to no specific person, which I trust has caused no offense. I cheerfully withdraw the statement and promise never to write such a thing again. If anyone feels that this should automatically disqualify me from adminship, I accept your verdict. I don't "need" to be an admin, and will happily continue editing regardless of the outcome. I'm a mature adult of more than a quarter of century of age, and I won't take rejection as a personal slight. I just think I could be a bit more useful and help with the backlog if I had the ability.

As I understand it, the point of being an admin is to continue to do the good work you were already doing, and deal with some slightly larger problems along the way. I trust that my administration of my own wiki demonstrates my knowledge of admin powers and responsibilities, and that my (mostly) non-controversial body of edits demonstrates my maturity and suitability for the position.

Thank you. DOSGuy 06:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOSGuy's concession speech

The consensus seems to be that my request should be rejected, so I accept the verdict. I believe in the concept of the Wikipedia as a user-contributed knowledgebase where everyone can contribute to the extent that their contributions can be considered valuable. Having contributed worthwhile edits and done nothing to prove myself untrustworthy with additional rights, I considered myself a good candidate to take on a few additional responsibilities. I use some of those administrative powers on my own wiki: reverting vandalism, protecting pages, deleting nonsense pages, and editing within protected pages. Basically, I would use those abilities to keep doing what I've been doing, but to edit where I presently can't, protect what needs protecting, and delete what needs deleting. I view adminship as the ability to contribute a little more, not as an exclusive club or a prize or trophy. Editing Wikipedia is just a hobby for me -- a way of giving something back -- and I'm not going to go out of my way to participate in special projects to impress anyone or prove that I deserve to be able to contribute. I was, and still am, willing to help with the backlog, state opinions on matters of policy, and contribute a bit more broadly than I have to this point, but still only as a hobby; I'm not interested in politics.

I've demonstrated no contributions to policy because I'm less interested in what the rules are than what the rules should be. I've browsed all of the rules, but not memorized them, because knowing the difference between a helpful contribution and an unhelpful one should be a matter of common sense. Call me to vote and I'll tell you what I think, but I'm not interested in the bureaucracy underneath it all that keeps Wikipedia running. I'm here to contribute to the best of my ability, and I will abstain from any debate, and refrain from using any powers that I'm not qualified to use.

For now I will do exactly what I said I would do in my submission: I will maintain good relations with everyone in the community and will continue to do the good work that I have been doing. I will not submit myself for adminship again, but I'll graciously accept nomination if anyone feels that I have proven myself worthy in the future.

Thank you all for your consideration.

DOSGuy 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are making a very sensible choice, if I may edit here. Good for you DOSGuy, and I look forward to hopefuly being able to support your next request. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said.--Chaser - T 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be making another request on my own behalf, but feel free to keep tabs on me if my credentials improve. I think perhaps Wikipedians are setting the bar too high on the position of admin, and I'm not likely to achieve that level of qualification unless the standard is reevaluated. DOSGuy 02:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to rollback vandalism when I come across it, and help with the backlog in lists such as the proposed deletion and candidates for speedy deletion lists.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: As the author of a website about classic DOS games (which has been cited as a source in a number of Wikipedia articles, always by editors other than myself), my most significant contributions have been to articles about DOS games. I'm also a longtime Transformers nerd and have made a number of corrections to articles on the subject. Other than that, I seek out spelling and grammatical errors, and revert vandalism and propose frivolous articles for deletion when I find them.

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: I have changed the word "barbeque" to "barbecue" on some Australian pages, and my edits were reverted. I responded that I was under the impression that "barbecue" was the universal preferred spelling, but made no effort to replace my edits. I have no interest in participating in edit wars or supporting any personal agenda. I'm just trying to improve the quality of the Wikipedia; I'm not here to fight anyone.

General comments

See DOSGuy's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for DOSGuy: DOSGuy (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DOSGuy before commenting.

Discussion

I don't think this is likely to pass, but it's not really necessary for rollback, as there are rollback scripts that automate the process for non-admins. See Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol#Rollback_scripts for more. Cheers!--Chaser - T 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DOSGuy - Please don't be hurt by what I have to say, but I think you should actually close this now, before your RFA turns into something of a bloodbath. I think you are doing well overall, but, because of your very little experience outside of the mainspace, I think there is a very little chance this will pass. On the other hand, if you take the comments of the opposers well, there may be something to be learnt for you here. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's been a bloodbath at all. I'm glad that so many people appreciate my efforts to improve spelling and grammar. The opposing votes have not suggested that my request was frivolous or foolish, they just want me to show more dedication to Wikipedia projects and administration, which I certainly planned to do as an admin. I had been more concerned that I wouldn't have enough edits or a long enough tenure to be considered. You've all been very kind, thank you. DOSGuy 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When deciding whether to support, oppose or have a neutral stance on this user's RfA, remember, try not to bite too much. Sebi _[talk] 08:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that directed at me? I didnt mean to bite, and if I did, I am infinitely sorry. I am just trying to help DOSGuy out. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No no no, not directed at anyone. There has been a few premature RfAs and candidates not showing the need for tools lately, and alot of users who often lose their cool when commenting on the discussion and point out every single thing that the user does wrong, and it doesn't look to welcoming from the candidate's point of view. DOSGuy is a great user, and would never use the tools to the encyclopedia's expense, but other users may not see it that way and issue a flat out strong oppose (not attacking anyone in particular). Sebi _[talk] 08:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue pointed out by you above, Spebi, is indeed one that has been garnering a lot of attention. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Moral Support I'm just trying to improve the quality of the Wikipedia. An excellent sentiment. Copy editing (which seems to be your strength based on edits) is vital to the clarity of this work for our readers. I'm sorry to tell you that this RFA is very likely to fail, but please don't think that your work is not valued. Pedro | Chat 08:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a very noble statement made by DOSGuy. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support you've made enough edits for me. I'm not concerned that you deal mainly with copy-editing and not (by some peoples standards) enough in the project space. While this is likely to fail, I suggest you try another RFA in September. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support per Pedro. Copyediting is valuable, and this candidate is definitely admin material in principle - just not experienced enough yet with some key admin areas. Try again in 2-3 months after gaining more relevant experience, and you could also try WP:ADMINCOACH. Walton^talk 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Apologetic Oppose - I'm sorry, but the fact that you were not even able to properly construct (for want of a better word) your RFA page shows me that you need more experience and are not ready for the tools. Also the fact that 2310 of your 2350 edits are in the mainspace; you have no edits at all in the template space, only 14 in the user talk space and less than 10 in the wikipedia space, most of which will have been on this RFA. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Chaser - T 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did he fix it or did you? It doesnt matter. He cant fix the main problem (at least not now, during this RFA): his experience in any spaces but the main. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DOSGuy, you seem like a very helpful editor, but I just don't see the experience necessary to give you tools for article deletion. You've never participated in a deletion discussion, and you don't mention any experience with prodding or tagging things for speedy deletion. I'm inclined to believe from your nomination statement that you haven't done either. I suggest that you try some new page patrol and participation at deletion discussions and then re-apply in a few months. You've been with the project long enough to earn some trust, but I don't see enough experience with article deletion. The same goes for talk page communication to some extent, though this was excellent handling of a complaint. Anyway, good luck. To the rest of the community, let's not BITE this well-meaning editor, please.--Chaser - T 07:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You may one day make a fine admin. However, you need more experience per comments above. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor 12:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 3 Wikipedia-space edits, and all of them are to this RfA. I really can't trust you at the moment. Also, you say you revert vandalism, which is true, but you have no edits at all to AIV. You need more edits in the Wikipedia-namespace. This is because Wikipedia is a community, and most of admin-tasks originate in the Wikipedia-namespace, the Wikipedia community. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 13:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have reported one abuser to AIV, which was successful. DOSGuy 20:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per directly abouve, will support if you can bring this edit count up, but I think that may take a while.The Kensington Blonde T C 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We most definitely need more editors like you, DOSGuy, that are so obviously dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. However, an administrator has to be well versed in in various policies and guidelines, and there's very little to show that you have that grasp. I'd recommend withdrawing this nomination and broadening your scope a bit to include participation in XfD discussions. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, you've added a lot to Wikipedia, but you only have 5 wikipedia edits, and very little interaction with other editors. Work on those areas and you shouldn't have any trouble getting promoted in a few months. Gan fon 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not nearly enough experience overall. Jmlk 1 7 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose when we comment on an editor's suitability for the admin tools, all that we have to go on is the edits we can see in admin-related articlesin WP:NAMESPACE. You have very, very few, so it is not possible to assess your potential admin skills. Spend some time in these pages, and try again in say three months time.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral You need more experience in pages that are to do with wikipedia administration, such as the Wikipedia: namespace, XfD's, AIV, etc. If you get more administration-related experience, then i would happily support you, as would many others. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the fact that you are offering to help out with backlogs, but you don't need admin tools to revert vandalism or correct spelling errors. Sebi _[talk] 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's true that I'm able to revert vandalism without the rollback button; that would merely be a convenience. As far as copy editing, I'm sometimes thwarted by locks. I can't correct the typos in the anal sex article because it's locked. As you've all noticed, I'm a copy editor, and I'm glad that so many of you appreciate the effort. It's not essential, but adminship would allow me to copy edit a few articles that I can't currently correct. DOSGuy 20:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. You're a bit too focused on mainspace and forgot about other aspects of wikipedia, especially portals. And you need to improve on your edit summary usage. It's like a sea of red to me.
Neutral per all above comments. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with Moral Support. Good editor with valuable contributions and a good set of ethics it appears, although narrow experience leaves me unable to accurately judge the user's grasp on policy. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.