Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DaneGeld
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
- Result: not successful. (0/2) Chenzw Talk 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DaneGeld
[change source]| RfA of DaneGeld |
|---|
| global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted |
| Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00. |
End date: 21:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Having gained a feel for the workings of the Simple English Wikipedia over the last two and a half years, I feel that I can start to put the knowledge I have learned from other Wikipedians and Administrators to better use. I have almost 2498 edits on this Wikipedia, 3063 globally and a firm but fair hand when it comes to dealing with people. I admit that I have not always seen eye to eye with staff here, but that is changing and I find myself less at odds with others. I have cut down on using ready made templates in favour of more personal messages when dealing with those who vandalise or simply don't know how to edit here. I believe I have mellowed and would like the opportunity to help out the community. In the current situation on meta (the closure request for SEWP) one of the criticisms is that we don't have enough active administrators. I believe that I (like quite a few others I've seen here) would be able to help fill those cracks and assist the other admins to form a stronger team. I hope other Wikipedians will give me the opportunity to prove my worth here. Thank you.
Candidate's acceptance: self-nomination
Support
[change source]Oppose
[change source]- Oppose I have thought about this for a bit. And I am not totally convinced that the temperament is right for an admin role at this time. I also have to note that one of the reasons being stated for requesting the position is because we need active admins. Your last 100 edits takes me all the way back to the beginning of may. That isn't really all that active. Generally not a fan of self-noms either, should really wait till someone else recognizes that you are ready. All that being said, keep up the good work here, this is a not now, not a never. -DJSasso (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Thank you for your comments @Djsasso:. I understand your oppose and wish to address a couple of things; my last 100 edits (excluding placing this Request for adminship) are mostly anti-vandalism work and comments on Requests for Deletion. I edit when I see it is needed, rather than working for the sake of doing something. Also, the criteria for adminship are really vague. They say that "Users have to be active editors in this project for some time before they request adminship. There is no set time, but three months is preferred." There is no mention of there being a required number of edits to constitute what is active and what isn't. It also says that users can self-nominate. If people don't like this, that should really be clarified also :) I have completed this request based on the information given in that article. However, I will take your comments on board. It may be worth speaking to the community about rewriting that document. DaneGeld (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Right that is what the page does say, but the page isn't what the people who !vote necessarily base their votes on. They are just guidelines to help people understand when it might be appropriate to request adminship and are vague on purpose because different people have different criteria they personally judge on. For example, while you can certainly self nominate, I find that almost always (but not always) people who self nominate are those who should least be admin. Generally I find those that are reluctant to take the position end up being the best administrators rather than those who seek it out. Hell I think that holds true through life if you look at politicians. You specifically pointed out your activity as a reason you should be made admin, you really have very little activity, to put it in perspective, putting in 100 edits in a day is quite normal for most active admins as opposed only doing that much over a few months. As for time, that is something people really debate, generally under 3 months and you definitely won't get it, some people are ok being at so little time whereas other like myself usually like to see atleast years worth of effort (none of this really applies to you because you have been around awhile). And as you say most of your work has been anti-vandalism, wouldn't hurt to see some article work as well. Again I am not saying anything negative about what you have done, just that I think you aren't quite there yet. Getting adminship isn't really about checking off a list of things on a document. Sometimes it just comes down to peoples gut feelings. -DJSasso (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Thank you for your comments @Djsasso:. I understand your oppose and wish to address a couple of things; my last 100 edits (excluding placing this Request for adminship) are mostly anti-vandalism work and comments on Requests for Deletion. I edit when I see it is needed, rather than working for the sake of doing something. Also, the criteria for adminship are really vague. They say that "Users have to be active editors in this project for some time before they request adminship. There is no set time, but three months is preferred." There is no mention of there being a required number of edits to constitute what is active and what isn't. It also says that users can self-nominate. If people don't like this, that should really be clarified also :) I have completed this request based on the information given in that article. However, I will take your comments on board. It may be worth speaking to the community about rewriting that document. DaneGeld (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - (For now) I've only recently seen DaneGeld active around on Simple. I haven't had the pleasure of interacting with them as yet either. While I freely admit I am still new to the project, I would have wanted to see much more activity in the months leading up to requesting RfA. I'm neutral towards self-noms, but I feel compelled to oppose for now. I strongly agree with DaneGeld in that we need more active admins, especially active on IRC. But like Djsasso says, there's no evidence that makes me believe DaneGeld would be the very active admin I'm looking for. DaneGeld, I'll say to you personally that I'm looking forward to changing my oppose to support... I believe we need more. I just want to make sure we are getting the right ones. Operator873CONNECT 00:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[change source]- I am on the side of self nomination because it needs courage. I thought about this for a while and it is true that we need more active (regular) admins. Only few admins are regular and I see only 5-6 doing all the work around. There is no doubt that the user can be trusted so I don't want to oppose someone with good intentions. But as Djsasso mentioned above, want to see more activity and cool-headed judgements.-BRP ever 00:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a few comments. Personally, I have been impressed with DaneGeld, though I also think he might do more in the way of writing new pages. It is true we have quite a few admins for the size of the wiki, but there are reasons for this. We are ultra-permissive: we allow IPs to start new pages, we almost never protect pages, and we allow registered users blocked on English WP to edit here under the 'one chance rule'. And of course, being any form of English wiki brings editors who like to practice their English. So it's hard to know whether we have too many or too few admins. We seem to cope most of the time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2018 (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.