Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheDJ 2

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

TheDJ

Final (84/14/4); Ended Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:32:31 (UTC)

Nomination

TheDJ (talk · contribs) – I'm going for my 2nd self nomination. The previous one was in February 2008 and I failed it, for not reading the speedy deletion guidelines before answering a question. That won't happen again :D. Beyond that, i'm basically the same guy. I'm all over the place, mostly interested in template work and javascript however. Still hardly interested in deletion activities, but have since done some more article writing, resulting in my first GA article ! My primary interest in going for administrator, is still that I want that mop, in order to be more effective/useful in the template/mediawiki/JS/CSS work that I like to work on. Also still active on Commons in taking care of NASA images. Just finished a big batch upload there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Mostly "editprotected" related work. Might consider getting back into TfD. Might also care to work in Image maintenance/speedy deletion, since it kinda connects to my Commons activities. Have not as much interest in article namespace deletion.

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

A: In my own opinion, my Javascript work for Safari users. International Space Station and Lodewijk van den Berg are personal favorites in article namespace however.

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: Everyone gets in conflicts or in stress. Never made it to some serious "intervention-required" dispute however. Usually I try to keep my stress on a Talk page. Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it and even if they did, I apologized to most of them afterwards. :D

(addendum) As far as I can remember, I have not been involved in anything approaching a dispute for at least the past year. My attempt at a little "humor" here (Q3) was clearly unsuccessful and misplaced. I meant to say that I have surely stepped on someone's toes, but who hasn't. And people who "deserve it", are definitely not newbies, and are expected to know how to deal with criticism. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2nd addendum) For most of the day (my wikibirthday btw :), I have been thinking on and off about how to respond to the worries some people have about my answer to Q3. First of all, It is an answer that I still stand by. It might have been a dumb, badly worded and overly honest reply, where I forgot that emotion translates badly to "paper", but no lying was involved either. I can't help people to look beyond this. With diffs someone can prove a persons incivility in the past, but for me to "unprove" that I am not and will not be incivil to people, is a bit difficult. After several days I can still only think of the one case mentioned in Q7, where I may have actually overstepped a boundary, but that was like 2 years ago (I can't even find the diff for that). All I wanted to say, was that I wasn't perfect, for other people to come to different interpretations is unfortunate, but allowed. I think I have said enough about Q3. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Oren0

4. Most administrative functions require the admin to be "uninvolved". What does this mean to you? In what types of circumstances might an administrator be too "involved" to perform an administrative action? Are there specific pages or users (you don't have to list them if you don't want) that you wouldn't use your administrative powers on/against?

A: For me "uninvolved" ideally means someone who "steps in". It means you put on your admin coat, and the parties will recognize you as an admin trying to solve a dispute, instead of as an editor not agreeing with them. There are of course cases where an admin duty goes above any involvement. Sometimes you just need to be "the admin" even if you are already involved. In such cases however I would personally attempt to "get out" as soon as possible and let other admins take care of any subsequent issues. In other cases, you can become too involved simply by staying around too long after "stepping in". Involvement is like consensus in that way. Hard to define. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Can you ever think of a case where you'd immediately speedy delete a page despite a {{hangon}} tag?

A: {{hangon}} gives the answer by itself: "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon." --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. You come across a page tagged with a speedy deletion template. The criterion listed doesn't apply and the page doesn't seem to fit any of the other criteria either, but the page is blatantly harmful to the encyclopedia. What do you do?

A: Please clarify "blatantly harmful to the encyclopedia"... But pre-emptively: tagging is not required for a speedy delete. A speedy delete simply needs to meet the criteria for speedy deletion in order for an admin to delete. "Criteria for speedy deletion specify the limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion." --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "blatantly harmful", I mean that the page is not constructive and no reasonable editor would ever lobby for the page's inclusion, but it doesn't meet any of the CSD. Oren0 (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of "harmful" is a bit more strict I guess. But if it doesn't meet any CSD criteria, then it should go to XfD. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Neurolysis

7. Would you please list some conflicts/disputes you have been in, with diffs (as an expansion to Q3)?

A: I remember once telling a certain admin that he was a disgrace to the project and that the project would be better of without him. I not 100% sure who that was....(I can look that up at a later time). And I don't think i have been in any type of conflict/dispute in the past year. At least not unless you call the debate at Talk:Australian_Communications_and_Media_Authority a dispute. Perhaps "i've stepped on toes" would have been a better description. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A (strictly optional) question from Tempodivalse

8: What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist? I'm asking this because, as an administrator, you will inevitably come upon situations where you will have to judge consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in XfDs, article content disputes, etc.

A: To quote Jimbo from the entire page we have dedicated to this subject: "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal.". Ideally it is, but in practice consensus is almost always a judgement call. It is about knowing how to read the arguments presented by the participants and knowing and recognizing peoples concerns. For instance in deletion, sometimes there can be a weak majority for keep, with lots of delete votes. It might be however that the arguments themselves can be distilled into a good consensus for merge and redirect. Every case requires separate reasoning and analysis. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Stifle

9. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?

A. There would be people who say "never", but this is not correct, because they assume the person is the subject of the image. The primary criterium for Fair Use, is encyclopedic value. I can imagine that there might be cases of historic events for instance, where an image is highly valuable and irreplaceable. So if such a situation exists, and none of the other NFCC are a problem, then such an image can be used. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Jennavecia

10a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I think that we can do more and we should do more. Most likely in "a" form of flagged revisions. However it's a problem that will never be solved completely and a problem that will always shift from one place to another (both in and outside of Wikipedia). For us and others to expect we can avoid all such problems is unrealistic. We need to do what we can with the resources we have in order to protect people as much from our "free shout" platform, without ceasing to be a useful "information" platform. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I don't think semi-protection is a desirable measure in the BLP situation. Most of all, I just want a trial, so we can test these flagging tools on our BLPs. We have the technology, we should at least see what we can do with them. I also see good potential uses for GA/FA revision flagging, and in the far and distant future, I cannot see how we can ever realistically strive towards the highest quality, without (evolutions of) these tools. It will be interesting however to observe the years of discussion we are likely gonna require to come to any kind of consensus on these issues. As long as we remember how much we were able to do with "open editing", I trust we can make good decisions on how to better protect articles without shutting people out. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I abstain from making a choice. I have no founded opinion about such BLP AFDs, because I have not observed enough of them to give a proper judgement. I'm however not a big fan of deletion in general. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia, can you clarify for me if you were asking about my opinion of what BLP policy should be, or were you asking for my answer on BLP AFD procedure based on the current policies ? I got the feeling you were asking about my opinion, and that this was not a test in the application of current policy.... (See also the oppose of Seicer). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Seicer didn't answer the question, so don't apply what he said here. What I'm asking is not about what the policy says, rather what you believe is best. Policy can change.

10d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: This question is so complicated and touches so many areas, that now I'm even more weary about "wanting" to close a BLP AFD than before. :) First of all, false claims (if they are indeed false), can be removed from an article, they are no direct grounds for full article deletion. Provided the editors have dealt with, and the discussion has accounted for, those claims; there is any actual article content left; notability has been established, and a consensus has formed, then the subject is basically left with a "IDONTLIKEIT" argument, which bears very little weight normally. Such a situation is likely to create interesting discussion however, much like this case. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: You didn't answer the question. :/ Also, the subject is not left with an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument. The hypothetical concern is false information being placed in the article. I'll clarify to say that the article's history indicates instances of false, defamatory statements being left unreverted for hours at a time.

Optional question from Chris Cunningham: 11. Sorry for the question-spamming, but I'm going to be asking this from now on: under what circumstances would you reject a housekeeping speedy deletion request placed with {{db-move}} on a page with a minor history which prevented non-admins from moving over it?

General comments

Links for TheDJ: TheDJ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Edit summary usage for TheDJ can be found here.
Promote TheDJ (bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TheDJ before commenting.

Discussion

For those who prefer them:

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question number six has the following follow-up: By "blatantly harmful" ... but it doesn't meet any of the CSD. I don't think I've ever seen something that is blatantly harmful that doesn't meet any fo the CSD requirements. I've seen hoaxes that are borderline, but nothing that was blatantly harmful. I'm a little worried about the nature of the question.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I miscalculated and that my RfA ends during the Batavierenrace. Thus I will be working at least during the final 4 hours of my RfA, and will have VERY limited time in the hours before that to check Wikipedia. I will do my best to look at it whenever I can in the coming 1,5 day, but I would advice anyone that it is likely I will not be able to reply to anything after April 25, 14:30 UTC. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Seems fine. Good luck! GARDEN 21:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me.--Res 2216 firestar 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't really like the answer to Q3, but that is not enough to sway me right now.--Res 2216 firestar 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can't find any reason to not trust this user. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support He has improved since last year. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't see why not. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good user, knows what they're doing, won't abuse the tools. Not sure about Q3, though. — neuro^(talk) 21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to trust, plus he created on of the best scripts.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously has use for the tools and can wield them wisely. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nick mallory (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mr.Z-man 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can trust this guy no problem. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems here. Good luck. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support tempodivalse [☎] 00:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Powergate92Talk 01:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Garion96 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -down load | sign! 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has enough experiance. Good luck. –BuickCentury Driver 04:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In all my experiences with TheDJ, I've always seen him as a smart, clueful user. I'm glad that he's running for RfA. X clamation point 07:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has the skills and has been established long enough here. -- Menti fisto 13:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clean block log, longterm editor with a civil talk page and diverse contributions. We're short of admins and I'm sure you'll make a worthy mopweilder Ϣere SpielChequers 15:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no concerns, and ++ for civil interactions with other users and good script work. Flying Toaster 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good experience; no concerns here. Acalamari 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has very good experience, and I see no reason he'd abuse the tools. Tim meh ! 19:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason no to. America69 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, why the hell not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)
Support Ok — JoJo • Talk • 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will be just fine. Renaissancee (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support LITTLE MOUNTAIN 5 ^review! 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support His/her responses make me believe that the user can undertake this responsibility. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The answer to Q3 concerns me a bit, but I will accept that the candidate did not try to be smug about other users with his answer. I like his answer to Q6 and his stance to deletion in general. I disagree with his approach to flagged revisions but I'm not !voting for popularity here but for an admin candidate. And as I am perfectly fine to support candidates who hold different views than I have, if they can be trusted with the mop. I'm convinced that the candidate can be. Regards So Why 08:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier, one or two unsettling responses to questions, but as I said many good edits. Another reason to support is his development of HotCat (which I use) and Popus (which I once used). Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to Z-Man and NGG, please don't get involved in disputes when I have said that I will reconsider my decision.Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason not to: all of my concerns were answered in the neutral section. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. hmwith τ 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I find the answer to Q5 a little evasive. Yintaɳ 15:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No reason not to; I'm satisfied with answers to the questions asked. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems qualified; and what a refreshing sense of honesty without irony in the candidate. esp. q3. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Wizardman 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support qualified, gained significantly more experience since last nom. Marlith (Talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although Q3 is a bit shaky, this user gives me an excellent overall impression in maturity and experience. Clearly knows the ropes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the most helpful and diligent users I've encountered. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agreed with ϢereSpielChequers. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. - filelake shoe 13:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds like a good canidate ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decent bloke, met him once or twice at RfA, good edits. Cheers. I'^mperator 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, sure. :-) Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support in that I trust the candidate in areas for which he has stated a desire for the tools. Like answer to Q 6. Opposers have reacted to the candidate's "unkind" faux pas, but I do not see links to specific instances of incivility for bellicosity. Candidate's opinion on BLP is irrelevant in that he has not stated a desire to work in that area. Dloh cierekim 00:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- there is one oppose that I address here pro forma as not being relevant to this discussion, which I discount out-of-hand lest it become fruitful and gain weight. Dloh cierekim 15:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a good candidate; if opposers put forth example of TheDJ being unkind to people, maybe I'd feel differently. A comment in this two dimensional medium where humor and sarcasm are each often lost, just doesn't provoke me to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. DJ's first RfA did not succeed due to weak answers concerning speedy deletions. The community asked him to increase his knowledge base, he committed to it and succeeded. The concerns on this RfA have focused on a single comment that could be interpreted as being mean spirited. I suggest, that TheDJ is guilty of answering Q3 in what turned out to be an ambiguous manner, nothing more. Pouring over his diffs confirms that his answer should be construed only in the most benign way. My humble opinion is that TheDJ has now met the community standards for a Sysop. I encourage others to take the time to learn what a well rounded and positive influence TheDJ is to Wikipedia. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support A review of your answers and work demonstrates you'll make a great admin! Basket of Puppies 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Support Some of his comments worry me, but I see no indication that he'd abuse the tools. Anti venin 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Looks to have improved since last RFA, I really can't see him abusing the tools. Best of luck with your RFA! - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems qualified. Haven't seen diffs that show Q3 to be a real behaviour issue as opposed to a poor choice of words for an RFA.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Generally good question answers and I haven't found anything objectionable in a review of contributions: Looks like TheDJ would make a sensible admin. I really do not find the issue shared by most of the opposers to be remotely a problem - to me this reads like a slightly poorly-phrased joke taken excessively seriously. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Answered the above questions well. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – and they say “…the truth shall set you free”, unless you are running for administrator. Been around for just over three years – 16K+ edits – never been blocked, to be honest could not even find a warning on talk page,. You’ll do a good job. Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems helpful, reasonable, and knowledgeable of policies. His answer to Q3 was unfortunate but does not indicate an incivility problem. Wronkiew (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will in all likelihood be an excellent admin. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - hugely clueful and helpful user and, I believe, developer. His attempt at humor in Q3 was probably ill-advised but I've no recollection of ever seeing this user be unkind to anyone. –xeno ^talk 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No obvious problem. Reaction to Q3 is mind-boggling to me: clearly that answer was tongue in cheek. There was even a smiley included for anyone tempted to take the comment literally... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. I'm always amazed at the ability of Wikipedians to make mountains out of molehills at RfA, to take one inconsequential line and oppose solely because of it. No one has a spotless editing history, and latching on to these throwaway lines and holding them up as grievous offenses hurts Wikipedia. Besides, let's no shit ourselves, guys - there are plenty of people (read:vandals) out there who don't deserve to be treated kindly! I'm certainly not going to punish DJ (and, by extension, Wikipedia) for a moment of candor. faithless (^speak) 01:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no evidence or indication that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Support, previous encounter with user tells me that he isn't mean spirited at all.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems to have the right attitude; no good reasons to oppose. Robofish (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great candidate, recent work is excellent. A few comments he made awhile back worry me some, but there's nothing since then that makes me think he'd abuse the tools or new found !power. Best of luck! - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jake Wartenberg 18:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - TheDJ is an excellent editor. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Has done good work, has not shown any behavior that causes concern. Concerns about the candidate's civility are unnecessary, nothing wrong with a bit of honesty in answering questions. LK (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Concerns below make me reluctant to support, but I won't oppose based on one problem. — Σ xplicit 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Computerjoe 's talk 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After extensive thought and review. Keegan^talk 20:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my net positive essay. Pedro : Chat 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think he'd do a good job with the tools and, contrary to popular opinion, I like the answer to question 3. A little honesty, a sense of humour and a pinch of salt is just what this world (and wikipedia, for that matter) needs. It would do him no harm to familiarise with AfD policy etc, but that can't be used in its own right to deny adminship. HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Seems like a good user. I take his answer to Q3 as a partial joke, not something to worry over. He'll do just fine. TheAE talk/sign 05:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as the candidate has never been blocked, makes thoughtful comments in XfD as seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cruft portal, and approaches his barnstars at User:TheDJ#People_being_nice as not merely a sign of the good reception he has had from others, but rather as making it more about how those editors are "nice," which is a nice gesture in its own right, i.e. a good show of appreciation. As such, this editor strikes me like someone I could work pleasantly with in his capacity as an admin. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems very good to me. Answer three was clearly humour. --Ged UK 08:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He is a good contributor. Q3 was a joke. — Lost^(talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm a bit late to the party here, but I was on a nine-day Dougstech-free break and I feel much better now. Candidates AfD contribs look solid. The answer to Q3 didn't bother me one bit - I mean, gee, who hasn't felt like a persistent troll or vandal deserved a little backslap. Disturbing when the current RfA trend seems to be looking for perfection - one stumble on civility, perceived or real, and newer (and some older) editors jump on it, point it out over and over, "look, look, incivility". I often get the feeling that the editors are trying to shoot down the candidate simply to boost their own self-perception of "honor" or whatever on Wikipedia. At any rate, good god - this guy has helped the project immensely, will clearly continue to do so, and we should all be focusing on moving this project forward, not stagnating it. Tan | 39 15:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tanthalas39. Even if the candidate truly meant it on Q3, I think the positive far outweigh the small negatives in that the candidate will make a good admin. MuZemike 17:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a solid contributor all around. Answers given lead me to believe he would not abuse the tools to mop up. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak Oppose-I liked you at first-good experience, good edits, nice all around and I thought you could be awesome. But the I read this: "Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it and even if they did, I apologized to most of them afterwards."-just doesn't settle well with me. The smallest things can make the biggest difference.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 23:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya... my apologies, but I was a little confused when I was reading your rationale. Were you saying that that the candidate said the quoted phrase, and if so do you happen have diffs so that other visitors to this RFA can also view this information and/or the context in which it was presented? --slakr^\ talk / 23:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...just read question 3.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the answer a bit. Smilies have no place here. If you have any specific questions, please let me know. And for now, Good night... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying but that you would say that at all, make me iffy.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 00:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL sorry, I totally didn't see that. I'm retarded. In any case, glad he clarified. The main reason I asked in the first place is because of the ":D" which indicated to me a joke or at the very least that the quote might have been taken out of context (just tryin' to look out for others) :P. Annnnyway, thanks for the response. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 01:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We only have 833 compared to over 9.5 million regular users (49,470,235 total) on the site. The numbers speak for themselves. –BuickCentury Driver 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no. DougsTech posts this on every RfA. Trying to debate him will do nothing but waste everyone's time, including yours. Just don't pay him any mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People deserve to be treated fairly not unkindly. SilkTork *^YES! 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be beneficial and helpful if you could actually expand on this comment. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 12:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above and below, it's a response to question 3. The answer to Q3 is standing out as the contentious one, and it would be worth people's while to look carefully at that one. SilkTork *^YES! 07:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I don't like "they deserved it" in answer for number three. Life doesn't work like that and it seems like quite a petty and immature stance to have. While I admire your work and enthusiasm, that little sentence ruined the deal I'm afraid. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm not a fan of the comments left above either (e.g. what was said above), but I'm not comfortable gaining an administrator who cans a response with "I'm not a big fan of deletion in general." (Question 10c) Administrators need and must remain neutral throughout the deletion processes and especially when closing them. Having prejudices that are not the result of an internal factor in the deletion discussion results in improperly closed debates. We need administrators who are willing to state that they are comfortable taking a non-partisan, non-biased view in closing debates, whether it is for deletion or keep. In relation, I'm not comfortable with an administrator who doesn't want to take the time to look up basic BLP and AFD procedure. If it is "no consensus," then a BLP is defaulted to keep but in the most extreme of cases. There have been instances of very poor, potentially liablous and unsourced BLP's being defaulted to keep via no consensus, but the correct procedure in that instance would have been to delete and restore sans the infractions. seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question:

Would you oppose if the user was speaking as an editor, or as an administrator?

Generally I am a fan of deletion, and blocking, and all the fascism that admins are accused of participating in Humor intended. However, I don't actually do any of that. Practice versus theory, so do you think that the user will use theory? Keegan^talk 07:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming that Jennavecia was asking my opinion about BLP policy.... Did I misunderstand that ? Also, how did my answer (i presume to 10d?) led you to conclude that I would consider taking an action of delete in cases of "no consensus" ? It even says "provide [...] consensus has formed". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it a 4th time: "no direct grounds for full article deletion" Perhaps this is leading you in your vote? "Direct grounds for AFD based full article deletion" was what I intended to say. Per WP:BLPDEL initial deletion due to BLP issues is always wide open of course. I just don't fully understand the 2nd part of your oppose... You tack on several issues into one and I have trouble discerning which argument is a judgement on which parts of my answer. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gears of War; and follow up answer is antagonistic and not much better for creating an atmosphere of cooperative editing of an encyclopedia. "And people who 'deserve it', are definitely not newbies, and are expected to know how to deal with criticism." Criticism isn't a tool to use against people you've decided "deserve it." In fact, you're violating the guideline of "no personal attacks" when you focus on whether or not someone deserves your criticism. Criticism can, and should be, a constructive tool for discussion on how to create a better article. An administrator should, imo, lead by example: show other editors that your focus is on writing the encyclopedia, not dividing users among those who can be criticized by you and those who can't be. --KP Botany (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is well put. I'm not !voting yet, this is a very interesting RfA to me Keegan^talk 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In part with Gears and KP; the answers give me pause and suggest a manner that is not conducive to solving disputes. Per my personal criteria I would like to see more audited article contributions as well. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Your edits look pretty good in general and there's not much to criticize, but like several of the others in this section, I have a problem with one of your statements. ("Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it and even if they did, I apologized to most of them afterwards.") As an administrator, you will be representing the whole of Wikipedia, and being unkind to those you deem deserving will reflect upon the entire encyclopedia as a whole. I just don't think this attitude is right for an administrator to have. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per "Like almost everyone, I have been unkind to some souls, but usually they deserved it." ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that DJ's Q3 answer looks bad. Taken on its own it seems mean spirited. Sampling his edit summaries and talk page comments, especially articles he might feel strongly about (such as ISS) produces friendly interactions. I don't see any evidence that would make the phrase a battle cry for his demeanor. Reviewing his answer, I can see where he may have been saying that he's human and he has managed to raise his voice and said a few unkind words when another editor is screaming at him. I just don't see the diffs that make me want to read his comment as a boast of his mean streak. Does anyone have any diffs that show his quote to be anything other than some poorly chosen words? --Preceding unsigned comment 23:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per they "deserved it" comment and then standing by it even after an issue was made of it. Very troubling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:CIVIL makes it clear that even if someone treats you like crap, it is not an excuse to return the same. This is a fundamental understanding needed by all admin and this user has demonstrated to not understand it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per the 3 opposes before this one. Until It Sleeps 21:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even in jest, "they deserved it" was dickish. Steven Walling (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather nasty response to a question. Protonk (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

#Several good edits but some answers to the questions makes it uncertain whether he will abuse the tools or not. Lets see how this RfA goes, and I might even change it to Support (or Oppose). Pmlinediter ^Talk 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to badger ... but you're seriously questioning whether someone who has been here for 3 years, has no blocks, has 9 barnstars, and has over 15,000 edits would abuse the admin tools on the basis of 5 questions asked in the past couple days? Mr.Z-man 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I seriously hate to say this but you have no right to say anything to him if your so blinded by barnstars, numbers of edits and a few years, then you are terribly oblivious. May I bring to your attention that a user got 118 just about undisputed supports after only 50 edits. Just saying.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Would you mind calming down a little? I'm not "blinded" nor "oblivious" and I resent such accusations, which border on personal attacks. I'm merely wondering how years of dedication to the project are so irrelevant in the face of a few questions. I presume the user you're referring to is Lustiger Seth, who, if you'll look, you'll see I also supported due to his experience and reputation elsewhere, so it hardly disproves my point, unless you look at enwiki in a vacuum. But thanks for the assumption of bad faith. Mr.Z-man 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wan't trying to attack you and your making the assumptions but the point is, I didn't like your comment. You didn't HAVE to respond. If you would like to converse further, do so on my talk page and leave this page be.-- Gears of War 2 (NGG) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't HAVE to respond - Neither did you. The only reason I replied to your comment is that I take offense to being called "terribly oblivious" when I was just trying to ask for clarfication on something I was curious about. Mr.Z-man 23:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

#Neutral I don't see any major problems, but I have to ask: What happened during August, September, and October 2008? The only other thing is that you could do a bit more article work, (although I really can't criticise too much there) but your script work is invaluable. Based on the answer to my question, I might change to support. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 16:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost half his edits are to articles... Mr.Z-man 18:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but while taking a quick look through his recent contributions, most are to his scripts or Wikipedia: namespace pages. But after having looked at that, I will change to Support if the answer to my question is satisfactory. Thanks, 99.224.117.66 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign in. Genius 101^Guestbook 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "his scripts" are HotCat and popups, 2 of the most heavily used and copied scripts on Wikipedia. Mr.Z-man 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I said that his script work was invaluable. I am switching my vote over to support. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that period, I was unable and did not want to edit Wikipedia, for reasons that had very little to do with Wikipedia. On the second question, I have a substantial amount of article edits. It's just that most of those are related to cleanup work. References, deadlinks, broken template use cases, and infobox cleanup. I often pick some small cleanup task that I encounter or feel like doing and clean out a category with errors. For the past 2 weeks my contributions in non-article space have been excessive compared to otherwise. The update to popups (which had not seen significant fixes in over 6 months) desperately needed work, the NASA import kept me really busy. I'm not the best prose writer, I'm the first to admit, but I think I have done substantial work in article space, even if it has been a lot of "1 edit per article" work. I hope it answers your questions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much fence-sitting in questions. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Stifle mentions, there's a lot of political posturing in the answers that concerns me. I like the long tenure, and from what I've looked at I like the contributions. Supposedly, the admin. bit should be just a natural progression for an editor, and I like the idea of protecting pages, but the bit also has some rather powerful functions tied to it. I get a sense that there's a "Don't push me, I'll push back" attitude that concerns me. I have no strong reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support either. — Ched : ? 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through the contribs I agree 100 % with Ched Davis' comments. Good contributor, not sure about adminship. feydey (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TheDJ is not a familiar name to me and I'm too busy/lazy to investigate, I'm afraid. Thus for now at least, I'm neutral. Hi, allow me to introduce myself: I have been unkind to some users, but usually they deserved it; and whether or not they deserved it I have seldom apologized afterwords. I am an admin, yet despite my occasional unkindness (and uninterest in denying this), neither Wikipedia nor the sky has fallen. I'm bemused by the way RFA has (I think since "my time") become an opportunity to judge how well nominees have pulled off the feat of responding to a great number of questions without expressing irritation or uninterest and also without any hint of being less than utterly virtuous. All in all I find that first answer to Q3 highly refreshing as a change from the usual pussyfooting response. -- Hoary (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting reply. Well written. Anti venin 16:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pussyfooting ... I'm adding this to my vocabulary. Thank you :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say that he has embiggened us with his cromulent response to Q3? –xeno ^talk 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the answers to the questions are good (like telling off an admin) and some are bad. Eh, I don't know. It is surprising how many votes you've received so quickly, especially from certain circles. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Moving per mistaken understanding of civility. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"certain circles" ??? now you have made me curious. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "why not" clique showed up to this RfA. Their presence hasn't been as frequent lately. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2009 (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.