Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/UserDœ

Add links
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.

UserDœ

[edit]

Final (4/12/2); Ended 18:43, May 8 2008 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate

UserDœ (talk · contribs) - I've seen this user all over WP:UAA reporting promotional usernames. The user's reasoning is great and he/she shows a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies. He/She is fighting a lot of spam, already has rollback rights and I have no doubt that the user will make good use of the admin tools. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I never thought about beeing an admin; but I accept. I'll try it. User Dœ αTΩC 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would keep on fighting spam and vandalism. I would take care of reports on WP:UAA and WP:AIV, would remove promotional articles (G11) as well as vandalism (G3) and attack pages (G10); as well as any other CSD candidate if they would indeed qualify as a CSD candidate. Furthermore I would check out WP:SSP, WP:RFR, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam (I'm already part of wiki project spam) from time to time. User Dœ αTΩC 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I fight a lot of spam and I'm an experienced vandal fighter. User Dœ αTΩC 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Not with this new account. I once had a dispute with User:Jlray. That was under one of my former accounts User:LightAnkh my contribs at that time (which I had to abandon due to private problems...the other one was User:UserDoe my old contribs ). The discussion can be found here Talk:Unidentified_flying_object/Archive4. Jlray was beeing quite uncivil and didn't assume good faith on the article's talk page. After trying to discuss it; i took it to WP:WQA Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive37#Discussion_with_uncivil_user_on_Talk:Unidentified_flying_object and it was resolved. For the future: I would do it the same way. I would try to discuss it with the user and if necessary take it again to WP:WQA. User Dœ αTΩC 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. my support for this user still stands (else, i wouldn't have made the nomination). i have to say that we shouldn't use different judgments on different users. we grant one to include his/her old contribs when considering him/her as a admin, and the other one has to go "down the drain". and i find it positive that my nominee disclosed his/her former accounts...he/she didn't have to do it...but my nominee did. folks, we're all not perfect and we all have made mistakes, be it in real life or here on wiki. the one who tells everybody he/she is perfect is a liar. is still think my nominee would make a good admin.
    additionally words like "scary" only discourage users to continue editing here. it's also wrong to say: "hey you didn't really participate on articles"...why? because many users are only fighting against vandals, spammers and the like. i always thought wiki wants to ENCOURAGE users to edit and help. oh well... SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Since this is (I assume) aimed at me, I'll answer, but I'm not going to clog up an RFA with a lengthy rambling debate. I (and a number of others) don't feel comfortable giving the power to delete articles to users who haven't experienced the sheer effort it takes to create those articles they casually tag for deletion. Also (again, in my opinion), unless you've experienced the mind-numbing mix of tedium and frustration of cleaning up an article that's been AfD'd and then tried to argue for its keeping, only to see it deleted anyway due to a tide of "delete per nom" drivebys, you're far less likely to be able to empathise with content creators when they come to your talkpage to complain. This is, after, supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a chat forum, and I honestly believe those editors who don't work in the mainspace shouldn't be handed control. (All the above is, needless to say, my personal opinion and not any kind of policy.) — iridescent 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply there's absolutely no need for a so called "rambling debate". i nominated this user in good faith and voiced my personal opinion . i really didn't want to embarrass this user. SomeUsr |  Talk Contribs 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a spot on point as there are in fact even single-purpose deletion accounts who have outright stated that they will never argue to keep an article and who just go down the list of AfDs with "per nom" non-arguments and within the past week or so one even outright admitted that he knows nothing about the topic and has no interest editing the article. So, even if we do improve the articles and present valid reasons for keeping, how do you convince accounts who have never argued to keep and won't? What makes it worse are those that only focus on AfDs, whereas most editors are more interested in building the encyclopedia, so we end up with five day AfDs in which say a half dozen accounts participate, some of which admittedly know nothing about the topic and only want to delete articles, somehow is supposed to represent community consensus when the discussions may be for articles that have been around for months or years and for which maybe even hundreds of editors contributed in good faith. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support. This isn't likely to pass (with some good reasons) but you're definitely on the right track. Take a few months to build up some more experience in AfD, CSD and the like, maybe write some DYKs, contribute to a few GAs (or even FAs!) and I'm sure you'll pass next time. All the best, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support due to no memorable negative interactions with the candidate. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support However, I'm concerned with the discarding of past accounts. Hopefully, you will have a clearcut track record with this account the next time around. Dlohcierekim 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Unfortunately previous accounts have no bearing on whether or not an Rfa succeeds - it's what you do with your current account. So far, there isn't much history built up. Less than 1,000 edits, and your edit summary usage should be better (which your UserDoe account does show as good usage). You really need more participation in AIV and Afd though. Another four months or so with this account at your current level of activity, with no conflicts/bans, etc., and you should be good to go on your next Rfa. ArcAngel (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Huh? We judge RFAs based on the contributions of previous accounts all the time - see DHM and Naerii as the first two examples I can think of. — iridescent 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Let me agree with Iridescent. Its the person we are considering, not the account. If a user is willing to disclose their previous account, we can certainly take them into account when considering this candidate. Gwernol 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another comment Also, where do you get the edit summary problem from? Looking at their last 500 contribs the edit summary usage seems to be perfect other than for edits to their own userpage. — iridescent 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. You've never participated in an XfD, and while a skim through your deleted contribs does show a lot of correctly tagged speedies, (this one does concern me, as does the fact that you've I can't see a single recent mainspace edit on any of your accounts other than minor edits and reversions. — iridescent 16:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction to my above - on your old account I can find some XfD participation, but it tends to put me off giving you a delete button, seening the sheer number of user pages you've (incorrectly) attempted to get deleted — "Delete - userpage of a blocked user"??? — iridescent 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Scary diff, however, I'm more concerned about your lack of article work. This is an encyclopedia afterall. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose - Lack of experience mostly... and am disturbed by your "quick to abandon" attitude with old accounts. Why abandon them for a "personal issue" and not choose to vanish? Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - More experience needed. Given 5/6 months of regular contributions to various areas (WP:AIV, WP:CSD etc) and provided there are no negative issues, i'd be willing to support. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - This user would require more experience and activity in the Wikipedia namespace for me to turn this into a support. asenine say what? 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Tooo lesss experience in Article Main Namespace. An admin should first be a article contributor -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 17:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dodgy UAA reports, little to no participation elsewhere and a slight lack of experience. Rudget (Help?) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose: Little main space experience, less than 1000 edits, been around since 21 April 2008, still too new in my opinion. Also, user says will help out at AIV but currently only has 19 edits there. Sorry! The Helpful One (Review) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Lack of overall experience, along with some UAA concerns leads me to believe that there will me misuse of the tools. Also (not that it swayed my !vote) but I noticed that this user had {{User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator}} on their userpage, a little hypocritical if you ask me :D. It looks as if it is starting to snow. Tiptoety talk 18:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Just too little experience so far, but you're on the right track. Try again in a few months after you've spent time working on more articles and I'll be more amenable to supporting you. --CapitalR (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as above- not yet, but I'm sure you'll make a great admin candidate some day. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm close to supporting but I think another few months experience would help avoid the kind of blunders highlighted by Iridescent. Epbr123 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral to avoid pile-on. I think that this is a little bit premature. You are an excellent editor, but I feel that you need to branch out and get a little bit more experience in other areas before attempting this again. I do not feel that you would abuse the tools intentionally, but with a lack of experience comes the tendency to abuse them unintentionally. With some more experience in other areas of projectspace, I would be happy to support a few months from now. Trusilver 17:47, 8 May 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/UserDœ&oldid=1142506643"