Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D-Day

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. Content creators should be respected, not opposed. The primary role of admins should not necessarily be seen as futzing around in the project namespace upsetting people. Grace Note 02:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support. D-Day has demonstrated competence and dedication to the project, has been becoming more involved in community discussion recently, and is a very friendly user. (We could use a few more friendly admins.) --TantalumTelluride 04:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Support Has demonstrated competence. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Valentine's Day Support εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Support we need a LOT more admins who will UPHOLD policy rather than ignore or circumvent policy and community consensus Cynical 11:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, looks OK to me. JIP | Talk 11:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Seems a little light outside the Article namespace. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. I've dealt with User:D-Day in the past, and I think he's a good bloke and a useful editor. However, I don't think he's ready yet, and some of his edits ([1], [2], [3], [4] for a quick-and-dirty sample) show a misunderstanding of the rôle of userpages, consensus, etc. I'm also concerned that he got involved in the userbox fracas in the first place. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. What Wikipedia-space edits there are recently seem almost exclusively related to userboxes (usually "speedy keeps", with the associated barbs) or edits to the various BJAODNs. Going further back, they appear to be mainly NASCAR Wikiproject related. I'd like to see some proper demonstration of understanding of how the project space works before handing the tools to cause and effect there. More depth, breadth and less userbox mmrpghg (sic) would make me feel very much more comfortable. (We are all anti-vandal; I do not really view vandalwhacking as a prima facie reason to grant adminship given the variety of tools available to non-admins in that regard.) The candidate has also not answered the questions; for a self-nom that concerns me as a significant oversight. -Splash^talk 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Per all the above. — Moe ε 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Vehemently oppose: Insufficient understanding of Wikipedia policy and practices. Utter lack of judgement regarding disparaging attacks. Here are some examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Please read the comments below. Also what fuddlemark said above. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per MarkSweep's reasons. Proto||type 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Weak Oppose Although I take no position on userboxes, the manner in which D-Day argues for them (in the diffs provided my MarkSweep, for instance) does indicate more time is needed to mature before adminship is appropriate. Good show on the NASCAR articles, however. Xoloz 13:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak Oppose per all above. --Terence Ong 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak Oppose per all above. Hiding talk 21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose: not ready. Suggest expanding areas of participation (and remember to use edit summaries). Jonathunder 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Not enough edits and needs to expand areas that he is active in--Looper5920 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Don't be discouraged, stick around, and learn about the process. I'm sure you'll make it eventually. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think you quite meet the standards. Improve a few things and I think you might well. You need to improve knowledge of Wikipedia policy, use more edit summaries, and perhaps retain a little more neutrality when posting comments. Deskana (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose his behaviour over userboxes has been unhelpful, deliberately creating inflammatory boxes such as Template:User little boy "This user loves little boys!" (with picture of Michael Jackson). The section in bold in his statement shows his lack of understanding for Wikipedia policies—a speedy delete is not contingent on consensus, that's why it's called a speedy. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Work harder on those edit summaries, especially for major edits. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neural - While I like him a lot, I don't think he's quite ready enough for me to support. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rob Church (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 66% for major edits and 83% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See D-Day's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I just changed the close date for this RfA from the 20th to the 21st which I believe it should have been. Not too sure which time is right though. --Martyman-(talk) 04:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No email address enabled. No questions answered. --TheParanoidOne 06:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If possible, I would like to respond to MarkSweep's remarks. Firstly, the Jacko Wacko userbox was suddenly speedied, and I wanted to know why it was. After I learned it was considered an attack template, I did not recreate it. It is gone. Secondly, the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, except on user pages." I stand by that remark, particularly after reading WP:NOT and coming across this quote: "Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material" If my understanding is correct, userpages are an exception to the userbox policy, and I have seen other users post their beliefs on their userpage(and not just through userboxes!) Finally, the pedophile userbox. Firstly, I had no idea what that userbox containted because it had been speedied. Had I known what it was, or about the controversy about it was, my vote would have been very different. --D-Day 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to doubt your sincerity and honesty. On January 15, you complained about the deletion of Template:User jacko wacko, which you had created on December 27, 2005. Your claim that you did not recreate that template is only correct in the narrowest technical sense. On January 22 you created Template:User jackson love ("This user supports Michael Jackson. They are upset because Mr. Jackson is being persecuted for wanting to share his love with young boys around the world."), which is a thinly veiled attack in the guise of insincere "support". Then, on January 26 you created Template:User little boy, which contained the same picture of Mr. Jackson, the text "This user loves little boys!", together with a link to pedophilia. The creation of those two templates invalidates two of your claims: (1) You did, for all practical purposes, recreate the Michael Jackson attack template. Twice. (2) Your assertion of ignorance regarding Template:User pedophile is disingenuous at best. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. 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 plan to help in the following: vandal combating, speedy deletion, settling copyright disputes, working with newbies, ending edit wars, as well as blocking/banning any accounts as necessary.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. In addition the ones above, I have cleaned up GIC-Mixon Motorsports, Jeff Purvis, and Wayne Grubb. I also expanded Roush Racing, Hendrick Motorsports, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

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. To be truthfully honest, yes. I have been involved in the userbox wars, and as such have been in the Tfd debates. I have tried to stay civil, but it is difficult when something like that makes my blood boil. If I later realize I made a mistake, I go back and change my remarks. I promise to all of Wikipedia, that if I am named admin, I will stay neutral on everything, including userboxes, and only make decisions that help Wikipedia, and not just myself.