Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D-Day 3

Add links
Source: 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.

D-Day

Final (3/10/1); Closed by AGK (contact) at 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day (talk · contribs) - D-Day has ran unsuccessfully for adminship twice before Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D-Day and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/D-Day/2. Both happened around two years ago and they resulted in his withdrawl after WP:SNOW. He has matured very much since then. He was mid-teenaged at that time and he is now a late teen. The opposition on these RFAs are focused on 1) his strong opposition to the userbox migration and 2) how he used to spend some time using Wikipedia as a social network. Neither reason is applicable anymore.

Since his last RFA, he has put his nose on the grindstone, amassing over 12,000 edits. Many of these edits were reverting vandalism on NASCAR-related articles. NASCAR articles are especially prone to vandalism by detractors and WP:PEACOCK additions by fans. I've inspected much of his work in this area and I have found his edits to be consistently on target within Wikipedia guidelines, policies, and precedents. Many of his edits have kept information on the drivers and teams up to date. He used to add logos to team articles, but he stopped doing this controversial task around a year ago. D-Day and another Wikipedian started a Wikipedia fork (software development) on NASCAR called the NASCAR Wiki and D-Day was the head administrator (Userpage, Contributions). Even though I strongly disagree with forking, his experiences there are valuable to Wikipedia. He showed that he can successfully handle administration. He appears to have stopped contributing to the fork for the most part.

He has become better at working with others. He has been civil in discussions at WikiProject NASCAR. He has argued for both keeping and deleting articles, and has not been afraid to admit being wrong.

D-Day is a fine Wikipedian who I have worked with during the past 2½ years. My work with D-Day been extremely positive and I'm certain that he won't abuse the tools. I think he's ready to become an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Royalbroil 22:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I proudly and humbly accept my nomination for adminship. --D-Day (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to assist mostly in reverting vandalism and removing peacock terms from articles. My goal is to make Wikipedia a neutral and reliable source of information and become more than just "the site anyone can edit."
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As Royalbroil has mentioned, I mostly do work in the NASCAR-related projects. I mostly maintain the List of NASCAR teams and NASCAR Rookie of the Year articles. I also have begun taking up cleanup work in some articles. Examples of this include The Racer's Group and Ricky Carmichael.
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 had some instances of conflict in the past with other users. However, I quickly learned it was best to deal with these conflicts civilly and to not "sweat the small stuff." I realize the many responsibilities admins deal with, and I am prepared to apply this same practice to my efforts as an admin.

Optional questions from Tiptoety talk 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. What is your opinion on CAT:AOR, and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A: I support and applaud the notions behind AOR, and would absolutely add myself to the listing. I feel that feedback and communication are important parts of any job, and I want to let that be the case with this one. I want to make sure I am still meeting expectations as an admin.
5. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A: A block is a temporary suspension of editing privileges, be it for 24 hours or 1 year. A ban is a permanent suspension on a user due to vandalism, flame wars, etc.
6. When should "cool down" blocks be used?
A: In extreme circumstances when an otherwise good user seems to be having a difficult period and needs a vacation in order to cool off and think about things. Let them come back the next day and get a fresh start, and the cool down block has done its job.
7. What do you feel is the most important policy(s) in relation to admin functions?
A: WP:CIVIL is #1 for me, as the last thing I want to deal with is a grumpy admin who insults, namecalls, and flames in pursuit of an ego boost. I also believe that WP:NPOV is important not just for editing, but for administrative duties as well. How can one expect to make a fair ruling if they enter a dispute resolution with a biased point of view?

Optional question from Tivedshambo:

8. - Follow up question to Q1. You state you wish to revert vandalism and remove peacock terms, but you can do these already. What tasks specifically applicable to administrators do you intend to take part in? —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I hope this does not sound harsh, but as an admin, I would wish to take action against those who vandalize and use peacock terms. At the very least, warnings may be more effective coming from an administrator.

More questions from Tiptoety talk 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. I noticed in your last RfA there was an issue involving you using wikipedia as a social network. Would you mind explaining what the circumstances where and how you have improved your actions? Also why do you feel (if you do) that it is important that wikipedia is not used as a social network like Myspace?
A:

Optional question from SSBohio:

10. You previously opposed the userbox migration; The nomination now implies that you agree with it. While I personally oppose the migration, I can see its merits. Could you clarify your opinion on this matter, how it changed, and why? Is there any way you would want to alter current practice regarding userboxes?
A:

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Royalbroil 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support good user already, would put tools to good use; both quality and quantity, I like it! --Camaeron (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support-- meets my standards. Although has not had experience in admin related areas, has made a sufficient number of edits to use the tools. While he has a limited focus, that would also suggest a limited opportunity to misuse the tools. Much of what he desires to accomplish can be done without the tools. Please set your preferences to require filling out the edit summary before saving. Communication for an admin is paramount. Please be sure to verify adequate and appropriate warnings in place before blocking. Dlohcierekim 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck support per q6. Dlohcierekim 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral Support, user is obviously well-intentioned and I do not think there would be any deliberate misuse of the tools. Get some serious Wikipedia-space contribs under your belt, and I'm sure you'll do better next time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Excellent editor. Unfortunately, I don't see much in the way of bureaucratic contributions - Wikispace confined mostly to project pages for editorial purposes. User claims wanting to fight vandalism but I don't see any participation in WP:AIV - just as a for instance. Also, you don't need the tools to revert vandalism and remove peacock terms from articles. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Based on my review of this candidate - only 69% edit summary usage for minor edits, should be close to perfect after 2+ years on WP; no participation in Afd, Afc, Rfa, or AIV. Plus the candidate has been editing mainly in NASCAR related areas. I like admins to be multi-dimensional, not just focused on one. ArcAngel (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Limited participation in Wikipedia space must be a better way to word it. Here's some diffs:recent AfD nom, recent CfD participation, October Request for Page Protection. Royalbroil 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You nominate him, then oppose him? Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was meant to be a response to the oppose !vote above, but not sure. It would not make sense to oppose a user you nominated. Tiptoety talk 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The formatting was fixed incorrectly. I have fixed it now. Acalamari 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, my bad. The comment was placed in a manner which looked like an oppose. Apologies to the nom and candidate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was meant as a reply/comment and not a change of opinion. Sorry that I formatted it improperly. Royalbroil 01:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Per Q#6, per WP:CDB, cool down blocks should never be used, as they only make things escalate once the block is expired. The answer to this question also backs up some of the concerns raised above, with a lack of wikipedia space participation comes a lack of knowledge of polices as shown here. I do feel that your intentions are good, and don't see any evidence that would show that you would abuse the tools, but lack of experience along with Q#6 makes me oppose. Tiptoety talk 00:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Per edit summary usage and unsatisfactory answers to questions. RC-0722 communicator/kills 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summary usage looks fine, sure he didn't use it a whole lot during his first few months, but did any of us? Tiptoety talk 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    69% minor edit summary usage (based on the last 150 edits) is fine for you? ArcAngel (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was refering to his minor edit summary usage [69% (I think)]. RC-0722 communicator/kills 00:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose based on Q6. If the candidate wishes to participate in vandalism patrol (as in Q1, altho the candidate does not explicitly state blocking, but isn't that part of vandalism patrol?), the candidate needs to have a clearer understanding of the blocking policy. Yngvarr (c) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose A good contributer but the answers to questions 6 and 8 indicate a lack of understanding about what having administrator tools means and how they should be used. Good luck with future editing. Guest9999 (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Not quite ripe yet; with some more time in the Wikipedia space and focus on learning policies, I look forward to supporting later. Shell babelfish 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose At this point, especially in light of some of the above answers, I am afraid that in my opinion, the user's judgment is not one I would wish to see exercised in contentious situations (ala cool-down blocks instead of WP:DPR). Perhaps more time and more exposure to all of the areas that require mop attention would help. Sorry, and best of luck! -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Sorry, you seem to be a keen and a good editor, but you need to learn exactly what the administrator tools are for. Read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list, and come back in two or three months with better answers and more rounded experience. —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 07:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral. Sorry, I like some things about this guy (specifically his anti-vandalness) but also oppose his answer to question 6. THE KC (talk) 02:05, 5 March 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/D-Day_3&oldid=1136073961"