Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deiz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Deiz

Final (59/9/3) ended 17:28, 17 May, 2006 (UTC)

Deiz (talk · contribs) – I joined Wikipedia last December, quickly discovered a lot of my previous hobbies were less important than I once thought and have since racked up 3300+ (2167 when the replication quit) edits, across a wide range of articles and throughout the namespaces. After considering taking this step a few weeks ago, I decided to hang back and get involved in more "janitorial" type work to see if I really wanted the tools, and some time spent in the trenches - especially disambiguation link repair - has really helped. I want to see Wikipedia grow, and that can only be done if the vast majority of decisions taken and edits made are constructive and informative. I believe I have contributed a great deal as an editor, both in project and article space, and I hope to continue to develop and serve the project in any way I can. Deizio talk 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. Deizio talk 17:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, good answers. Kimchi.sg 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, Deiz has made some terrific contributions in a short period, and seems to have a calm level head and a grasp of the "not so glamorous tasks" involved in being a sysop. Great admin material. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 17:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
3. "Thought the user was already" cliché support. RadioKirk talk to me 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, good user and I like the answers. --Tone 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Strong Support! I work with this guy. Very agreeable. Grandmasterka 19:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Definitive Support Rama's Arrow 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Strong Support. There's going to be a long list in your logs. :) Royboycrashfan 20:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Unambiguous Support :) Dlohcierekim 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Strong Support let this user's fine contributions speak for itself. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
10. Support well rounded. Computerjoe's talk 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
11. Identical twin support (his edit count, distribution, and date of first edit are eerily similar to my own) inasmuch as Deiz is unlikely to abuse adminship (and likely to benefit the project as an admin) and as adminship is no big deal. FWIW, of the two instances adduced by Ted toward the proposition that Deiz has been incivil, I think that the first comment of Deiz is altogether Wikiappropriate and that the second, although perhaps not as decorous as one would like, is not incivil (and surely not a personal attack); I think one would have difficulty finding a user with more than 3000 edits who hasn't made at least one such comment in his/her time here at WP, and I don't think we ought to draw inferences apropos of Deiz's general civility and ability to communicate effectively with other users from such a small and innocuous sample. Joe 22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
12. Support a good editor who I believe he will be a good admin. Gwernol 22:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. Will make a good admin. Keep up the great work! DarthVader 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
14. Support, solid answers to questions and to the concern listed below. Kuru ^talk 00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
15. Support makes lots of well-reasoned comments on AfD.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
16. Support - looks like a great editor. —Mets501^talk 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
17. Support He comes across well. Not perfect, but has learnt to improve weak points and I am sure will continue to do so. He also bothers to communicate and explain. Tyrenius 03:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
18. Support The issues brought up by neutral and oppose voters appear to be from awhile ago. joturner 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
19. Support helpful on chat and active on wikipedia. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
20. Support Should do a good job and be a benefit to wikipedia.--Eva ^db 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Good answers given below. Also seen him do some good work on AFD's. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
22. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 10:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
23. Support. Seems fine. --kingboyk 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. --Bhadani 13:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
25. Support too few nominators :-0 - Liberatore(T) 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
26. Support Trustworthy editor -- good wiki-essays as well. :) Xoloz 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
27. Support. Needs the mop to carry out his maintenance tasks.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
28. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
29. Support Canderous 18:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Talk
30. Support. Can't say I've had a lot of experience with this user, but contributions look good, and WP:HEY & WP:CHILL helped put me into the definite support category. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
31. Support No reason not to. Joelito (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
32. SUPPORT - I always knew that Portugal imported lots of things, but I never thought it would have to import Wikipedia admins! Really nice work, not only in the article namespace, but also in AfD and other project namespace stuff. Keep your good work! Afonso Silva 19:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, makes good use of AWB. I am huge supporter. Gadig 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
34. Support, The Marine has a good feeling about this nominee. Tony the Marine 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
35. Support --Jay(Reply) 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
36. Strong support exceptional contributions, great vandal fighter, I give him my highest support -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 02:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
37. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
38. Support --Terence Ong 04:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
39. Support--Jusjih 08:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
40. Support --blue520 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
41. Support - Good user, with participation on WP:AFD and some good janitorial work. --Knucmo2 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
42. Support Use the tools with wisdom and restraint. Haukur 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - Deiz would use the admin tools well. Mr. Turcotte 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
44. Support great user, ton of edits, and just about everything that makes a good admin. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 05:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
45. Lukewarm support. — May. 13, '06 [10:33] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
46. Support Joe I 13:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Thoughtful answers to the questions. Dr Zak 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
48. Support, will make a fine admin. Angr (t • c) 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
49. What, I hadn't already? Support Werdna_{Tc@bCmLt 22:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)}
50. _{Support (tho try to get your edit summary usage up ;) )--Syrthiss 12:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}
51. _{Support I read your reply, dei. Perhaps I really got too carried away by the fact that some 850 Wikipedians are serving as administrators. So, without much consideration, I was going down through the list of people running for the adminship to see if anybody could fall as prey for not being in the community long enough. But I see that you've worked on various projects that coincide with my mission in Wikipedia. And I really liked your reply. It was convincing and not offensive. So I change my vote from Oppose to Support.(Wikimachine 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC))}
52. _{Support Good contributions in many areas, trustworthy and should start mopping soon. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)}
53. _{Support Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 15:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)}
54. _{Supprot Seems good enough. — Brendenhull 19:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)}
55. _{Support -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)}
56. Support, no reason not to. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
57. Support. —Encephalon 04:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
58. Angry Support For not letting me know so I could nominate you!!! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
59. Support No real concerns TigerShark 00:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This user seems like a nice guy and I enjoyed some of our interactions. Nevertheless, I was never a huge fan of his tag line, namely: Better Wikipedia articles through deletionism? You bet your sweet ass...[1] and I am somewhat surprised that it does not seem to be addressed by either the self nom above, or the questions below. His user page, until recently, was also far too confrontational for me [2], the use of derogatory labels (i.e. scamcruft, etc.) to link to articles in the mainspace, while humorous, is not exactly what I look for in an admin. I guess what I do look for is someone who can be an impartial referee, not a POV warrior or extremist on either the deletionist or inclusionist sides. Because one of the few things admins can do is delete articles, and that is a power that requires discernment and a certain degree of reflection, not flippancy. Maybe Deiz (talk · contribs) can be a bit more upfront about where he really stands. -- JJay 01:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

   JJay, I too have enjoyed working with you and appreciate what you're saying. My comment on the Meta page was made a while ago, and given the spirit of the page it was designed to be humourous. As to the diff on my userpage, the links were also intended to be light hearted, certainly not confrontational, and I removed them when I realized how they could be wrongly interpreted. For a far more representative look at my thoughts on this subject, check out WP:HEY and WP:CHILL. With reference to your more specific point, I am acutely aware that, as with all administrative responsibilities, closing debates and deleting articles must be done with the utmost neutrality, and respect for the merits of the debate, the applicable rules and the spirit of those rules. Every admin, whether vastly experienced or wet behind the ears knows his or her actions are being monitored - I encourage that monitoring as it facilitates accountability, and I have no intention of letting anyone down. Deizio talk 01:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose, derisive language. Lapinmies 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose - Keep up the good work as an editor. That's what you're best at. --Dragon's Blood 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

   (Zephram Stark)

3. Oppose WP:Civil --Masssiveego 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, reluctantly. Clearly a skilled editor and a valuable contributor to avrious houskeeping tasks, but the comments identified by JJay above concern me. I don't think they reflect they generally high quality of Deiz's contributions, so I'd be happy to support once they have faded further into history. --BrownHairedGirl 08:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose until we get a method to remove abusive admins. Ardenn 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

   Comment It exists through ArbCom. And I don't think you are being fair at all with your oppose votes. -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

6. Relunctantly Oppose per JJay. Deiz is a good contributor, but I am not comfortable with his self-expression. Bureaucrat - please disregard Ardenn's vote. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

   I have to say, (especially to CrazyRussian, who has received the barnstar of good humour), that I am surprised some light-hearted comments I made on my userpage and on Meta some time ago are being given as a reason to oppose my RfA. As stated, my real thoughts on Wiki-philosophy have been made time and again in projectspace at WP:CHILL and WP:HEY, in various AfD debates and in what I am proud to consider as a long list of substantive contributions to articles in the encyclopedia. To be opposed for once having a sense of humour on my userpage is a little disappointing, and as a dedicated editor who will use the mop to serve the project in maintenance, to aid ease of navigation and anti-vandalism, I hoped that the serious merits of my candidacy would receive more attention, and that being able to look on the lighter side of wiki-life in the appropriate places could even be considered an asset. Rest assured these concerns have been noted, and that I understand the "self-expression" of admins is scutinised even more closely. Deizio talk 11:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

7. Oppose Even though this user looks alright overall, the lack of edits is the real determining factor here for me. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 06:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
8. Somewhat Oppose "There are some diffs out there that I'm not too proud of..." Give this some time to settle, and keep up the great work as an editor. GChriss 17:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose: too deletionist. Thumbelina 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral but may change to Oppose. I am concerned about [3] and [4]. Less than civil. This is reinforced by his general lack of contributions to Talk (most seem to be in conjunction with redirects or adding {{unsigned}}). Ted 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

   I have almost 600 talk edits, and very few of those are to add signatures to unsigned comments, or related to redirects. Given the diffs (both from the same debate on Talk:Stoner rock), and the fact that one was to add a sig to a comment in that debate, I wonder if this editor was personally involved in the incident? In the second diff I had been called a "maniacal nerd" by an anon IP for trying to help improve a page about a musical genre, and while my response wasn't hugs and kisses, I don't believe it was excessively incivil in the context of the debate. Deizio talk 21:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

   You are right. I'm sorry. I had looked at a half dozen of your Talk single-edits. They were as I said. I've now looked at more of them, and haven't found any others. Many of them are simple {{expand}} or other housekeeping notes (indicating one of your interests in Wikipedia). As for Stoner metal: No, I wasn't part of that debate (not that it should matter). It was just that you had edited that page more than twice any other talk page. On the other hand, I do like the way he communicated with the editors of Banjax ([5]). Ted 00:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral, a little more experience would have me supporting though. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral essentially per Stifle. User looks good overall but there's not yet enough experience --Deville (Talk) 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

--Viewing contribution data for user Deiz (over the 3329 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 104 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 10, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 13hr (UTC) -- 28, December, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 73.91% Minor edits: 99.78%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 71.55% Minor article edits: 99.92%
Average edits per day (current): 32.01
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 4.06%
Unique pages edited: 1651 | Average edits per page: 2.02 | Edits on top: 19.26%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 39.98%
Minor edits (non reverts): 40.34%
Marked reverts: 4.18%
Unmarked edits: 15.5%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 46.53% | Article talk: 6.49%
User: 4.27% | User talk: 7.6%
Wikipedia: 27.55% | Wikipedia talk: 2.13%
Image: 3.15%
Template: 0.93%
Category: 0.15%
Portal: 0.24%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0.66%

• See Deiz's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
• Edit count with Interiot's tool:

Username   Deiz
Total edits     3329
Distinct pages edited   1752 
Average edits/page      1.900
First edit      13:21, December 28, 2005

(main)     1569
Talk    216
User    142
User talk       253
Image   105
Image talk      1
Template        31
Template talk   18
Category        5
Category talk   1
Wikipedia       917
Wikipedia talk  71

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'm involved in disambiguation link repair, and through that and other general edits I've found the ability to move pages to their own redirects would be very helpful. I am active at WP:AFD and to a lesser extent WP:CFD, and look forward to helping out there and with speedy requests. I'm ready to get involved with backlogs, and I'm also on a lot in the afternoon European time, when there aren't too many admins about to take care of urgent issues, and more involvement at WP:AIV especially could be useful there. I don't claim to be the most pro-active vandal whacker but I do catch a lot on my watchlist, and would find the rollback button helpful. I've had five DYK? articles featured, and I would love to help Cactusman, Gurubrahma and the others who do great work showing off new articles, which not only gets people clicking on new topics but also encourages those willing to create and expand articles. WP:AE is another page I've noticed that doesn't get as much attention as others, yet those putting requests there tend to regard them as urgent. Just as I grew as an editor, I hope to grow as an admin and build up experience in areas of admin-type work with which I am not yet too familiar before using the tools in those areas.

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

A: The article that got me hooked on WP was Long Way Round, which I hope to brush up to at least GA in the near future. I'm proud of my contributions, including the 5 Did you know? articles, of which North Berwick Harbour is possibly my favourite. Local people and places have been a focus of my editing, and I like to think that some of that material is inspiring some local kids in their class projects. I founded WikiProject Porto to aid the creation and translation of articles about my current home, and after a few weeks we're already getting some really good work done. I've contributed three essays and one proposed policy, of which The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY) and The world will not end tomorrow (WP:CHILL) seem to have been well received, and I feel they go a long way to illustrating my philosophy about Wikipedia content. I devised a poll on WikiProject Metal to end some very heated disputes about what counted as a "core" metal genre, and while the problem will never be entirely solved, it did help bring a lot of the project members together with a common goal and prove that even some of the more hotheaded editors could collaborate to build consensus. A more complete list of articles I've created or majorly edited is here, and some of the trinkets I've picked up are on display here. I've also created a couple of templates, including Template:East Lothian towns and villages, got involved at Portal:Scotland, used AWB for a variety of fixes and engaged the random page function to tag pages for cleanup, expansion and other concerns. I've welcomed a fair few newbies, and when the first edit on a newcomers talk page is related to minor vandalism, I am careful to give them a Welcome! first, before slapping them on the wrist for testing. Finally, I've got about 100 image uploads - many self-taken - and hope to contribute more, especially to WikiProject Porto articles.

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: I have thankfully never been involved in a real edit conflict, although I have had disagreements about style and content on a couple of occasions. One incident I was involved in was when a new and very wordy user decided to put 4 or 5 unsigned "keep" comments into an AfD which concerned a vanity article written by a friend / colleague / hero (never worked that one out) of his. I rashly made an accusation of sockpuppetry without explaining what I meant by this, which ultimately treated me to a few days of unpleasant comments from the user. Since then I have been extremely careful to check page histories and not to use Wiki slang in AfD debates where new editors could become confused by it, and have been willing to patiently explain the process and language used to newer users in such cases. I always try to quote and link to policies and guidelines when stating my case in any technical disagreement when possible, and back up my content changes with evidence and sources. I have developed a good working relationship with a great many editors, even if our first contact was from different sides of a fence.

If I find myself writing something in the heat of the moment, I have a pretty well developed ability to catch myself, take a deep breath and press the back button. I say developed, as that perhaps wasn't always the case, but such is the wiki-maturity curve. I'm sure, like any editor, there are some diffs out there that I'm not too proud of from my earlier career, but having been a bit of an "angry young man" in my first few weeks I know this will help me recognize and counsel others who are in the "questioning" phase of wikilife. My userpage vandalism counter remains at 0 which will probably change if I am granted adminship, something I'll just have to deal with ;)

The above 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.