Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DCI2026

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

DCI2026

Final (7/10/2); ended 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. KTC (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

DCI2026 (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself for adminship. While I understand that such an action may seem a tad brash and may draw some criticism, I feel that access to the tools would enable me to better improve aspects of the encyclopedia. In the case that this nomination would be accepted, I would be more than pleased to help in any areas needing administrator attention. I would definitely be active in responding to issues posed at the noticeboards and in reviewing deletion nominations. In all instances of the latter, whether CSD, AfD, PROD, or other, I would carefully review applicable policies before taking any action.

Regarding my history on Wikipedia: I have been an editor since 2008, but it would be inaccurate to characterize myself as an active user from that time. My activity has only been "intensive", if you will, since roughly 2011. I have learned a great deal about the content, operations, and needs of this project in that time, and feel that I could correctly apply WP policy as an admin. dci | TALK 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Self-nom withdrawn. Upon consideration of comments in all three sections, I have concluded that it is unlikely I will be able to pass this RfA. Though this is undoubtedly disappointing, I am resolved not to give up with my work here but to carry on with it, primarily in the areas of content creation, AfD participation, and AIV/RPP. I will in all likelihood be back here at some point between later spring and early autumn; hopefully, all goes well then. Sincere thanks to all those who commented, whether by supporting, opposing, or expressing neutrality; your feedback has been greatly appreciated. dci | TALK 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: As stated above, I would be more than willing to engage in any areas of administrator interest. Among these would be handling deletions, administering blocks (primarily in response to vandalism) if necessary, and doing routine tasks such as page protection. I am willing to work to remedy backlogs where administrator attention is needed, no matter what the nature of the work. dci | TALK 02:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A: I would feel comfortable labeling my content contributions since 2011 as my "best" ones. The article Bajkam, in particular, is one that I feel quite satisfied with. Also, I believe that I have been able to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors regarding content creation. I'm also comfortable with my recent, maintenance-oriented work (patrolling, checking for issues/vandalism). And (last, but not least) I'd mention some of my GA reviews, due to collaboration with the authors of the pages to improve content. Among these would be the Lewis Nicola review. dci | TALK 02:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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 not been involved in too many conflicts; also, I have not found Wikipedia to be stressful or frustrating in any way. In some cases, I admit to being too wordy and belaboring in my replies when disagreeing with another user. I believe I have always maintained civility, but perhaps not conciseness. Generally, if my actions are questioned, I review both them and the concerns regarding them. If I have been in error, I remedy the situation. If not, I stand by my actions. In the future, I would concentrate on shorter, more "to-the-point" responses to people with whom I am in disagreement. dci | TALK 02:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Go Phightins!

4. I'm not a big fan of metrics, but I do think they have some value. After a cursory review of your contributions, I am a little concerned. In the last four months, only 21% of your contributions have been to article space and last month, you made a total of three edits there. I do see you have at least one good article, which is a plus, but I am having trouble finding sufficient experience in article space outside of that. I also see a sudden spike in AFD work. Do you have any experience in processes such as RPP and AIV, two areas you've expressed interest in working and, if so, would you give me a couple of examples? Thanks.

A: Recently, I have been focusing on somewhat more mundane, maintenance-related tasks, as well as article reviewing; I merely wanted to see what I could do to assist in areas I hadn't ventured into often in the past. I have occasionally requested page protection (Language of flowers is an example). I have reported an IP or two to AIV; however, in some cases problematic editors have been reported by another user before I can submit a report myself. Also, I have worked on articles including 1689 Boston revolt, which I created and nominated for FA. As this was the first time I had engaged in a review process, another user was primarily responsible for the article getting up to FA status; however, I feel that I contributed sufficiently to it. When I review articles for GA (Lewis Nicola, Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762), etc.) I often collaborate with the nominator in prose revisions, some of which have been fairly large. dci | TALK 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from TParis

5. You respond to an edit war on WP:ANEW. User A alledges that User B continues to revert sourced material about a secret affairs that software giant and well known philanthropist William Doors had in Peru last week and is sourced to the well known site E!. What action do you take?

A: First, I would review the history of the page in question, to make sure that User B did in fact violate WP:3RR. I would also check to see if the disputed item is rooted in other reliable sources (per WP:RS#News organizations, gossip is discouraged); if so, I would warn User B, while reminding User A not to engage in retaliatory edit warring. If not, I would remind User A about the need for reliably-sourced information, and would remind User B to use discussion venues (article or user talk) before instigating edit warring, even in a case like this. dci | TALK 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for DCI2026: DCI2026 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for DCI2026 can be found here.
• Stats on talk. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Yes, DCI has a relatively small number of edits and has been a bit inactive compared to other candidates over the three years he/she has been actively editing. However, as always, quality over quantity. I have reviewed their edits and decided to support. Their article creation is quite remarkable, along with the significant amount of vandal fighting. I think this user would be a net positive and positively contribute to the project. Vacation9 02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
2. I trust him. I don't think edit count really means much there are users that have 250,000+ edits that I would oppose if they were to run for adminship. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Who cares if he has a few thousand edits, because at least he wants to help out and seems to be competent enough to not be blocked. There really is no reason to oppose him unless something huge comes up, so I am going to support him unless something Earth-shattering comes up. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Looks good. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Support Mediran (t • c) 04:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Content contributor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Q2. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose The candidate is relatively inexperienced and fails to make a compelling case for why he needs the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose I think the minimal involvement in noticeboard discussions and other policy-related pages makes adminship a bit hasty. More experience in the areas relevant to administrative duties would be desirable for a prospective admin. Article contributions are impressive, but as so few of them are audited it is difficult to use that as a basis. I am not seeing much involvement in dispute resolution processes either and article talk page discussions mostly concern GA reviews being done by dci.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   The user has been around since 2008 and started editing seriously since 2010 so it can't be too hasty. Some editors like to focus on the main article space and this is one of them. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Commend but Oppose. Generally, I want to see 3K article+talk edits because that is a good experience mark; candidate has 1.8K. I'll bend on the 3K if the Qs are strong (they aren't) or some other strong point is made (I don't see one). If somebody wants to work on deletions, then CSD/AfD entries are important. AfD main diagonal is weak (report at 73%). Some AfD comments appeal to policy, but it's not consistent; citing evidence would be good. Q3 comments about not being concise; 17 edits to an AfD raise an eyebrow. If a candidate wants to work on vandalism, then AIV reports are important; candidate claims one or two. There's a good start here, but I need to see more experience. Glrx (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Strictly about the AFD metrics, I thought that was weak too, but when you add the ones that were closed as no consensus, you get close to 85% if I recollect correctly, so that isn't a huge concern for me. Go Phightins! 12:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, if you normalize out no consensus results, then the figure is 82 percent, but I'm not sure I should automatically discount those results. Is the no consensus due to neither side presenting a good policy argument? Or did both sides present good policy arguments? I look at numbers, but those numbers are just an indication. I didn't say the AfD number was bad; I said it was weak. When I look down the results column, I see a lot of red. Some reds don't bother me as much; a delete or keep vote with a merge result, for example, isn't as bad as delete vs. keep. Delete(nom) with keep result bothers me more. I also read some cases. Here are delete(nom)-to-keep where the candidate backed out: WP:Articles for deletion/Female State Supreme Court Justices and WP:Articles for deletion/Invasions of the British Isles. The percentage could be adjusted for changed votes, but at this point I'm not really looking at the number. I'm not unhappy with the candidate's voting; it's a good start; I just want to see clearer footing. More experience should bring that. Glrx (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Well, if you don't normalize out the no consensus results, then the candidate is stuffed, because nobody is going to !vote "No consensus", are they. This whole numbers argument seems to me to be flawed, because it encourages groupthink and staying clear of AfDs likely to end up without consensus. There is, anyway, a difference between contributing to a consensus by !voting and reading the consensus when closing, so incorrectly second-guessing the result doesn't imply that the candidate would do poor closures. The only good criterion is to inspect their arguments and see whether they are policy-based or not. --Stfg (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   P.S. It seems to me that the fact that the candidate was willing to withdraw their nom in the face of opposing consensus actually supports the view that they are capable of seeing consensus objectively. --Stfg (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Unexperienced. I suggest DCI get more involved in the areas he wants to admin in, like vote at AfD, and then come back next year with a track record. Kraxler (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - During a recent dispute, I (and some others) were approached by the candidate. While at first my impression was that he was proactively trying to negotiate a fair solution, later it seemed more as if he was just trying to push one side into "voluntarily" quitting, without really understanding the issues on both sides, (and without really understanding that I was relatively uninvolved in the dispute). I get the impression that the candidate is primarily after the block button, but of course I'd be open to seeing facts that prove me wrong. LittleBen (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   I would like to clarify that I am not primarily seeking the ability to block. I believe that a review of the discussion involved (I can post a link, if anybody wants one) shows that I was indeed neutral throughout, and made no attempt to pressure you inappropriately. dci | TALK 14:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, please post a link to the abovementioned discussion. Kraxler (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Sure. User talk:LittleBenW#WP:AN notice; it's a few comments down. This is a facet of the MoS dispute largely centered around hyphen-and-dash disagreements. Basically, my intent was to facilitate a resolution to the dispute, in which several editors concerned about the MoS status quo were at odds with a larger group, which contemplated topic bans and other sanctions. dci | TALK 17:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

6. The general lack of experience is really what concerns me. I appreciate your willingness to help out and all the great work you do around here, but I don't think giving you a mop at this time is necessary or appropriate. You're a task-oriented editor with generally diverse involvement around the project. But, while diverse and spread about the project, I don't believe your experience in any one area is sufficient to become a sysop. I'd be happy to support an RFA in six months or so, after you've deepened your involvement in some of your favorite admin-related areas and have a need for the tools in those areas. If this RFA doesn't pass, you'll pass a future RFA with flying colors after a bit of time and increased involvement. So, while I think you're generally a good editor and a friendly guy, I cannot support at this time. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Oppose - per Tyrol5. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose As per Tyrol5, I'm concerned about the lack of experience this user has in admin related areas. DCI has only 7 edits to RPP and 5 edits to AIV and the user said he or she would like to be active in those areas. This makes me feel uncomfortable to the point that I must oppose this user getting admin rights. However, I would happily support this user in their next RFA, only if the user has more edits to those admin related areas. Webclient101^talk 18:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose: You say you would like to participate in WP:AIV and WP:RPP, yet you have only edited each of those pages a few times. Try to get some experience in those areas. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Not yet. This editor does some great things, and I'm sure s/he will make a great admin one day. I'm particularly impressed by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Venturism where he has done good background digging and stuck to his guns while keeping calm. And I believe he was the first to get it right regarding this incident at ANI. However, the lack of experience is clear, and recent activity has majored heavily on putting templates (welcome and vandalism) on user talk pages, which anyone can do. I'm also concerned at the habit of popping up at users' talk pages with unsolicited advice. The one linked above, at User talk:LittleBenW#WP:AN notice, was a significant misjudgement, in my view. The inital posting of the new Recent activity section, before LittleBen had replied to the AN notification, could have been an oversight, but the follow-up just ten minutes after LittleBen's reply (indicating that he considered that he was being got at) was less likely to pour oil on troubled waters than to add fuel to the fire. It's very unwise to try to tell people how to feel, and unsolicited advice in emotionally fraught situations can easily come across as interfering. This and the early self-nom against advice lead me to think the candidate needs more experience and maturity. But, a very good editor, so please keep going and try again when ready. --Stfg (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

    Just one or two things. Regarding the advice: I had been actively involved in the discussion occurring at WP:AN, and the advice was merely a spinoff from the situation. I wasn't trying to tell anyone how to feel, but to encourage them to come to a resolution that both sides would be OK with. As it turns out, neither side was particularly keen on the idea. dci | TALK 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

    But I do see your point; I was overly focused on an unrealistic goal; thus, it isn't surprising that a few of the comments I made may seem a tad oblivious to the developing situation. In the future, I would gladly engage in such situations - still with the goal of resolving them - but would do so with more tact, and less urging. dci | TALK 19:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Procedurally Neutral I have briefly reviewed your contributions, and you look like a reasonable candidate. However, I will not !vote Support or Oppose until you answer the questions. 3,500 edits isn't that much, but as always quality over quantity. I'll make a more in-depth review of your contributions after you answer the questions. Vacation9 01:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Moved to Support after user answered questions Vacation9 02:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I'm mixed feelings. The user appropriately caught the WP:RS issue but didn't mention the WP:BLP issue. As an administrator, I would amend the answer that DCI would be required to remove the negative material until a better WP:RS is found. I won't oppose because it is half right and he caught, what I feel, is the harder of the two issues involved in my question. Good luck.--v/r - TP 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Well, this is a tough one. I appreciate the user's solid content work; he has an FA to his name and that's quite an achievement. He's been pretty forthcoming in his answers to the questions. He has edited since 2008. The problem is the fact that he has under 4000 edits. I was just checking my criteria and realized there was a typo...I would like to see a minimum of 5000 edits prior to supporting. The answers to the questions are satisfactory and barring one that knocks my socks off, I'll probably remain here. As Worm suggested when you asked him two months ago, wait six months, and you'll probably pass with flying colors. Go Phightins! 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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.