Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DarthVader

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.

DarthVader[edit]

Final (28/20/10) Ended Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:38:41 UTC

DarthVader (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. I joined wikipedia at the end of June 2005. I have decided to try to run for adminship so that I can help out by clearing some of the backlogs and to help out with AfD. I have not been extremely active over the past couple of months due to having to study for tests and exams, but I will be more active after my exams are over. However, I have participated in AfDs a few months ago, and I have more than 2000 wikipedia namespace edits. I feel that I am quite experienced with wikipedia's policies and that I would be able to do a good job helping out with the AfD process. DarthVader 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. DarthVader 12:36, 6 October 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will mainly help out by closing AfDs. I am quite experienced with the AfD process. I will also help out with speedy deletions and PRODs. I am very familiar with the deletion process and policies.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I admit that I don't have a huge amount of contributions to the main namespace. I helped to get List of Ashes series featured. My main contribution to wikipedia is really to the AfD process.
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 really haven't been in any major conflicts or had to deal with any stress. The only two conflicts that I've been in were on the same page, USSA, but unrelated to each other. An anonymous IP address put a PROD tag on the USSA disambiguation page. I disagreed with the PROD tag, and removed it and told the person on his talk page. The anonymous user then tried to re-add the tag and Gwernol removed it, and so Gwernol and I explained the policy to the anonymous user on his talk page and the article's talk page. The user then understood the policy and did not readd the PROD tag. The other minor conflict was due to my silly mistake of calling an edit vandalism when it clearly wasn't vandalism (although it perhaps shouldn't be in the article). The edit by JustPhil was a bit unusual and I suspected that it was a bit strange, although vandalism certainly wasn't the correct word in any way at all. JustPhil was not worried at all, and I apologised to him as soon as I realised my major mistake. I do hope that I can be forgiven by the community for this incident which happened back in June.
General comments

DarthVader's editcount stats as of 14.36, October 6 2006, using Interiot's PHP tool. (aeropagitica) 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support. Don't see any reason not to, have seen editor in the past and left with no concerns about approach.ALR 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. His contributions being sporadic, even if they were, which they certainly are not (except for two breaks for about 5 days each in September, I see no breaks in editing. Where do you see this?), doesn't change that fact that he has over 2,000 edits in projectspace, which, looking at the content of them, show that he has a significant amount of experience in how the project runs. Editing and using admin tools is voluntary, you can't hold that against a candidate. This user has quite a bit of AfD experience, though it might not be recent, and would most likely make a pretty good admin. I see no reason to think otherwise. --Rory096 14:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Didn't contribute very much in September, but was a very regular and active contributor for a several months prior to that. Most users need to take breaks from Wikipedia from time-to-time due to other events in our lives, and so I don't hold that against him. Strong record of Wikipedia space contributions (though whether or not this RfA passes, I'd like to see a better balance between main space and Wikipedia space contributions in the future). Zaxem 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Rory. The concerns below are baseless. See the various sections on WT:RFA about these pesky RfA regulars. — Werdna talk criticism 14:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - To say that the concerns are baseless is inaccurate, unless you think that the concerns raised about his contribution to the mainspace are irrelevant. Of his 672 mainspace edits, about 80%+ seem to be quick stuff - typos and adding a cat - he did create about 20 small stubs. To run for admin in this state, you will be open to flak. A small number of popular folks crusie through this point, but most take some damage If one just takes it easy and edits steadily, and waits until multiple people or one very serious/strict user to nominate them, then they will pass easily (I had about 5200 mainspace, 10900 total, 2 portals, 1 FL, 15 DYKs,~140 articles where I added at least 1.8kb). What's the hurry? Unless you have an argument with the politically powerful RfA is easy. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, the stuff about the break is overblown; It does dampen the enthusiasm that he asked for admin immediately but I wouldn't oppose based on that, but I would consider it more stylish if a user had a solid month after exams to get back into the groove. As it stands, he would now probably have to wait three. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Tut, tut, Bln. Quit showing-off! — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 17:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Support Good editor. Cons don't seem very substantial.--Húsönd 14:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support I have a positive impression that this editor can learn fast and do the job well. Rama's arrow 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Past observations of edits lead me to believe will not abuse the tools. Unless someone can show me a clear-cut example of bad judgment, see no reason for me to oppose. I am, by the way, a "pesky RfA regular." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Only yesterday I was pondering why you had not yet made a run for adminship. I disagree with the assertion that the comments by the pesky RfA regulars those opposing are "baseless"; however, to me they are insufficient to convince me to oppose, especially since adminship is supposed to be no big deal. You should take the oppose comments as constructive criticism to aid in self-improvement. I am certain you will do that, which means you should perform well with the mop. Agent 86 18:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. I have seen this candidate around several times in the past and I think the current level of opposition is utterly ridiculous. Admin actions are reversible. Where is the evidence that this user will abuse the tools? I see none. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see everything I want to see here: extensive work within the project namespace, knowledge of how things go, enough encyclopedia contributions, and a civil attitude. I am convinced that this user would make a fine administrator. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - While I agree that at least "some" of the AfD responses should have more to them than the "as/per nom". I also know that sometimes that's all that needs to be said. (I only bring this up since now you'll likely be closing AfDs rather than just commenting on them.) But I don't see that as enough to oppose. Looking at the page breakdown on this page's talk page, seems fine to me. And I don't think the quanity of use is a reason to oppose, Quality is what is in question here: how will the tools be used, not how often! Be as active as you wish, but do a consciencious, fair, honest job, while following the WP:5P, and that's all we can ask. - jc37 01:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. May the force be with you - Mike (Trick or treat) 03:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 'Support - per WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 'Support good user. --Tone 12:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support DarthVader is a great user who will make an excellent admin. This is the sort of candidate we should be promoting to admin. The fact that he has a life outside Wikipedia that means he has occasional lulls in editing should not be held against him. Are we really requiring that admins never take a break? That's unfortunate. DV does good work and can be trusted to use the tools well. Gwernol 13:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (on Wikibreak)[reply]
  16. Support May we never reach the day when we require our admin candidates to gussy up their Wikipedia resumés just prior to their nominations... DarthVader clearly knows what he's doing, even if he's concise about it. Sometimes a whole lot just does not need to be said. He has plenty of experience, even though he's not exactly consistent. Things happen. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per ALR. Grand Slam 7 00:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. G.He 03:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Rama's Arrow and RyanGerbil; I am eminently confident that DarthVader will neither abuse nor misuse–even avolitionally–the tools, such that I conclude that the net effect on the project of his being an admin will be positive (my RfA standard). Joe 04:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, he can be trusted with the tools, DarthVader is a great editor and will make a good admin. --Terence Ong (T | C) 05:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. What the... I thought he was an admin already! — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Pepsidrinka supports. 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I have encountered this user before and have always been impressed. Knows policy, nice guy, deletionist, Jedi. Yep, no problems here :) Glen 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Won't abuse the tools Jaranda wat's sup 18:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I think 2,000 edits is plenty, as well as his time spent as an editor (since 2005). -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Dlohcierekim. Markovich292 20:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support  Doctor Bruno  16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I don't find the oppose reasons very convincing. No reason to believe the candidate would abuse admin tools. Nephron  T|C 19:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak Support Seems to want to help make Wikipedia better. My only qualm is that the candidate may be slightly unexperienced. Charlie MacKenzie 09:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Wants to do AfD work, but has a grand total of one AfD discussion edit in the last two months, a speedy keep to a withdrawn nomination. Without having any recent examples to refer to, and without having objective information as to when he feels closure is appopriate, I'm not comfortable supporting giving the tools over given his area of desire. I do suggest participating in AfD again once you have more time, getting some recent edits in, and trying again then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Sparodic contribs, if you wont be able to regularly contribute and/or do sysop tasks why would you require sysop tools now? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point me to these sporadic contribs. I just don't see it. --Rory096 14:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as above - I'd welcome another RfA in 4-5 months when you've got a continuous track record. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Jeff. WP:SNOW, the Force is not with this rfa. People Powered 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - the aim of Wikipedians is write an encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. Basically too few article edits, and for that matter, user talk - how well will you interact with other users? No. Sporadicness (is that a word?) of edits also a minor concern. Moreschi 14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sporadicity, Moreschi? :) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Checking the last 2000 edits, the candidate has over 800 edits to AfD subpages (logs and debates); however, the ones I checked (the 10 diffs for AfD subpages on this RfA's talk page) are all either 'delete per nom', 'delete per above', 'delete per above as non-notable' (once), and repairing malformed logs. I'm not convinced that you need the admin tools; there isn't enough evidence that the candidate would close AfDs correctly given that the voting within them was just pile-on (although often when there were few other comments). (see WP:ILIKEIT; also, AfD isn't a vote count). I hope I'm just unlucky in the diffs the edit counter picked, but if they're representative I can't support. --ais523 15:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Removed this oppose due to the candidate's reply; I am not adding a replacement vote right now. --ais523 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    A vast majority of my AfD contributions would have been a simple "delete per nom". Most of the time there is nothing else to say, but it is generally necessary for a few people to contribute to the AfD so that consensus can be reached. If I had come across (say on 28 September) this AfD, I would generally add a "delete per nom" since I know that if no one does this, it will have to be relisted to generate more discussion as it did in this example. It must be annoying for admins to have to relist them, so I figured that it was better to contribute and add a "delete per nom" than leave and force an admin to relist it. Bucketsofg summed it up better in his RfA in his answer to a question by JoshuaZ. Quoting Bucketsofg's answer: First, I want to point out that in the first case you cite, there was as yet no consensus to go along with, as I was only the fourth contributor. Also, I am making a new point there, that the article failed a specific standard, WP:BIO, which as of yet hadn't been explicitly stated (though it was surely in everyone's mind). Second, consensus-building is not only about members stating their opinions, it's also about signalling agreement and disagreement with what's been said already. In public meetings this is done by people quickly saying "I agree with what so-and-so said" and sitting down, or people nodding vigorously when a point is made that they agree with (or throwing something when they don't!). In our cyber-AfD-meetings, some of those "delete/support per nom" are really the equivalent of these quick-statements and physical nods. It's not really piling on, since if members weren't allowed to give these cyber-nods it would become harder to build a clear consensus. (If the nominator has said it all, and we're not allowed to say "yup" because we feel we have to add some new point, the admin won't have enough opinions to determine consensus!) Third, it's important to note in this context that most AfDs are in fact pretty clear-cut cases, and to go against the grain for the sake of being seen to be independent would be a very non-productive kind of contrariness. I accept that there isn't enough evidence that I would close AfDs correctly. Thanks. :-) DarthVader 01:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: I would prefer to see more experience first. Jonathunder 15:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff, who hit the nail on the head. Mangojuicetalk 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose due to way too few main & maintalk edits, per my criteria. Seems really strange to have more than twice as many project edits as main/maintalk without being an admin... Please focus on article building, it's the heart of Wikipedia. Themindset 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff, ais523 and most of all Themindset. I don't see much in encyclopedic contributions, and this is Wikipedia. T REXspeak 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff. Wikipediarules2221 23:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff. Michael 23:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to point out that it is ironic that several of these votes are "Oppose, per so and so," when "so and so" is opposing because the nominee's AfD votes read "Delete, per so and so." RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, as the only "so and so" being cited consistently, I don't recall holding how he votes as part of my rationale at all. My opposition comes from what he wants to focus on and his lack of recent activity there, not about how he voted when he was consistently participating. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per lack of mainspace experience as others have already mentioned. I would also suggest a username change, I don't think DarthVader is a very appropriate name for an admin.--Konst.able 02:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a fan of Star Wars, so what? T REXspeak 03:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Darth Vader was rather... evil... There is no need to futher aggravate people who are already calling admins "fascist cocksuckers" over "censorship". Or worse, making this seem like a game to people. That's my real concern, but also it is actually a violation of username policy, see: Wikipedia:User name#Inappropriate usernames under "Trademarked names". I know there are a lot of people with far worse names around, but I just think admins should have usernames that are appropriate and within policy.--Konst.able 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but User:Lord Voldemort is a pretty good admin, despite his evil name. T REXspeak 05:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised the name stuck around this long, given it's trademarked by the famously litigous George Lucas... ~ trialsanderrors 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was opposed for being named RandyWang -- fair enough. But seriously, DarthVader? Are you joking? Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 07:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea who "Randy Wang" is, but there are policies against using names of celebrities and trademarked names - and actually a lot of new user accounts are blocked soon after creation based on username. Obviously there are a lot of users who have avoided those policies as they are often not strictly enforced. However admins especially should follow policy (and trademark laws).--Konst.able 11:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RandyWang is me! :) I went by that name for several months, for the first complaint ever to be made when I requested adminship. Now, with that in mind, would you care to explain why "DarthVader" is so offensive or inappropriate that we couldn't possibly have an admin with that name? As far as I can tell, your concerns are that the character was "rather evil", and some bizarre idea that there might be legal issues. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 12:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAL, so rather than just offer my "hazy recollection" (which is that such names have been determined allowable for online usernames), may I ask if someone can cite some references? Thanks in adavnce - jc37 17:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have alredy described my concerns and I don't feel like repeating myself.--Konst.able 04:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Idle for nearly two weeks? And come back only to request adminship.. Um.. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two weeks?? You make it sound like the candidate should be on the side of a milk carton. I see nothing wrong with people being able to have a real life in the real world. Vacations, sickness, social events, family, work all happen. Even time away from a hobby is needed now and again. The candidate need not apologize for or explain such a short "absence". Agent 86 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Agent 86 comments. The candidate has been here for more than a year and it is unreasonable to expect him (or any other candidate) to contribute to Wikipedia every day or even every week for months in a row. Everyone needs a little time-off and two weeks of not editing in this project is not a very huge time frame. It is indeed even healthy to remain idle in this project for weeks to address real world issues. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My main point is that he seemingly came back only to apply as a admin. Did I say he needs to apologize for that? No. I am just questioning the intention of this application.AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. Clearly, his intention was to delete the Main Page and block Jimbo indefinitely without consensus :) . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose AfD contribs per badlydrawnjeff and ais523; lack of mainspace edits; Siva1979's comments below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per shortage of mainspace edits. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose despite the user's extensive work in projectspace, I would like to see more mainspace (>1000) and talk to demonstrate their understanding of encyclopaedia building. TewfikTalk 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per the above. >Radiant< 09:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per badlydrawnjeff. Cynical 16:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I don't doubt that Darth can get there and make a good admin, but the Sith Lord needs more experience with a wider variety of Wikipedia activities. Wryspy 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. 2 months is a long time. I would definitely support you if you were to put up another RfA in a few months or so. Nishkid64 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I think you need more time with a consistent track record. I see no standout reason for opposing, but nothing here turns me on enough to support. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 14:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I have full confidence that this candidate would not abuse admin tools but how effectively would he use them? Do not get discouraged by this and take the oppose opinions seriously and act on them in the next couple of months. If you follow the advise of these users, I have no doubt in my mind that you would succeed in your next RfA. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I'm sorry, I would prefer you have a few more months of experience with a consistent track record of editing.-- danntm T C 00:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - edit count a little on the low side, and mainspace (article writing) is a little low. However, I am impressed with all the Wikipedia-space edits, and this leads me to believe you could be an admin of the future. Hence, neutral for now. Daniel.Bryant 02:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, needs more experience in process. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, per Neutral comments above. You're a great user, though. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Self-noms always make me nervous because they are normally tied to lack of experience in key areas that admins and admin candidates are usually quite visable in and such get the attention to be nominated. 205.157.110.11 00:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - I see nothing wrong with self-noms. That being said, I would like to see some broader experience. I don't see why I wouldn't be able to support in another 3 months or so. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: Excellent sport on WP maintenance and edit summaries, but everything else has to be worked on a lot. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 04:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral: I can't oppose, but I think that more experience is needed. I see that you've worked a lot with AfDs, but you should improve your mainspace edits and your other community-related work. Please try again in 2-3 months. NCurse work 16:47, 11 October 2006 (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/DarthVader&oldid=1146638496"