Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DeadEyeArrow

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

DeadEyeArrow

[edit]

Final (81/7/0); ended 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

DeadEyeArrow (talk · contribs) - I have the pleasure of nominating User:DeadEyeArrow for the keys to the janitorial cupboard. DeadEyeArrow joined us in July 2005, and, if you count these things, has made well over 10,000 edits. These include starting some 28 articles, sorting out the 'pedia's tangled redirects and a lot of anti-vandalism work. DeadEyeArrow is very good at the latter job in particular, reverting, warning and reporting correctly and with patience.

DeadEyeArrow knows when to take things "higher" for more discussion, discussing and helping with subjects on the Administrators' Noticeboard, seeking page protection and contributing to Long Term Abuse reports. In deletion debates, DeadEyeArrow shows a grasp of Wikipedia policy, actually reads the articles before contributing and offers tips on improvements and on where the author went wrong. A look at DeadEyeArrow's speedy deletion nominations shows that his red links stay red - always a confidence booster. What else? Well, DeadEyeArrow has been given two Defender of the Wiki, three RickK and one original barnstar by appreciative editors, is civil, easy to talk to, learns quickly, and has email enabled. I believe that the tools will be well used and used well by this editor in the many janitorial and anti-vandalism jobs DeadEyeArrow already does. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Rudget - A keen editor with an enthusiastic desire to help en.wp, I am very pleased to co-nominate DeadEyeArrow for the job which has been knocking at his door for a few months now. A user with plenty of experience and a good sense of humour that is so needed nowadays, DEA is always willing to help out where needed, with his contributions going to a diverse number of areas. His "anti-vandalism" which has become so common nowadays in RFAs, is outstanding, but this is only a partial reason why I wished to (co)nominate him - the mainspace work which he has conducted is extremely encouraging and he works with the interests of Wikipedia at heart creating redirects, making constructive and influential comments at various XFDs, working with articles and buidling them up from stub to B-class, being open to questions which may be difficult to ask on en.wp, getting involved with community consensus on talk pages of articles and (as Redvers says above) seeking page protection etc. showing a comprehensive understanding of policy, where it is appropriate to do so. Going back to vandal work, he has over 300 reports to AIV, helps out with pages needing translation and good contributions to other noticeboards. I am confident that DeadEyeArrow will become an excellent administrator and will go on to achieve more than that is possible, (if you're wondering why I haven't done any diffs it's due to the fact that all these qualities can be seen in the candidate's latest edits). Rudget. 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Absolutely. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 mostly look to continue my anti-vandal work, xfds, and on the various noticeboards. As well as RPP which sometimes seems to be unwatched in the wee hours of the day. I'm not above the more menial tasks of a Wikipedian and going out of my way to help others out. And I like to be engaged in the community.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well it's obvious that my best contributions so far have been my efforts fighting vandalism. Particularly when I search on the net whether someone's changes were copyvios or factually incorrect and checking if additions are hoaxes or not. I remember one user who had change the name of a voice actor on cartoon articles and I spent about an hour checking if it was true. In the end that user was using a few IPs to propagate the name changes which were obviously false. I also feel my mainspace contributions have been good as well. And don't forget, my WP:WHOCARES shortcut is the second most used shortcut for that section. (that was a joke)
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 haven't really been in many heated arguments with users, I feel I keep a cool head and don't let things get personal. I used to get stressed when fighting vandalism when I started out, but I've mellowed out a lot and haven't had much stress from the wiki since.

Optional questions from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

4. i Can you foresee yourself patrolling WP:AN3 any time in the near future?
A: Interestingly, I haven't had to use AN3 yet, but as an admin I would absolutely include it in my duties.
5. Can you foresee yourself blocking anyone for "edit warring" or otherwise intervening in content disputes between established editors?
A: I do see myself blocking someone for edit warring when it's clear (a violation of 3RR). If it's not so clear like only 1 or 2 reverts over multiple pages or a slow edit war I would likely first implore them to discuss on a talk page if they haven't already. I feel one of the best indications of an edit war is when the only discussing takes place in the edit summaries. As well, I would intervene if I feel there's been incivility on either part of the editors or if there's a possible compromise that's been overlooked.
6 Since you have expressed an interest in this area, would you like to add your opinion regarding this "decision" by User:Master of Puppets? What, if anything, was wrong with this "decision"? In what way are User:Dbachmann and User:Camptown bound by the decision? If it helps, you can view Dbachmann's own response to the decision, at User_talk:Dbachmann#2RR.
A: I read the comments on 3rr and on their various talk pages. It surprises me that one couldn't actually send a message to the other first and the templating by Camptown is clear abf. Two experienced editors such as themselves should know better. As for MoP's decision, though very bold (especially considering there wasn't an actual 3rr vio), I don't feel it was specifically a violation of anything. I see it as a sort of softly imposed cool down, which I think these two users could use. If Dab is really has issue he could take it to ANI but I feel he should try to discuss the original issue with Camptown first. They still haven't even tried to come to an agreement. If they can come to one, I'm sure MoP would lift their 2rr.
7 It is likely that there could be some reservations about your potential involvement in 3RR and content disputes, because of your comparative lack of article building history (for instance see Dbachmann's comment regarding this to Master of Puppets). How would you address such concerns if they were raised?
A: I am unsure specifically how I would respond to such a hypothetical at the moment. I feel article building isn't the only factor in such dispute resolutions and I would like my previous actions in such areas to be taken into account. I must say that I don't intend to bold my way into complex disputes on my first day.

Optional question from Keepscases

8. Please review the RuPaul article and suggest an improvement or two.
A. Well, it obviously needs numerous references. The note section being trivial in nature needs to be incorporated into the article. As well it has a good deal of proseline.

Optional question from Juliancolton

9. You've made nearly 500 edits today alone. Do you think there is a point when a user makes too many edits?
A. As long as they are still constructive I feel there isn't a point (besides physical fatigue) when they've made too many edits.

Optional question from SlimVirgin:

10. Hi DeadEye, it's hard to tell just by looking through your contribs, but I was wondering whether there are any content contributions you can point to. I know you've focused on vandalism, and there's nothing wrong with that, of course, but if you've added any material too it would be helpful to point us in the direction of it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, it isn't my strongest point, as others have pointed out. But besides the articles on my user page the article I've worked on the most is Månegarm. It was a collaborative effort with user Hole in the Wall.
It's not much just from a stub to a start. Note, I've recently added references to that page. Also I helped on the article on Dreamer (Livin' Joy song). When I saw how awful it was when created, someone had to fix it:
Recently I've added references here too. Other than that my content contributions are minimal, things like adding that Alicia Masters created Captain America's memorial. Which I guess is really crufty, least it was refed right. I believe I failed writing class every year I was in HS, so my writing isn't the best, I try to keep it to simple things. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Tiptoety talk

11. When would you full protect an article on the mainpage, and why? When would you semi protect an article on the mainpage, and why? Tiptoety talk 14:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: As a rule more patience should be taken before enacting any protection to an article on the mainpage. Full protection would only be required in a more extreme case of edit warring. Though first I'd point out to the users that they're warring over a highly visible page and they should seek discussion outside of the edit summary. Semi-protection would be for vandalism but similarly to what I said above, it'd have to be more than the usual case of vandalism. It would have to appear like a concerted effort to deface an article. The FA would be exempt from full and even more patience before semi. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from User:Jon513

12. Earlier today (07:06, March 19, 2008) you requested (deleted edit) Joey pangallo for deletion as an A7 (non-notable bio). After looking at the article I think that a G10 (attack page) would have been more appropriate. When an article can be speedied for several reasons which reason do you choose? and why?
A: Well I don't really have a method of choosing which CSD presides over another. It's really whatever just hits me first. Though if it's an obvious attack I'll usually put it over the others. I don't really remember what that page was, and I can't see it, so I don't know why I didn't in that particular case. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Beat both the noms Strong Support --The Placebo Effect (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obviously ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support thought you were an Admin.great track and has been here sinse July 2005 and great vandal fighter.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per the great noms. Rudget. 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looked through edits and found no redflags I had actually noticed this user's high number of edits earlier and asked about seeking RfA. Has been making a lot of edits in admin related areas. Gives knowledgeable and helpful answers. I found no declined AIV reports or CSD requests. Is open to discussion and apologizes for the inevitable automation assisted errors in tagging. I'm afraid Maxim's neutral rationale does not carry a lot of strength with me. Nominee could reduce edits by 3/4 and still do a tremendous amount of work, true. On the other hand, we should harness that energy and enthusiasm while it lasts and trust the nominee to know their limits. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No issues here.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support – Nothing more needs to be said about this candidate other than Great job. Shoessss |  Chat  15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Seems like a great candidate. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support: He's a dedicated anti-vandal, and i believe he will use his new tools to continue the fight. Good luck! TheProf | Talk 16:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Dustitalk to me 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. support —DerHexer (Talk) 16:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Trust the nominators, trust the user, and I know that they will make a good admin. Works for me. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Truth be told, I ran across the user yesterday and was planning on asking him about a nomination in the near future. This is definitely one time that I'm glad I was beaten to the punch. --jonny-mt 16:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - your nominator sayz you haz only 10,000 edits, I don't like liars :p ...--Cometstyles 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to oppose, oppose in the oppose section. Otherwise your opposition could be counted as support. Smartguy777 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I believe this is what's called a "joke oppose". Cometstyles is actually supporting. Acalamari 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, If I oppose, it will be longer that one line :) ..--Cometstyles 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've been impressed with my limited interaction with DEA and I respect the nominators opinionBalloonman (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Not too shabby. Quality editor to say the least. I would have liked to see heftier participation beyond WP:AIV, but going through the contributions, there seems to be no issues. Good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I've encountered DEA several times while he goes about his work of clearing vandalism from articles. He displays a good knowledge of policy and I am confident he will make good use of the tools. Gwernol 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Good RC patroller. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Professional, no nonsense. Good luck. -- Iterator12n Talk 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good balance between article creation and vandalism fighting. Seems professional, civil, and overall a good editor. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - your answer to Q6 is best described as 'wrong', and you are lacking in meaningful article edits. However, fortuitously adminship is no big deal, and you are an excellent vandal fighter, with more than enough experience of process. Addhoc (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Looks good to me! Smartguy777 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  23. Support, definitely. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN tell me a joke... 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - in our few encounters, he has seemed like a good editor, and his history supports the idea that he will use the tools wisely - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Was wondering when this one was going to come along. :) GlassCobra 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Maxim(talk) 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good editor. Kukini háblame aquí 20:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support All I know is that I constantly see the message "reverting to last version by User:DeadEyeArrow" when I go patrolling. Trust user with the tools. Xymmax (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No problem here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support I think that this user is long over-due to become an admin and therefore I strongly support :). Thanks,--Mifter (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong support, constantly popping up on my watchlist as they bash vandals. No reason to think they would abuse the tools. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. There aren't any red flags that come up lookingat his contributions. Should be a fantastic administrator. Valtoras (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sure. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I can't find anything I'd outright disagree with. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Going to be a great help. Jmlk17 06:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I Support DeadEyeArrow! This guy rocks. He's always two steps ahead of me. Granted, I'm new. But, still. He's even friendly, which is a big plus for an Admin/SySoP. I see his reverts all the time. --InvisibleDiplomat666 (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Might as well to help him with vandel fighting more. Still not sure he contributes to wikipedia as a whole, but with that many edits he is clearly on the right side and things can only get better.--Dacium (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Experienced and trusted user. utcursch | talk 11:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Wikipedia needs vandal fighters like this one! Best of luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A pleasure to support. I have seen the candidate been consistently helpful, and per. pleasent previous interaction. Pedro :  Chat  15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. A strong editor. MrPrada (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good work with fighting vandalism. I'm sure you'll do fine as an administrator! SchfiftyThree 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support My metasense ain't tingling. Kimu 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Great user with great nominators. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 01:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, excellent if somewhat hyper-specialized contributor. The AIV reports of his I've handled have been solid. His 'health' is his own business. Kuru talk 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Would have been happier with some article content but thoughtful in AfD, so ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Nothing wrong with a specialized contributor. Better to spend time excelling in a single area than spreading oneself too thin trying to do everything. I think DEA would make a very good admin. --clpo13(talk) 06:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Tough guy on vandals. Mop needed. - Darwinek (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --Hillock65 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Gets what I do and why I do it; I like him. Just kidding, great contributor, devoted to the project. Of course, I'd advise spending maybe a little less time on Wikipedia; it may help you hold on to your sanity for a bit longer. :) Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Philippe | Talk 22:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support This user's strength in character will benefit all of Wikipedia. --Sharkface217 06:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support While the preponderance of edits are vandal-related (templates and corrections) I have seen enough actual true interactions with other editors and comments on articles that lead me to be reasonably comfortable with this user's understanding of wiki policies and guidelines and appropriateness of behavior to other editors, and thus agree that this user should be shown the community's trust with the tools. -- Avi (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I've surfed through his contributions, and I've seen him on my watchlist from time to time. Never an unproductive edit. (I also stole my userpage header from him :)) —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. As strong as possible; nothing more is to be said. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, yes. Neıl ☎ 13:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support- He could warrant the tools, I've seen he's been doing a lot of good work on RC patrol today. AndreNatas (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - He can clearly use the tools, there's no indication that he would misuse the tools in any way. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - I would've also liked to see more encyclopedia-building edits, but overall a pretty damn good editor. This editor has an impressive vandal-fighting history, and we need more admins like that, in my opinion. Also has good track records with civility, helpfulness, and judgment, and we definitely need more admins like that. Enigma msg! 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - looks good. Great answers. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - We need more vandal fighters with this power so the serious writers can get work done. I'm shocked this user is not already an admin. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Heard a lot about this user, who I can trust with the admin tools. NHRHS2010 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. After looking through your contribs and usertalk pages, you seem to have a good clue level that will make good use of the extra buttons. Two good nominators adding in means I have no problem supporting. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. 1300 edits yesterday??? Dedicated to removing vandalism I would therefore conclude. But DeadEyeArrow clearly is not one-dimensional and has contributed well to other areas such as WP:AN and WP:XfD. It may be considered by some that he needs some more experience at article writing, but to me he appears competent in the mainspace. I am quite sure that he will be careful with the tools and it is a pleasure to support. EJF (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - seen user around and happy to give support. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support doing an excellent job in a number of areas, shows understanding of mainspace so I don't think the lack of loads of contributions there will be any kind of a detriment. Shell babelfish 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - looks good. Great anti-vandal work. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support though I am not 100% satisfied with the answer to my question (When deleting candidates for speedy deletion I generally check for attack pages first, as I feel they are the most important to delete. That is why I think any page that can be tagged as attack should be even if there are other csd reason.) Jon513 (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - A good candidate, but consider that Wikibreaks are for your benefit should you need to take one. We are building an encyclopedia based on quality, not stamina. ;) WilliamH (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - Wikipedia needs more anti vandal admins! The Helpful One (Review) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - iMatthew 2008 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Good anti-vandal person. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Solid editor, very eager to help the project. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Looking good here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support YAY Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Moral Oppose - While I appreciate that DeadEyeArrow has plenty of strengths as a user, his long experience at fighting vandals does not make up for his lack of content contribution. Here's why. This is an encyclopedia, not an online Multiplayer where the good guys get to zap some bad guys and get rewarded with "promotion". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a hierarchical MP-gaming stroke social networking site. I'm being a little frivolous and unfair, I admit it, so I'll give a decent reason for an oppose. What the answer to question 6 missed and what no-one among the support votes pointed out is that the long community vote which gave sysops the right to block for 3RR a few years ago did not give sysops the right to preside over other users (admins or not) like little emperors anytime they chose. I may venture to say that that comment could make half the supports begin wikilawyering at me ... well, don't bother. ;) An open-ended expansionist philosophy of admin powers is enough to get my oppose, wikilawyering aside. Moreover, the user has ambition to intervene in content disputes and patrol 3RR, and despite very little experience with article building, has strong opinions about how such things ought to work out. I get the feeling it's a lot easier to parrot pontifications about how people ought to act in a content dispute than actually learn how these work, and this from what I can see is what DeadEyeArrow is doing. The user has little experience with article building, so I've gotta wonder where DeadEyeArrow gets the belief that he has more knowledge about these situations than an experienced admin article builder like Dbachmann? "Another content-shy self-righteous intervenionist mandarin with blocking powers" is what I might be tempted to predict were I in a worse mood ... but even the hint of this is not what this encyclopedia needs just now. To DeadEyeArrow, 45 supports to 0 opposes suggest you have more good qualities than bad, so my oppose is no more than a little balancing. You're already pretty much guaranteed to go through, so good luck and I hope you prove me to be a pessimist. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Isn't this the exact reason why he should be made an Admin? His zeal is a specialized area. Your incenuation that any 12yr old with a dial up connection and a thirst for controlling others seems a bit vague. Plus, I think people should be promoted to develop their skillsets, not skipped over because the opportunity hasn't presented itself. DEA has contributed significantly in many aspects of Wikipedia. While your argument for a centrist hegemony for Admins/SySopS has a strong point of contention raised within the notion that promotions should not support people who make minimal contributions, I think every SySoP has an area they admittedly could be stronger in. Further more, Admins aren't promoted because they're perfect, or contain within their knowledge every possible script, template, policy, and programming language. Admins are promoted because they have spent the time in the trenches to prove to the community that they hold a vested interest in the encylopedic quality of Wikipedia. Whether this is through means of fighting vandalism, reverting pages, welcoming new users and teaching them the ropes, or editing/creating articles, candidates qualifications are reviewed for their applicability of the tools they will be entrusted with. Having said that, I believe DEA will contribute significantly to the many roles he has already learned within Wiki, if promoted to Admin; and continue to grow his skillset in an effort to further improve the encylopedic quality, whether through his traditional means of fighting vandals or through newly discovered interests in article submission and creation. --InvisibleDiplomat666 19:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy has rollback, what else does he need to be a good vandal-zapper? Plenty of other RfA alumni to do the blocking atm. Certainly not worth the risk that'll come from the guy taking an interest in blundering into content disputes and in lording it over content contributors, as in the Master of Puppets Dbachmann situation. I think in fairness to me I offered a full explanation above. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Too much emphasis on policing and vandal-fighting and too little on creating content. I will elaborate for those who attack such reasons. I am well aware that some think that content-writing does not matter much to understand Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, such opinion is common in the non-writing but rather chatting and socializing quarters. Arguments are well known. Moreover, a small minority of non-writing admins are actually good ones. However, the wrong judgment and especially the wrong attitude towards other editors are much more common among the admins with little interest in content creation but a greater interest in being in a position to tell others what to do, "run" wikipedia and chat-a-lot. The admins often have to make a judgment on the issues that very much affect the article writers who are mostly concerned about the content. Appreciating these concerns is very difficult without a significant involvement in the content creation. At least one must demonstrate a significant interest in the content creation even if lack of time prevents one from contributing much at the time. Answers to questions about 3RR suggests that the candidate plans to get involved in critical decisions that would affect content and content editors. The "wikipedia-runners" patrolling 3RR, ANI, etc. prescribing blocks and making rulings (often above our policies) make a srong net-negative impact on the Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia first of all rather than an internet site for other activities. --Irpen 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. An excellent vandal-fighter, and very possibly someone who will not abuse the tools; but I believe that demonstrating an ability to understand the problems that crop up in article-writing is essential for someone with the mop. The answer to the question about Dbachmann illustrates that, to my mind. Relata refero (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Same reasons as Relata refero and Irpen. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Per the above concerns. I'm sure he's a nice guy but we've had too many problems with admins who have little or no experience of what it's like to edit content interfering in areas they don't understand. --Folantin (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. This is a collaborative work, and the best way to develop collaborative skills is to work together with other editors to build an article (or a template, portal, policy, etc.). I am not seeing a lot of collaborative work. Excellent vandal fighting, yes. But the answers to the questions indicate a desire to change focus from generalised vandal-fighting (which largely involves non-content editors) to behavioural management of content editors. This is a far more delicate area than meets the eye, and really does need greater understanding of the different perspective of a content editor. Best of luck to you, regardless. Risker (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Like to see more than just recent changes patrol work, while it is helpful it does not need the knowledge of all of the policies and guidelines. I would like to see a bit more article work, and just a tiny bit more project space contributions than just AIV. (yes I know, this is a rather hypocritical comment.) I am sure this RfA will pass, and wish you the best of luck with the tools. Tiptoety talk 04:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Dunno. He has done some article work, but it's just some stubs about an album of a band that he created a year ago. The article with most edits is date-rape drug. I prefer to see more quality contributions. Also, I ran a javascript tool that seems to show you edit at all times of the day. It's not exactly healthy and I have concerns whether any human will have sufficiently good judgement to edit during an all-nighter or even 24 hours straight. Maxim(talk) 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: switched to support
I don't mean to pester you but I've never encountered this neutral before, what's the link for the Javascript tool? Rudget. 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my monobook.js, User:ais523/editcount.js. After you've installed it and purged your cache (btw, I suggest Firefox for this]], go over to Special:Contributions/Foo and click day/time. For yours, I can clearly see a time where you don't edit at all, would that be presumably sleep and school? Maxim(talk) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern for my long vandal fighting sprints. I generally work on a 28-hour day, I'm not in school right now and my job is rather flexible. But when I do feel fatigued I just stick with reverting simple silly vandalism and only obvious CSDs. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't married... didn't have kids... and had a flexible job, that 28 hour day sounds perfect for me!Balloonman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used to edit even longer. But now i have a (respectable) job. :( SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have a heart attack DEA. Well documented in online submersion. As for the flex sched, mine consists of heavy smoking and occassionally making 20/hr walking around. I make 50k a year sitting on the porch ;-) Gotta love working women and stay at home men! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaz (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/DeadEyeArrow&oldid=1088201401"