Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DF08

DF08

final (11/0/0) ending 04:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DF08 has been a contributor since June 2004 and has accumulated approximately 1500 edits. He seems to value neutrality and level-headed editing. Although 1500 edits is relatively few for someone to be nominated for adminship, he has created dozens of robust articles with extensive content. I think he would make a highly competent administrator. Spencer195–spencer 195 04:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thank Spencer195 for the vote of confidence in nominating me. I am certainly aware that 1,500 is by no means plenty, and far from veteranesque. 1,500 edits -- or quality articles -- the old question of quality versus quantity once again may pop up. Personally, I would have seriously considered adminship at over 2,000 votes, but I accepted the nomination as someone who wasn't called DF08 nominated me. --DF08 05:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Support

Spencer195–spencer 195 04:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support from me, too, and I agree with JW's comment. -- Schnee 21:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Andre (talk) 22:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Ok. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:22, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
We can always use more vandal fighters. --Slowking Man 07:25, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:31, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lst27 (talk) 23:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Certainly; as a side note, is "vandalisation" a word? ugen64 16:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks good to me; as a side note, is "ugen64" a word? ;-) func (talk) 23:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure; veterenesque isn't a word though? [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 02:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

I don't know the user, so I can't comment in any way on their suitability for admin. I just want to note that I wish we'd stop creeping up the level of edits necessary -- 1500, in my opinion, is not "relatively few". I have continued to support users with less than 1,000 edits, and I hope we haven't gotten to the point where even 1,500 is below the community's requirements. Sorry for being a little off-topic, but I saw the comment in the nomination and felt compelled to reply. Jwrosenzweig 05:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(responses have been moved to talk)

Please consider expressing your views at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 02:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Re: "vandalisation": A quick check on Wiktionary: entries for "vandal" and "vandalise"/"vandalize". So I guess "vandalisation" would mean "vandalise" in progress... IMHO it exists, but not sure if for real. I use UK orthography; I realise it's "vandalization" State-side. --DF08 17:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Prevention of pages from vandalisation. Vandalism is bad and should get no place in Wikipedia. Also, page reversion and eventually, helping out in making sure articles are on the right track, NPOV-wise. In addition, count a check or two on VfD: I'll chime in on VfD articles I know about (and if I don't know about that topic, I won't chime in...)

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

A. I'd like to think of Wikipedia as everyone's Wikipedia, and I don't have that tendency to "own" my works on WP. Given that, though, a few I'm rather pleased about has got to be the numerous articles on the roads and expressways of China, and mucho content on Beijing. One bit I'm pleased is how I managed to add both the infobox and the template to other Beijing/Tianjin expressways at the end of every article related to those topics. Even an expressway (non-digital) can become a digital info expressway, so to speak.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. I've been rather lucky on this issue, due to two factors: First, as I stated on my user page, I'm going to keep the zip on my mouth in regards to articles about politics (but not law) and religion. Second, and this may either be pure luck (or a well-written article?), none of the articles I've written about have had any serious edit wars (in fact, there has been no edit wars at all, as far as myself can see...) There were two cases where I felt content may have been better kept, but "readjusted my views" after asking/reading the reasons for removal. One was on how to avoid writing Chinglish; I would have liked to keep the part on "How to avoid Chinglish" but it was removed, though with a reason, and all I did was to respect that. Second, I added in a snip or two about unitary/federal nations and dual/multiple citizenship and that was gone too, to the Talk page. (On the second one, I got it from a book on law -- published in mainland China. It could be possible that the book got it wrong, and I was "infected" and passed that wrong info to WP.) I have had virtually no cases of people causing me stress on Wikipedia, at least none related to my edits/contributed articles.

Folks, this may sound like smooth sailing all along for me (no NPOV disputes, edit wars, vandalism, etc...) but all of this is true, seriously.