Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Duja

Duja

Voice your opinion. (20/0/0) Ending 10:18 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Duja (talk · contribs) – He should have become an admin a long time ago. But he just refused to accept the nomination: first offer (in Serbian) and then a bit later the RfA he declined; offers over the email I cannot link here, but I know I asked him more than once. And now he finally accepted the nom, and all of us from former Yugoslavia community can start celebrating, because he is the most levelheaded and one of (let us all now bow to Joy) most respected editors this ebullient area has ever seen. I just can't remember him making any enemies which is a fact that keeps me in a continued state of awe knowing how easily you make enemies on Balkan related issues (saying he enforces strict NPOV would be an understatement here). Except from being a great contributor to former-Yu themes, he does all sorts of other things on Wikipedia, which is extremely rare (ex-Yu editors usually stick to ex-Yu themes). He also contributes content to linguistic themes and bridge. He has been with (some of) us for more than 2 years (see his first edit for an example of his good manners - the man introduced himself even before he started editing) and accumulated more than 5500 edits. His interaction with community is abundant both on his talk page and on wikipedia_talk pages. He started WP:WPCB and is one of founding members of WP:FY. He also takes part in the dirty tasks: he is a regular on WP:RQM, has voted on AfDs, TfD, CfD, has contributed to WP:CP and has reported vandals to WP:ANI. If I didn't mention something important, that's probably because I forgot it, not because he didn't work on it. Come on, let's give him a mop. --Dijxtra 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination. Duja 10:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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 Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: For the start, I'd like to help clearing up backlogs at Category:requested moves and WP:AfD, and later perhaps more engage in handling things like WP:AN/I. I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside).
Like Dijxtra said (and my contribs hopefully confirm), I'm kind of a "polymath" (please substitute a less pretentious and more ironic English word, can't find one) or a "dabbler" — while I've touched many aspects of Wikipedia by contributing, talking or merely reading (WP:RM, WP:AfD, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:CP WP:WSS/P, WP:RfC, article space of course, categorization, numerous templates like those etc.) I'm not really profound in any. For the bad or the good of it, my potential admin activities will probably also be "a bit of everything". Duja

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

A: In line with the above, I'm more a "patcher" type of editor (format/wikify/NPOVize/expand/categorize/reorganize/reference/you name it) than a comprehensive in-detail writer. Consequently, I don't have a FA behind me (although I do have a plan :-) ). If I'd have to single out some articles, I think I did a good job in Bidding box and Screen (bridge) mostly by myself, and significantly shaped up Differences in standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, Montenegrins, Gorani (Kosovo), Torlakian, Contract bridge glossary and Duplicate bridge. I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge (hmm, a bit slowed down lately).
As I see it, perhaps my best plus side is my ability to NPOVize things (cynics would say, use weasel words); I think I'm mostly able to distance myself away from the subject and present the conflicting POVs in a fair manner. Duja

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: Having dealt with numerous pages related with former Yugoslavia-related issues — you can bet it. Here, fringe and extreme POVs abound, and trying to tone the conflict down is often an impossible mission. I'd skip the examples here (I'd be happy to provide them at request). I think I managed to maintain a cool head and stay within WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the most part (not that I wasn't frustrated on occasion). I even walked away from some articles I still don't agree with (perhaps not a good thing for encyclopedia, but at least better for mental health).
To be honest, I don't think I handled e.g. this case well—I probably should have taken a deeper breath; it settled one way or another, anyway.
Even if I become an admin, I certainly don't intend to change my approach in conflict resolution—I am well aware of the policies which prevent taking admin privileges in content disputes and getting involved into a conflict of interest. There's always an option of posting at WP:RfC, WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3RR. Duja

Question from Andeh

4. Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) Or any AfDs discussions you have been a part of. Thanks.

A: Some AfD nominations (not so recent): [1], [2], [[3]], [4]
Some recent AfD discussions: [5] [6], [7] Duja

Question from Mcginnly

5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?

A: If under "established user" we understand a user with a long primarily constructive (i.e. WP:V out of consideration) contribution to the project, I'd say it would be breaches of WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In cases of disruption, I'd like to get more opinions on WP:AN first (although e.g. mass page moves should be stopped quickly). In any case (and even with non-established users), I would give user a warning first (and/or require an apology in cases of WP:NPA). I think "established users" in the above sense should be given some leeway but not a "blank trust" either. In case of 3RR, some leeway needs to be given in cases when the other side in the edit dispute is obviously inserting cruft, crank or other material clearly against e.g. WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (note that 3RR excludes "simple vandalism" but there are many borderline cases). Duja

• NOTE; I didn't add question 5! Check the history.--Andeh 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Andeh - I'd changed the link but not the proxy. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from Andeh

6. In answer one you stated "I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside)", are you suggesting that users should become admins before gaining the required experience? Please explain/expand this. Thanks.--Andeh 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A: Sorry, but I don't see how it can be plausibly interpreted like that. I referred to "fresh admins", i.e. newly promoted admins, not "fresh users". If one gets hired as e.g. journalist, should he immediately jump into editing the newspaper's equivalent of Watergate affair? I've just said that I'd refrain from using the heavy weaponry, (like e.g. blocking another admin as an extreme example), until I gather some experience. (I said it perhaps subconciously having in mind the entire post-Carnildo RfA affair that I'm fairly acknowledged with). Duja

{{subst:weaksupport}} it is.--Andeh 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question from —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

7. Will you spend any time in CAT:CSD? If so, what will you absolutely never ever forget to do when you pull up a speedy candidate? And I mean ever... (A short answer is acceptable)

A: Ugh, I spent a bit of time tagging Special:Newpages but frankly, I got tired soon. I probably will spend some time. I will absolutely never ever forget to copy the page to WP:BJAODN if I find it amusing... :-)
Now seriously, before deletion, I would check the page history to see if it wasn't vandalized rather than being outright CSD candidate. If not, I would check whether the CSD criteria apply, and if so, specify the reason for deletion in the summary (otherwise, AfD it if eligible). Finally, I would notice the article's creator. I'm not sure which of those steps you will consider "essential" but there's the answer...

Perfect! Too many admins don't check the history and they delete valid articles that were just changed into ridiculous attack pages (I've saved three articles so far). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

General comments

• See Duja's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• I am concerned that this RFA will, like many in the past having to deal with Balkan editors, get nationalist sockpuppets. Reflecting nothing on the suitability of the candidate, but I must voice my strong concerns. The crats will have to monitor this closely. – Chacor 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Support as nominator --Dijxtra 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. We need more admins and I have a good impression of this candidate. I'm not particularly worried that he has 'only' 94% edit summary usage and less than 200 template edits :) Haukur 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Petition firmly accepted. Unquestioning approval. Duja is a good man and will make a fine admin. - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong support. Will be nice to have such a clear-minded admin. --dcabrilo 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support per nom. Michael 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A fine candidate. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per nom. Very good answer to question 1 too. Good luck! --Alex | talk / review me | 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak support, experience seems to fit with what they want to do as an admin. Even though they haven't done much vandal fighting, the users last reverts were in July and showed they know the basics, besides I don't see anything in the nom suggesting vandal fighting. User has been here a long time too.--Andeh 12:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Balkan, South Slavic and former Yugoslavia issues definitely need a devoted admin who knows the matter well. Todor→Bozhinov 12:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Seems like an excellent user. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Why not? The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak support - Concerns met (per Oppose #1) - and per AndehPandy.UK thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support, looks good, although I don't understand why you added these extra fair use rationales. The standard {{logo}} and {{bookcover}} seemed to me to explain the fair use adequately already. By the way I am an admin and have less than 20 image edits, and most of my template edits are trivial. Kusma (討論) 13:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Support Rama's arrow 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. Mangojuice^talk 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Support: Looks like a good and civil editor that has touched various places and followed protocol - plus a perfect answer to my question. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Support: How can one object to this nomination? Also, Novi Sad is indeed a lovely city! •NikoSilver• 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. Levelheaded and civil editor. Regards, Asterion^talk 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
19. Support - a true NPOV user. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
20. Undoubtful Gargantually Strong Support. There are little (or no) admins from where he comes - and he more than qualifies according to wikipedia's standards for one. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - User does not meet my criteria (Major edit summary is less then 94%, i require 95%. Less then 20 image space edits. Less then 200 template edits. Also this, this and this bother me, there are no fair use rationales on those images.) - User requires a little more experiance first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Regarding images there is always a possibility the user contributes to Wikimedia Commons and therefore has a low image-space count. – Chacor 10:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  commons:User:Duja has more than 200 image edits. --Dijxtra 11:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I upload most of my self-made images to Commons (commons:User:Duja my contribs there;) only a few fair-use ones are on en:. As for the fair use rationale, I initially did mark them with {{fairusein}}, but then I discovered the {{logo}} which states that it's fair use "...to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question". Those images are indeed used only in American Contract Bridge League, World Bridge Federation and The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge pages (the latter image has also {{fairusein}}). Sorry, but I don't see which additional rationale is called for.
  I admit I'm less than perfect in edit summaries, most often when I make several consecutive edits—I tend to forget to mark all of them. Duja 11:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I disagree with the above oppose vote, there is nothing in the nomination or answers suggesting the user wants to get involved with anything related to images, and many users don't provide fair-use rationale. And the edit summary usage is a few percent out? So.--Andeh 12:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Fair use rationales are a must for my support, i'd be willing to switch to a support now I know of his commons account but i'm unwilling to do so until his fair use images are rationalies: (per: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information."). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Many users, including admins don't provide fair-use for their image uploads, I urge you to reconsider your vote. Neutral is just below!--Andeh 12:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I know they dont, but it isnt much to ask a user to start using them now and add them to there present fair use uploads (I believe there is only 4 or 5) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  FWIW, I added the rationales. Duja 13:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Concerns have been met and i've switched accordingly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  The candidate doesn't have the moon on a stick either. That's no reason to oppose them. (200 template edits? How irrelevant ca you get?) The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral