Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Diaz

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.

The Diaz

[edit]

Final (0/13/2); ended 08:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC) - per WP:NOTNOW LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 08:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

The Diaz (talk · contribs) – I have always been very involved in maintenance. My big focus areas in maintenance have been counter-vandalism (mostly by IPs) and requesting page protection. See my contributions, which show my action on vandalism, especially on low-traffic pages where it was more likely to go unnoticed (such as Public Education in Mississippi, Bloomington, Minnesota, and many more) as well as my requests for page protection, which saved many pages from future vandalism. My history will also show very many corrections of overlooked rule violations such as BLP, ENGVAR, YESPOV, OR, and more. I have also created several articles on events such as Marshall County High School shooting, Murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, 2018 Paris knife attack, and more. A huge part of my code is that I NEVER EVER allow any of my own personal biases to interfere with the way I contribute to Wikipedia. I understand that my edit count may be a little low, however my contributions have almost exclusively been very valuable to the community, and the quality is a lot greater than the quantity. THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 05:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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: I mostly intend to take part in combating vandalism, as it seems to be prevalent and long-lasting on seldom-viewed pages. Nothing is more important to me on this site than keeping it free of vandals and keeping the articles safe by protecting them if need be.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My favorite edits that I made were all the vandalism reverts that went unnoticed, as well as blatant violations of obvious rules on high-viewed pages. See my recent edits to Dylann Roof, Charleston church shooting, and Holocaust Denial. Another valuable moment was my bringing up of an unseen rule violation of a now-deleted page, as well as my determining of consensus on Talk:Genocide and Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
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 was once in a lengthy dispute on the talk page of Richard B. Spencer over whether or not to call him a white supremacist. The consensus never went in my favor so I eventually dropped the stick. I fight hard for what I believe in but I know when it's time to quit. I haven't made any controversial edits in a long time and I'm very confident in my ability to handle stress and conflict. I have never been blocked for any reason.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional questions from Hhkohh
4. I saw your editing wikipeadia space is very low, see [1], especially in WP:ANI and WP:AIV, can you explain it?
A:
5. You said you would flight vandal, but why don't you grant some right via WP:PERM, for example, rollback, pending change reviewer and so on
A:

Discussion

[edit]

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

Support
[edit]


Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Only 1400 edits, and most vandalism-fighting doesn't need admin powers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose — an admin should have a much broader range of activity on WP than this candidate has thus far exhibited. Fighting vandalism is to be commended. Dropping the stick is to be commended. I'm not saying that an admin has to do EVERYTHING and lots of it, but I expect to see more than I see here. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems like an editor on the right path. I expect we’ll see you back here with a successful RFA once you have a bit more experience under your belt (I’d like to see more content creation, as I think that perspective is important to manning RPP). Thanks for your work to date! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pending other people 's comment, but not enough experience. Hhkohh (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Straight up. The candidate's limited contributions include this where they were also editing as TheBD2000. Lack of judgment, disruption, and finally trying to label material they didn't like as "defamation". --NeilN talk to me 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Simply not enough experience for me, less than 1500 edits in nearly two years largely in places that do not need admin powers. Kosack (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Too few edits, not editing frequently. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for two reasons. First, they have not actually shown why or how admin tools would be an asset (or why their having such tools would improve Wikipedia). Their vandal fighting is fine but not something that needs a mop to do. Second, claiming to be free from bias at all times in their editing, while making such edits as in the diff provided by NeilN above is a red flag for me. It always makes me wonder a bit when anybody claims to not ever be influenced by their biases - it is not impossible but quite unlikely since it's often hard to be aware of all our own biases, or to separate bias from strong opinion. Dropping the stick is great, yes, but that particular way of picking up the stick in the first place is not something I would want in an admin. --bonadea contributions talk 07:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. That the user lacks experience and has no advanced permissions is a problem, but even if the candidate had 100k edits and every tool except the full mop, their role in the Spencer discussion (linked in NeilN's !vote) would be a deal breaker: it indicated a complete and dangerous misunderstanding of core content policies, and it concluded only a year and less than 500 edits ago. And it really doesn't count as "dropping the stick" when the stick has been wielded for weeks on end. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per NeilN's link. It shows a profound misunderstanding of WP:BLP, and a combative approach to editing - two things we do not need in the admin corps. Richard0612 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per power~enwiki and Abelmoschus Esculentus. There are tools and permissions available that make vandalism fighting and content creation easier without needing adminship. Don't let the probable failure of this RFA discourage you from editing please. Iffy★Chat -- 08:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. WP:NOTNOW because this user is not yet experienced on Wikipedia. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 08:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I do see some page creations, but they are very short one liners. Also I hope our candidate learns what is public domain and where to stick it if it is[2]. So not serious issues, but more experience in some things would be good. It would prove experience in what admins need to know. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. couragous for this hazing, but clearly not competent enough. Afd needs to be brushed up, a roll backer used rightly will count. more content creation and edit count. Can we end this as per wp:not now to save them? Clearly we don't have to go any further in pointing the defeciencies out, we can do it at straw poll or what. Quek157 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
[edit]
  • There's no need for any more pile-on opposes (which I'm afraid The Diaz should probably read to mean: There will be plenty more unless you withdraw), but the word is, TD should focus on sticking around a bit longer, writing sturdier articles, getting involved a little more in admin areas (but not to the detriment of article work)...and definitely deal with what NeilN mentioned. Give it a couple of years, get a strong nominator, read every piece of RfA advice going—there's plenty of it—and look at how previous RfAs pan out. And you might be OK. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 07:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I hadn't already voted, I would WP:NOTNOW (or WP:SNOW) close this. Based on their editing stats, they're unlikely to edit for at least 4-5 more hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
former is better, this is still somewhere from a snow. Quek157 (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2018 (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/The_Diaz&oldid=955583848"