Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Da Punk '95 2

Da Punk '95

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{{1}}}

Da Punk '95 (talk · contribs)

End date: Friday July 25 at 6:59am Eastern Australian Time (GMT+10 - 8:59pm 24/7 UTC)

Result: Candidate withdrew (at 3 support, 6 oppose) -- Creol(talk) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am requesting the SysOp tools as I think I can help the Simple English Wikipedia better with them.

Currently, I have been closing RfD's often, as there has been a freqent backlog. However, since I am not an admin, I cannot delete pages. So, I have to wait for a admin to delete the page. This takes a long time to do, therefore defeating the purpose of closing the RfD in the first place. One of the reasons I am after the tools is that I believe waiting for a admin to QD a RfD'd page is merely a waste of time.

Secondly, I do a lot of new page patrol. Sometimes this involves vandals. I therefore would find it quicker if I had the tools to delete and block the vandals. This way, I can stop the vandals earier.

I would be happy to answer questions from the community about why I need the tools, and what makes me qualified to use them. Thank you -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self nomination

Support

Even if this serious user is slightly below the 1000 edits mark, he must not feel the need to leave or, such as Razorflame or me, work on another sister project but, considering we do have enough stewards and bureaucrats, be given at least a One-Month-Trial period as a sysop. ONaNcle (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post-scriptum: Da Punk is now slightly above this one thousand edits mark, as well as User:Runningblader and myself. His edits are more complete than my average ones but, even before the sock-puppet controversy below, he was already below the 50% vote ratio and I can't then hope soon become an admin. Trust me : it's too hard to work without not especially the destructive ones (protect/del/block) but the informative sysops tools. That's why I'll end browsing alphabetically (ten letters already done) my watchlist before my next long wikibreak. ONaNcle (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very active user here, and there are no major concerns. I had less than 40 deleted edits when promoted. Majorly ^talk 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standards naturally rise and expectations are much higher as a Wikipedia matures. Cass andra 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no logic that the same job should be harder to get. Especially as it was only about 14 months ago. Majorly ^talk 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adminship is no big deal and there is less chance of an admin making a "big" mistake on a small wiki such as this one, so why not? MindTheGap (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But surely that logic means that every trusted user should get the tools? Microchip 18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Majorly ^talk 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Microchip, that's how adminship should be given out, isn't it? —Giggy 06:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The RFA process is flawed and at times appears to have more of a private club feel about it. Will this user getting the tools do more good than bad for the project? I am convinced by all evidence that it would do. That is the only criteria needed, in my view, so that is why I vote "support" MindTheGap (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, how come Razorflame never became an admin? — mc8 12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if that is true, prehaps we should do away with RfA and simply promote every non-vandal? mc8 14:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why RF didn't get promoted - people are too fussy I guess. No, we shouldn't promote every non-vandal. We should promote every trustworthy user who knows what they doing. Majorly ^talk 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Weak oppose - You do not seem to have enough deleted edits. I would suggest withdrawing this one and trying again after 1 or 2 months. Chenzw Talk 01:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, Chenzw, how many deleted edits do you think is a good count? I mean there are very few pages that are easily QD'd, because this Wikipedia simply doesn't get a lot of traffic. Cass andra 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't give an exact number, but right now, he has only about 40+ QD tags. I think he needs more. Chenzw Talk 03:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think there should be a numerical value for determining if a user comprehends the deletion policy. A user could hypothetically tag over 40 articles for quick deletion without fully understanding what QD is. As long as the candidate has demonstrated that he is able to correctly understand and apply the deletion policy, then there shouldn't be a problem.--TBC 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Da Punk, I think your doing just fine as of now, but I think it's a bit too early for an RfA right now. I would like to see more experience in QD tagging. Only about 40 doesn't seem enough. I also think you need more experience in content writing. Creating a WP:GA or even a WP:VGA would show you are dedicated in improving the mainspace. I think getting a few articles up to GA, and even VGA, would be good when you try another RfA. Most of your article creations are stubs, so improve those. Also, try to get your mainspace count to at least 50%, but remember, quality edits matter more than the quantity of them. Also, you do god reverting vandalism, but I don't see very many WP:VIP reports which means you wouldn't be using the block tool too often. Well, overall, your doing good, but I just can't support as of now. Once you wait about 2-3 months and you follow what I said above, you'll do just fine. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Da Punk certainly has contributed a lot to the project, but like Ryan, I feel that it's still way too early for an RfA. First off, you should not be closing non-snowball RfD's, which is solely an admin responsibility. This can be extremely misleading for admins, especially when you close a RfD where consensus has clearly not been established, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_12#Nuclear_controversy (which was at delete: 5, merge/keep: 3, neutral: 1). I'm also concerned with your RfA statement, which demonstrates some misunderstandings about adminship, namely: 1) You do not "delete" vandals and 2) RfD's do not get QD'd after being closed, the two are different concepts (QD refers to pages that are deleted without discussion, RfD refers to pages that are deleted with consensus).--TBC 11:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I were QDing paged after a RfD has been NAC'd as I did not have the delete button (which is why we are here), and I were NACing them in the first place due to a backlog. NO admin has told me off, and most have just deleted the articles without ANY fuss. -- Da Punk '95 talk 11:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NAC is only used for RfD's where the vote is either a unanimous "keep" after a long period of time or when the article has already been deleted through QD and the closure is simply housekeeping. Inappropriate non admin closures include ones that require an admin action (deletion and merging of page histories), like the ones you've been closing. Although no admins have told you to stop yet, that still doesn't justify you from doing it.--TBC 12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose needs more experience.-- † Christian Man 16 05:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - banned sockpupeteer, No thanks..--Comet styles 06:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most pico-wikis the size of Simple are happy to see the serious work done by sockpuppets of elsewhere banned users like me who have reached a good level of experience after this ban from a much bigger wiki. ONaNcle (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be a very sad day when it comes to the impression that, once you've been scarred nad marked in one project, you cannot redeem yourself elsewhere. Punk may have been banned on the English Wikipedia, but he's been trying hard to do good work here. There are dozens of other examples of other people. Poetlister became an admin and bureaucrat over at the English Wikiquote and was later unbanned from the English Wikipedia as a result (originally a CU ban for sockuppetry). Shalom Yechiel has admitted to having several abusive sockpuppets, and has tried his very hardest to be a productive editor; bureaucrat WJBscribe in Shalom's latest RFA remarked that, if he were to have discontinued his account and started a new one, he would probably be an admin by now. Is the lesson here simply to not disclose who you are when editing other projects and to hide it, removing all traces of accountablility? Cass andra 07:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had followed the Poetlister case carefully, you would know it was very different from this and I actually think Poetlister is an excellent crat/sysop, but she was wrongfully accused and this is not the same thing..--Comet styles 09:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cassandra makes a clear point. Just because a user is banned on another wikipedia or wikimedia project, that doesn't mean they have to be scarred on all other wikipedia and wikimedia projects. I've seen Da Punk do very good deeds here on simple english wikipedia, and just because he is banned somewhere else, you oppose, just because of that? Well, I do think he isn't ready for adminship just yet, but he has proven he can be a good editor. I'm sure he has learned well from what has happened in the past, and I'm sure he will do far better in the future. I trust Da Punk, but I just don't trust Da Punk with the tools just yet. You can just set aside whatever has happened on other projects. The Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia are by far very different projects. Just because something happened to someone on another wikipedia, doesn't mean it should affect anything like an RfA on another, unless they haven't changed. But surely, Da Punk has changed, and that is no reason to oppose, Cometstyles. -- RyanCross (talk) 08:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting sockpupeteery is basically breaking one of the policies of adminship, mainly people who support sockpupeteers knowingly are sockpupeteers themselves, and NO, I already knew he was a sock a long time ago But I didn't do anything because he was helping the wiki but I had to oppose his RfA just because no matter how useful he is as an editor, his previous RfA's 1 , 2 and 3 shows that he is determined to be an admin and will do anything to be one and this type of editors are neevr beneficial to any project and he previously lied about his socking as well..--Comet styles 09:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but it's up to you weather to oppose because of it, and nobody can force you to change opinions. The only thing that concerns me a bit is that you are opposing because of something that has happened on another wikipedia. If someone goes to another wiki, I believe they should start with a clean slate. Unless they don't change of course. But again, it's your opinion. -- RyanCross (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Comets was opposing only because of sockpuppetry it would be different. He's opposing because the candidate lied about sockpuppetry related issues (see above diff), and other reasons (for instance that of power hunger). The sockpuppetry is a parallel issue that adds to his concerns; it isn't the only reason for opposition and I don't think we should treat it as if it is. —Giggy 10:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't made clear in his original comment, but now that he has provided other rationale for why he opposes, I now understand his viewpoint. Cass andra 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not as nice start to the day as I wanted, but anyway, Yes, I am Punk Boi 8 on English Wikipedia. But NO, I never Sockpuppereterred. Newyorkbrad would know this. I have changed. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Futhermore, CheckUser over here proved I did not use muplital accounts to oppose a RfA, as accussed here by Cometstyles. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per ChristianMan16. Not enough experience. Sebb (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I vaguely recall leaving a note on your bot's talk page about it making odd edits like this one. Oh... I just realised its talk page is now a redlink; seems you couldn't run the bot while I had left you messages (sorry about that! I can explain to you how to run AWB bots when you have a message if you'd like - just ask on my talk page). Anyways, my point here was to ask you why you kept using the bot for typo fixing even after I told you that using a bot to fix typoes isn't a good idea. —Giggy 09:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing spelling with bots and AWB is in my opinion good, as, even though we assume good faith with peoples spelling, there are still a few stuff ups. The AWB typo tool can reduce spelling. All edits I make with Da Punk Bot are looked at by a human before being submitted. I can not see anything against bots fixing up spelling, especially fully manual AWB bots. -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error - I wasn't aware that every edit is human approved. That's fine then; I was just concerned about an unsupervised typo fixer as in some cases the typo is actually correct. Sorry about the confusion. Sorry, I can't support for now as I share TBC's concerns about RfD closures (not a "strong" oppose though, and I certainly don't think you need more experience or anything), but I'm not opposing either. Good luck, best wishes, cheers. —Giggy 06:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About sockpuppets

(pasted-copied from above) .../... Is the lesson here simply to not disclose who you are when editing other projects and to hide it, removing all traces of accountablility? Cass andra 07:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da punk '95 did not hide his sockpuppetry and Comet has easily found him. Myself, many months from now, I told a Simple bureaucrat about my ancient aliases (about 50,000 edits). If I don't unveil it to everybody, it is not because I'm afraid about Simple Users' reactions, but just to avoid the risk to attract outsiders who could perturb our nice Simple way of life. ONaNcle (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this RfA. Statement being put soon at User:Da Punk '95/Sockpuppeting. -- Da Punk '95 talk 20:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Search