WP:AIV, with a few contribution towards newpage patrol and AfD. Before I get started on how Wikipedia can benefit from me getting admin tools, I like to point out some issues from my last RfA
(3 and a half months ago). Before I start however, please be aware that I was known as Kzrulzuall back then.
Incivility - Incivility and bad temperament were main issues in my last RfA, issues, looking back, in which I heartily regret. Since then, I've tried hard to
assume good faith
at all times.
Fair use images - Another issue of which there was great concern, was the non-existent fair use rationales on the images I uploaded. This issue, rightly pointed out by Matthew, was the one of which I paid a lot of attention in. Since the RfA, all the fair use images originally uploaded by me have acceptable fair use rationales, and since, have held the NFCC policy with my immediate attention. I've also been contributing a bit to the upload logs, and
WP:PUI
.
Mainspace contributions - Another oppose, cited by many, was the lack of mainspace contributions and commitment to Wikipedia. As a result of that, I've created many new articles, primarily associated with historical Australians and New Zealanders in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I've also joined
WikiProject Aviation
.
Userpage There has been some opposes dealing with my userpage. It was basically a userpage design like this, except there were also annoying small bouncing animations. Taking a look at my current userpage, it is vastly different, and seems acceptable.
Escalating and Dispute Resolution - This issue was the most important issue in the last RfA and was based on some very rash and idiotic decisions that I made. I can't really say much about my dispute skills(vanity...
June archives
.
And, unless I am mistaken, those were the main opposes in my previous RfA. I now leave myself to the scrutiny of the community, to see if I am fit for adminship. Cheers!
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My intentions is to, first, take part in places of which I have the most experience,
WP:AIV
often has backlogs, (although not as frequently since Riana got there). To judge whether a AIV report is valid, I check the contributions of the user/ip listed, then check whether final warning has been reached. After that I block, dependent on past blocks, contribution similarity if it is an ip, and the severity of the vandalism. If the person has particularly bad vandalism (reversing text Unicode) or very frequent (5 per min), I would block even if it was only first warning. (I would seek to have at least one recent warning regarding vandalism before blocking, unless in very special circumstances).
Another place of interest is
WP:PUI
. Due to the fact that I don't have much recent experience with AfD, I would re-familiarize myself with it first as an editor, before attempting any admin action. For PUI, I am still learning my way around the place, but once familiar I'll help out.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The best contributions on Wikipedia? Well, among my favourite contributions there is the work I did to
QANTAS Also, as mentioned in my last RfA, I did some work to Master of the Game. Although I have never got a GA or a FA, please realize I am most proficient working in the low traffic articles, with often little or no help. (Not that I am making excuses, I do realize that many of Wikipedia's best contributor are able to get a article to FA in a matter of days, with no help) I am also very slow in article creation, and will often pause, thinking for hours on one single sentence. (Don't laugh, it's true!) Some may call it meticulous, but to be truthful, my article skills aren't of Emsworth quality...
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: Since my last RfA, I have only been in one dispute. It was over the inclusion of this section of the articletennis. The dispute was between myself, User:tennis expert, User:Radiant!, User:Spyder Monkey and some other people... Basically, I wanted the section removed or transwikied to a tennis wiki, because I found it very POV. I removed it, but tennis expert reverted me. I basically stopped after my first or second revert, which were a couple of days apart from each other. Spyder also removed the section, but it was reverted by TE again. Spyder Monkey then opened a section, that closely resembled the AfD format. After seeing two deletes and no keeps, Radiant! carried out another removal, but was reverted by tennis expert again. After a mildly incivil discussion between Tennis expert and Radiant!, I reminded them both to calm down, in an attempt to calm them down... It worked, then I set off to WT:WFT, and asked for further input to gain consensus on the removal/inclusion of the section. Overall, the dispute didn't cause much stress though, as in a particularly irritating moment, following smart advice from my brain, I removed myself from the dispute, read a book, ate something, slept on it, and came back fresh. Also, I mentioned above about another dispute at which I was helping out in. Basically, whenever I see a moment of stress, I step from the computer and read a bit of Grisham. Thriller I know... I'm weird like that:)
Optional question from
Articles for deletion process
.
4.Please read this AFD. As of that revision, there was an even split in numbers of those in favour of keeping the article and those in favour of deleting it. How, though, would you close the AFD, and why? (For reference, the AFD closed as delete) Will(talk)13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: To understand whether a keep or a delete is necessary, I first need to define the meaning of
consensus. On wiktionary, it is defined as "General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.", while on dictionary.com
, it's defined as "general agreement or concord; harmony.".
Now to look at the AfD discussion. In the AfD, the main points of deletion were the violation of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays, such as
WP:NOT#INFO
, while the keep comments has reached a flawed consensus, if any, that is not consistent with policy. In closing, I will close the AfD with a delete, with possible transwiki to a wiki that is best suited for such information. The information may be useful, could be great as trivia, but is definitely not suited to Wikipedia.
Optional question from
WP:AIV
.
5. Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to block a user with a history of vandalism who is not on a "final warning"?
A: Presumably, the user is intended? Even if final warning is not reached, if the user is a vandalism only account (harassing other user etc.), I will block. I tend to block the user only after they realized that vandalism is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, usually issuing a warning, or a couple of warnings beforehand. Another situation in which I will block, even if final warning is not reached, is if a user, as exampled above in the admin work question, has vandalized very frequently with no intention of stopping. And then there is the situation of obvious sockpuppetry from a vandalism only user, in which I will block after warning of sockpuppetry.
6 What is your stance on WP:BLP and how will you treat editors who insert poorly sourced information into biographical articles?
A: I regard
WP:ANI
As to dealing with the user, it is dependent on the quality of the edit in question. If the editor adds very contentious and wrong information, I will warn him/her with {{uw-biog2}} or {{uw-biog3}}, and block after final warning. If the edit seems to be good faith and true but is unsourced, I will remind the user to always source his information, typing the comment manually. If the user doesn't oblige to source his info, I will warn the user with {{uw-unsourced1}}. However as BLP isn't limited to only articles, I will often remove links to Wikipedia Review, and other sites of disparaging nature, if upon review, the content of the page can harm an editor.
Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DarkFalls before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Very powerful support -- excellent user who should have had the tools a very long time ago. Very knowledgeable in policy, very deserving of the mop. I rest my case. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk09:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty strong supportper shout-out in Q1 problems from last RfA have been largely resolved - I am confident that DF is entirely capable of keeping his cool, does not bite, and has a strong handle on policy. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I'd strongly suggest the candidate removes the big tags from his/her signature per
this, to avoid possible neutrals and opposes. Other than that, per Anonymous Dissident in a very strong fashion. Daniel→♦10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
Big, huge, x-large support to this excellent user who bears a somewhat sad name that doesn't do justice to his brightness and positive attitude ;) All the best! Phaedriel - 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a long road has been travelled since the previous RfA and this editor has come on so much. Definitely ready for the mop and bucket :) - Alison☺13:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think all pertaining issues from before have been resolved, and a new mop & bucket is in order. Jmlk1718:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm going to support this RFA. I don't believe I have any personal experiences or history with this user, however upon looking at the users history and statistics as well as previous RFA I can tell that this individual has improved greatly and is definitely suitable for the Mop. Wikidudeman(talk)18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seen this editor around AN/I and AIV recently and have been impressed. Latter venue indicates both need for and trust with the tools. LessHeard vanU21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - impressed by contributions to obscure historical articles. Other contributions look fine. Nice restrained and well-written statement. Plenty of experience. Despite lack of personal interaction, I would trust this candidate with the tools. Carcharoth21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support You fly boys crack me up. But, seriously, I've known Darkfalls for ages noe and he is hard-working, civil, knowledgeable and trust worthy. Good luck! Dfrg.msc08:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support – excellent statement (well-organised as well!) has demonstrated that this candidate clearly knows what he's on about ;-) best of luck - I know you'll make a fine
Support Excellent answer to the question I posed. After reviewing your contributions & talk pages, I feel confident you will use the tools wisely and maturely. --Ozgod13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen the user around in the past, I have consistently liked what I've seen. I am satisfied with his answer to Q4, give him the mop. Trusilver15:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was one of the parties in the Zadar dispute that DarkFalls mentions above. I was very satisfied with his level-headed approach to the issue. --Zmaj10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A full and detailed review of the support contributions above reveals that I've failed so far to provide input to this discussion. Great editor, trustworthy, personal interaction etc etc. Pedro | Chat 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no problems here. I also don't have a problem with users nominating themselves if they think they can help out Wikipedia with administrator tools. DarthGriz9803:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting to help make a better encyclopedia, judged by the contributions. Maxim19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, from one Power Hungry Monster to another... Kidding aside, I don't see any reason to believe DarkFalls is going to abuse the mop and bucket.--Isotope23talk16:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm impressed with this user's honest self-appraisal and review, and they've clearly made a huge effort to address the concerns raised in the previous RfA. Good luck! --Canley09:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I am not concerned that this editor would misuse the tools, and am quite impressed with his answers to the questions, frank discussion of previous problems and improvements made, and especially the thoughtful answer to a very difficult question 4. SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support- DarkFalls is an excellent editor who has, I feel, addressed the concerns expressed in his last RfA, and can be trusted to use the tools very well. (And, I thought he was already one...) Good luck!
Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. While I have no specific reason to think this is the case with you (and I hope it's not), it's not a risk I'm willing to take. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion Kurt, but please take the time to read my explanation. Although I understand your point that self-noms may be seen as a way of "gaining power", I'd like to state my points on why I decided to self-nom, instead of asking someone else to nom me. Firstly and most importantly, I could have easily submitted myself into the category, Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, and added a userbox, {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}, into my userpage, but have chosen not to do this. The primary reason for this is because I do not want to be judged by the quality of my nominator, nor be supported under the belief that my nom is considered trustworthy or popular. It mightn't be understandable, but I wanted to be judged on my contributions, instead of getting special privileges because of my nom. Another reason for the self-nomination was because of a suspicion of sockpuppetry and other accusations expressed during the last RfA, about myself and my nominator. This lead to a very upsetting and stressful situation with my previous nom, eventually leading to a semi-retirement even though the checkuser case denied any sockpuppetry. I would hate to subject anything else to the difficulties that was faced, and the prospect of another similar incident was unsavoury. Although the possibilities of my explanation changing your feelings about self-noms will be low, I feel I am justified to explain my decision. --Dark Fallstalk06:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that self-noms are evidence of independence, confidence, and the ability of taking the consequences of ones own actions - all admirable traits in a would be admin... but then, I would say that! LessHeard vanU07:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Kurt views self-nominations as evidence of power hunger I would be most willing to give DF a co-nominating statement. I was thinking of nominating him sometime this month in any case, before I saw this RfA up. ~ Riana ⁂09:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my belief that the mere fact that one self-nominates himself for adminship makes him too great a risk to support. I have never claimed to have specific evidence that a specific user simply seeks power for power's sake. That's irrelevant; in my judgment, the possibility--the risk--is too great. I really don't understand why you insist on calling me a "troll" when I'm simply a bit more risk-averse than you are. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? A cabal (that is, a group of people operating secretly to an agenda) starts by one individual acting independently in nominating themselves for adminship... Um... I don't quite follow the logic. LessHeard vanU20:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIG#Appearance_and_color does suggest that consideration be given to other users who find these flowery signatures annoying. I find them annoying because a) I can't readily read the name of the user; and b) they seem to be saying "look at me!" and create undue attention to that users post in a discussion. —Moondyne03:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]File:DarkFalls sig.png
To be clear, I see two different signatures above:
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.
