The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Denelson83[edit]

Final vote (8/15/4) ending 09:56 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I nominate Denelson83 because of his invalubale contributions to Wikipedia. He has helped me edit and write several featured articles, including Johannesburg, Washington gubernatorial election, 2004, and Hong Kong. He is also an extremely nice and affable fellow. He had a request for comment against him in April of this year, however the issues that were addressed by that have been addressed, and I feel comfortable giving him my full support. Due to some mental health issues, he can sometimes have difficulties processing and coming to the correct interpretation of negative messages left on his talk page, and instead of feeling constantly treatened by them, he choses to delete them. While this normally would make a user seem sketchy, he has left a large message on his talk page explaining why he does this and that he reads and processes each message before removing it, if negative. I believe that this new action addresses all concerns brought up ont eh RFC. He also has a user page now, which was brought up on his previous RFA. He has been a Wikipedia member for nearly two years (1 year and 10 months to be exact), and in that time has managed to make over 5000 highly useful copy edits, as well as deal with persistant vandalism on the Sailor Moon article, which is one of his passions. I cannot think of anyone more deserving of adminship. Thank you! Páll 09:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is accepted. However, since the RFC against me is still fairly recent, I am doubtful that this will succeed. But this time, I will let it run the full seven days and see what happens.  Denelson83  10:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support gkhan 10:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 16:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Weak support I am concerned about the recent RfC and do see some communication problems (possibly in civility,) so I change my vote slightly. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)Strong support On another second thought, while ths user may not be the best at interacting with others, I can tell that the user tries hard to do so, and I vote for admins based mostly on demonstrated good faith. I therefore change my degree of support. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:21, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Has a lot of edits, really helpful around Wikipedia, and is a really great person. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Appears to be a good, active contributor to Wikipedia, and has shown considerable commitment to the project and to the maintenance of articles. Valuable edits, evidence of a wide range of contributions, and evidence of some fair communication skills would show this person to be a valuable admin in the future. I notice that there are areas which this user could improve by his own admission, and I would hope that this user would do so after receiving administrative privileges. --NicholasTurnbull 03:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. The candidate's approach to issues which have been raised regarding his behavior has been quite positive. I am not refering to this RfA in specific, but rather, for example, to when an user explained why he thought it was unfair that Denelson voted oppose when a candidate didn't meet his time-based adminship criterion. The answer you would expect from an average editor? "It's my rating system, so screw you, have a nice day". Denelson's response, on the other hand, was to change his opposes to neutrality from that point on. Good judgement, will likely make a good admin. --Sn0wflake 05:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A very good point, I was impressed by how he listened to my very small, petty, off-topic annoyance (see the first, stricken oppose vote). If an admin can take critique, other issues don't seem to matter very much. gkhan 22:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. I'm voting in support because Denelson seems thoroughly dedicated to wikipedia. He has also addressed the problems raised in the RFC with the "wikimood" indicator. Also, even though he takes negative comments too harshly, he still heeds their meaning. njaard 06:03, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian (t) (c) 11:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support It takes enormous skill to compensate for aspergers. As long as Denelson83 is capable of functioning more or less normally socially, his other skills are likely to be utterly fantastic. Since adminship does require some social skill, I think Denelson might take a little longer than average to learn to use the additional buttons (due to the social side effects). Aside from that, a good pick by Pall here :-) Kim Bruning 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

This might sound like a petty excuse, but I wont support if you keep signing your name in red. Even though you have a user-page, no one will know about it! Signing your name in red is a very bad idea for an admin, methinks. Otherwise I do not have much objection gkhan 10:06, July 18, 2005 (UTC) Well ok then :P gkhan 10:17, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Concern addressed. I have moved the red colour to a border around my name, and put full links into my signature.  Denelson83  10:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I feel thet s/he won't be as civil as wee'd like to see in an admin. Howabout1 Talk to me! 15:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, as I'm concerned that, everything taken into account, there could still be serious interaction problems. You'll get far worse than you've had on your talk page so far if you become an active admin, I'd have thought, and just removing the comments isn't the way to go. If sensitivity to comments can be measured on a 21-point scale, that's too much sensitivity for me. The new policy box on the talk page was also added just after the posting of this RfA so is an ultra-recent change not yet tested in practise. I'm not too interested in the previous RfC since that's been addressed. -Splash 16:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking that someone wasn't processing comments and understanding them assumes bad faith. Denelson83 has a mental condition that makes intense criticism difficult to process and sometimes scary, but its never something he is not willing to stand up to. Páll 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing me of bad-faith is hardly going to help is it? You throw the bad-faith accusation around too easily (twice in one RfA!), particularly considering you are an admin yourself. There's nothing remotely bad-faith about thinking that an admin should not merely remove comments: response and dialogue is important. I'm quite sure does process the comments, but changing a picture rather than engaging in dialogue is not the way to go. -Splash 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I established my "wikimood" system so it could serve as the sole outlet for any bad feelings that might result as the result of a comment that I might take the wrong way. And its limited scale provides a method of controlling my expression of negative emotions. With that outlet in place, it will leave me free to respond to such comments in a more civil fashion.  Denelson83  03:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but I share the other concerns on the page: the volatility, the unwillingness to properly engage in talk etc. I think you need several months of a good track record of healthy, open interaction with many users. With that in place, I see no reason why a future RfA should struggle. (As a side note, I see the new policy box is now gone: consistency is an important feature, too.) -Splash 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was thinking about ignoring my gut, but this one's just too big of a feeling to pass up. I don't feel right about supporting, and there's simply too much evidence to go neutral, so I'm going to oppose. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    Evidence of what? Páll 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Quoted from the standard admin questions below: "On the RfC, I expressed that I have an attribute of volatility. But I hope that I can keep that in check if I am given admin status." While this certainly shows an uncommon amount of honesty, volatility is not an admirable quality to look for in an admin. Other points against include the user's bizarre talk page policy--keeping paths of dialogue open is highly important for an admin in particular, and that RfC isn't exactly ancient history. My advice: keep up the good work in article space, lose the volatility, encourage talk-page communication, and come back when the RfC is ancient history. At the moment, there's just too many negatives to seriously consider supporting this candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that Denelson83 just left a message on my talk page asking for advice on improvement. It seems that Denelson83 is very interested in making things right, which I see as a good sign. Things are headed in the right direction, at least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose; his votes on other RFAs are based solely on the length the candidate's account has been active, which to me indicates he has a tendency to generalize issues and overlook the nuance - that's not a good quality for an admin. Radiant_>|< 19:53, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    And you are basing your vote on his RFA solely on his votes for RFA. Isn't that a double standard? Páll 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because I'm talking specifically about his actions, and not generalizing them along with those of other people. Radiant_>|< 12:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    I will address your concern, Radiant. In hindsight, basing my RFA votes on only a couple of attributes seems to be quite narrow, I'll admit that now. When the next RfA is filed, I will evaluate it on a wider picture.  Denelson83  03:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose; General agreement with the case as stated by Starblind. --Durin 19:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Granted, I haven't seen all of this user's RfA votes, but the ones I have seen were based almost solely on longevity rather than on contributions, dedication to making WP better, or interaction with other users (except in the most obvious cases, like DrZoidberg's last week). Also, I'm a bit leery concerning the "Wikimood" promise, as there would be little accountability for him to make sure that he only used admin powers at appropriate times. --Idont Havaname 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been an admin for nearly a year now, and I haven't run into a situation where I've even needed to use my "admin powers" except to block some vandal IPs. I think it shows bad faith to judge your vote solely on the way someone choses to define what makes an acceptable admin. Páll 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - finding out what the candidate considers acceptable behavior for an admin is very much of interest when considering how the candidate would behave if adminified. Second, people that do not intend to use their "admin powers" at all do not need to be admins. And third, WP:FAITH. Radiant_>|< 12:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask the reasons for your oppose? [[User:PZFUN|Páll (Die pienk olifant)]] 07:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has never given any specific reason for mass-voting oppose, which he does periodically. Oh, my bad, he has given a reason once: "BECAUSE ADMINS ARE LIARS AND CHEATERS! THEY ARE EVIL AND EAT PUPPIES FOR DINNER!" or something along those lines. So don't expect answers from him. His vote amounts to nothing on this RfA, anyway. --Sn0wflake 07:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So, should we just consider this particular vote to be invalid and strike it out?  Denelson83  08:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not really. That should be left to the Bureaucrats. Don't worry, they know what they are doing. As in, this vote will not change the outcome of the RfA. --Sn0wflake 08:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side point, it's pretty well established that users do not have to give reasons for their votes in RfA. Not policy, but it's not necessary to demand that they do, even if they have a rather predictable voting style. -Splash 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While it isn't a strictly-enforced policy, the top of the RfA page does state "When you cast your vote, please consider providing an explanation, especially on oppose and neutral votes, so the candidate or other voters can understand and address it." At a bare minumum, I would say that if one intends to oppose virtually every admin candidate, one should at least give some hint as to why they are doing so. Otherwise, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the closing beaurocrat ignores such votes entirely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be at all surprised either. Interestingly, Boothy443 does give a reason in their edit summary! Personally, I much prefer reasons-with-votes, but there's really nothing to be gained by asking Boothy443 for them. (By way of a more useful example, Neutrality has opposed Stevey7788's RfA, given no reason, and not been asked for one (yet).) -Splash 15:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: relevant discussion can be found here and also here. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 18:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    Splash, as much as you show an incredible amount of WP:FAITH, please stop defending this person. He is clearly disrupting the normal procedures in order to make a WP:POINT, and should not be treated as somebody who is defending a point of view or productive activities as such. --Sn0wflake 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree it's a shining example of WP:POINT and I'd treat it as such if I were closing the vote. I don't mean to defend a user that has such determination to disrupt, although I realise that is rather how my comments sound. And yes, I've glanced through the talk page and things and can see the blatancy of the situation. I've said recently in another RfA that I generally dislike demanding reasons for votes of either kind; that was the only reason I pointed it out again here. (I hope that is not itself a WP:POINT, but I don't think so. I'll stop, just in case.) -Splash 19:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. The removal of negative comments from your talk page is still a concern, even with the stoppage of the behavior described in the RfC. Administrators can potentially run into a lot more abuse than other editors, and describing yourself as "volatile" only leads me to believe that there will be problems in the future. Also, administrators need to be transparent in their actions. Removing legitimate complaints from your talk page, even if they are phrased in a non-friendly manner, will only muddy the waters when trying to figure out if administrative powers have been misused or abused. One shouldn't have to retrieve deleted comments from talk history in order to piece together a conversation or a dispute. I also echo Radiant's concerns about your longevity-based criterion for administrators. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 13:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  10. As per above. Andre (talk) 22:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Dmn / Դմն 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose. This notice on his talk page suggests to me that he's not ready for admin powers. "I have considerable difficulty understanding the full substance of what other people say to me, and I may have very prematurely interpreted your comment as negative, demeaning, and/or frightening, and consequently removed your comment to help purge the bad feelings that it would cause me"??? If he can't 1) differentiate between neutral comments and neagative comments, and 2) deal with negative comments, then he doesn't need to be an admin. What happens when the block button is right there on the screen, and it would be so easy to stop the negative comments by just blocking everybody that posts to the page? Or maybe it would be easier to just protect the page so nobody can contact him! This is an RfAr waiting to happen; absolutely, positively no way this user should be an admin. -- Essjay · Talk 17:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC) .... later: It's been suggested that perhaps I was harsh in my comments; I would just like to clarify that I don't have any problem with mental illness, particularly considering that I have bipolar. The point is, if his disability is going to interfere with his ability to accurately judge a situation, then he doesn't need to be given the ability to abuse admin powers. His disability has no bearing on his adminship outide its relevance to his ability to effectively and properly use admin powers. I think his own comments demonstrate that he isn't s up to the job. -- Essjay · Talk 18:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. To take a fairly random example from 16 June (hardly over a month ago), his/her user talk page starts off by telling us "n.b. All past revisions of this page are considered to be deleted, and may not be reviewed. Any attempt to influence my behaviour on Wikipedia using those past revisions will not be tolerated. To review past messages, see the archive subpages." If this isn't tongue in cheek (and no evidence suggests to me that it is), then it strikes me as bizarre, and pompously expressed to boot. (Oh, and that precedes another warning.) When asked about this, Denelson83 simply deleted the question, which ended I'm just curious about how you claim that a record which is easily and freely available under the GFDL "may not be reviewed". Curiousity, that's all. Feel free not to respond if you don't want to. While Denelson83 was within his/her right in deleting the message (on 29 May), this unwillingness to answer a question is not the sort of thing I look for in an administrator, especially when the question is amicable and about an apparent misunderstanding of one aspect of the nature of this project. Denelson83 seems a good editor and in some ways an attractive candidate for administrator; but I'm not going to vote "support" until months (rather than mere weeks) after odd behavior such as attempting to dictate that past revisions of a page "may not be reviewed", compounded by refusal to explain this. -- Hoary 03:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC) PS a comment prompted by Woohookitty's vote immediately below: I don't think anyone here has commented on Denelson83's deletion of anything from any talk page other than his/her own. In itself, deleting stuff from one's own talk page is not a big no no. (Or I hope it isn't: on occasion, I've deleted particularly inane comments from my own talk page.) But it's something that should be done exceptionally, if at all: polite questions should in general be answered, and politely so. -- Hoary 06:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Note to people who want to become admins. Do not say ANYWHERE that you can be volitile. Denelson, you aren't a bad editor but deleting stuff from talk pages is a big no no. I'd stop doing it if I were you if you ever want to be an admin. --Woohookitty 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. No positive history with this user. Is also clearly desperate for adminship, which is a bad thing. Hedley 14:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral Voting neutral is absolutely pointless. I want to vote oppose based on his past behavior and how he cant handle attacks of any sort. However, as he voted neutral, rather than oppose, on me, he gets a neutral from me as well. On a lighter note, its good to see he stopped judging people based on 9 months more/less. Redwolf24 04:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Did he? Doesn't seem so. --Dmcdevit·t 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I very much appreciate many of the arguments offered for support, and it is with a heavy heart that my vote is down here and not up there with them. I like that Denelson is a good veteran, and I'm sure I'd enjoy working with him. However, while it seems he's moving away from many of the objections raised so far, I would have liked to see more time between RFAs so as to better judge this canditates true change and stability thereof. I will therefore likely support in 2+ months time if all goes smoothly, but cannot bring myself to do so now. --Dmcdevit·t 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Overall, I appreciate Denelson's work on Wikipedia, but I am loath to vote support this soon after a RFC. Like Dmcdevit, I feel that a couple of months could make the world of difference. Grutness...wha? 07:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would happen to agree with you and Dmcdevit on that point, Grutness, for sure.  Denelson83  07:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Though I definately think that Denelson is a good editor and a good contributor to wikipedia I agree with many of the points brought up in the oppose votes and would feel more comfortable voting for him after a few more months. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:56, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

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. A particular article on my watchlist, Sailor Moon, gets subjected to minor but significant bouts of vandalism. SM is one of my greatest passions, so I hope to keep that article and related articles on the up-and-up. Other than that, I can monitor WP:VIP for vandalism notices, and I can try to take care of the WP:VFD backlog. I can also patrol Recent Changes for any speedy deletion candidates, and instead of tagging them as such, I would be able to just remove them.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am pretty satisfied with the series I wrote on provincial highways in British Columbia, as well as the work I did on the articles regarding Canadian postal codes, including the tabulation I applied to the individual postal code lists. I also helped set up the Canadian wikiportal and notice board. I also revamped the vowel chart in the article on the International Phonetic Alphabet, making it look very similar to how the IPA presents it. However, most of the edits that I make are minor, usually with regard to spelling and grammar.
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. The only major conflict I have been involved in is described in the RfC that I link to above. I have fixed that by putting a special "wikimood" template at the top of my user talk page, and if I feel that any messages left on my talk page strike the wrong tone with me, I will adjust my wikimood accordingly. I will not exercise any admin powers if my wikimood is set at -3 or below. I have also put another message at the top of my talk page, indicating just why I treat some messages left on it the way most people would not expect. I hope other wikipedians do not take that notice the wrong way. On the RfC, I expressed that I have an attribute of volatility. But I hope that I can keep that in check if I am given admin status.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Category