Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darwinek

Darwinek
final (10/6/4) ending 00:32 28 February 2005 (UTC)

Over 3100 edits since September 2004. Lots of good work on articles, especially as regards biographies and American Civil War-related articles. Has done a lot of work on the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica project and other Wiki projects such as Collaboration of the Week. Has not yet been overly involved in many of the more admin-oriented areas of Wikipedia, but has shown maturity in the areas he has. Grutness|hello? 00:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am proud to accept the nomination. Darwinek 12:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) How could I nominate and not support?  Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 00:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Everyking 00:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) gadfium 01:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Comrade Nick  @ )---^--  01:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) R yan!  |  Talk  02:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) &lt;AOL!>Jordi·✆ 12:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) The borderline copyvio stuff is not good, but I'll chalk it up to newbieness, and since we're only now mentioning it, I think it's fair to see if he jumps to clean it up quickly. (Sort of like a ministerial candidate fixing up tax liabilities :-) ) Stan 16:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) The copyvio thing is not a big problem. See comments section. --Lst27 ( t a l k )  22:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I'm satisfied that Darwinek understands that posting copyvio stuff is a mistake and that he hasn't done that recently and won't do it again. Posting PD stuff is OK of course, although I would advise Darwinek to make liberal use of license tags and comments to make sure the origin of the material and its legal status is clear. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I believe that the copyvio issue has been addressed and that Darwinek will make a good admin. Carrp | Talk 19:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) This should be no big deal. --JuntungWu 10:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) I'm sure this editor is a very good user overall, but I simply can't support an administrator whose contributions include copyright violations and posting public domain material without including the original source. Copyright problems is bursting at the seams with listings, and we should have administrators who fight against this problem, not contribute to it. Gamaliel 00:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe later. Efforts to improve underdeveloped areas of Wikipedia are laudable, but "posting public domain material without including the original source" is plagiarism. Also, I generally like to see more community involvement (including housekeeping) of prospective janitors. Lupo 10:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Concerned about copyvios, especially in light of commments about failure to correct them by marking them as copyvios. Also, the blanking of talk pages without archiving is not something I condone. —Lowellian (talk) 01:26, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with the above. Keep up the good work, just not admin material yet. - Taxman 13:27, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) An admin must know the meaning of plagiarism.  "Since now I will be citing my sources."  Not good enough—go back and provide sources for text and images you've already uploaded.  Clean up your own mistakes.  Then come back here.  dbenbenn | talk 01:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Does not meet my new admin criterion, jguk 14:33, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Though I greatly respect Darwinek's huge contributions of content to areas of Wikipedia that are much more underdeveloped, I hold reservations about this user because of large numbers of copyvio articles that he has created with content from websites (most particularly the Athens 2004 site) being plagerised and simply reordered. See, for example James Beckford from. There are a number more copyvios, but still probably a minority of this users contributions (some are copied from PD etc) I have any objection to. I have been unable to look at many of the contributions - Estel (talk) 13:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) He looks like a good user but the copyvio issue concerns me, as does the brevity of the answers below. Also I'm not too sure that I like his citing an unmodified, save for wikification, PD upload, Christian Fleetwood, as one of his contributions he is particularly pleased with. I may well change my vote in a few months if he gets more involved with the community and makes more original contributions. Rje 15:55, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) I would support later but not now due to the copyvio issues. JuntungWu 12:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Concur with Rje and Juntung. Neutralitytalk 21:23, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments 17:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I confess. I added that articles on athletes when I was a newbie. It was long time ago. I realize that it's a copyvio, but is uncomfortable for me to mark it as copyvio myself. So, go ahead and mark them. And by the way I think that uploading PD text to Wikipedia is a meritorious act. Uploading PD images is alright, so uploading PD text too. My sources are Library of Congress, National Park Service and many others. I have wrote a few times to Library of Congress to assure that text like this is really in public domain and it's free to put it to Wikipedia. --Darwinek 17:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I never meant to say that there was anything wrong with uploading PD text. Though I am curious as to why you recently blanked a large part of your talk page rather than archive it. - Estel (talk) 19:33, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since now I will be citing my sources. I'll be posting public domain material including information on its source. Darwinek 12:50, 23 Feb, 2005 (UTC)

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. My aim is to help other admins to deal with vandalism. Dealing with vandalism is most important issue to secure Wikipedia's bright future.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Richard Sears and Christian Fleetwood definitely. Although more important for me is article on Richard Sears, I had more work with it.
 * 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 will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I had a few little conflicts at the start of my Wikipedia career, but it wasn't anything big. I think that every day on Wikipedia is for me a new experience.