Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dekimasu


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dekimasu
Final: (43/0/0); ended 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

- I am Dekimasu, and I've been a Wikipedia user since July of last year. My username is a Japanese verb expressing possibility, or, per the JDIC, "to be able (in a position) to do; to be up to the task". Here, I ask whether I should be in the position to use the admin toolset for my maintenance work on the English Wiki. For fans of numbers, I have over 11,000 edits to my name, including 7500 in the mainspace (a majority are minor, but all are manual), around 2000 in the various talk spaces, and over 1000 in the Wikipedia namespace. I've had over 1000 edits in each of the last seven months. Now that I've hopefully staved off the snowball, here's how I'd like to help Wikipedia as an administrator. Dekimasu よ! 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: I am probably the second- or third-most active editor at Requested moves, and I do a lot of closures there. I'd like to close requests that result in consensus for moves as well. Further, I'd like to maintain Malplaced disambiguation pages in the same slow-and-steady way I've been working at WP:DPLC for the last several months. (WP:MDP is currently "empty", but a newer list can be seen at User:RussBot/malplaced disambigs.) I'd also like to review expired prods; I currently tag and de-tag them, keep an eye on User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary and help maintain WikiProject Deletion sorting/Japan. Since these are all things in tune with my current editing patterns, I believe I can take them on without any strain or requiring a major learning curve. I live at UTC+9, so I can help with any specific issues that arise during what might be considered odd hours.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'm happy with my contributions to WikiProject Japan-related articles and my input on discussions involving them, including preliminary translation of overlooked Japanese-language articles (e.g. Genzō Murakami), adding foreign-language references when English ones aren't available, and presenting considered opinions in deletion discussions. I've put a lot of time into Bleach (manga), and although the credit should go mostly to User:Tjstrf, it recently passed a GA review. On the project side, I am proud of the consistency and magnitude of my participation at WP:DPL and maintenance done on its behalf, as well as my participation in discussions about the application and improvement of the WP:MOS-JP guideline. I thnik Iam a fare copy-editer two!


 * 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 have done some informal mediation, and I often offer a third-party opinion in polarized discussions. My mediation skills are far from stellar, but even awkward interposition sometimes defuses disputes (see attempts at Talk:Japanese people or Talk:Miriam Shear). I try to respond thoughtfully and at length to messages on my user talk, and these messages are generally well-received, although I prefer article talk pages to user talk pages. I'm willing to reconsider my opinions in most cases. I've been an involved party in two extended discussions (Talk:University of Wisconsin recently and Talk:Japanese diaspora quite a while back), but I abide by the one revert rule, and of course I would never use administrative tools when involved in a conflict. Reminding myself that there is no deadline is usually enough to prevent Wikistress.


 * A question from bainer (talk)
 * 4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
 * A: Every situation is different, so we should ignore the rules when it is of clear benefit to Wikipedia to do so. If the benefit is not clear or such action could be seen as self-serving, it is better to allow the processes to do their jobs; in other words, when in doubt, don't. I recognize and respect the editors at Wikipedia who can productively edit outside the box, and I don't raise hell when other editors invoke IAR. At the same time, a lot of my work is related to cleanup, maintenance, and standardization, so I do not expect to invoke the IAR any more prolifically as an admin than I do now. Here's a recent administrator action on a page move request, in violation of Naming conventions (common names), that I think was a good IAR close. It ended an ongoing and stalemated conflict, and the editors involved have gone on to other helpful tasks.


 * A question from Moreschi
 * 5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * A: Whether users are established or otherwise, blocking is a preventive, not a punitive measure, and actions should be performed by uninvolved administrators in accordance with Blocking policy. The ultimate goals of a block are both (1) to avoid damage to the encyclopedia and the public and (2) to bring the user back into the fold as a productive contributor. Thus, communication and early interposition are important. Certain types of damaging behavior remain common even among established editors, when emotions run deep about the subject matter: edit warring in violation of the letter or spirit of the 3RR, personal attacks, et cetera. Established users should recognize that these actions run contrary to Wikipedia's rules of engagement, and when a user engages in such behavior, a block may be in order. That said, I don't expect handing out blocks to be one of my more common administrator actions.


 * Another question from same
 * 6.In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject of the biography has requested deletion, what weight (if any) would you give this information? Moreschi Talk 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A: Very little, if any, while recognizing that it is a good thing to maintain friendly relations with people outside the project. We recognize in our guidelines that notability is generally permanent, so I would respectfully disagree with a subject requesting deletion as "no longer notable". Likewise, we place our trust in the project, which means we reject claims that the potential for vandalism negates the value of an article. I wouldn't have given special weight to the subject's request in this AfD, and I would have closed it as a keep. If this question is about Daniel Brandt, I think I'll go back to gnoming some dabs now.

7. Optional question by  Snowolf (talk) CON COI ' - '': Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)'''
 * A: No hints!


 * A question from falsedef
 * 8. A contentious edit is against overwhelming talk page consensus, yet is backed up by multiple reliable sources. Consensus view is intuitively seen as correct, but has no sources to verify its claims. Should a compromise be met with the edit?
 * A: This is a broad scenario, and the phrase "consensus view is intuitively seen as correct" can be read a few different ways. Disregarding that for the moment, it would be very useful to find out why the editors on the talk page think that the edit should be excluded. Information can be verifiable (or verified) and lack relevance to the topic at hand, and in that type of case I would side with the talk page editors. On the other hand, it could represent a simple case of attempted ownership, in which case I would suggest that the editor being reverted seek out the input of third parties. As posited, I don't think there's one correct answer to this question, and I don't think the answer speaks much to how I would use the admin tools. Not that I'm not happy to respond, though... (^^)
 * Well first off, I see, "I don't think the answer speaks much to how I would use the admin tools," as very problematic. Are you suggesting that general policy is not relevant to adminship? Indirectly the question was about claims, not technicality, as in "no sources to verify its claims." So with no technical liability on the edit (i.e. size, relevancy), would you still invoke WP:OWN? If so, can you explain how it would be a case of WP:OWN, and which of the two parties it should be levied against. falsedef 05:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The final comment was meant to be apologetic, but if you find this kind of discussion helpful, much the better. As a self-nom, I realize that this request is liable to come under a bit more scrutiny. To return to the subject, while I wouldn't attempt to levy policy against anyone, the burden would be on the talk page editors to explain why they feel the edit is inappropriate. As the talk page editors are the ones trying to prevent changes to the article, the WP:OWN reference was meant to apply to them.


 * You and I were involved in a case similar to this hypothetical one, and I linked its talk page above. In the naming dispute over the "Ethnic Japanese" page, you were quite adamant that it should be at "Nikkei people". It was a title that I had proposed myself, but that was rejected by a WP:RM discussion. When you added well-cited references to the article showing that "Nikkei" was a valid term, I defended your edits against editors who lacked sources and wanted to retain the previous wording. On the other hand, despite my disagreement with that title, I went to considerable lengths to search for a reliable source clearly defining the term "ethnic Japanese" in line with their unsourced "common knowledge". It helps to look at problems from both points of view and try to resolve disputes amicably, because we are all attempting to make a better encyclopedia.


 * Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite
 * 9 Please could you explain the difference between a block and a ban? In what circumstances would you block a user? In what circumstances would you ban a user?
 * A. A block is a technical and usually temporary procedure that prevents a user account (or IP address) from editing Wikipedia pages. I would apply blocks according to the blocking policy and use them as a measure to protect against activity that is detrimental to the encyclopedia, such as that which I mentioned in Q5. Blocks can also be used to enforce bans, but the two are different. Bans are symbolic revocations of a user's ability to edit the encyclopedia, as set forth in the banning policy. Bans are made by the arbitration committee or the community at large, not by individual administrators, so I would not and could not ban any user by myself. I am also aware that the common mechanism for discussing community-established bans has been called into question recently and I plan to monitor any future changes to that process.

General comments

 * See Dekimasu's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dekimasu before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support. この人はこういう義務をできますよ. 賛成！-- Hoary 07:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. I have worked extensively with Dekimasu on Bleach (manga) from the beginning of his time here, and have never had a single problem with his attitude, civility, willingness to help, or capabilities. From his very first edit (technically even before that, since he was helpful as an IP as well) I have been impressed with him, and my opinion of his work has only increased over the last year. I would be proud to see Dekimasu as an administrator, and fully vouch that he is indeed "up to the task". --tjstrf talk 08:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Sensible contributor who appears to always provide thoughtful comments. Lots of experience in the areas s/he intends to do admin work in. –Pomte 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) This may change based on answer to Q4. ~ G1ggy!  Reply 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you in mind that there lies a definitive answer for IAR? I mean no offense, as you have piqued my curiosity. the_undertow talk  09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support Although I've never worked with you or seen you around I can see easily from your contributions that you are a dedicated and extremely helpful user, your article maintenance work is also excellent, your an asset to Wikipedia! Best of luck to you! The Sunshine Man 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I thought he was already an administrator. (Really!) &mdash;Cryptic 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I think he's exhibited a cool head under fire and will make a good admin.  Jody B talk 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Excellent candidate. Let's get 'em the mop! Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - as per Jimbo Wales... Cometstyles 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Even if adminship were a big deal, you'd deserve it. Ab e g92 contribs 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Very helpful user, already doing admin-type stuff at WP:AN and other places, and knows Japanese...what's not to like? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - no problems here. Good answers, mediation experience and has a great reputation. - A l is o n  ☺ 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Looks like a good choice for admin. Jmlk17 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support-- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support He has the experience and his contributions to the Bleach article speak for themselves. Jezebel Parks 00:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Everything seems alright, nothing but good work.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support no concerns here. — An as  talk? 06:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support prolific contributions to Disambiguation page issues, friendly and helpful! --Xnuala (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per good answers, esp. to Moreschi's Q5. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. -- LeCour  T:C 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Hai, ii desu - Richard Cavell 01:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - a user I've often seen around, and left only a positive image in my head. ALTON .ıl  02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support: User seems to have plenty of experience and edit summary usage is excellent as well. Seems to also have a nice knowledge of the policies. Should make a fine administrator.   Or f e n     User Talk |  Contribs 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong support I found the answer to my question dodgy, but nothing condemning. Regardless of that, I know dekimasu as an editor to be careful and diplomatic in practice. falsedef 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Have seen this editor around, no apparent problems. Xiner (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - I had concerns that you had no experience in situations that may require a block, but you gave a good answer to Q.9, showing you fully understand the applicable policies.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Qualified -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  14:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - Dekimasu-kun wa sysop-dekiru to omoimasu! --Deryck C. 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support OMG where you have been until this moment? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) A review of your edit history produces no concerns and your answers to the questions demonstrate a firm grasp of policy. You have my strong support. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support — the candidate has been a great help at WP:RM, and granting him adminship can only benefit that page and the whole project. --Stemonitis 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. I met him at Talk:Japanese diaspora and he was WP:COOL and constructive. I believe he would be an asset for the project. Duja ► 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support A fine self-nomination which I am glad to support. Acalamari 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Zaxem 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support WTHN? James086 Talk &#124;  Email 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) support Good user. Captain panda  13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) support this person for administrator who provides very positive image yuckfoo 00:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support per tjstrf. PeaceNT 14:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support bu-bu-bu-buh, bu-bu-bu, yeah! --Infrangible 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support — Has an excellent reputation, and I like the answers re Blocking policy. --Paul Erik 19:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. I have been impressed with your work and dedication at DPL.  Based on what I have seen, I have no concerns that you would abuse the tools.-- Kubigula (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support — A no-nonsense person, always calm, and helpful to everyone; will be an excellent admin.--Endroit 01:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral
 * 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.
 * 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.