Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Digitalme


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

Digitalme
FINAL  (32/17/6) ending 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

– I joined Wikipedia back around a year ago, but I didn't really start editing until November. Since then, I've ammassed a quite a few edits (somewhere around 2000, last I checked,) and done a lot of anti-vandalism and RC patrol, as well as general cleanup and wikification. I have recently joined the mediation cabal, where I successfully mediated my first case, and I hope to help with many more. I feel that I would be a good admin because I have experience, knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and want to help make Wikipedia a better place. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Why thank you, I am honored to accept!-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 00:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support. Seen this candidate around, no problems for me.  Radio Kirk   talk to me  01:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. per radiokirk. :) Dlohcierekim 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Why not? Mostly Rainy 01:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, I don't see anything wrong here. --Ter e nce Ong 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support number of edits doesn't really impact anything if a candidate is well-versed in policy and is responsible. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD!  01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support The only issue I have is edits outside of vandalism, but I think he would be a useful addition to the admin list. Yanksox 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak support I have concern that the user is overly focused on vandalism and so we have little info about how the Digital will behave if some form of conflict comes up, but overall the impression I get is favorable and I think Digital will use the tools well. JoshuaZ 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Moderate support per JoshuaZ (although I should say that I do comment Digital for wanting to be an admin in order to carry out the work of the community in any area in which admin involvement is required; such a sentiment reflects, IMHO, an excellent understanding of the nature of adminship and a desire for the mop, etc., for the right reasons) and RadioKirk. Joe 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support (edit conflict) Keep on fighting vandalism (and please add Vincent van Gogh to your watch list). Tyrenius 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - is constantly using AIV and a direct link to the block would save a little time for everyone -- Tawker 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Yup. Definitely. G . H  e  04:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Meets my standards. Will make a good admin. DarthVad e r 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Looks good. We need more vandal fighters. --Shlomke 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak moral support. Not bad, though more edits at Wikipedia namespaces would be much better.--Jusjih 13:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Deserves to be an admin. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support ForestH2
 * 17) Support Would make a good admin - Nick C (Review Me!) 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Lapinmies 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support More vandal fighting power to ya! &mdash;  ßott e  siηi  (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per Tawker - Gl e n   TC (Stollery)  05:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) I'm going to Wholeheartedly Support Digitalme. He's been very active in vandal fighting (we chat while doing so, often) and he's very polite and determined to protect Wikipedia from vandalism. Admins work for free, there's no need to make sure you get your "money's worth" from them being able to do everything. If we have one more person willing and able to tone down the amount of damage to Wikipedia, isn't that worth it? ~Kylu ( u | t )  05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Good RC Patroller! Crazynas 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Good at fighting vandalism. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  20:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Great vandal fighter -- Scot t  20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Weak Support Great vandalism fighter, but not many constructive article edits --Bsmntbombdood 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Weak support. Needs to make more productive article contributions, but otherwise a great user.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  04:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Strong Support, been here long enough to get a promotion. --Froggy 14:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Strong support - good vandal fighter. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - Vandal Fighters can really use adminship well. Thus I believe it is fine to give this user adminship.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  07:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support- Stats show more than a vandal fighter,100% Admin Material.--Sartaj beary 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - maybe I should write my own version of the 1FA article - but, in my mind, the only meaningful question is do I trust him with the tools. And I do, thus, I support BigDT 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - Great contributor, I've had a lot of discussions with him through E@. DakPow  e  rs  ( Talk ) 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - GruntiIda 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IP voting, this RfA is over, just not closed.-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 04:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nop, discussion is only over when closed, it can be prolonged for some time if needed. So, voting can continue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, but as it stands, that edit came from an IP. So, it is still struck.--  digital_m  e ( t / c ) 04:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose for now, I seen digitalme editing and he's a good vandal fighter, but I feel he needs more experince with article writing, the answer for number 3 I didn't like nither. I'm willing to change my vote if this is a close one and I'm happy to support in a few months. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Digitalme's contributions to fighting vandalism are valued. However, I don't see the major contributions to Fencing, although Digitalme says it's the article he/she is most proud of. That indicates that perhaps there isn't much dedication to building an encyclopedia which is, after all, our primary purpose on Wikipedia. My primary objection: the contributions to the Wikipedia project space don't seem to be varied (see project space history); I'd like to see more AfD contributions (as of right now, there's only one). Administrators will be expected to make decisions on closing AfDs and therefore they should be more involved in the process. Lastly, although these two items didn't really contribute to my decision to oppose, I'm a) curious as to why April 2006 was your first month with more than 160 edits and b) puzzled as to why the date was formatted incorrectly in this RfA. I understand people make mistakes, but I just find that one especially strange. Anyway, like I said, those last two things were more of comments rather than oppose reasons. joturn e r 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the date was fixed so quickly that it wasn't a concern for me. :)  Radio Kirk   talk to me  01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, about the date. I guess I was so stunned by the fact that I had actually nominated myself that I made a little slip.--  digital_m  e ( t / c ) 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Certainly on the rights tracks but far too soon. Started editing in November, but only made 86 contributions from then until the end of February. Only started editing seriously in March (with 150 contributions that month) and heavy editing only began last month. Looks like a good vandal fighter and the regular use of warnings is a very encouraging sign, but needs a few more months of experience and more exposure to activities outside of vandal fighting. TigerShark 02:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose Seems to be a good admin material, but to soon. Maybe in a couple of months... abakharev 03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Single-issue vandal fighters do not necessarily good admins make, no matter how much time they spend on IRC. This is not to say that they make bad admins either, but there is more to adminning than pressing 'rollback' and 'block'. In the case of this candidate there is not a lot by way of participation in the community-side of things (where adminning happens, by and large), despite an apparently large number of WP: space edits; they are all to AIAV. Couple that with only about 1.5 months of regular involvement and the experience gains that come with it, and I think that a broader, longer involvement would be needed before handing out an admin bit here. Vandal fighting does not require admin powers, and I do increasingly get the impression that the preponderance of admins in the CVU IRC channel makes people think that it does. -Splash talk 12:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Editing articles (and the engagement in content debates which this almost inevitably involves) is an important experience for an admin. Cynical 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose A good user in terms of vandal-fighting, but currently lacks the all-round contributions that I like to see for support. In a few months time I would suggest that this user would have this sufficient level, with more MedCab cases under their belt, for example. --Wisd e n17 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose does not meet 1FA, lacking all-roundedness. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Splash and TigerShark. The candidate simply has insufficient experience at this time, especially for a self-nom.  Try again in four or five months. Xoloz 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. What Xoloz said. That fencing article would look great with some more references. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per above. Insufficient experience.  Ral315 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Not long enough as a consistent contributor. Needs a bit more experience before becoming an admin. Zaxem 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per Splash. Good vandal fighter but lacks all-roundedness. --Zoz (t) 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per concerns above about lack of all-roundedness. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Not enough experience and per Joturner. -- Cyde↔Weys  17:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 07:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Good vandal fighter, but the number of interactions with vandals or editors you disagree on content is so low that it is sheer imposible to tell how you wil deal with serious trolling and abusive vandals that you as admin for sure will have to deal with. Sorry. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Neutral. I like what i see, and there may be an argument for foisting the mop for vandalism fighting only. But he would also have the power to close AfDs, for example, and there appears to be a real lack of experience in that department. However, since the editor does not seem likely to abuse the mop in an area he is not experienced enough in, i wouldn't like to oppose. So its a neutral from me, with an intention to support should the editor come back with some wider project experience in the future.  Rockpock e  t  03:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) * May I ask, in what way there is a lack of experience in the AfD cleanup department? - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) ** I'm sorry, i didn't make myself very clear there. Let me rephrase. I meant that, in comparison to the high number of edits combating vandalism, project involvement such as AfD activity is somewhat underrepresented. As an admin with the authority to use his tools in these areas, i personally would like to see experience in a wider variety of project and community activities before offering my full support.  Rockpock e  t  18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) ***Just a little thing about the technical power to close AfD's. Sure, I have it too and yes, I'm not terribly involved in AfD, that exact same question was raised when I was up on the chopping block. I guess it really is a vote for or against specalist admins, and should be considered there. To use Curps's policy DigitalMe will move into closing AfD's if it ever becomes interesting. Alt-D isn't really critical to fighting vandalism :) -- Tawker 04:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) **** I agree. And this is why i have mixed feelings about this candidate. I'm sure he would make a good vandal fighting admin and would support his nomination for such a position, but have little to go on in judging his contributions to other areas. Since we must consider his suitability on more than a specialist skill, i feel unable to support at this time. However, i'd like to reiterate, i have no criticisms of what he has done, just what he hasn't (yet). A little more experience in demonstrating a firm understanding of wider policy and i'll happily support in future.  Rockpock e  t  21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Adminship should be no big deal, digital looks great.  I have a higher standard for self-noms, though, so this one's on the fence.  +sj + 03:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral User has reverted vandalism tirelessly, which I appreciate, but seems a little too focused on vandalism and doesn't interact enough with other users. I would suggest more talk edits and user talk edits other than vandalism warnings.  SCH ZMO  ✍ 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral per Schzmo. I would like to see more variety in activities. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 21:05, 30 May 2006
 * 9) Neutral right on Royboy... you seem to be on the ball Digitalme... keep'er up!!! - RoyBoy 800 04:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral, leaning towards support. Ukrained 22:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User's contributions. Voice -of- All Talk 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC) --Viewing contribution data for user Digitalme (over the 2552 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 355 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 11, May, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 99.79% Average edits per day: 463.32 (for last 500 edit(s)) Analysis of edits (out of all 2552 edits): Article edit summary use (last 355 edits) : Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100% Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (3) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 1.84% (47) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 3.72% (95) Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1638 | Average edits per page: 1.56 | Edits on top: 23.55% Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 1.18% (30 edit(s)) Minor edits (non-reverts): 62.58% (1597 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 35.19% (898 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 1.06% (27 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 37.5% (957) | Article talk: 2.04% (52) User: 12.23% (312) | User talk: 39.15% (999) Wikipedia: 7.37% (188) | Wikipedia talk: 0.51% (13) Image: 0.16% (4) Template: 0.86% (22) Category: 0.04% (1) Portal: 0.08% (2) Help: 0.04% (1) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.04% (1)
 * See Digitalme's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

Total edits	3051 Distinct pages edited	1994 Average edits/page	1.530 First edit	17:54, 11 May 2005 (main)	1152 Talk	54 User	360 User talk	1208 Image	4 Template	24 Template talk	1 Help	2 Category	1 Wikipedia	230 Wikipedia talk	13 Portal	2
 * Digitalme's edit count as seen with Interiot's internal edit counter on 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC):

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: If I was made an admin, I think that I would use the tools to help out with my counter vandalism work. I can't even remember how many times I've gone to WP:AIV to list a vandal, and there are already four or five vandals listed.  I would help out wherever help is needed, so if I was needed to do things like close AfDs, clean up a backlog at Speedy Deletions, or anything like that, I would be happy to do it.  Anything that makes Wikipedia a better place!


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'd say that I'm most proud of my contributions to the Fencing article, and its related pages, mainly because it is the article that I feel I have the most to add to. I am also proud of my work on reverting vandalism quickly.
 * Update: I would like to add that I recently wrote Walter E. Scott, so maybe this will allay some of the fears that I can't write articles. -- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 03:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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: I have probably been in a few edit conflicts, but none stick out as being particularly severe. If I do encounter one, (and I probably will, at some point) I will treat it as I try to treat everything else: with civility, understanding, and respect for all editors involved.

Question from Yanksox (optional)

4. In what ways aside from dealing with vandalism would you use your admin powers for? Yanksox 01:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that I already answered this as part of question 1 above, but I will restate it here. If I am made an admin, I plan on using my admin powers where they are neccesary, whether it's a backlog of AfDs to close, a pileup of speedy delete requests, or wherever I am needed.

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are optional.

1 How would you respond to concerns that you have almost no Wikipedia space edits other than to WP:AIV?

Looking through my contribs, I see that I have many Wikipedia space edits besides those to WP:AIV. Granted, I have a lot of edits to WP:AIV, but I think that that simply reflects how active I am at vandal fighting.

2 How would you respond to concern that you have almost no article space edits that are not either reverting vandalism or minor changes such as removal of ?

Again, I see that I have many edits that are reverting vandalism, but if you take a more careful look, there are many edits in there which are not reverting vandalism. Before I became heavily involved in vandal fighting, I made many edits to articles. I have always tried to work on improving articles, whether by wikifying them, or by cleaning them up.

Question from KimvdLinde As always, all additional questions are optional.

1 One of the things you can get involved in as an admin is conflict resolution. I see that you have only 47 talk page edits, of which 40% is vandalism reverts. The user talk page edits are almost exclusively vandalism and related warnings. Do you think you have enough experience with discussing with other editors about content and especially, in conflict situations?
 * A: I have had several of my reverts contested by other editors, and each time, I was able to talk it over with them in a civil manner, even if they were hostile. I have also discussed article content on several talk pages, so I think that I have experience discussing content with other editors.


 * 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.