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

Dar-Ape[edit]

Final: (10/8/3); Ended 22:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dar-Ape (talk · contribs) – Well to make this simple, Dar-Ape has been with us for a very long time, since 2005 but has recently been editing heavily for about 7 months. He is an excellent vandal fighter who all ways warns the vandals afterwards. Also Dar-Ape has shown great knowledge and understanding of wikipedia policy. In my mind Dar-Ape as an admin will help wikipedia greatly. — SeadogTalk 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. Dar-Ape 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw. Dar-Ape 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
As an administrator, I would primarily focus on WP:AIV as I have a great deal of experience dealing with vandalism. In the same vein, I would also use the blocking tool to a lesser extent in the course of my own RC patrolling if a user continues to vandalize after they have been warned several times including a level four warning. However, as I mentioned on my editor review, I suspect that my adminship, somewhat like my work on Wikipedia, may be long tail, including helping out with "easy calls" at WP:RPP, WP:CSD, and WP:XFD, as I have experience in all of these areas. (I say this because my experience is not extremely extensive in the areas, but I have had experience on XFD and RC patrol, and there should really be no reason to wait for things like ((db-self)) tags and overdue unanimous XFD discussions. Additionally, I would enjoy having the tools to help out with my own personal fixes (example).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
I am proud of the creations I have listed on my user page, and those that I am most proud of would probably be Treasure Island (1934 film), Outrage! (game), and Portal: Classical music. I am proud of the first two here and many of my other creations because they detail subjects that seem poorly represented elsewhere on the internet.
Though it may be obvious by now, I am also proud of my work in fighting vandalism, including less-than-obvious fixes and reverts.
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?
I have been in conflicts, but none of them have caused me stress. I will list a few encounters here as I think they demonstrate how I tend to handle disagreements:
  • User talk:134.173.200.102 shows me dealing with a vandal who made personal attacks against me.
  • I was not personally offended, but this is how I responded to the only comment I have ever removed from my talk page.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophelia Benson: After I voted to delete along with several other editors, User:VivianDarkbloom posted a very long and bad faith message both on the AfD and the talk pages of me and other users who had voted to delete. This caused even more tension at the Afd, so I tried to calm things down, attempting to focus people in a positive direction regarding the AfD itself and regarding a mass post to the talk pages of all users involved. More diffs and testimonials can be found at the Administrator’s noticeboard. (Scroll down to “Hysteria regarding an Article for Deletion”.)
These are just some of the disagreements I have been part of; feel free to ask me more about any of these or about any I did not include. In the future, I will continue as I always have: with good faith and civility. One of the reasons I enjoy Wikipedia is because here, these are not just the right thing to do-- they are policy. I furthermore always remember that I am not fully evolved, and always attempt to remain open to correction.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Beat the nom Support-Great vandal-fighter and contributor. Him having mop powers will be very useful for the Wiki community. TeckWizTalkContribs@ 01:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nom-Support Oh well there is always next time. :) — SeadogTalk 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Despite low number of project and project talk namespace edits, this user has demonstrated a thorough and sufficient knowlege of Wikipedia admin know-how. Nishkid64 02:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Always friendly and reasonable as far as I know. Keep up the good work. delldot | talk 03:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Appears to be a good candidate Canadian-Bacon 05:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Good vandal-fighter. Insanephantom 05:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support I am very pleased with your vandal fighting, but I'd like to see you more involved in other tasks and fields in the project space. ← ANAS Talk? 11:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support Although I would have preferred more experience in some areas, I've seen this user's good work too many times and I guess I can support for that. Also, don't think that he'd misuse the tools.--Húsönd 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Husond's comments. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Doesn't have the largest number of edits, but has done what looks to be some excellent work. I'd trust him as an admin.Ganfon 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Insufficient projectspace participation implies lack of familiarity with process. - crz crztalk 03:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Crzrussian. Terence Ong 04:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Lack of participation in Wikipedia processes shows that the user will have trouble dealing with regular administrative tasks. Last major XfD participation occurred about 2 months 1 month ago. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean about two months: Keith Hillaire, [1], [2], [3], [4]. These are just a few; I can provide more if you'd like. Dar-Ape 12:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These are from today. Note that you can't fix long-term Wikipedia namespace participation issues with just a couple of !votes, as it might take a long time to get trusted by the community. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Crz. Feel free to reapply in five months, after gaining more experience in wiki-space. Xoloz 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree that you could use some more experience first. (Radiant) 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - experience concerns and a lack of quality articles. Vandal-slaying isn't everything, y'know. Moreschi 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose nice guy, plenty of vandal fighting, also answering questions on help page, however lacks consensus building and dispute resolution experience, specifically talk edits mostly involve removing tags. [5] After gaining more experience would support, because otherwise a very good editor. Addhoc 19:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Crz. Michael 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Anti-vandal work is nice, but we can't grant only the admin powers relating to vandal fighting. We have to grant all of them, and you have too few projectspace edits outside of AIV for me to feel comfortable with you having the rest. -Amarkov blahedits 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - no real reason to oppose, but [6] is kinda ironic considering that you have basically the same level of experience as a user that you opposed for lack of experience. BigDT 15:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment When I opposed, this user had about half of the edits that I do now. Dar-Ape 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - good and bad combine to create neutrality here. --teh tennisman 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category