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

Dipankan001[edit]

Final (13/27/10); ended 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. —cyberpower ChatOnline 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdraw my nomination- Thanks to everybody who participated in my RFA. As I said, I'm not discouraged, I'm going to take the positive things from this RFA. The RFA had opened up a new dimension for me, a great learning experience. I will re-apply after 6+ months, when I have addressed the concerns raised with me. I will work in AFD carefully following strict consensus, stub-creation will go on, and general participation in discussions will also go on. As Achowat pointed out, I'll work more on collaboration with new users and others. Once again, thank you all, this has been truly a great learning experience. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Dipankan001 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I am Dipankan; editing under the username Dipankan001 for nearly 9 months. I participate in a wide variety of topics; and am much too familiar with the regular processes of Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia on 15th of August 2011 with the intention to share knowledge with others. And yes, this worked. I’m very happy and feel proud to be a Wikipedian. As a Wikipedia editor I have always tried to remain calm and cool in discussions which gets hot. My main focus after I become an admin will be still in a variety of places; doing the admin work then, alongside general day-to-day works. Previously I had made some mistakes; and I tried to correct them. I am also running a WikiProject, WikiProject IPL. I am always open to be contacted. My hard works had been well recognized by number of editors. If this RFA fails I will take the positive out of it and will work more on the issues pointed out here. Thanks, Dipankan (Have a chat?) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am interested in a variety of topics. As a admin; I would like to take part in requests for undeletion, requests for permissions, AIV, UAA, etc. These are the main places where I mostly hang around; and I have a lot of experience in these areas; so there are very less chances of going wrong.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: So far, vandalism reversion is what I think is my best contribution. I have been using STiki lately to fight vandalism, and have reverted tons of vandalism edits using manual rollback. As such; I became a instructor at CVU. Apart from that; I also write articles and short stubs. I have about 28-29 articles created now. I have 31% of my contributions to article namespace. Fixing references; expanding is also what I like.
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: As much as I remember; I have not been in any serious editing disputes till now. What I remember is; in the article Doritos; a IP had been making section blanks; and I was just not been able to revert it with the slow Twinkle. I got help from User:Vrenator, with whom I reported to AIV and got the IP blocked. I had faced Trolls, and IP's which made personal attacks against me. In future I will strictly bear the rule of WP:3RR, and if the user violates; I will ask him to stop. If the user does not understand; I will report it to administrators to look over the issue.
Additional question from Monty845
4. In January you reverted this edit as vandalism [1], if you were to come across that edit today, what would you do the same, and what would you do differently?
A: Some IP's says his "former" wife; some say "ex"wife and so on. What's curious is that they did not provide a reliable source. I'd still revert that; believing it to be a hoax. At least some references should be given when editing a questionable sentence.
Followup question from Monty845 What makes that edit rise to the level of vandalism as opposed to a non-vandal edit that can be reverted per WP:BLP?
As of January 2012; I had been using the old version of STiki, which did not contain any other options except Vandalism and Pass and Innocent. I don't know why; the comment panel below could not be modified; it was locked up. (As of April's version the problem has been solved). If the IP contacted me, I'd politely reply to him and say that it needs a reliable source to prove that the sentence is real and just not a hoax.
Additional question from RegentsPark
5. On reviewing your editing history, I came across this curious incident of a dog. Though the incident is recent, I'm not going to hold it against you but could you explain what you have learned from that incident?
A: I've quite learned a lot of things. You know; every day; we learn something or the other. I've learnt how to judge to close a AFD more wisely. Well sometimes mistakes do occur. I have my mistakes; and you also have some or the other mistakes, right? The most important thing I learnt from that is I should be more careful while closing discussions. Number of Votes never matter. What matters is the text of the article. If it is like a hoax and maximum votes say Speedy Keep, I'd still delete that.(After a long research to prove it's a hoax, definitely. )
Additional questions from Smsarmad
6. What are your best contributions in article space?
A: As of now; I am not creating any GA's or FA's. I create start class articles and stubs. From what I remember one of my finest articles created is Criminal (Ra.One song), with the help of User:Meryam90 and many others. I, recently, have been creating some lists of international centuries by international players, and created about 5 of them. They have more than 25 international centuries, enough to make a stand-alone list.
7. While closing deletion discussions (XfDs), what do you think is more important: opinion of the editors who commented at the discussion or your own research about the subject?
A: According to me both are important; and are linked to each other. Votes may be from genuine editors; as well as socks of the user who created the article. Socks of the user will vote Keep or Speedy Keep many times. The user closing the discussion; if does not check what the article is and closes with the reason keep, will be making a mistake. So; as I said; the vote should be based on a good reason why to delete or why to keep. After that; always comes a bit of research about the topic to see if it is notable.
7(a). When you are done researching on the subject of a deletion discussion and you find out that you strongly disagree with the majority of the Keep !voters (Suppose there are 4 Keep !votes and 1 Delete (nominator's) !vote and all are by genuine editors with strong arguements). How will you close the discussion?
A: I would like to see what are the reason behind those Keep votes. Ideally, I'm a person who loves to be strict. And I'd examine the nominator's delete reason carefully. If the Keep votes convinces me, that they are correct; I may close it as keep, as all search engines are not all the same. But if the !Keep votes are not strong enough, no reason given, and the nominator's delete vote convinces me, I'll delete that. A simple logic helps me to find my way out.
Additional question from Rcsprinter123
8. If you discovered you had been wrongly blocked, and could prove it, would you remove the block on yourself first or submit the proof properly on your user talk page? How would you respond to the block?
A: I'd never remove the block from myself; even if it was a block wrongly placed on me. First of all, I'd gather enough proof to prove that block has been wrongly placed on me. Then I'd check what is the reason for me. After that I'd place unblock template with a reason, containing the proof that I was wrongly blocked. I'm sure that way I would be unblocked.
Additional question from Mark Arsten
9. Under which circumstances should a current event that is receiving coverage from numerous media outlets have an article on Wikipedia? In the future, how will you evaluate current events to determine if they merit an article?
A: I'm pretty strict with events notability. As the inclusion criteria says, the event should be of national or international impact. It must have a number of news or reliable sources speaking clearly of it. It must have significant coverage and third party sources. While these are important, people must remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Additional question from User:OrenBochman
10. Would you consider coaching users with less experience than yourself?
A:

I don't know who left me this question; as I removed the <-- and --> I found this question. Sadly; it is going to show Additional questions from Dipankan001. Lets answer this: Yes, I'm always ready to help and guide other users, and I'm much familiar with this process, I have myself been a instructor at CVU; where I coach users about vandalism, and so anytime, any moment contact me, and I'm ready.

Additional question from Carrite
11. Have you ever used another screen name to edit at Wikipedia? If so, what name or names were these?
A: I have only this account; Dipankan001. I had never edited from any IP's before I joined Wikipedia. So edits by me are recorded in only this account though which I'm editing.
Additional questions from TheSpecialUser
12. In what case will you undelete? 3 choices; an article deleted via, a CSD, a AfD and a PROD? And why?
A: According to my experience, my mind says that I should not restore a CSD unless i) It was mistakenly deleted, ii) Clearly not eligible for CSD or other Deletion types. AFD- I'd ask the user to contact the admin who closed the deletion debate. That's what is simple help. And for PROD- if it was not objected; I'd ask the reason why the user wants to get it back. If no response, no undeletion, too.
13. What kind of rational will you consider as a valid one for unblocking someone (IP or editor)?
A: First I'll consider: Thorough checking of all edits to see if it is vandalism, or Personal attacks or any legal threats. If there is so, I'd like to see the style that the user talks upon after the block has been placed. If he is not civil, chances are that he'll take revenge and vandalize the project more. If he becomes civil, is willing to co-operate, and make good edits, I'll sort of unblock him, and watch on his contribs. That's a smart way to watch on users.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
Support per WP:NOTNOTNOW, pending further investigation. 28bytes (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After further investigation, I think the candidate would indeed benefit for some more experience, especially in light of the more recent (and more substantive) opposes, which have highlighted some reasonable concerns. If the candidate takes those concerns on board and addresses them, I expect a future RfA attempt will go more smoothly. 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support to cancel out some of the ridiculous opposes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Striking support, given my further research and per Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), Mabdul (talk · contribs), Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs), and Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs). Most of the ridiculous opposes have been stricken now, as the users thought better of their comments. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Support This is actually one of the better RFAs lately (the best if you consider the not a chance ones). One of the opposes said it's not a race to adminship. I'd like to remind all the opposers that it's not a race to oppose either. Those are some of the cheapest reasons I've seen. This editor has over 4500 edits; 3000 of them are manual edits. They have well over 6 months experience, experience in AIV and RFPP (both with backlogs lately) and they have no blocks. 100% support adminship and I implore the opposers to reconsider or strengthen their rationale. Who cares when an editor review happened? It's a voluntary process; nothing like an RFC/U. 40-50 article creations knocks me out of the running as well (maybe I should give up my bit). Then the 3rd oppose invokes the SNOWball clause? Obvious not the case here given the supporters.--v/r - TP 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. per Reaper Eternal. This new "race to oppose" makes me sick. I should return my mop I guess if I am to be judged by some of your standards.......Now for the reason we are here give the man a mop. Xe has created 28 articles all from under represented areas. I have been in an editorial dispute with xem and they acted very calm, cool and collect. So as fasily would say, why not?--Guerillero | My Talk 17:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support — change of heart. WP:NOTNOTNOW. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support per unrealistic standards. Adminship is "no big deal".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Weak support. Generally good contributions. Enough experience in admin-related areas. Ideally, I would like to see more content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support You have enough experience on Wikipedia to qualify to be an administrator. You have very good contributions and you have rollback rights, which is an Administrative-Related area. Good Luck! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In what way is rollback an administrative-related area? Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support We need to lower our standards. This user appears trustworthy and knowledgeable in the areas he wants to work in. He may be inexperienced in some areas but he can learn from his mistakes and other admins can help him. We need to restore our mentality that adminship is no big deal.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Stong Suppot This is my first participation in and RFa debate. Rather than go rehash many arguments raised below I would like to expand this discussion and reach a broader consensus by considering more pragmatic aspect rather than repeat the same argument which are makin the RFA look more like a vote than a dicussion - the worst kind of message this body can send to the community.
    1. Our community would prosper by having more hands on the mop.
    2. This is the era of editor decline, less editors than ever demonstrate willingness to learn to use the wiki and fewer young men and women show the will to join the ranks of Administrators. The main stumbling blocks are a massive body of policy that can be used to prove both side of most arguments. As such an editor with the experience demonstrated here should count for more than it did two or three years ago - when many of you first took up the mop
    3. There is a small number of active admins only about 300 - they must act fast and decisively and as such their decisions appear high-handed on the mop.
    4. There were times when RfA was full of good prospects. Now as often as not it is empty of new volunteers to take up the mop, and yet Wikipida's success is its own undoing - more vandals, more spammers and even the sign post is full of successful consultant directing armies of paid editors to subvert our open society to their commercial concerns and fill Wikipedia to the brim with infomercials masquerading as Good articles. The work of admins is forever increasing and the labour crunch demands more hands at the mop.
    5. Another advantage this editor has is that he is new - he can still sympathise and understand a newcomer better than some of the more senior admins who have become say indifferent to repeaded application of a trout. His record shows great energy - one that would certainly benefit Wikipedia if provided with responsibilities and with a mop
    6. He has taken a teaching position - indicative of outstanding good will as well as a mind conductive to coaching future users and admins when he will gain sufficient experience and provide yet more hands on the mop
    7. The nay sayers cite lack of experience - he is not Jimbo 2.0 but noone he is either and this in itself is not a a valid point. A good closer would not wipe these away with his mop.
    8. Getting access to the tools is like getting a driving license - it means a person has demonstrated a minimal level of competency and sufficient reponsiblity to be trusted to perform the rest of a life long learning process without endangering others. I think his record shows more than both require at the mop.
    9. To wrap up I'd like point out that the RFA process has become so predictable that Moira Bruke and Robert Kraurt claim in the papper titled "Mopping Up" that their model of RfA can be computed on the fly by accounting for just 8 parameters.
      • Strong edit history 2611 with a standard diviation of 3804
      • Months since first edit 9.8 with a standard diviation of 8
      • Policy edits 474 with a standard diviation of 755
      • Siding with Consensus at RFA 41% with SD of 99%
      • Edit history 80% of the time with Sd of 20%
    to name a few factors - I hope this discussion starts a trend that will cause these researcher to throw away their models. The RFA should start considering applicant on merit, potential and be less predictable by introducing greater diversity on the mop BO; talk 23:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support per Cyberpower. We really need to lower our standards as he is trustworthy enough. Always wants to do the right thing. 1st Oppose now is a SNOWBALL, which is not at all the case here. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Good Contributions and as per Cyberpower StrikeEagle ✈ 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support He has been one of my best wiki-friends. One of his best things are that he learn from his mistakes. He is enthusiastic and I can say that he will not use the admin tools indiscriminately. Although Adminship is not a big deal, it requires great deal of maturity and experience, and Dipankan has it. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've not seen any evidence that Dipankan001 learns from his mistakes. His nomination of Kolkata Knight Riders for GA was speedily failed on 20 April. He nominated 2011 Cricket World Cup for GA on 21 March but after the KKR nomination failed he did nothing to the World Cup article, indicating he took nothing from the review. It was short, but "It hass too many paragraphs without inline citations" is clear enough and referencing was a problem in the World Cup article. Nev1 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunate to see you point out only that.Do you have any other reasons to oppose? Regards StrikeEagle ✈ 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think a demonstrable failure to learn from the experience is enough, but as it happens if you take a look at my oppose rationale, I also have concerns about the editor's understanding of fair-use. The minimal engagement surrounding the KKR nomination (not discussing article issues on the talk page) and the copyright issues is also concerning as administrators are expected to communicate. Nev1 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with you......I don't find any other serious concerns apart from this two though I feel he should have had more edits Thanks StrikeEagle ✈ 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are more than two issues: problem with understanding fair-use (used a non-free image as decoration on several pages); failure to communicate effectively (not discussing fair-use image issues), failure to learn from experience (doing nothing to improve World Cup article after other GAN failed), and the foolhardy nomination of two articles clearly not ready for GA and which he hadn't even edited previously (demonstrating poor judgement). Nev1 (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Never-mind....I included those and counted only GA Nominations and Fair-Use policies... StrikeEagle ✈ 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Weak support per Axl. This user has fine contributions, however a little more content creation would be ideal. -- Luke (Talk) 11:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support. Per Reaper Eternal. It's okay not to be perfect, because “being perfect” is not real. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose; WP:NOTNOW. Also, I would expect around 7000 edits for a RFA candidate and more article creations. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your RFA guidelines say much less than that. Check out, check out :-) Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many articles are you looking for? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Around 40-50. I will update guidelines. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tomtomn00, your guidelines are too strict. Mst admins out there don't even meet your guidelines and look at the good work they do.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. The best content writers aren't even the ones you want as admins, because then the writing stops. IMO you want people with enough experience with articles to know what should and shouldn't be going on in the namespace, and then a history of good maintenance in one or more areas such as vandalism fighting, mediation, files, templates, abuse filters, etc. (the places where admin tools come in handy). Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a convenient fiction. What about page moves? Protection? Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - A good editor, though I have to oppose. I see that you participate a lot in talk page discussions, while there is nothing wrong in this, most of them are either of IPL drive or something else which is not enough constructive (34% is way too much of it). Only 1250 edits in article space which constitutes to 31 % is good, but only 32, 25 and 15 as the most edited articles respectively show a lack of content creation. This doesn't affect your work as an admin, but remember why we all are here in the end (to build and improve the encyclopedia). I'd have loved to support if little more content creation along with more experience would have been shown. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 15:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC) We really have to lower the standards a littleReply[reply]
I'd like you perhaps to consider your own advice and not disqualify someone on a a factor which you admit will not actualy affect his work of an admin.BO; talk 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Snowball Oppose WP:NotNow.--Deathlaser :  Chat  15:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please see this also: Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOW. They also show good reverts, accurate closer of AfDs and good file moves. Also has 4400+ edits and also participate in various discussions. So isn't a NOTNOW too harsh. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Still not enough.It'd be much better if we speedy closed this one.--Deathlaser :  Chat  16:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Still not enough." - of what? edits? NAC? GAs? FAs? DYKs? Months of activity? mabdul 12:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose Looks to have strong work against vandals, but not enough other activity to justify tools at this time. Sorry.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can you please make it clear? I work in many areas, not just reverting vandalism. File moving is also what I do. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From what I saw, the majority of work was in anti-vandalism. Don't get me wrong...that's a very good activity. But I am one who does prefer to see some article creation activity. That happens to be my personal preference, though. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunate oppose This editor is a good editor but I would like to see more backstage work too.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Cyberpower. What's Backstage work? Wiki-Gnoming?
  3. Simply not enough time between Editor Review and RfA, it's not a race. Nick (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just for a short note; My editor review was opened on early December 2011. Isn't that a bit old? It has simply not yet been archived. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Some of the opposes were ridiculous when it was first posted, but Dipankan conduct in this RFA is literally certifying these concerns, maybe later. Secret account 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If I were Dipankan001, I'd be frustrated too at these opposes. If you want to slam him for conduct, at least you've got a better reason than the other six above. But he hasn't been uncivil or rude and I think he's taking the BS above quite nicely. If it were me, I'd outright tell the above that I'll see them at their own RFAs and be just as inane and ridiculous in my opposes as well. I think you should wait to see how he responds to real opposes before actually opposing over his behavior.--v/r - TP 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    These silly comments will count against me unless one strikes them through, though I won't strike it, I agree with what TParis said. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose WP:NOTNOTNOW certainly applies here, so we wouldn't want to close this discussion before it gets heated. The link I provided, which was a terrible non-admin closure is recent enough that I don't believe the user is ready. He may have learned from the experience, but after a mistake like that, I don't believe that the editor has the knowledge of policy necessary. If this was even two months afterwards, I could see a possibility, but there is no way that he became ready for the mop in the past 17 days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just to clarify, I am not opposing per WP:NOTNOTNOW, I am saying the editor understands what adminship is so there should not be a WP:NOTNOW closure. Everything following that is my oppose rationale. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To say that was only a simple mistake which provided me a great learning experience. I was very careful about closing discussions after that. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose. A keen, cheerful, polite, and enthusiastic editor but a clear case of WP:NOTNOTNOW and needs some way to go before meeting my criteria. Recent blunders such as this also demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the scope of admin work.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That was just declining a request. What was the wrong in it? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's an admin-only area, you don't get to make those kind of decisions even if you can do NAC on AfD. It demonstrates to me an over-eagerness to get the tools, and an attempt to be clever. We can't have users masquerading as admins - however unitentionally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose The candidate has performed non-admin closures of roughly a dozen AfD's, and voted in about 25 more. I interpret the non-admin closures as a sign that the candidate might potentially be interested in closing AfD's should the RfA succeed, even though that was not part of the answer to Q1. I'm opposing because the candidate has far too little experience at AfD to be closing them as an admin (perhaps even as a non-admin). He seems to be a bit low on experience overall, and could benefit from participating in these areas more. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually I'm not interested in deletion work. Unblocking; blocking; RFPP and all those areas. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose. Although you registered in August last year you've really only been active since October, seven months ago. And you only have 32 edits to the article you've contributed most to, The Telegraph in Schools, which is still in a frankly dreadful state. It is against all natural justice to promote someone with no real experience of content creation to be judge and jury of those who do. Every editor fights vandals every day, but they don't expect a medal for it, which is what this application seems to be to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is creating stubs a bad thing? If I edit many articles randomly, is it considered negative? I may not have been focused on one article; I'm focused on many articles. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, creating poors stubs isn't a good thing. And I see no evidence that you've focused on many articles at all. Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So you say stub creation is not encouraged right? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Try reading what I said again. Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've long ago understood your what you wanted to know. I'm telling I also edit articles not by me. The most latest example is to Uno (card game) where I fixed some refs. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't understand what "I've long ago understood your what you wanted to know" means, but if you knew anything at all about RfA you'd know that you're doing yourself no favours by responding to every oppose vote. Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose Created userbox stating "This user destroys vandals with an AK-47 rifle". Vandalism is unfortunate, but the idea of murdering vandals is not something that should even be joked about. Keepscases (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While the whole military/vandal fighting analogy thing may not be a good idea, I think most users who use those boxes mean only they will apply wikipedia policies to fight against, and defeat vandals. I don't think its joking about actually killing anyone. Monty845 20:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Very Weak Oppose While I'd really like to support your RfA, recent issues (such as the Obama deletion) just don't sit well with me. I do, however, wish you the best of luck. Cheers, C(u)w(t)C(c) 21:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose. After checking your contributions, I am left with the feeling that you have been trying to tick all the right boxes to be granted the mop, which has sometimes led you to get involved, through overeagerness, in situations where your intervention was actually quite inappropriate (the AfD closure referenced in question #6 springs to mind). This, coupled with your very limited content creation experience forces me to oppose your candidacy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I never know what very little content creation means? I have so far created 28 articles, which I consider sufficient. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At the very best, by your own admission, you've created 28 stubs. And judging from the few I've looked at they're pretty poor stubs at that. Why not prove me wrong by improving one of your stubs to become a proper article? Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose - I would like to see more experience with AfD and a few other areas. Overall I think you'll make a fine admin some day, but I think this is a WP:NOTNOW case. Just gain a little more experience and try again in 6 months. Best regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose. Original concerns are merged with some discomfort about candidate's answer to question #5. Seems very surface-level, obvious, not really demonstrating to me a true learning experience that changed the methods and mindset of the editor. With that in mind, which is I think a substantive basis, I will oppose. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Reluctant oppose. The candidate will most likely prove a good admin in a few months. Keepscases, ConinueWithCaution and Kudpung raise valid concerns which I can't overlook. Keep up the good work and don't be discouraged by the RfA - rather, think of it as a learning experience. Majoreditor (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose based on Malleus' content contribution comment, Ryan Vesey's AfD close comment (which was only a few weeks ago), and while I don't have firm standards of time and edits for supporting an RfA, if I did they would be more than 9 months and 4,300 edits.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Weak oppose. A fine and enthusiastic editor but still has a long way to go. Recent edits such as 1 and 2 are a clear case of blunder. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose (moved from neutral), per badgering of opposes. Also agree with Malleus re. article space contributions. Overall, not ready for the mop, although not quite at the "not now" state. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Keep protecting Doritos, improve some articles to C/B status, and come back in 6 months.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose doesn't understand non-free images as demonstrated here (it was disappointing there was no reply) and doesn't understand article requirements as shown by two premature GA nominations Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup/GA1 Talk:Kolkata Knight Riders/GA1. One of the speedily failed GA nominations might be excusable, but the second suggests that Dipankan001 didn't learn. Nev1 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose I'm sure the candidate's heart is in the right place but their judgement and WP:PAG knowledge is not quite up to having access to the admin bits. Additionally, the fact they managed to add double signatures into the nom statement reflects poorly on their technical ability or represents carelessness. The closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs was sufficiently recent and shows sufficiently poor judgement to be an oppose rationale in its own right. I might be prepared to overlook that if there was nothing else, but their editing experience and inappropriate A class assessment, combined with earlier concerns I had about the candidate—when they requested rollback four times in one month and had file moved rights removed—conspire to create an impression of someone who generally lacks the judgement and experience required of an admin and is perhaps too eager to acquire hats. The badgering of oppose !votes on this page did not bode well either. These concerns notwithstanding, I would probably support the candidate 6-12 months down the line. Pol430 talk to me 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Regretful oppose because I just can't overlook the inappropriate (and recent) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs NAC, the poorly-judged GA nominations, slight lack of content work and the badgering of oppose voters in this RfA. That said, this editor's history shows that he may well be up to the job, I just think he needs a little more experience around the project before he is handed the mop. I hope I can support a second RfA from this candidate in the future. --sparkl!sm hey! 14:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Strong Oppose: I wanted support, he/she qualifies all stuff, but after investigating a bit and Pol gave me the hint (and User_talk:Dipankan001/Archive_6#Collecting_flags):
    Rollback #1 (18 October 2011)
    Autopatrolled #1 (23 October 2011)
    Rollback #2 (23 October 2011)
    Rollback #3 (24 October 2011)
    Rollback #4 (31 October 2011)
    Rollback #5 (4 November 2011)
    Rollback #6 (12 November 2011)
    Rollback #7 (17 November 2011 successful)
    File mover #1 (2 December 2011 successful)
    Autopatrolled #2 (17 December 2011)
    19 December 2011 Beeblebrox (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Dipankan001 from file mover and rollbacker to rollbacker (user does not appear to be competent to use this right)
    File mover #12 (20 January 2012)
    File mover #23 (8 February 2012)
    File mover #34 (5 April 2012)
    and finnally getting the right back after using ADMINSHOPPING and mailing
    7 May 2012 The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Dipankan001 from rollbacker to rollbacker and file mover (Per request; seems like he's ready to use it)
    But that's not all: it's even getting worse, if we check global!
    Adminrights at bnwp with his/her first edit! (google translate link) (17 December 2011)
    Commons:Commons:Requests_for_rights/Denied/Patroller/2012 (15 January 2012)
    Autopatrolled at commons (30 January 2012)
    File mover rights at commons (12 February 2012)
    testwiki stuff (7 March 2012)
    Global rollback at meta (26 March 2012)
    Rollback at simple (6 April 2012)
    This is really hat collecting! mabdul 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I left that long ago. There's actually no need to them, they were only tools for editing which I thought would help me. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a bit modification- These links are 1-2-3-4 months old. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And considering you've only been active 9 months, that's extremely recent. And worrying. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would you (Dipankan) explain me, why you emailed The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) to get the file mover right back instead of asking at the right forum (RFP) or asking Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)? mabdul 20:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose was on the fence before seeing mabdul's list. Now I'm here. Sorry, but asking for a bunch of rights and asking for rights over and over again throws up all kinds of red flags. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose It's not going to happen this time per WP:NOTNOW. Keep arguing the toss on sensible oppose comments and it might not happen per NOTEVER. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose: Misuse of rollback, lack of experience at AfD, low edit count, lack of content work, and is just plain too green. — GabeMc (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I didn't even get past your answer (specifically your answer, not the question or diff) to Q5. Best of luck in the future. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Oppose. There are quite a few rude and ridiculous opposes here. But after reading Pol430's and mabdul's oppose rationales, I am very sorry to say that I must also oppose. This non-administrator closure of an AFD was entirely inappropriate - and shows a clear misunderstanding of the essay on non-admin closures and the policy on consensus. The hat collecting noted by mabdul is also extremely worrying, and can make others doubt your maturity and judgement. The badgering of the opposes is also not what I'd like to see from an admin. Again, I'm really sorry to oppose, and I wish you the best in the future. After you've taken the criticism here seriously and go on for 6-12 months with no serious mistakes, I won't hesitate to support. →Bmusician 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - like I said on your Editor Review, there are a lot of pluses here. The big downside (and the only reason I'm not supporting) is that there seems to be no real collaboration on either User Talk pages or in the Talk: namespace. Administrators need to be able to communicate and work well with others. I'm not saying that you can't, just that there's no record of you doing so. The lack of "hard" Content work (only 6 Articles that you've touched more than 10 times), as well, is a minus, but not a damning one. Achowat (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well I have indeed helped a lot of users in the past; and continue to do so. There are many admins here on this project with less content work, focusing on just other namespaces. I'm on wide topics. Main namespace; Template namespace; File namespace; what not? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Main namespace; Template namespace; File namespace; what not?" huch? That shows something different: No template work, not work in filespace actually, and moreover actualy not really mainspace work except vandalism fighting... Checking the 10 most edited User talk pages - I assume that the rest of your userspace edit were made mostly automatically (vandal fighting) and the defacto most really active area is the WP space. "Well I have indeed helped a lot of users in the past; and continue to do so." - would you show us some (not recent) examples? mabdul 13:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral, leaning oppose, for now. Don't think candidate is ready, but need more time for further investigation before I commit. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I appreciate your confidence. You are always in a hurry, I would suggest you to discuss about this with couple of senior editors/admins who you are familiar with before you take such steps. All the best :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am never in a hurry Ansumang. I had been planning for my RFA from a few days before. Whatever; your comment matters for me, though. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral-Just really nothing to sway me one way or the other on this one. Has some decent article work, and some good article work. However, the copyright notices on your talk page make me lean towards oppose though.SKATER Is Back 17:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NOTNOTNOW certainly applies, so some of the opposers should feel ashamed of themselves for being needlessly dismissive. I'd be supporting, probably, if not for the "Wikipedia experience Survey" mess, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and not just because you used me as an example without asking. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral I never planned a thing for my RfA - it just seem to happen... Planning for a few days? Does sound a little like a snap decision. One problem with RfA is that a lot of good potential editors/admins are lost by ambitiously coming to it too soon, and then taking umbrage at the comments. I've not had a chance to look through the contribs etc yet (I'm away and with an erratic connection), but in case this finishes quickly, I'd say to the candidate "Don't be down-hearted. Most seem to be saying TOO SOON. Keep on editing - get more experience - study the policies - etc etc." I'll look further if things keep going, but if it doesn't, talk with people and don't retire in despair. They're not saying you're incompetent and not fit to be here. They're saying keep going and learn a bit more. Peridon (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Neutral I'm keeping my vote neutral as the candidate did not answer some questions yet. -- Luke (Talk) 01:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Then why not wait until he has and vote then? Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've answered the questions. Dude, I'm not a bot. I live in India and at that time I went to sleep; it was late night there whereas you'd be having a nice afternoon probably. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why are you telling me that, or have you just got the indentation wrong? Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Neutral First of all, WP:NOTNOTNOW applies here. And then the discussions around.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Neutral: -- Tinu Cherian - 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Neutral With little contribution to article space (and in general also) and this much experience I am not completely sure about the understanding of the policies and judgement skills of the editor required for the tools. Some other editors have also shown concern about the few contributions in article space, so I must make clear that why this issue concerns me is that when you don't make much contributions to article space you cannot completely understand some important policies and guidelines. Another issue is CSD tagging which I find to be only about 80% correct (This may be erroneous so please don't quote/consider it for commenting about the user) which again makes me think about the lack of understanding about CSD. While I don't support Dipankan001, I also don't want to discourage him/her by opposing. I wish you good luck. --SMS Talk 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would you explain your count/calculation? Based on his/her CSD log I'm getting a 97% (excluding November with only one wrongly tagged article)! (104 tagged listed, 1 selfrevert. 3 wrongly tagged as following:) All pages were either recreated or valid at time of tagging. Here the only three real mistakes:[2] [3] [4] (although the second can be assumed as correct). mabdul 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually after seeing this I used the history of CSD log to calculate this rough estimate. But there may be some errors in my calculation so I am adding a note so others don't use this for opposing. And my aim of commenting here was to identify the areas where I think the editor can improve. --SMS Talk 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Neutral I'm going to put this here in the neutral unless there's a major number change, but I hope I can constructively express my concern/suggestion. It's regarding the previously mentioned 'dog afd'. Good judgement can be shown in a couple ways. One of these is knowing when to step back and say, I'm going to let someone a little more experienced take this one. When you jump in to things that complex as an non-admin, it makes some people (or at least me) worry, if you were given the bit, would you right away rush into areas that not only need admins, but ones with a bit of seasoning. I'd just recomend thinking carefully about not being too eager and jumping in over your head.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Neutral - I can see supporting you in the future, say 3 to 6 months. The only reason I can't support yet is I think you need a little more experience with policy issues. This is based on the answers above, which tell me you haven't worked with them enough to get all the nuances in them. I would also say that working with disputes would be helpful as they can happen anywhere on Wikipedia and to me, that is an area that an editor must show he can deal with before getting the mop. As for article creation, you have created 2 more than I did before getting the admin bit, so that isn't an issue to me. To me, you look like a good and worthwhile contributor who is almost, but not quite ready for the mop. I think you are pointed in the right direction and I sincerely hope you stick around and try again. Don't let any of the pokes and jabs at RfA get you down, the place is famous for it, unfortunately. Just take the advice you find useful and move forward with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Neutral- a good editor but the list of rights collection as shown by mabdul and copyright notices, deter me from supporting. I guess these issues and concerns will be addressed with some more experience in editing here -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[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