Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dijxtra 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dijxtra[edit]

Final (66/4/0) ending 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra (talk · contribs) – This is the second time I nominate Dijxtra for adminship, as he rejected it in December 2005. Now he indicated that he would accept it. He is a true refreshment to the, erm, community of ex-Yu wikipedians since he arrived in June 25, 2005. I'd say he has pretty much filled the gap created by effective withdrawal of all-respected Joy. He has always been respectful for all users, and I have high opinion on his NPOV on sensitive matters. Duja 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong edit history. 4500+ contributions, 700+ in Project workspace (Contribs, Stats)
  • Varied experience. He was engaged, IMO very successfully and NPOVly, on several controversial topics (you betcha there's plenty) on ex-Yu issues (Josip Broz Tito, Mirko Norac, Ante Gotovina)
  • User interaction. [1], [2]
  • Trustability, High quality of articles I can speak only for myself, but I trust his edits and have a high opinion about them.
  • Observing policy. Dijxtra currently helps maintenance of WP:AID (having written AIDbot) and is one of initiators of Wikiproject Former Yugoslavia.
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This time I humbly accept the kind nomination --Dijxtra 18:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Duja 19:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Uber support solid contributor. Computerjoe's talk 19:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support with the minor comment to question 5, that this is a Wiki. Everyone is in a position to change things. JoshuaZ 20:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Well rounded editor. _-M o P-_ 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as above -- Mkamensek (talk) -The LeftOverChef 21:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Looks good. Nephron  T|C 22:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I am impressed with his work on the Article Improvement Drive. Joyous | Talk 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Merecat 02:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Joe I 04:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Answered the questions perfectly by my taste. T K E 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Yes, a good candidate. - Richardcavell 05:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per involvement in many projects. Royboycrashfan 05:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. "Adminship is no big deal". - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I've seen your work here at Wikipedia, and I use your bot to maintain the AID. You show great commitment to Wikipedia, and you have my vote. Covington 06:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I've seen him around. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per nom. Meets criteria, good user. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Terence Ong 08:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support well deserved--Looper5920 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, looks OK, although I can't know for certain that all the gibberish on the talk page isn't really discussion about how stupid the Finns are. =) JIP | Talk 10:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support! --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 10:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support (S). — FireFox • T [11:07, 5 April 2006]
  24. Support Looks good. --kingboyk 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nomination and solid record of interaction with the community. --Elkman - (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support--Jusjih 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Oppose for your orphaned picture (just playing ^_^) Strong Support. Excellent contributor. — Deckiller 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nomination. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per "Masssiveego"'s oppose. (oh, and all that good stuff up there:)) ---J.Smith 23:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Da! --VKokielov 00:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Very impressed with the thorough answers. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good answers, looks like a solid candidate. ProhibitOnions 08:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, excellent user. --Tone 12:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support StabiloBoss 15:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, good candidate. jacoplane 17:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per nom. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support per nom. Eivindt@c 22:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- The right stuff. John Reid 02:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Moe ε 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I see no reason not to Support. Jedi6-(need help?) 03:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support great canidate, well qualified.--preschooler.at.heart my talk - contribs 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support.  Grue  07:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support. His declination, declension, disinclination, turning down of nomination previously shows that there is also a maturity in "learning the trade before learning the tricks of the trade", which is usually a very good sign. Grutness...wha? 09:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - definitely! Proto||type 11:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Recall positive interactions with and observations of this user. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 18:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Suport. Great candidate.--Adam (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Suport. Fad (ix) 00:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Solid contributor and interacts well with other users. --Arnzy (Talk) 01:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --Jay(Reply) 02:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support can be trusted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per nom. Meets/surpasses my criteria. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support looks good. Leidiot 12:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Inteligent and NPOV comments on talk pages. Jakiša Tomić 17:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Rama's Arrow 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support. This is the user who will never abuse his powers.--Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Well, I can't deprive you of your chance! What do you say if I support?--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)Contributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Sarge Baldy 06:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Sceptre (Talk) 11:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support:--Ahonc (Talk) 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Candidate looks good enough to be an admin. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Will make a great admin. DarthVader 07:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. SupportßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 08:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support --Rob from NY 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Having discussed the issue I had with Dijxtra at length below, I am satisfied that it was only one of misunderstanding and that Dijxtra will take steps to eliminate the possibility of such misunderstanding in the future. Because Dijxtra is not only willing to admit a mistake but take steps to rectify it and keep the same confusion from happening to other people, I am hereby changing my opposition to Support. --Dragon's Blood 22:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 03:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose. Would like to see a little more non-article contributions. Also, you say you want to work with WP:AIV but have only made oneone edit to it as a user, and that was about vandalism on another project. — xaosflux Talk 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not my edit. But, you are right I had only one edit on WP:AIV: [3] (which, though, was concerning this project). But, I posted quite a number of warning "{{subst:testwhatever}}" templates on users talk pages. The fact that I didn't report them to AIV immediately has got to do with my acting in good faith and not biting the newbies, as most vandals I encountered were newbies not understanding what 3RR and NPOV are. And, by the time I posted my third warning, some admin would spot them and deal with them so I wouldn't have to report anything. --Dijxtra 07:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose one orphan picture, inactive. --Masssiveego 06:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That would probably be Image:Flag of Zagreb.gif. Regarding that pic, I'd like to state that the image used to be on Zagreb article (it wasn't me who uploaded it), but was then removed because it lacked copyright info. I then contacted the copyright owner, persuaded him to allow Wikipedia to use his images, got written permition from him, and then reuploaded the image with proper copyright info and returned it into the article. Why it is orphaned now: I don't know. But I surely did include it in the Zagreb article upon reuploading, which can be verified in article's history. --Dijxtra 07:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The flag picture was removed in this edit by User:Mate Balota on February 4. No reason was provided as to why the picture was removed. Regardless, I don't think User:Dijxtra should be penalized for an image that got orphaned because of someone else's edit. --Elkman - (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose In the response to JoshuaZ #6, the candidate is indicating that he would indefinitely block for something that is perfectly legitimate. Pagrashtak 03:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as the link you quoted states: legitimate sockpuppets need to have a notice stating they are sockpuppets. Therefore, I wouldn't need evidence and a CheckUser check to make sure those are sockpuppets... so I thought it was obvious I was talking about unlegitimate use of sockpuppets (just as the page you quoted in most cases states just "sockpuppet" when reffering to "malicious sockpuppet"). But, you are right, I didn't explicitly use word unlegitimate, so, my appologies... --Dijxtra 06:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOCK does not say that legitimate sockpuppets need to have a notice, it's only a suggestion. A major advantage of a legitimate sock is to avoid connections to the puppet master, possibly to avoid a wiki-stalker or vandal who is taking things personally; having a notice would destroy this. The template to which you refer below is to be used on socks who have committed policy violations only. Being a sock puppet is not a per se violation. The examples you give are socks of an editor who is himself indefinitely blocked. They were not blocked for sockpuppetry alone. Pagrashtak 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Doesn't understand Wikipedia policy; says that he will follow his own protocol. For example, he states above that a policy exists that doesn't, and that he will enforce that non-existent policy, not with a warning or a customary 24-hour block, but by effectively banning the user forever. My question to Dijxtra2 is, would you be consistent with your "rule?" If someone proved to your satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, would you indefinitely block that account? --Dragon's Blood 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) (Changed to support per my comments below and in the support section.)[reply]
    (n.b.: I'm not Dijxtra2 but Dijxtra, Dijxtra2 is a sockpuppet by Squidward vandal to impersonate me and number 2 in my RfA means this is second time I'm nominated for adminship) WP:SOCK says: "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes.", "In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently.". Wikipedia:Blocking_policy says: "... and Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Also, read this: [4] and note that template says the user is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Also note that this users were permanenty blocked for being socks: User:Gildyshow and User:Goorge (I'm sure those are not solitary instances). HTH --Dijxtra 16:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you answered my question, nor does it seem that you changed your position. If someone proved to your satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, would you indefinitely block that account? --Dragon's Blood 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. OK, I misunderstood your question. As I explained in anwser to Pagrashtak's oppose and, more recently, here: I took for granted that you and Pagrashtak are not asking for legitimate socks. I myself like to "live and let live". I bother to react only if a user is doing something which has negative consequences. And having a sockpuppet does not have negative consequences on the project. Therefore, to answer your question: if someone proved to my satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales, I would indefinitely block that account if the account was used for evading of 3RR, casting double votes or any other malicious action. If someone proved to my satisfaction that a user was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales and if the sockpuppet was not used for misusage of Wikipedia, I would advise the user which spent time bothering to provide me with evidence on user which did nothing wrong to go and do something more useful and stop wasting his time on nonsence. For more elaborate explanation of my views see here. I hope I answered your question adequatly now. --Dijxtra 18:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you define sockpuppetry as "using one account to support the position of another." This is the way the rest of world defines it as well, but it is not Wikipedia policy. According to Wikipedia, "a sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name." You might argue that an encyclopedia should not redefine words, but the fact is that it does (especially in its WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus policies and guidelines). Standard definitions are more useful and easier to enforce than the ones made up by the writers of these policies, but I'm sure you can appreciate the need for consistency in our organization. A good administrator either knows how Wikipedia definitions differ from the rest of the world, or (even better) takes steps to bring Wikipedia into consistent usage. For that reason, if you will pledge to help correct the definitions of sockpuppet and consensus in WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus so that they are consistent with common usage (and with the usage that you originally used), I could then consider you to be a major asset to our administration. --Dragon's Blood 19:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I got myself in quite unpleasant situation by supposing that "sockpuppet" means "unlegitimate sockpuppet" and I must concur with you that WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus do need some changes. But, I must stress that I concur with you not because I really want you to like me and remove your opposing vote (as I quite despise people who change their minds so people would like them more) but because I believe that this misunderstanding of ours would be averted if WP:SOCK was more precise. And therefore I can assure you that I'll help fixing WP:SOCK and WP:Consensus so that future unpleasant situations like this one are avoided. --Dijxtra 19:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose due to lack of understanding of blocking policy detailed above. Cynical 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Dijxtra's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • first nomination
  • User interaction starts at earliest, not latest, so his last edits really weren't on November 30th. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 18:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
3RR violations, Intervention against vandalism, deleting NC images, Copyright problems.
Vandalism and edit warring are pretty large problems in parts of Wikipedia I tend to edit (ex-Yu topics, mostly). Since history of Balkans was so turbulent, tensions that exist in our region project to Wikipedia and you never can help enough in removing vandalism and blocking persistent vandals. Being careful and not mistaking POV dispute for vandalism is of great importance here, and I think my record shows that I'm able to do that.
I like categorising images on Commons and moving free pictures from en to Commons. Thus I leave lost of images marked with {{NC}}. I'd like to delete those.
And, of course, copyright problems. Large parts of well written text often pop up when I surf the Wikipedia just for education (which I do often). The only problem I myself had with copyvio was an accident when I merged copyvio text (which I didn't contribute!) into another article. The copyvio part was removed and I myself rewrote the article. It happened a while ago and won't happen again, see here for details. If the comunity decides that I'm capable of being an admin, I'd be pleased to delete the copyvios on sight as I feel confedent in my judgement of what is a clear copyvio which should be speedied, and which copyvio is salvageable and should be marked with {{copyvio}} and just cleared of copyrighted material.
Since I'm highly engaged in WP:FY which has it's own stub sorting, categorising and disambiguating projects, I come across a lot of articles needing this kind of admin attention...
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
To be frank: no. There are no my articles or contributions to Wikipedia about which I'm particularly pleased. Because I just don't have enough time on my hands to make things the way I want them to look like. Some of my articles or contributions to Wikipedia to which I'm mildly pleased but which could be so much better:
  • WP:FY - It's a nice project but could be much better if some actual work was done on it :-)
  • references on Munich massacre - this was done before cite.php was introduced, but I'm quite proud of the effort I made to sort out more than 30 references this article has... but this article is a nice FA candidate and I just don't have enough time on my hands to advance it to the status :-(
  • User:AIDbot - ah, my python offspring... nice one, but of course - could be better, if they just let me do the rollover with it, it would make management of WP:AID a piece of cake...
  • Đorđe Balašević - very nice article, but badly underreferenced - will fix that, ah, you guess, when I get some time and then it'll be a fabulous FA...
  • Some articles moderate in size which would be excellent if I knew what I know now when I wrote those (I learned to WP:CITE quite recently which is really sad...): Goran Bregović, Mirko Norac, Mladen Vojičić, Zabranjeno pušenje - all of this badly lack references so I can't say I'm really pleased with them, but if something has to be displayed - I'd display those.
  • My small fetish articles: Sevdalinka, Alija Sirotanović - articles I feel mostly connected to and which I'll improve (add the references, ofcourse) as soon as my self-imposed wikibreak expires...
That's about it about things I'm (more or less) pleased in my work on Wikipedia.
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've had few disputes and solved all of them with (what I consider a) positive outcome:
  • Upon some disputable reverts I had a discussion with estavisti (here and bottom of this talk page) ending with his stating "If only all disputes were so easy to solve.".
  • Had a dispute with anonymous user (she was putting link to List of Bosnians to every page about Bosnian), which ended up with her apologizing for the mess she made and me giving her advices.
  • I think that article about Independent_State_of_Croatia has some serious problems but considering the delicate and controversial topic of the article, I first proposed the change on the talk page. Contrary to my expectations, my proposed change was met with opposition, so I dropped it, although I think my proposal is great an guys objecting the idea are overreacting. But, my side was outnumbered, and I didn't engage in edit warring since I belive in wikipedia guidelines.
  • Took part in editing of controversial and disputed article of Ante Gotovina in December last year. Conflicts with non-vandalizing users were resolved fast and easy, users I reverted were reverted by some admins too, no admins complained to my handling of this controversial topic... (see article talk page for lots of examples of my conflict handling)
  • Did some edit warring on Franjo Tudjman article before I learned of 3 reverts rule. Never happened again, even if version online was pure vandalism (always waited for 24h). The edit warring in question was legitimate, as it came up later, see next point:
  • User:Gildyshow / User:Vesa / User:Projects / User:Goorge conflict. I watched this users closely and gathered evidence (n.b.: not all of this evidence was gathered by me, I started the page and did some initial evidence collecting - it'd be rude and it'd be a lie to say I collected all that evidence) against this guy. Learned a lot about Wikipedia policy on sock puppetry and vandalism in general. It took me a week or so of knocking on different doors, but at last user was blocked (and after the admins finally registered him, he flipped or something like that and transformed to Squidward, but I didn't deal with him in that phase since I'm not an admin and I couldn't do much about it). This conflict is the reason why I've decided to take this nomination and why I take this nomination so seriously: I'd save lot of work to some people if I was an admin at that time as no admin seemed to react to our appeals to block this guy.
  • Discussed infobox on Nikola Tesla article, proposed some changes that would conform the article to Wikipedia customs, encountered strong resistance, edited article once, was reverted and then abandoned the case. This illustrates my ability to conform to decision of majority, even if I think the decision is just ridiculous. details
  • I had in interesting... thing which I think is not a conflict, but if I was voting for somebody, I'd like to know of this: AfD on Jeremy Rosenfeld which ended in keep, and then another one 2 days later which was delete and which I consider to be Jimbo's misusage of authority.
  • Another situation where I had conflicts with other editors, but in the end everything was done the way I wanted it to be done: [5], [6].
  • Some more reverting of what I consider to be vandalizm, judge for your self if I was right: [7], [8], [9]
  • Maybe few minor disputes, can't remember each and every right now: [10], [11]. I feel that I linked enough examples of my dealing with stressful situations, making the list even longer makes no sence... If you encounter any conflict in which you think I missbehaved, feel free to point that out, I'm sure we'll conclude that I did my best not to be a dick.
All in all, I think my record shows I'm able to keep my mind sober in conflicts and deal with vandalism in proper way.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 I'd first like to thank you for your thorough answers to the standard questions. Now, while you have been very involved in articles related to the former Yugoslavia, I don't see much on other topics. Could you briefly discuss what you have done about other topics and why you have the depth and wide variety of article editing to be an admin?
Well, you re right, I do not have much on other topics: that's because I'm a WikiGnome on topic not concerning former Yugoslavia. But, I did do some editing there. I don't say I edited outside ex-Yu topics substantially, just that I did do some editing, but mostly minor. Here are articles which signifficantly benefited from my editing: Islamic Dinar, Munich massacre, Roma people, Music recording sales certification. Here are some of really minor edits I did out of ex-Yu space: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].
Ofcourse, there's no point in naming every edit I made, but I think the few edits I named here prove the point: I rarely edit outside of ex-Yu, but I do.
2 From designing, implementing and maintaining your bot have you gained any experiences that would be useful as an admin?
Well, yes and no. I got familiar with policies concerning bots... but that's about it.
3 Have there been any times where you were insisting on a certain edit and realized later or during the dispute that your version in fact had a POV problem?
Hmmmmmmm... though one. I'm sure there must be some... will Šar mountain do? I reverted the silly double naming of the mountin (check out the history), but then realised that might be POVish and decided to drop the issue and leave the double naming of the mountain. Really can't remember any more... But, to be frank, I usually tend to conform to majority. If majority insists I have POV issues, I just drop the edit and move along.
4 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
I really hated the fact that you can't move a page to a name which already exists as a redirect, so you have to bug an admin to do that. But, as I have learned recently, the issue has been adressed and now you can move pages to their own redirects without being an admin. So, the answer to your question is. no. Why? 1) This system works fine. 2) If all users were to obtain certain admin power(s), I think that situations like the one when Jimbo had to intevene few weeks ago (some admin blocked another admin and then got blocked by another admin and so on) would be much more common because RfA procedures seem to filter out the guys which are trigger-happy. 3) By requesting admin nominees to have a certain number of edits you make sure that the nominee "gets the feeling" of how Wikipedia works. And, some admin powers just need to be restricted to users which understand how Wikipedia works.
5 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
Hmmmmmmmmm... dunno, I like the way Wikipedia is now. Don't feel like anything should be changed. Never really thought about that since I'm not in position to change anything.
6 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
Well, sockpuppetry is the obvious one... if I get firm evidence that a user is a sock and a user with CheckUser rights confirm the user is a sock, I'd block it idefinitely. Can't think of any other situation, though.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dijxtra_2&oldid=1082476891"