Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Duja

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Duja

edit

Final (90/0/0) Ended 10:18 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Duja (talk · contribs) – He should have become an admin a long time ago. But he just refused to accept the nomination: first offer (in Serbian) and then a bit later the RfA he declined; offers over the email I cannot link here, but I know I asked him more than once. And now he finally accepted the nom, and all of us from former Yugoslavia community can start celebrating, because he is the most levelheaded and one of (let us all now bow to Joy) most respected editors this ebullient area has ever seen. I just can't remember him making any enemies which is a fact that keeps me in a continued state of awe knowing how easily you make enemies on Balkan related issues (saying he enforces strict NPOV would be an understatement here). Except from being a great contributor to former-Yu themes, he does all sorts of other things on Wikipedia, which is extremely rare (ex-Yu editors usually stick to ex-Yu themes). He also contributes content to linguistic themes and bridge. He has been with (some of) us for more than 2 years (see his first edit for an example of his good manners - the man introduced himself even before he started editing) and accumulated more than 5500 edits. His interaction with community is abundant both on his talk page and on wikipedia_talk pages. He started WP:WPCB and is one of founding members of WP:FY. He also takes part in the dirty tasks: he is a regular on WP:RQM, has voted on AfDs, TfD, CfD, has contributed to WP:CP and has reported vandals to WP:ANI. If I didn't mention something important, that's probably because I forgot it, not because he didn't work on it. Come on, let's give him a mop. --Dijxtra 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. Duja 10:16, 25 September 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, if any, would 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.
A: For the start, I'd like to help clearing up backlogs at Category:Requested moves and WP:AfD, and later perhaps more engage in handling things like WP:AN/I. I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside).
Like Dijxtra said (and my contribs hopefully confirm), I'm kind of a "polymath" (please substitute a less pretentious and more ironic English word, can't find one) or a "dabbler" — while I've touched many aspects of Wikipedia by contributing, talking or merely reading (WP:RM, WP:AfD, WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:CP WP:WSS/P, WP:RfC, article space of course, categorization, numerous templates like those etc.) I'm not really profound in any. For the bad or the good of it, my potential admin activities will probably also be "a bit of everything". Duja
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: In line with the above, I'm more a "patcher" type of editor (format/wikify/NPOVize/expand/categorize/reorganize/reference/you name it) than a comprehensive in-detail writer. Consequently, I don't have a FA behind me (although I do have a plan :-) ). If I'd have to single out some articles, I think I did a good job in Bidding box and Screen (bridge) mostly by myself, and significantly shaped up Differences in standard Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, Montenegrins, Gorani (Kosovo), Torlakian, Contract bridge glossary and Duplicate bridge. I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge (hmm, a bit slowed down lately).
As I see it, perhaps my best plus side is my ability to NPOVize things (cynics would say, use weasel words); I think I'm mostly able to distance myself away from the subject and present the conflicting POVs in a fair manner. Duja
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: Having dealt with numerous pages related with former Yugoslavia-related issues — you can bet it. Here, fringe and extreme POVs abound, and trying to tone the conflict down is often an impossible mission. I'd skip the examples here (I'd be happy to provide them at request). I think I managed to maintain a cool head and stay within WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the most part (not that I wasn't frustrated on occasion). I even walked away from some articles I still don't agree with (perhaps not a good thing for encyclopedia, but at least better for mental health).
To be honest, I don't think I handled e.g. this case well—I probably should have taken a deeper breath; it settled one way or another, anyway.
Even if I become an admin, I certainly don't intend to change my approach in conflict resolution—I am well aware of the policies which prevent taking admin privileges in content disputes and getting involved into a conflict of interest. There's always an option of posting at WP:RfC, WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3RR. Duja
Question from Andeh
4. Hi, could you point me to some of your AfD nominations? (They should still be on your watchlist) Or any AfDs discussions you have been a part of. Thanks.
A: Some AfD nominations (not so recent): [1], [2], [[3]], [4]
Some recent AfD discussions: [5] [6], [7] Duja
Question from Mcginnly
5. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
A: If under "established user" we understand a user with a long primarily constructive (i.e. WP:V out of consideration) contribution to the project, I'd say it would be breaches of WP:3RR, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In cases of disruption, I'd like to get more opinions on WP:AN first (although e.g. mass page moves should be stopped quickly). In any case (and even with non-established users), I would give user a warning first (and/or require an apology in cases of WP:NPA). I think "established users" in the above sense should be given some leeway but not a "blank trust" either. In case of 3RR, some leeway needs to be given in cases when the other side in the edit dispute is obviously inserting cruft, crank or other material clearly against e.g. WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (note that 3RR excludes "simple vandalism" but there are many borderline cases). Duja

Apologies Andeh - I'd changed the link but not the proxy. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Andeh
6. In answer one you stated "I think that fresh admins should engage and garner some experience in "housekeeping" jobs before reaching the "block" button routinely (obvious cases aside)", are you suggesting that users should become admins before gaining the required experience? Please explain/expand this. Thanks.--Andeh 12:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sorry, but I don't see how it can be plausibly interpreted like that. I referred to "fresh admins", i.e. newly promoted admins, not "fresh users". If one gets hired as e.g. journalist, should he immediately jump into editing the newspaper's equivalent of Watergate affair? I've just said that I'd refrain from using the heavy weaponry, (like e.g. blocking another admin as an extreme example), until I gather some experience. (I said it perhaps subconciously having in mind the entire post-Carnildo RfA affair that I'm fairly acknowledged with). Duja
{{subst:weaksupport}} it is.--Andeh 12:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from —Wknight94 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Will you spend any time in CAT:CSD? If so, what will you absolutely never ever forget to do when you pull up a speedy candidate? And I mean ever... (A short answer is acceptable)
A: Ugh, I spent a bit of time tagging Special:Newpages but frankly, I got tired soon. I probably will spend some time. I will absolutely never ever forget to copy the page to WP:BJAODN if I find it amusing... :-)
Now seriously, before deletion, I would check the page history to see if it wasn't vandalized rather than being outright CSD candidate. If not, I would check whether the CSD criteria apply, and if so, specify the reason for deletion in the summary (otherwise, AfD it if eligible). Finally, I would notice the article's creator. I'm not sure which of those steps you will consider "essential" but there's the answer...
Perfect! Too many admins don't check the history and they delete valid articles that were just changed into ridiculous attack pages (I've saved three articles so far). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

At the end of the voting period, I wish to express my thanks for all of you who supported me (and to those who didn't :-)), rather than spamming the numerous talk pages. I hope I will justify your trust. Duja 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Support as nominator --Dijxtra 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. We need more admins and I have a good impression of this candidate. I'm not particularly worried that he has 'only' 94% edit summary usage and less than 200 template edits :) Haukur 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Petition firmly accepted. Unquestioning approval. Duja is a good man and will make a fine admin. - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Will be nice to have such a clear-minded admin. --dcabrilo 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Michael 12:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support A fine candidate. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per nom. Very good answer to question 1 too. Good luck! --Alex | talk / review me | 12:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support, experience seems to fit with what they want to do as an admin. Even though they haven't done much vandal fighting, the users last reverts were in July and showed they know the basics, besides I don't see anything in the nom suggesting vandal fighting. User has been here a long time too.--Andeh 12:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Balkan, South Slavic and former Yugoslavia issues definitely need a devoted admin who knows the matter well. Todor→Bozhinov 12:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Seems like an excellent user. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 12:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Why not? The Land 12:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak support - Concerns met (per Oppose #1) - and per AndehPandy.UK thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, looks good, although I don't understand why you added these extra fair use rationales. The standard {{logo}} and {{bookcover}} seemed to me to explain the fair use adequately already. By the way I am an admin and have less than 20 image edits, and most of my template edits are trivial. Kusma (討論) 13:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Rama's arrow 13:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Mangojuicetalk 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support: Looks like a good and civil editor that has touched various places and followed protocol - plus a perfect answer to my question. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: How can one object to this nomination? Also, Novi Sad is indeed a lovely city! Finally, at last, I found someone I can trust to take my block-virginity! •NikoSilver• 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Levelheaded and civil editor. Regards, Asteriontalk 16:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - a true NPOV user. —Khoikhoi 17:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Undoubtful Gargantually Strong Support. There are little (or no) admins from where he comes - and he more than qualifies according to wikipedia's standards for one. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Apparently level-headed, long-term editor with many substantive edits. Espresso Addict 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Very good editor. Hello32020 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, looks like a great editor. Themindset 19:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Seems like a perfectly good admin candidate, based on answers to questions above. (aeropagitica) 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Appears to be an excellent editor. Canadian-Bacon t c e 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Less than 200 template edits support. Ringing endorsement from nominator and good answers. Grandmasterka 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good enough for me. Actively works on a wikiproject. Also, we need more serbian editors --Ageo020 (talk • contribs • count) 21:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Meets my standards, and has shown his longevity and dedication to Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 23:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support Critical thinking, moral integrity, emotional maturity & tactful reserve are characteristics of this user- at least this is what I see when I look at his wiki personality . I doubt such traits could be detrimental to the wiki admin position.Mir Harven 23:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support I am quite impressed by your editing and handling of conflicts. It becomes even more commendable if we bear in mind that you are deeply involved with such hot topics as the Balkan-related ones. I'm also glad to learn that you are willing to clear the backlog on WP:RQM. Many more pros. Definitely yes.--Húsönd 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per the nominee's answers, and the experience definitely a bonus. Excellent editor. --Coredesat talk! 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I know him for a long time, and until now I did not know that he live in the same city as I do. LOL :)))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per excellent answers to questions; seems to be a good editor and will do well with those power tools! All the best, — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 03:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Why did HolyRomanEmperor remove my last support vote? TruthCrusader 04:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support I cannot believe my eyes: an admin candidate from x-Yugoslavia and nobody objects. Duja, you should be a magician. Besides this, Duja satisfies all my criteria abakharev 09:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Conscious 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. MaxSem 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - thoughtful response to questions, good edit history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Haven't met him much before, but what I see now looks good, and anybody reaping so much praise after getting their hands dirty with Balkan-related topics simply has to be mature and reliable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. From what I can tell by his edit history, Duja seems to be a valuable and experienced editor, civil at the core despite taking part in topics that can easilly derail. He has also been involved in various administrative aspects of Wikipedia. As a slightly negative note, his experience in both editing and administration is lacking depth, but he told that himself and I wouldn't hold that against him, especially seeing as I seem to be doing the same thing. He has my support. Equendil Talk 16:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - per MatthewFenton and a willingness to edit contriversal articles --T-rex 16:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Suppport - per nom, a willingness to get into the mud (in a good way) and the fact that we need good admins -- Tawker 16:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support Thoughtful answers to questions and a great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I thought he was an admin already, and his answers are good. Also, is the mathbot report not working for anyone else? It gives me some weird login page. --tjstrf 17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per nom, good editor Anger22 17:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - absolutely no reason to expect abuse of buttons. Zocky | picture popups 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - we absolutely need more admins interested in Balkans-related issues, and when speaking of a trustworthy and solid editor like Duja, support IMO is the only reasonable vote.--Aldux 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support - This is the kind of hard working admins that we need here in Wikipedia.Doctor Evil 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. No reason not to. - Mike 22:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - a strong candidate gidonb 22:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support My kind of Admin, passes my criteria †he Bread 00:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Great candidate for admin on Wikipedia. User has my full support. --Nishkid64 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Excellent editor, has my full support. Wikipediarules2221 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Great editor, meets my criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Merovingian - Talk 02:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Good editor, will be a good admin. --MCB 04:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, great editor. --Terence Ong (T | C) 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Never intereacted w/ the user but i trust most of the votes above. Good luck. -- Szvest 11:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support He will make a great admin. Hectorian 12:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Excellent editor; should do well as an admin. PJM 13:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Courteous, conscientious user with a solid background and a clearly stated need for admin tools (in areas that need more admins). -- Merope Talk 14:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support. I support Duja over 150%. With all his edits on topics of the regions of former Yugoslavia. He is the right man for the job. I agree with the nominator. Though, here's a tip for Duja, be careful and don't create many Serb propagandas and write too Serbcentric. Crna Gora 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Per good answers to the questions above: Give-em-the-mopTM JungleCat talk/contrib 20:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Excellent, deserves to be an admin. Shyam (T/C) 21:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Looks good. --Ligulem 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, Duja scores 20.5 on my Admin Assessment scale, enough to warrant a Support -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per nom and all of above. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per nom, particularly impressed with the answers. Irongargoyle 01:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per nom and good answers. Garion96 (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Excellent answers to questions and Strong Support Jcam 15:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support as everyone else has covered. I've never run across the user, but the contribution history is great and so are the answers to questions. Duja is what adminship is for. Teke (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I've never actually interacted with Duja, but everything looks good. --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. STrong Support - strong editor, has the core mission of WP at heart. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support—Easy call. Do it. Williamborg (Bill) 03:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong Support as per nom. Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 05:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Just pile it on! -- RM 16:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Pileon Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Jumping on the pile Support Seriously, Duja is certainly a trustworthy user and will make good use of the extra buttons hoopydinkConas tá tú? 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support I think you'll do a great job. zephyr2k 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support because I believe he will make a wonderful administrator. Yamaguchi先生 06:11, 30 September 2006  
  85. Support ~ trialsanderrors 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support no problems here. Wikipediarules2221 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) - Duplicate !vote[reply]
    regarding that, it was completely unintentional and I was not acting with malicious intentions. Sorry! Wikipediarules2221 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Full Support. Meets my 2k and civility requirements. I also really like the answer to Question #7; besides being accurate, it shows the candidate has a sense of humor, even in situations where he is under pressure. I like that. We all need a sense of humor on Wikipedia. Too many don't. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. This one's obvious, and I thought he was one already. 1ne 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Seems sound.--Holdenhurst 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. There's nothing quite like a pile, especially when you're all the way on top. Seems like a pretty good user. alphaChimp(talk) 03:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Hm... 90th person to Support Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

*Oppose - User does not meet my criteria (Major edit summary is less then 94%, i require 95%. Less then 20 image space edits. Less then 200 template edits. Also this, this and this bother me, there are no fair use rationales on those images.) - User requires a little more experiance first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Duja&oldid=1146561696"