Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dsmdgold

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

Dsmdgold

final (34/8/5) ending 16:20 2006-01-16 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names), and started the ongoing conversation at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. I will readily admit to often failing to provide adequate edit summaries, but I'm trying to get better, and so far a I can remember, I have never edited in such a manner that changes another editor's work without explaining. Dsmdgold 16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept my own nomination. Dsmdgold 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 17:37
  2. This guy sounds real good. Including his other account, he's been around longer than I have, and seems to have a good grasp on policy. He's admitted some of his own mistakes, and has substantiated his self-nomination for me. --King of All the Franks 19:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, yep, this user sounds good. — JIP | Talk 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Prolific contributor all around, could use the tools well. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Here for nearly 2 years with 7000+ edits? Sounds good to Me! -- Eddie 12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I have interacted with him and found him reasonable and it's not very often I see an RfA for an editor I somewhat know and think is good. Please use edit summaries more... but, the amount of good he does I can't oppose on just that. gren グレン ? 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Use more edit summaries, but good number of edits. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Some quite superb additions, and additions and creation of lists. I like
    List of Kansas birds, and the Medieval Subpage is good an' all! --Irishpunktom\talk 17:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support Fellow medievalist :) I remember being involved in a couple of debates with him in the past - one where we were on opposite sides (spelling of Old Norse names) and one where we were on the same side (his top-quality image galleries). He's made a good impression on me and does so in this nomination as well. I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin tools. I trust him to increase his use of edit summaries (they really make the 'pedia much easier to use :) and I especially encourage him to be thorough in documenting administrator actions. - Haukur 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - more than qualified --
    Francs2000 18:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Support nothing wrong with being supportive--Nn-user 19:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good editor, no reason not to. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --
    Talk 12:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Duk 16:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support no problems, but edit summaries...gotta keep those up.--MONGO 20:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, but please use edit summaries. feydey 09:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, a fine user, and my usual extra points for the selfnom. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  22. Support, - Liberatore(T) 21:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Definitely; good user, will be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support sounds good to me, is involved in projects which is a plus. Gryffindor 14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, no apparent propensity to abuse the privs. BD2412 T 22:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support looks like a good admin, although do please use edit summeries more
  27. Support. Adam Bishop 17:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. USE edit summaries though. This can be learned easily, so I am not opposing over this.
    T|@|ESP 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Support. Good editor. -- DS1953 talk 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I see good edits from this editor and good participation in project space. NoSeptember talk 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Good answers to questions, good track record. As for edit summaries, if one asks nicely, perhaps the code fairy will bring you some javascript magic (from whereever HE got it) to make it almost impossible to forget to add them... whoever wrote this deserves hearty thanks. But I digress. Anyway, support! ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good answers to questions, seen him around. enochlau (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Definitely. Have you seen the variety Dsmdgold has to offer? He's jumped at every article I've ever created--Young XenoNeon (converse) 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Low usage of edit summaries is a major problem for me. Also see this edit [1]. Dsmdgold didn't leave a message on the talk page for that IP which concerns me. It was also done here and here. Dsmdgold explains his reasoning in question 5 down below, but I feel that it should be handled differently. I think potential administrators should be much more engaging in talking to users who blank pages instead of ignoring them completely. It is much harder to keep track if a user has been vandalizing pages if it isn't put on the user's talk page. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Too few
    edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Oppose per Dsmdgold's PS2pcGAMER's reasoning. Looks like he makes really good contributions to the Wikipedia though, so I wish him the best, however this process turns out. Johntex\talk 01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very sorry - I cited the person up for consideration (Dsmdgold) instead of the person I am agreeing with (PS2pcGAMER). Johntex\talk 01:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: nothing personal, this person is a good editor, but I do vote oppose when edit summaries are this low. Jonathunder 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per PS2pcGAMER. OwenX 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The combined weight of the concerns of both PS2pc and Oleg (edit warnings and low edit summaries) tip the balance in favor of my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct. No harm in editor waiting a few more months, as he is dedicated to the project; this will give time to see these concerns addressed. Xoloz 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Better safe than sorry"??? What would you have to be sorry about, were this person to become an admin? Anything can be undone (besides image deletion, which doesn't matter if sources are cited). I tend to fall on the side of "giving the nominee the benefit of the doubt". Adminship is no big deal, after all. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-14 23:59
      • Obviously, you haven't bothered to check my userpage, and you haven't noticed many of my votes around here, because that's a rationale I employ often. While most admin actions are reviewable, an obtuse, unfriendly, or thoughtless admin can cause much grief. Since adminship is difficult to revoke, I tend to be cautious in voting to confer it. It should be "no big deal" to be an admin, but a few rogue IAR users have made it become de facto a bigger deal than it should be. This is no reflection on the current candidate, except insofar as I support a bit more experience before I would feel comfortable seeing the editor as admin. As is usually the case when the common English phrase is used, I'm unsure whether I'd have anything to regret if candidate became an admin today, but (as I see the balance of probabilities) a little more time is a plus in this case. If you, Brain, would care for additional examples of the sorts of admin behavior that make me cautious, I welcome dialogue at my talk page; such discussion would have only indirect relevance here. Xoloz 05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - edit summary usage must be higher. Come back in a couple of months. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I dislike self-candidacies, and I don't know this user. --Angelo 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I don't know you. So what have we proven? :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-10 02:32
      • Well, not knowing a user is decent grounds for some concern. gren グレン ? 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting to know him is better gren グレン ? 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Only concern is low use of edit summaries, strive to improve and I'll reconsider --pgk(talk) 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per PS2pcGAMER/lack of warnings argument
    T | @ | C 04:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Neutral, sorry, but I would prefer more edit summary usage, however I don't feel this is reason to oppose. Ian13ID:540053 16:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 20% for major edits and 35% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Dsmdgold's edit count with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Since I do some RC patrolling, I would find the rollback function useful. While doing new page patrolling I have marked a fair number of pages as candidates for speedy deletion. I would like to be able to do it myself. After the Seigenthaler debacle I suggested a function similar to Special:Unwatchedpages, and I would like access to it. Since I already follow AfD, I would probably close nominations there. Dsmdgold 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am most pleased with
FL. (However, on that nomination see question 3) Dsmdgold 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
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 toiled in obscure corners such as
List of North American birds, when I supported the nomination in a too confrontational manner. I have since tried to tone down my replies to those I disagree with. Dsmdgold 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. The above three are well designed to allow those not familiar with a nominee's work to judge the nominee's temperament and intentions. Dsmdgold 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. When would you use {{
bv
}}?
A. I haven't, in the past, much used any templates on user pages. Most of the vandalism I've dealt with has been from one-off anon users, I don't quite see the point in using templates in that case. The few times I've dealt with recurring vandals, other editors had already used templates, so I staed out of their way. That said, I think that {{
test4
}}
6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of
WP:3RR
.)
A. Again this is a circumstance I haven't had much experience with, having never gotten into anything that approached an edit war. However the spirit of the law is as important as the letter, and I would discuss the inadvisability trying to skirt the rules with the offender on his or her talk page. I'm not sure what I would do if it continued. Dsmdgold 18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under
AFD
instead?
A. I read CSD A7 to mean that any assertion of notability in the article should be taken to AfD. An assertion of notability, in my mind, is an indication that outside world has noticed this person or group. In practical terms, that means the article should assert that the person has won some award, gotten press coverage, published something, released an albumn, held public office or something of the like. If an article asserts anything of that sort I'd send it to AfD. Dsmdgold 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. How would you tell the difference between a
sockpuppet
and a new user?
A. As I understand it you can only be certain by using Checkuser. As for suspicions, very low edit count editors that show unusual sophistication, editors that regiser only after the issue being discussed is raised, and stylitic simularities to known trouble makers would all raise warning flags. In most situations, such as AfD, it doesn't really matter much, since it is standard practice to ignore very new users and sockpuppets alike. In those situations, since the difference doesn't mater much, there is not much to be gained by screaming SOCK, and running the risk of running off new people. Dsmdgold 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. How would you use
WP:NPOV
when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. Because of my interests, I haven't edited (other than reverting obvious vandalism) any really controversial articles. The closest I have come to it is was a brief disagreement over the place of origin of the Book of Kells and the Book of Durrow. (Which historically has been a touchy subject since Irish, English and Scottish nationalism all get mixed up into the argument). Another editor and I disagreed on the date of the founding of the [[Abbey of Kells]. I cited my sources, and he went away. (The discusion is at Talk:Book of Kells) In the real world I have some rather strong views on political and social issues, and decided long ago that I should stay away from those topics on Wikipedia. If , I ever somehow got dragged into a NPOV dispute over an article, the only thing I would be able to think to do be to do much the same thing I did in the Kells dispute. Cite my sources. Dsmdgold 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dsmdgold&oldid=1089278261"