Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DMacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] DMacks

Final (39/0/0); Originally cheduled to end 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DMacks (talk · contribs) - DMacks has been editing since January 2006 and is a chemist and a member of WikiProject Chemistry. As is normal for an academic, he has enjoyed a long relationship with study-enhancing stimulants, and has made major contributions to the featured article caffeine and the good article coffee. Since he is a frequent contributor to the reference desk, DMacks is used to dealing courteously with people who need help but don't understand our policies and guidelines. In addition, he is a regular commentator in AfD debates, reviews FA candidates, reports vandals and submits requests for page protection. A mature and capable editor with a strong track record and wide experience, I think he will make an excellent administrator. Tim Vickers 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am flattered, and accept this nomination. DMacks 19:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to continue cleaning up from various types of vandalism and newbie-test/nonsense. I scan New Pages and have watch-listed many pages that are common targets for schoolkids, and would appreciate being able to deal with things myself instead of having to make requests of other admins for obvious cases. I often make admin requests (speedy-tagging of nonsense/bio/test pages, requesting blocks for users involved in vandalism sprees, or requesting semi-protection of pages that become targets) at times that most admins seem to be inactive, so I think I would be a useful addition to the admin group. I would work on the various other backlogged or sometimes-delayed-but-important admin tasks—share the load, discuss to try to get consensus or third-opinion for disputes, etc. My requests are usually granted, something I attribute to a generally cautious approach (warnings before going for a block, doing PROD or AfD or asking on a talk page if I'm uncertain, etc.).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am particularly proud of two types of contributions that I make: factual and stylistic work on scientific articles, and attempts to find solutions to content disputes. Because we write for a wide range of audiences, pages need to be detailed and scholarly but also accessible and clearly explained. While working on various science-related pages, I take the time to get sources and cite them well. I also add (or work on existing) explanations to make sure that even lay audiences can understand the topic on some level, maybe if only to appreciate some of the general ideas or logic involved in explaining it. I oppose "dumbing down" advanced topics to be instantly and fully understandable by everyone, but I do want to include something that non-experts can grasp or at least a bit of context/Wikilinks for them to learn about it.
I think my other important contributions are in the area of content dispute/resolution, where I try to work towards an acceptible solution and maybe find new solutions rather than just disagreeing and (re)stating my existing position. Sometimes a newbie-contribution could seem out of place and easy enough to revert and forget about it, but I have sometimes been able to massage the idea into something (I like to think, and others also say) well-written; newbie feels included, might stick around and contribute again (but also see how to do it better), article is improved, Wikipedia wins. In more outright disputes, I try to find "good solutions" to the heart of the problem rather than just a midpoint of the existing sides. Sometimes I can resolve "do we include or exclude this specific statement, ext-link, whatever?" by taking a step back and finding out a different way to work the idea into the article (maybe somewhere else…a disconnected "trivia" item could become integrated content). Or sometimes I can find a "compromise" that involves a much larger edit, such as scrapping all ext-links in favor of a DMOZ link, or replacing a laundry list with specific relevant examples that are themselves notable. I think the discussion also helps editors work on clearly written explanations, leading to coherent and organized articles that don't look like a stack of sentences contributed blindly by various editors.
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: I have gotten into some editing conflicts (who hasn't?). I try to explain what I'm doing in each edit summary and also add Talk-page notes if there's any further clarification needed, or if am reverting someone else's work for a non-obvious reason. If an edit-war is a-brewin', I might try to work with the contribution to see if at least its theme can be added (if I mainly think it's just badly written)…response from the original editor can help indicate how likely said editor is to trying to improve Wikipedia article vs sledge-hammering his writing. I try to find new ideas to support my position and to respond to other editors' concerns rather than just repeating my position or revert-warring. I might try to find a Project or a related page that might have some good third-opinion (or at least third set of eyes) to resolve the issue. Rarely have I found myself at a complete standstill…Wikipedia is a group project, so even my most deeply held ideas about how something "should be" are subject to others' thoughts too. At some point, there's a time to walk away for a day (or for a "long time") from a deadlock on a certain issue to let other editors chime in and to cool off. Especially for anon-IP repeated POV-pushing or other newbie disputes, after a few days, the excitement of "I'm editting, look at me!" wears off and everyone comes back calmer, and we can get back to cleaning up.
Question from K. Scott Bailey
4. Under what circumstances might you block an established editor without first issuing a warning? K. Scott Bailey 22:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I could envision a block-without-warning if an established editor went rogue (example: compromised account, whatever one calls the Wikipedia behavior equivalent of a drunken rage). It would have to be a case where there is likely to be a large amount of continuing damage in the few minutes it would take to warn and then wait for changed behavior. By this, I mean ongoing (presently active), rapid (a pace comparable to ability to undo the edits), and widespread (many pages, or especially spreading to more and more pages) blatant vandalism, personal attack, etc. DMacks 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Malinaccier (talk · contribs)
5. Upon becoming an administrator, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related duties compared to just editing the encyclopedia? Thanks!
A: Maybe around a third or so? Hard to say exactly, and certainly depends on how backlogged the admin queue is at various times. I already do a lot of grunt-work tasks (speedy-tagging, vandalism patrol), so I'd continue with that on an admin level. I would certainly continue working on normal content editing—my primary goal is to have a good encyclopedia, which requires a combination of content and maintenance.
Optional question from Malinaccier (talk · contribs)
6. [removed—dupe of #5]
Optional questions from Jossi (talk · contribs)
7. You have been editing for a while, but I have not seen you much around policy pages. In a scale from 1 to 6, how would you rate your understanding of the core content policies, and which policies you consider to be core?
A: I give myself a 5ish (high numbers mean "more understanding" right?). Many policies are inter-related or follow from one another. I consider the No Original Research-related ones as core to specific material content (by extension of ideas being non-original, this includes citing and reliable sourcing of them), neutrality as being core to content and style (again, not exceeding what can be cited, avoiding WP:BLP, etc.), and copyright policy as being the key to actual text/image usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs) 05:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Have you ever used alternative accounts to edit Wikipedia?
A: With the probable exception of a few "forgot to log in" anon-IP edits early in my Wikipedia career, no.
8.5. (from Durova) How did you learn Wikimarkup so quickly? DurovaCharge! 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I've been involved in other markup-related projects for a long time. As part of my work in open-source software, I'd been exposed to communicating via wiki and related discussion systems, so learning the specifics of formatting on Wikipedia wasn't a huge leap. I co-direct a open-source project that includes a developers' MediaWiki installation. Parser functions and some of the intricacies of mediawiki table syntax and templating still throw me a bit. Reading the source for a page is a good way to learn how that page's layout works, and can experiment via "Show preview". I even read the help pages, but would obviously never admit to that in public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
9. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I would contact the blocking admin to discuss it. If that admin does not respond or we can't agree, I would bring it up on WP:AN for further discussion and input from others. I certainly intend to adhere to this policy.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DMacks before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support - lends a hand in some pretty thankless areas; he'd handle the tools well. --Orange Mike 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - I have seen quite a bit of DMack's edits related to WP:CHEM and it is clear that he is a responsible editor and that he interacts well with other users. He is the kind of editor that Wikipedia should entrust with the admin tools. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support - with one caveat; that DMack wear a cape whenever making edits. If he is unwilling to do this, I will change my vote. Keepscases 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose (just kidding) Support Good number of science-related mainspace and project space editing. NHRHS2010 talk 22:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Seems fine to me:) Good luck!--SJP 22:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - of course. Addhoc 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support per answers to questions. K. Scott Bailey 23:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support as exactly what an admin should be: consistent, consistent, consistent. Keeper | 76 00:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - no reason to suspect this user would be anything but an asset to the dregs of Wikisociety admin corps. Look forward to working with you! - Philippe | Talk 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. — Thomas H. Larsen 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. A good editor, who knows te system and will use the tools well. --Bduke 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support A good and careful editor from what I've seen, and he is already actively fighting vandalism and trying to settle disputes, so the admin tools should make a useful addition. --Itub 10:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - very active at the Science Reference Desk. Where the quality of his answers is outstanding. Rudget zŋ 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, as nominator just back from holiday. Tim Vickers 22:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support as we need another pedantic academic with a mop. Seriously, this is a good editor and I have no reason to distrust. Bearian 01:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support John254 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support evidently I should pay more attention; Tim's nominating all the cool people :) Opabinia regalis 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. A fine editor. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Strong edit history. Great answers. Doczilla 09:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support A very good editor and good answers. I had a very positive interaction in the past when I didn't have a user account. Bbwlover 14:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support — Save_Us_229 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - Valued contributor to Chemistry articles. --Rifleman 82 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support--Golden Wattle talk 23:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. Thanks for answering my question. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Great article work, great vandal fighter... no concerns :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Reasonable answers to questions, does mopifiable work, no reason to oppose. DurovaCharge! 01:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - solid editor and contributor. Kuru talk 02:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support--MONGO 18:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Strong support - absolutely fantastic candidate! An experienced and dedicated Wikipedian. :-) Lradrama 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. He seems to like this kind of work, and he is good.Biophys (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support seems ok here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Seems to know the admin guidelines. --MoRsE (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. Committed editor. Shyamal (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral
Neutral, leaning support, pending answer to Q#4. K. Scott Bailey 22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC) --switch to strong support, per great answer to Q#4.
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.