Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DanMS

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] DanMS

Closed as successful by Cecropia 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC) at (38/0/0); Scheduled end time 14:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DanMS (talk · contribs) - DanMS is with us since June 2005, contributing heavily, for example to the WikiProject Red Link Recovery. He can also claim credits for many image uploads.

For those of you (few, I hope ;-) ) that want to hear about editcont, he made 18.000 edits, and has a 100% use of edit summaries, both for major and minor edits.

I'm pretty sure we can trust this user with the tools ;-) «Snowolf How can I help?» 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks to the nominator and the Wikipedia community for the vote of confidence. I will accept the nomination. I will answer the questions shortly after giving them some thought. ●DanMS • Talk 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: At the start, I would expect to help mostly with the “mop and bucket.” That is, helping out with the various backlogs, such as uncontroversial Images for Deletion, NowCommons, etc. I would move cautiously into other areas such as speedy deletions, user blocking, and the like, because I do not yet know all the rules and practices that sysops need to know before undertaking those tasks. There is a lot to learn but I will start reading if the community decides to hand me the mop. (I have plenty of experience with a mop, or “swab” as they called it in my Navy days!)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Lately I have been on a mission to retrieve as many images as we can use from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library and add them to the appropriate articles in the Wikipedia. Looking at my edit history, you can see that I have added hundreds of images—mostly of lakes, dams, and waterways, because that’s what the USACE works on. I think that Wikipedia needs many more images and I am trying to get all the free ones that I can. (I have uploaded all such images to Commons.)
I think one of my best articles, which is also one my my earliest, is Cotswold Games. Two more good ones are Benjamin Hooks and shootout. I consider these fairly good articles because I had to research the subjects thoroughly, and I think that I covered the subjects well. I also contributed two pieces of original artwork that I made to water wheel.
Full disclosure—added afterward: I did not actually create Benjamin Hooks. But it was a two-sentence stub until I wrote the article. ●DanMS • Talk 01:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have also made dozens of disambiguation pages for human names. These are important, I think, although it’s somewhat tedious work to dig out all the pages that use a name and collate them into a disambig page.
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 had no major conflicts that caused me stress. A couple of minor ones, but I don’t let myself get stressed out. If I begin to think I am getting stressed, I will just take a Wikibreak. I do take this edit on my user page as a badge of honor—it came from an anonymous vandal whose edits I reverted several times. He finally gave up.
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
4. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Whew! That was a lot of reading and a lot of opinions. Basically, it boils down to whether Wikipedia should have a defined policy regarding deletion of links to attack pages, or deletion of links to attack sites, and how to define attack sites. Clearly no consensus has been reached. I am a little behind the curve because I don’t know what started the whole discussion—apparently someone attacked user MONGO, or posted a link to a site that attacked MONGO. Nor have I been involved in any conflicts relating to this subject.

Without knowing the specifics, I would have to say that posting external links to sites that attack or attempt to “out” Wikipedia editors who wish to remain anonymous is a bad idea. (No one can “out” me because I am already “out”—my real name is on my user page.) Ultimately, Wikipedia is supposed to be about information—the subjects of the articles—not about editors. I think I would tend to come down on the side of banning any links to personal information about individual editors—any information, that is, that the editor did not choose to post himself. Some may argue that this is censorship, but again: Editors are not the subjects of Wikipedia. Additionally, websites that delve into posting personal information about Wikipedia editors are probably for the most part not what Wikipedia considers reliable sources.

Let me reiterate, however, that I don’t know any of the specifics that caused the whole controversy, so I am not speaking authoritatively. ●DanMS • Talk 03:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Blackjack48 (talk · contribs)
6. After a recent MfD, many Wikipedians are debating the use of spoiler warnings in articles about books, movies, and stories. Where do you stand on this issue and do you use spoiler templates when reading these types of articles? Thank you. Blackjack48  ♠ ♣ 01:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading the lengthy debates, I would have to say it’s amazing how much passion is generated by a relatively small thing like spoiler warnings! I don’t have strong feelings about the subject, but in general I lean toward eliminating the warnings. I don’t think they have much value in Wikipedia. I have never had occasion to use such a warning to avoid reading the plot of a book or show. In fact a couple of weeks ago while reading Rebecca, I intentionally read the spoiler because I wanted to discover if we would ever learn the heroine’s name. SPOILER— We didn’t. —END SPOILER. ●DanMS • Talk 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DanMS before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • Can you explain the nine-month Wikibreak between January and September 2006, please? (aeropagitica) 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I did take a Wikibreak from about February '06 or thereabouts until about October or so. I think I just kind of got burned out for a while after making several thousand edits! I also recall feeling tired of all the foolishness—vandalism and silliness—that some people contribute to the Wikipedia. But later I decided that I could still make good contributions not let the stupidity bother me. Actually I did come back in about July or so, contributing anonymously. You can find a record of those edits here. ●DanMS • Talk 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
  2. Support per nom and per an investigation of the user's contributions. Nothing which would move me to oppose and several items which move me to support. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Plenty of experience, and answer to Q1 shows a careful and conscientious attitude. Good admin candidate. WaltonAssistance! 18:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support A rare quality of someone at RfA who can actually justify why they need the tools and therefore deserve the resulting demotion if successful. And if nothing else the "badge of honour" link above - truly a candidate at WP:BJAODN for the anon's comment.Pedro |  Chat  19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support: I'm impressed by his edit count. Especially, the amount of mainspace edits. --Random Say it here! 19:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I like his attitude of learning in Q1. He has the background to do a good job judging by his commitment to editing. JodyB talk 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - Good Answers and very experience (aside 9 months)..Good Luck...----Cometstyles 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support, good luck. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, outstanding contributor to Wikipedia and the Commons, and a very capable candidate. I have no doubt DanMS will serve the community well as an admin. --Dual Freq 23:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support- I see no reason not to trust this user with the bit. Philippe 01:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support: Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Looks like user will make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support DanMS has made a significant contribution to WP. He has expressed very reasonable plans for his use of admin tools. He appears to be very level headed and unlikely to do anything stupid or abusive as an admin. One question I have is why is there a concern raised about him taking a break from wikipedia? Are admins that sometimes take breaks due to career, family, health or other reasons less valuable admins when they are here? —Gaff ταλκ 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Seems just the sort of sensible and mature contributer who will make good use of the tools. He doesn't have to justify taking a break from Wikipedia, it's all purely voluntary and everyone has a real life to live. Nick mallory 02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Reasonable explanation of Wikibreak combined with strength of contributions. (aeropagitica) 04:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support I'm pretty happy with what I see; should easily become another good sysop. Jmlk17 06:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support 100% edit summary? Very suspicious. Maybe this user is too squeaky clean. Give him the tools. I applaud admins from all backgrounds and the image uploading is very cool. I trust him. the_undertow talk 06:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I see no problems. Sure. —Anas talk? 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support per great contributions. PeaceNT 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Looks like an excellent contributor. I don't see the extended wikibreak as a problem at all - in fact, I can sympathize with the candidate's reasons. The explanation was forthcoming and reasonable and there has been a sufficient amount of consistent editing after the break so that I am sure the candidate has caught up with any changes in policy there may have been. -- Seed 2.0 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support My only concern was addressed. Orangemarlin 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  21. I am Majorly and I support this candidate. 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support despite a small mistake regarding Image:Theodore_Bikel_Headshot.jpg, DanMS has many images that should be the model of useage on Wikipedia. I have little doubt he will misuse tools. Should upload more/move the free images here to Commons, but at least he's a supporter/user of Commons now and again, will be a good example. MECU≈talk 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  23. Default Support. —AldeBaer 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. Looks good to me. -- MarcoTolo 03:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support--MONGO 10:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, great user. AW 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Great user. I don't think the word "Wikipedia" takes a definite article, however (i.e. just "Wikipedia", not "The Wikipedia", although this is open to debate) —METS501 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support this user has demonstrated both the need and ability to serve as a good custodian. TewfikTalk 21:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support at the risk of piling on more snow ;) No apparent issues in sight, which is always pleasant. Take good care of 'er. --Edwin Herdman 01:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Seems to me that you are a good person to have the tools. Captain panda 02:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  33. Terence 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. I couldn't find a reason not to. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support I ran across DanMS ages ago while doing Wikipedia:Bad links, something he was helping out with too. I fully support wiki-gnomes and would like to see more wiki-gnomes made into admins. --Bachrach44 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Sarah 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support in agreement with the above. Acalamari 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral Neutral. I'd like to read why there was this large wikibreak, and also why edits have tailed off from December till this month. I think a conscientious admin/editor would show more consistency in edits. Orangemarlin 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I took a look back at my edit history, and I don’t really see the drop in numbers of edits from December until this month to which you referred. I may have a higher daily count in the last few weeks, because of the Corps of Engineers photo project (see Q2 above) that I have been doing. I have been working on that since about the middle of March. I used to do a lot of RCP, but I haven’t done much lately because of this project—which, by the way, is almost complete.●DanMS • Talk 01:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh that's just a bad excuse! LOL. OK, I'm convinced. Did I miss that answer someplace else? If I did, I'll go build a dam for you somewhere (thought I wouldn't live downstream of it). Orangemarlin 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
To grossly paraphrase Groucho Marx: I wouldn’t live downstream of any dam that I built! ●DanMS • Talk 03:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not clear as to why an excuse is required. What is the relationship between consistency of monthly edit counts and wise stewardship of admin tools? Why should anyone care if an admin takes a few months off, and why is it anyone's business as to the reason someone takes a Wiki-break? MoodyGroove 17:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
No excuse was required, but one was provided. I appreciated that honesty. As for my reasoning, I am interested in the person as a whole, because Admins are part of the whole system that makes a great community. If it was something personal like ill health or someone passing away, I'd agree that privacy is paramount. But if the answer was, "I got in a fight with another editor, and I sulked for a week," I'd think that's important data. No bad faith was intended by my question of the applicant.Orangemarlin 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No offense or objection was taken to the question. ●DanMS • Talk 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
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.