Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doc glasgow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Doc glasgow

Vote here (42/2/1) ended 19:03 [21 September 2005] (UTC)

Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) – Doc glasgow has been a registered user since 11 April 2005, and has accrued over 4000 edits since then. Doc specializes in articles relating to Scotland and Theology, but his participation extends far beyond this area of expertise. Doc can frequently be seen at VfD/AfD, where he is a moderate voice and a clear thinker whom I respect. At AfD, he already takes an administrative role by closing and executing votes that do not result in deletion, in addition to finding orphaned nominations and posting them for discussion. Doc sorts stubs, patrols RC, slices, dices, makes a wonderful sandwich and is always polite to other editors. The community will benefit greatly from Doc's ability to make use of the rollback and delete functions. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thanks, I accept --Doc (?) 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Strong Support. Everywhere I turn these days I seem to find Doc doing great work. He has also dealt with long and protracted debates, such as that over Authentic Matthew, with admirable restraint and good judgement. - SimonP 20:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support as nominator. Somehow, my earlier support vote did not stick. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support I normally see him alot in VFD/AFD and I thought he was a administrador already --Aranda56 23:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support a very fine Wikipedian, knowledgeable, patient, firm on facts, steers a middle course between perspectives. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support - I read his edits @ Religion and slavery and Marcionism, excellent command of NPOV.
  6. Support. Thorough, patient and with a pleasant sense of humour, he'll make a fine admin. -Splashtalk 02:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support. Great guy, and I trust the judgement of Fernando Rizo and Splash. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  8. Of course. El_C 03:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Seems like a good bloke. Use the mop only for good, never for evil. Nandesuka 04:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support, excellent editor in my experience, clear head in conflict resolution. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. Excellent contributor in many ways. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. I'm sure will make a good admin. --G Rutter 09:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. My first RfA vote may as well be for a nice guy like Doc. PubLife 10:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support He has made some excellent contributions. Pilatus 11:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, as we can never have too much of Scotland or Theology! -- BD2412 talk 13:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support enthusiastically. --KHM03 15:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  17. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  18. Support. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. I keep coming across his posts on AfD and Scottish articles. A voice of moderation and conciliation wherever it's needed. Will make a 1st class administrator. --GraemeL (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support! I see doc around quite a bit... -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  22. Good guy. Level-headed and trustworthy. It's time we sysopped him. Dmcdevit·t 03:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Uppland 11:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  24. Suppot. I thought he was one. Doc Glasgow is a pimp. Proto t c 13:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support EXTREME LESBIAN SUPPORT!!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  26. SUPPORT I love being obnoxious. Molotov (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support, and not just because the Scottish are cool... Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  28. Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. JuntungWu 05:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  30. Eh, what's up, Doc? Acetic'Acid 16:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support', good editor. Guettarda 02:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  32. What's not to like? As for the (semi) objection(s) below, the time seems sufficient. -- Hoary 04:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support'. Good man, based on contribs.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 15:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  34. Rubber duck. Seen the nominee a lot around WP. -feydey 10:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  35. Most certainly. -- Essjay · Talk 17:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support, will make a fine admin. Hall Monitor 20:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  37. Aye aye! the wub "yarr!" 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Should make a fine admin. Alf melmac 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. I haven't always agreed with him (so what?), but he's struck me as being the sort of person who'd make a good admin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  40. Very good chap. Very reasonable, usually seems to know what he's doing. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. ∞Who?¿? 04:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. utcursch | talk 12:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Insufficient time. siafu 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. --Boothy443 | comhrá 05:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose – hesitating to supply an email id. User:Nichalp/sg 17:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I just want to be on record as not being ambivalent at all. I support this user, but I do want more time to pass in order to see the effects of bullheadedness and bullshi...other stuff. Geogre 21:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Question: As I mentioned on R. Fiend's RFA, I have begun some preliminary analysis of AFD voting pattern in the hopes of getting a better understanding of what things people percieve as being broken, etc. As acknowledged in your nom, you are a very active AFD participant with more than 300 votes in June-August, remarkably including a more than 100 nominations for AFD (5th highest). Given your obvious interest in deletion processes, please comment on your philosophy with respect to deletion and how it is that you come to start more than 1 AFD a day. Dragons flight 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair questions. (Although if I thought afd indicated a sad life - then what does being an afd statistician indicate? Template:Wink). Recently a high number of my nominations were completing orphans (cleaning out the old 'pages on votes for deletion' cat), other than that sorting religion stubs, NP patrol, and work in dead-ends, threw up a lot of problematic articles. Trying to do a good job elsewhere keeps bringing me back to afd. My philosophy? Try to read the community consensus, don't nominate if you think there won't be a delete consensus (that wastes everyone's time, e.g. schools)- and fix it if you can. I am voting less than I used to - and more often 'keep'. I'm probably a recovering-deletionist, but deletions should always require consensus, and speedy deletions should only be used when that consensus would be self-evident (as expressed in CSD criteria). Does that answer your question? --Doc (?) 21:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Q: Do you plan to enforce a user block? User:Nichalp/sg 05:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. I certainly don't have a specific one in mind. If I can, I be happy to help out.
I mean, admins have the power to block a user. Would you block someone? User:Nichalp/sg 14:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
As a last resort - but other than for blatant vandalism or 3RR breaches, I'd sooner discuss it with others first. --Doc (?) 14:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
You have not specified an email id/choose not to receive email from other users. If you block someone, they might want to contact you through email and sort things out. The email function may also be useful in other situations. Would you be willing to enter an email id?. User:Nichalp/sg 18:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes (that's a good observation), I undertake to provide an e-mail id if this succeeds--Doc (?) 20:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if you could enter the id before your voting period is done. User:Nichalp/sg 08:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, now done (my hestitation was because I wanted to set up a dedicated address, my normal being used for professional purposes) --Doc (?) 19:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supplying an id. I've withdrawn my objection. User:Nichalp/sg 07:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I do a little RC and NP patrol - and I'm happy to continue with that in a more efficient maner (speeding obvious nonsense and vandal bouncing). I havn't actually closed VfDs - I just listed a pile of orphans, but I'd be happy to try this out. Anything else I can, as time permits.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've recently saved two or three from VfD by speedy re-writing (David Jasper and Laodicean Church and hopefully The writing on the wall) I'm rather proud of them - saves are a challange. I'm got a fuller brag list on my user page if anyone's interested.
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. Well, there was the Authentic Matthew fiasco - but being caught between -Ril- (talk · contribs) and a bunch of self-confessed socks would have stressed Francis of Assisi - I like to think I kept my cool, and contributed to the eventual peace. The only other stress was over a disputed copyvio tag on The God Who Wasn't There where I was falsely accused of bad faith. I dealt with that, in the same way I'd hope to with any future stress, I invited a disinterested admin to review the situation and my actions (on that occassion Tony Sidaway agreed my call was perfectly reasonable). My philosophy is to open out stressful situations to fresh eyes (and not neccessarly ones who share your views) and be willing to take criticism and learn from it (apologise when neccessary).