Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Doug

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] Doug

Final (82/0/0); ended at 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC) by Kingturtle

Doug (talk · contribs) - I first got to know Doug at WikiProject European history when he invited me to take part in the ongoing project overhaul. In the context of overhauling the project, I observed Doug to be very enthusiastic and thoughtful in his ideas and comments.

Since then I have seen him, well, pretty much everywhere. Purely by coincidence I've seen Doug welcoming users, cleaniing up vandalism, doing WikiProject tasks, mediating, and flagging for speedy deletion. He's already exposed to administrative forums, as he reports to AIV and has tried his hand at non-admin closures at MfD. His edits span an impressive range across the namespaces.

All of my interactions with Doug have shown him to be intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable, and level-headed editor. He appears to have a solid grasp of Wikipedia policy and process, and I believe that he is dedicated to Wikipedia's betterment. I am confident that Doug would make exemplary use of the tools and be a great boon to Wikipedia as an admin. - Revolving Bugbear 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by John Carter - Doug has often had the occasionally unpleasant task of having to work with me, generally in matters relating to the proposed deletion of portals and WikiProjects, although also in the establishment and re-establishment of a few other portals and projects and certain copyright issues. In every instance I can remember, he has demonstrated a remarkable grasp of the issues, policies and guidelines invovled, often better than my own.

He has substantial knowledge of the legal profession, being an attorney, and seems to have a grasp of copyright violation issues that is among the best I have ever seen, and I've worked with copyright and trademark attorneys. He has also already, as a non-admin, closed several MfD debates, and functioned as an effective mediator in several matters.

I have absolutely no reservations about this individual's being very well qualified for adminship, or that as an admin he would be a significant contributor in several areas which can always deserve additional attention from administrators. In effect, he is, so far as I can see, already filling several functions which admins are supposed to be involved in, and has done well in them. I cannot see how he would ever be likely to use the tools in any but the thoughtful, reasonable way he has used in every interaction I have seen him in to date, and believe that the project would benefit very much from his having the tools he has generally already demonstrated knowing how to use. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


[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 take part in broad variety of things as an editor and I would continue to do so as an admin, but I would emphasize copyright problems, suspected copyright violations, possibly unfree images, simply because these are some of the places I have the most to add; as well as as various deletion processes, especially speedy deletion. Of course I'd be able to close more debates than I do now, but I participate in so many that I don't consider closing debates a significant portion of the work. My main focus will continue to be finding articles that can be salvaged from deletion through an appropriate application of sofixit; however, my work will be much more useful if I can delete those that cannot reasonably be saved rather than just leaving them there as I sift. I would also try to work on some of the DailyDeletionCategories such as Cat:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons from time to time and maybe WP:SPLICE, once I learn how.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution to Wikipedia is Decker Brothers, not because of the article - to which I believe I contributed not a single edit, and which still needs a lot of work - but because of this and the diffs which immediately follow, together with discussion at User talk:Eliwhale, in which I found the article by randomly looking at Cat:Candidates for speedy deletion, researched the article very briefly and determined it was salvageable as it likely met WP:N, welcomed the newbie creator and contacted the deleting admin and convinced him to undelete, at which point other editors stepped in to do much of the hands on helping. I am hopeful that this editor will stay with us in the long term.
Other good contributions include every Welcome message I've ever sent, several of which have resulted in thank you's on my user talk page - if the user talk page is blank, a welcome message will be issued, no matter what ({{Welcome-anon-vandal}} is great), although the most blatant IP vandal may get a warning too. And of course there is my participation in various aspects of dispute resolution, some of which are noted here, but much of which just happens on the fly.
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 never been in an editing conflict with another user; I normally don't get stressed over editing or over other users. If I disagree with another user I will say so, but I won't fight over good faith editing - I credit my lack of disputes to a two-part philosophy: 1) Generally, 1RR (vandalism, spam, etc. excepted of course), and 2) If one takes a strong position against violations of WP:V and WP:NPOV, but is willing to admit that there is not always agreement where the line is, articles and processes will improve.
I do frequently get into heated debates with other editors on talk pages, particularly in project space, - especially when I believe newbies are being bitten or when sofixit applies in a deletion discussion; and parties in dispute resolutions sometimes give me grief - but I just take a break from dispute resolution for a few days before taking on another case, or I get involved in another dispute resolution process for my next one, so I don't lose focus.

Optional questions from Keepscases

4. Please write a haiku about your Wikipedia experiences.
A.
a free encyclopedia
clients wait
bills sit unopened
5. The "rules" for a haiku specify lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables, and yet yours appears to be 8/3/5. Should this be construed as "outside-the-box" thinking, indifference to standards, ignorance of tradition, or something else? How do you feel this relates to your performance as an editor and perhaps administrator of Wikipedia?
A. 5/7/5 on is a Japanese traditional form, this is the English Wikipedia, so I don't feel constrained by the ancient traditional "rules" intended for another time and language and many traditional Japanese haiku do not translate to 5/7/5. The spirit of the haiku is intended. The spirit of Wikipedia is intended. If anyone doesn't like it, he or she is free to change it.

Optional question from Espresso Addict

6. What article work are you most proud of?
A. There is no one article, I haven't written a full length article from scratch, but here you can see work I've done, including some stubs I've written. I've searched out references for other articles such as books by Edgar Rice Burroughs (beyond the ones I've written stubs for), made a lot of technical corrections when references don't say what they are purported to say, and done a fair amount of copyediting and clean up work. I've reworked Moka Express (and would love to discuss on the talk page if, as your name suggests, that's an area of interest), and re-written some portions (fairly minor) of Joan of Arc and Penobscot Expedition. I have a few tiny stubs in userpace that I hope to bring to life eventually, they are listed at User:Doug/WIP.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Privatemusings

7. I've offered my support regardless, but wondered if you've thought at all about future accountability, and wondered if you might consider taking a look at ideas like these; User:Lar/Accountability - thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A. Sorry to take so long responding, yes I've seen this before. Way too complicated IMHO. If either of my co-nominators ever told me I needed to hang it up, I would do so immediately. If anyone who supports me in this process or is otherwise well respected in the community ever tells me to hang it up, I'd either ask around and see if others agreed or simply resign without asking. There is no magic number, it wouldn't take a vote, a reconfirmation, or anything else that bureaucratic.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly:

8. What is 46 multiplied by 517, divided by 37 and subtracted by 29?
A: Sorry, I'm not very good at math. I'm so glad we don't count votes.
9. Why are bananas yellow?
A. Yum!
10. Why did you accept an RfA on a Tuesday? Why not Monday, or Wednesday? I'd like to know your thought process.
A. Hah! thought you could catch me didn't you.
11. If you could be an animal, what would it be, and why? Details please.
A. Homo sapiens because they can write encyclopedias. See attached for details.

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Could you give me an estimate of how many of your user talk edits (1333) are warnings/notices? Kimu 16:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing in the neighborhood of 70% are welcome messages and the remainder are probably roughly evenly split between warnings and actual custom messages to users, including editors I'm involved in various work with; though it may be that there are somewhat more of those than there are warnings - Probably 1/3 or more of the welcome messages are {{welcome-anon-vandal}}.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I ran an analysis and the numbers aren't quite that extreme; only 600 of those are welcome messages and only 94 are warnings. Of course, early on there wouldn't have been much of either.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support per Revolving Bugbear. Oh, and John Carter. :) - Revolving Bugbear 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support John Carter (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support. Trust the nominators, and we need more image/copyvio admins. Malinaccier (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support already doing great work in needed areas. The tools would make him even better. Cheers GtstrickyTalk or C 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - Nice work, great editor. Per Malinaccier, it's a breath of fresh air to see a candidate participating in WP:MFD, WP:TFD (not that it's particularly rare) and interested in image/copyvio work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Absolute strongest support ever +1. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. Doug came to my attention through his eloquent and diplomatic non-admin close of the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination) MfD. The text of his comment there suggests he will be able to communicate well in admin discussions. His contributions seem good and the areas in which he intends to work as an admin appear useful: images and copyvios. Anyone who looks at Category:Administrative backlog and take note of the image and copyright issues will understand the significance. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Have worked with him, deserves the mop and I should have co-nomed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix-wiki (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 March 2008
  10. Support But needs more experience on RfC for featured user-warning templates created by a SPA with a COI who adds EL. Or equivalent college courses.--12 Noon 2¢ 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support, good interactions with this editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. I oppose. He clearly does not know how to write a suitable Haiku. :) seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Since he looks trusted, along with his edit summary usage, his expereince etc. etc. etc. etc. Seems we need more image copyvio admins these days anyway... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Good editor. I'd like to not that sometimes, when 5/7/5 haiku is translated from its original Japanese, it will sometimes, in English, turn out not to be 5/7/5. SpencerT♦C 00:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. No red flags.--SJP (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support should make for a good admin. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 00:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support, as all my interactions with this user have been positive. · AndonicO Hail! 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Seems ok by me!  :) ArcAngel (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. In my experience, seems to be a capable, intelligent and well-spoken editor who treats others well. No problems here. Good answers to questions and solid nominators. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - no concerns here! krimpet✽ 03:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support Net benefit for the project. :) GlassCobra 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support because of the haiku. And because Doug appears to be a strong admin candidate. But mainly the haiku :-) -FrankTobia (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support per riana. Seek your mop and role, build bridges and new friendships, do good on wiki. Privatemusings (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support. Well-rounded and responsible editor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support Seen him around. MBisanz talk 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. Solid contributions across a range of areas, and I love the haiku in the Wikipedian spirit. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Just solid enough, couldn't hurt, will only help improve wikipedia.--Dacium (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support - Doug's edits seem very much aimed at improving Wikipedia. Looks like he'd make a great admin. --clpo13(talk) 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. —Dark (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. Quite clearly an excellent editor. Rudget. 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. Strong support the ansers thing user has given clearly indicates he will make a great admin! Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  34. Excellent I love the Haiku, trustworthy user too, even meets my standards stew! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support. per haiku. MrPrada (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support per answer to Q4. What can I say, I'm a sucker for catchy slogans. ➪HiDrNick! 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support Love the Haiku. Dustitalk to me 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support I think the "haiku" and why he wrote it says it all. :) --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support Doug not only contributes but also keeps a cool head and does not edit Wikipedia to vent spleen. --Una Smith (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support - Excellent answeres to questions, (loved the haiku), and will be a great asset with images and copvio. Good luck! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support - Good solid work in xFD. Knows his stuff. Interacts very well with others. Would make a fine admin. 52 Pickup (deal) 21:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support As per NiciVampireHeart.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support. Appears to be able to communicate; has a good grasp on policy. Carom (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. Communication skills and working on a project sold me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - iMatthew 2008 11:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support - jc37 16:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support. An excellent candidate with great communication skills and fine project work. He's trusted and respected by others. Doug should prove an above-par admin. Majoreditor (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support VanTucky 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Good user, will be a good admin. Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support Good user, shows no indications that he will abuse the tools, very active, so I'll support. Kimu 22:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  51. Strong Support A well qualified editor who should have become an Admin long ago. --Sharkface217 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support   jj137 (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support Looking at user's contributions, interactions with other editors, and participation in dispute resolutions among other things, I am reasonably comfortable with this user's judgment and trust that he will use the M&F™ properly. -- Avi (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support This editor seems like an upstanding kinda person and I doubt they would abuse the tools. I say, "Let's just give it to em! Good luck Canyouhearmenow 13:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support; see my concerns being addressed below. Relata refero (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  56. Strong Support I like the fact that this editor has already been exposed to a lot of the things that Sysops generally would do, and as such I think he would be a great Sysop. --Mifter (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  57. Super Support Anyone opposing Doug should be slapped with a fishThright (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support. bibliomaniac15 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  59. Encountered Doug many times before. He'll be fine. Acalamari 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support Always has been calm and a pleasure to work with. Never given me any idea he'd abuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support Good luck! Midorihana~iidesune? 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  62. Yes, should have been an admin a long time ago. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support I like the haiku ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support Sometimes, I learn more about someone from a shared failure than a smooth success. Doug volunteered to help mediate an issue, if there is such a thing as mediation from a cabal that may or may not exist. It was a tense situation, but Doug impressed me with both with his sincerity at trying to find a solution, and his sadness that mediation was not successful. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  65. Strong support Must, must, must! :) It's a weird feeling seeing people who practically live on your watchlist and realizing they're not admins yet. The system is flawed, I tell you. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support: I'm not overly familiar with this user, but I've seen him around the site and he seems to deserve the mop. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support. Doug is a thoroughly refreshing candidate, and I think he'll be a great administrator. AGK § 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  68. Not that you need it support. Go pay your bills. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  69. Thought you were already an admin support - we can always use more levelheaded and thoughtful admins. Shell babelfish 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support based on our need for more lawyers the candidate's excellent overall record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support Seems an excellent candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support trustworthy and experienced editor. Will make a very good admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  73. Support. Excellent candidate indeed.. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support User who is helpful and is what we need in a janitor ;) Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support Eusebeus (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support A good candidate. While good manners cost nothing, they are truly invaluable here. Keep up the good work. WilliamH (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support I thought you were already an admin. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support good candidate. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support per answers to questions 8 through 11. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  81. The abuse of the haiku is cause for support. SilkTork *YES! 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support No red flags. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) The haiku made me laugh XD
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral

(Changed to support, see above.) I see work with the Agriculture Wikiproject, and am impressed with the anecdote he mentions about saving the Decker Brothers article. That being said, I would like a little more information about actual article-writing before I support a candidate. Also about disputes: admins frequently find themselves in the middle of content disputes; the candidate may not have participated himself - and his rules for himself are a good thing - but if he has no experience of mediating in one or calming one down either, I think we don't have enough information. [Note: I wish to stress that this !vote is open to alteration if more information is forthcoming. Relata refero (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my piped links above and on my user page using the word "here" may have been a little ambiguous; did you notice User:Doug/DR and User:Doug/Contributions?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, you might want to make that clearer. Still not happy about the article contributions, but the second point has been addressed here, where you took an initiative to cool down a situation you were partially responsible for. Am moving to support on that basis, but please consider writing a little more! Relata refero (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2008 (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.