Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dppowell

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] Dppowell

(37/7/2); Scheduled to end 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Dppowell (talk · contribs) - The vital stats: Editor since mid-2005, 3000+ edits. My relatively modest edit count may turn off some folks, and if it's ultimately a barrier to adminship, I'll certainly understand. Notwithstanding occasional bouts of Wikiholism, it's a number that's not likely to rise quickly. I generally spend fewer than 30 minutes per day patrolling and editing the encyclopedia. All that said, if one subscribes to the idea that any conscientious admin is a net positive for the project, regardless of the raw amount of work they do, then I think I merit consideration. I take Wikipedia very seriously. I think the work we're doing here will endure--in some form or another--for centuries to come. We're the monastic transcriptionists of our age, and I'm honored to be a part of that. My request for the mop springs from a desire to help steward and protect what we're building, even if I'm only doing it in a few small corners of the project. Dppowell 20:34, 24 October 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: AIV and other anti-vandal work, most obviously. Because I've contributed a number of articles to DYK, I know how quickly that queue gets backlogged. You could expect to see me over there, as well. As I became more involved in the admin community, I imagine I'd learn of other areas where project needs and my interests overlap.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm pleased by my DYK articles, and I think I've made many good tweaks and additions to various articles related to Irish history. I think my best snippet of encyclopedia-style writing is probably the "Economic reforms" section of the Diocletian article. I completely rewrote that section a year ago, and only one or two editors have made minor changes since then. Given the stature of the subject and the number of editors who prowl that turf, I regard that as an achievement. I wish I had time to do more of that kind of research/writing work. I was also satisfied with my efforts to resolve the ongoing battle over the use of the term "British Isles" in the Ireland article, futile as they turned out to be.
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: Heck, yeah. Okay, a brief story...but you have to promise to read to the end! The first time I got into a serious conflict with another editor, it really threw me and I took it personally. He turned out to be a serial sock puppeteer and was eventually banned (with very little/no input from me, I should add). He continued to edit (and edit war) via socks, and I became so annoyed that I actually created a project page and enlisted volunteers to help enforce his ban. I checked with Jayjg to ensure that I wasn't doing anything inappropriate, and he signed off on it. Thus I became the Captain Ahab to the puppeteer's Moby Dick. Ironically, when he indicated that he was tired of having all his edits reverted and might finally go away, I felt something akin to remorse and engaged him in a brief dialogue. The fact that I'd played a key role in hounding an editor who, despite his behavior, had made so many contributions to the encyclopedia made me feel like I'd gone down the wrong road. I'm sure this person is still editing somewhere, under a sock. But I'm no longer spending my limited time chasing him when I could be using that time to improve the encyclopedia. If he gets in another edit war, his banned status will facilitate him being smoked out. Until then, his uncontested edits are probably improving the encyclopedia. I regard the situation as a manifestation of IAR. The main thing I learned was that black & white, legalistic interpretations of WP policy don't serve the project any better than black & white interpretations of article subjects.
Optional question from Seraphimblade
4. Given that you seem to be lacking experience in some areas, do you plan to refrain from performing administrative tasks in such areas until and unless you both review policies and observe actual practice in that area?
A: Well, I'm certainly not going to suddenly start bulldozing through, say, WP:SFD or some other administrator-assisted area that I don't fully understand. I'm gun-shy about editing in areas with which I'm not familiar...never mind using admin tools. On the other hand, if I got a broadcast message requesting the urgent help of additional admins on some part of the project, I might wade in up to my ankles before I'd read all of the background material (especially if it appeared that few other people were answering the call). I hope that answers your question; please respond if you'd like me to elaborate further. Dppowell 16:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support I've seen this editor around a fair amount and I've never seen anything that would stand in the way of adminship. Good luck! IrishGuy talk 00:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as having a broad variety of edits, and from his answers, a solid understanding of the rules and when to bend them. Seems trusty. Bearian 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support on excellent question answers --Pumpmeup 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Excellent answers to questions and a solid understanding of policies. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Well all rounded user, can be trusted with the tools. Phgao 08:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak support. ~400 edits in 6 months time is somewhat lowish, but you appear to be at it and have worked extensively on several articles as well as e.g. reported to AIV. I also like the tone and depth of your answers, so I'm going to give my recommendation for you. I trust you would —in the beginning, at least— rather consult an experienced admin or forum of admins before taking potentially controversial actions. — Dorftrottel⁠ 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - but could do with a few more edits. Rudget Contributions 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Change to full support per outstanding AGF edits this user has made.- Rudget Contributions 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Why the hell not? Edit count doesn't matter one bit; user appears trustworthy. Ral315 » 14:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support - good editor, who has some experience of the deletion process and vandal reporting. Addhoc 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support per above, despite the highest regard for Stifle. Meets User:Dlohcierekim/standards. A none prolific editor won't have to give up edting time to do admin tasks and will benefit the project w/ extra buttons Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support, no reason to assume he wouldn't be able to cope. Neil ☎ 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - confirmed evidence of 'pedia building and diplomatic by the looks of things. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - Doubt this user will abuse the tools. Sceems very willing to learn on the job. Tiddly-Tom 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per above. Absolutely no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support - good editor, great reputation and is civil to all-comers. No problems here - Alison ❤ 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - No problems here, good luck.   jj137 (Talk) 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support I still have concerns about the low level of edits and it's resultant effect on possible lack of knowledge of current policy. However on reflection the spirit of WP:AGF has made me re-consider my position. I apologise to the candidate and community for my lack of good faith by my previous neutral in this RfA. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Pedro, no apology is necessary. I'd be concerned if you'd selected Support without giving my qualifications any thought. Dppowell 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Demonstrates the right approach, conscientious enough to be trusted. --Michael Snow 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support I strongley believe he will be a good editor, but his low edit count concerns me. Support however. PatPolitics rule! 03:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    This account has been indef-blocked for abusive socking. I'm hesitant to modify any votes on my own RfA but wanted to make sure someone noted this... Dppowell 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    As the confirmed sockpuppets have not been used within your RfA to make multiple !votes I see no reason why one liegitimate comment should be struck through/indented/discounted. The closing 'crat will no doubt take it into consideration. I certainly respect that you have made sure to bring it to the communities attention, even when it is a support for your own RfA. Certainly that is the quality I would expect to see in an admin. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support More than qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support east.718 at 12:45, 10/27/2007
  22. Support. An editor of sound judgement, always sensible and civil based on my experience and observation. Nothing I see in Dppowell's edit history contradicts the entirely positive impression I have formed in the last year and more. Or I could have just said "per Alison and Irishguy". Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support as nothing serious would make me oppose. Low number of edits were a concern, but a few thousand is enough to demonstrate wikipedia dedication imo. LordHarris 15:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, editcountitis is bad, and I'm entirely comfortable with the answer to the question I asked. Good luck! :) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support John254 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support per nom. Sensible and sound judgment. Pigman 04:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Why not? Acalamari 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - Yes, s/he hasn't contributed much in the wiki-space. S/He seems civil and positive, and I feel that I can trust that this user will ask when confused and will not misuse the tools. Neranei (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support per Ral's "why the hell not" essay and rationale. I like your wiki-thinking! K. Scott Bailey 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Do not believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Have seen good work from Dppowell, and feel s/he can be trusted. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Solid contributor with good understanding. -- Chris B • talk 10:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Everything I see in contribution history looks solid. Long term dedication evidenced to the project, even if not the most prolific. I believe the candidate when he says he will not wade into areas with which he's unfamiliar. No reason to suspect abuse, and 10 minutes of good tool use a day is better than none. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support As per Moonriddengirl,Angus McLellan and Alison ,Track is good and user is very civil.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Impressed with answers, above. No issues about trust, given the body of the candidate's work to date. See also WTHN?. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely low level of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, that's rubbish. And even if it were so, you're making the additional assumption that Dppowell couldn't or wouldn't read and/or ask when in doubt. — Dorftrottel⁠ 10:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Dorftrottel, if you're not willing to discuss things nicely, you yourself are breaking policies. Please consider whether or not your messages are constructive and civil before saving them --Deskana (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    I think my comment was potentially constructive (though it somewhat depends on the discussion that follows) and sufficiently civil for my personal taste. Are you talking about the word "rubbish"? Would "nonsense" have been nicer? Or "non sequitur"? But leaving aside the wording of my comment for just a moment: Do you agree more with Stifle's oppose rationale or with my (attempted) argument that it isn't actually a rationale in the first place? — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Besides: I consider opposing on flimsy reasons as uncivil, and also replying exclusively to the tone of a comment, disregarding its content. — Dorftrottel⁠ 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree with Dorftrottel. We aren't exactly short of administrators so it seems to me that we can afford to be choosy. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    I won't argue with your reson for opposing, but to say we are not short of administrators is not correct, particular when anonymous page creation is about to be allowed again. Neil ☎ 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    For the record: I didn't say anything about you being "choosy", or that we shouldn't be too choosy or the like. I effectively said that in my opinion, your oppose rationale is invalid - as a matter of course you do disagree with that. Further, I said you're making the additional assumption that Dppowell couldn't or wouldn't read and/or ask when in doubt. Simply "disagreeing" with that would be yet another non sequitur on your part. But since you're "esteemed", held in "highest regard" and whatnot (for good reasons, I'm sure), everything I say with regard to the quality of your comment will be construed as unconstructive incivility anyway. — Dorftrottel⁠ 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're getting at by the non sequitur remark, but I assure you that I consider your comments civil and not unconstructive. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks and sorry anyway to anyone who feels that I hit the wrong tone before. With "non sequitur", I was alluding to my initial point that there's an imo considerable logical gap between low wikispace edits and likely misuse of the tools. Knowledge is gathered through reading rather than editing and therefore wouldn't show up in the contribs. But even if someone is not the most knowledgeable with P&G: in absence of indications to the contrary, I'd normally assume they'd be careful and just ask when in doubt. — Dorftrottel⁠ 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    That's a valid concern. I imagine my policy knowledge is, in fact, relatively low for someone has been around for 2+ years. What sorts of missteps might you be concerned about me making, in theory? Dppowell 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Deletion and blocking would be my main concerns. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    I.e., you're concerned that I might block people who shouldn't be blocked or delete articles I shouldn't delete? Though I've spent some time in AfD, I've spent much more patrolling recent changes and on AIV...so I have more confidence in my command of blocking policy than deletion policy. However, if you think my answers might change your opinion to Support, I invite you to pose some hypothetical situations to me and I'll tell you how I might handle them. Dppowell 22:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    Not for the time being, I'm afraid. I think that if you spent a couple of hours a week for a month contributing at AFDs and/or helping out at the various noticeboards, you would quickly pick up the missing experience. You're close, but not close enough. Good luck. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per the esteemed Stifle. In answer to Dppowell's question, I cannot be assured either of the candidate's policy knowledge, or of the candidate's demeanor under pressure, until I have a solid record of evidence on which to base my conclusions. Wiki-space, with its "policy-laden" intense discussions, forms a valuable component of a well-rounded Wikipedian. In the absence of a certain minimal number of edit, I have little record to evaluate, and I assume inexperience (based of evidence of having seen many similar well-intentioned candidates, with similar low wiki-space participation, exhibiting worrying gaps in policy knowledge.) Xoloz 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's certainly true that I "don't know what I don't know" about policy. I can only respond that when a grey area requires attention, I'll do my homework. If immediate action is required, I'll use common sense. In cases when I later discover that my version of "common sense" clashed with policy, I won't be too proud to correct myself (and chalk it up to experience). Dppowell 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    It's always the "unknown unknowns" that trip you up :) Good answer, BTW - Alison ❤ 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    Oh, man. Certainly didn't mean to channel Donald Rumsfeld in my RfA. Thanks for supporting me in spite of that.  :) Dppowell 01:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Xoloz and Stifle. Little experience in Wikipedia namespace. Please keep up the hard work, though. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Anonymous D. Jmlk17 07:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Low amount of real text contribution. I don't think we need professional police here. `'Míkka 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    Could you elaborate? I recognize that people will naturally hold different opinions on the value of my contributions to the project, but the "professional police" comment sailed right over my head. Dppowell 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't worry about it. He has voted "oppose" at 9 or 10 different RfAs with the same or nearly the same pejorative "professional police" rationale. It's not you, it's him. K. Scott Bailey 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing 'crat: Please consider ignoring this. User has opposed several RfAs with almost the exact same rationale. Seems like the latest point voter has arrived. In a way, an admin deserves even less leeway for something like this, since they should know this isn't the way or forum for what they are trying to express or achieve (which in this case, I'm guessing, is to raise community awareness for a certain issue). Admins, just like the rest of us, should not be allowed to troll a Wikipedia process. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing b'crat: I find this canvassing of my valid votes as a disgusting WP:AGF and wikistalking. I don't think that we need "more good admins". IMO we need more good editors who grow into admins, and I am voting thusly. `'Míkka 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Mediocre answers and lack of wiki-space editing, may lack experience.--Professional Deletionist 12:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral Leaning to Support There's nothing wrong in your contributions, so I can't oppose, it's just there have been so little of them recently. When I review for RfA the first thing I do is open up the last 500 contributions. Then the next 500. And suddenly I was back six months!! My concern is that Wikipedia is so dynamic and changing that you may not be aware of changes to policies / consensus etc etc. I know this is a pretty poor rtaionale, that I should have more faith, and that this is all voluntary, but I really would prefer to have seen a consistent 150/200 contributions a month over the three - four months before applying. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, Pedro. Thanks! Dppowell 13:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Move to support.Pedro :  Chat  12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Per Xoloz (talk · contribs) in the oppose section. Please try again later after more experience. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
  2. Neutral leaning towards support I really liked his answers and intro... but i feel as if he needs more experience. That being said, I don't feel that he needs so much more experience that he warrants an oppose.Balloonman 01:33, 29 October 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.