Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ddstretch


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

Ddstretch
(85/0/1); final Andre (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

- I am honored to have the opportunity to bring Ddstretch to the community's attention as he has (finally!) agreed that the administrator functions will be a beneficial addition to his available tools. Ddstretch has been a Wikipedian for over 3 years, and active since July of 2006. Over the last 22 months, he has developed a reputation in esteemed circles as one of our most talented article writers; he is also the founder of a vibrant and skillful Wikiproject and its related portal. The evidence of his skillfullness can be easily ascertained by looking through his talk contributions. Ddstretch is a collaborator who understands what we are here for, as evidenced by the 4000+ mainspace edits, balanced with 1250+ Talkspace edits (that's article talkpages, folks - again, he's a collaborator). With over 9000 total edits, and with an edits-per-page average hovering around 3.5/3.6, it is obvious that this is a thoughtful, dedicated editor that does not simply do "drive-by" reversions. Enough of the edit counting, that is not at all what really determines a viable candidate. I challenge you to peruse Ddstretch's Wikipedia and "Wikipedia talk" editing. Clear, precise, thoughtful, civil, direct, and intelligent are all words that easily describe his style. And he understands policy, both because he knows how to create an encyclopedia, but also because he knows how to protect it. He has 100+ solid reports to WP:AIV, he has dozens (if not hundreds) of contributions in XfDs. I have no doubt in my humble mind that Ddstretch is already an asset to Wikipedia, already is perceived as an administrator, and can only make this a better place with access to the administrator tools. Simply outstanding Wikipedian. It was like pulling teeth to get him to accept this nomination (he's been offered before and declined), proof positive that he views adminship in the right light, not as some "earned trophy", but as a way to further the goals of the encyclopedia. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom by : I'm really pleased to co-nominate Ddstretch, who I offered to nominate two, three months ago. Although I used to be a statistics kind of voter, I now find that it does not compare to personal experience with a nominee. That said, I met Ddstretch in Epbr's RFA, where I felt that he was basically being overwhelmed by a series of opposes from users who had a bad experience with him. One of the opposers, Ddstretch, caught my eye in that he had a particularly focused argument and was actually one of the most civil about it. I could instantly tell that he was the type of person that we need as an administrator. The e-mail he sent back in reply to me was one of the best statements from any Wikipedian I've ever read. I encourage those who participate to look beyond the numbers and statistics that Keeper has graciously provided and look instead at what is most important and that we so very often seem to miss, the content and meaning behind what he has done for the community. RFA is NOT about the questions, not about the edit count, not even about the articles, it is about whether the candidate has, by any means, achieved the state of mind and the strong will and the knowledge needed to succeed.  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept the nomination, and thank the nominators for their comments. DDStretch   (talk)  09:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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: To begin with, my main activities on wikipedia are those of a content builder. I do not see that as changing too much, regardless of any outcome here. If I had the administrators' tools I would use them to assist and back up other content builders, primarily in work in which the projects of which I am a member are interested. that is The UK Geography Project, and The Cheshire Project. Of course, that would only be a bias, and I would work in all areas in which editors felt my skills could help, and I certainly would not wish to exclude myself from broadening any administration work I perform to take in all aspects of an administrator's duties and responsibilities. The kinds of specific work I envisage beginning with would be page protection, tricky (protected) page moves, page deletion, attempting to mediate in areas of contention between editors, and advising editors about any ultimately unhelpful aspects of their behaviour. These last aspects might include vandalism, edit warring, unhelpful language used in discussions, adding insufficiently sourced material lacking in verification of reliable sources by means of appropriate citations. To be able, in the last resort, to call upon administrators' tools would help in all of this. Throughout all this, these guiding principles (amongst others) will be kept in mind: respecting other editors, being clear, rational, even-handed, embracing collaboration wherever possible, and engaging in a continual self-audit of whether my actions benefit and facilitate the writing of content in wikipedia.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: On the strictly literal interpretation of the question, I am not sure any answer I give could be seen to be objective, even though I would attempt to make it as close to being objective as I could: best to leave that to others. However, if the question were asking about what I think I am most happy or proud about, or which contributions I have made that I think have benefited wikipedia the most, I think I can suggest some. I am particularly pleased with my work on initiating The Cheshire Project, and its related portal, though of course, it is the other editors who must be given the greatest credit for doing most of the subsequent work improving articles about Cheshire-related matters. The project has a relatively small number of active users, but I think it is steadily growing in its contributions, and I am happy to be associated with it and my fellow editors in it. Although very much a "work in progress", I am happy that I have recently begun to work on a series of articles that are concerned with some historical aspects to Cheshire: Ancient parishes of Cheshire, Hundreds of Cheshire, and Diocese of Chester, though their incomplete state at the moment made me hesitate to mention them here. In all of these, I have endeavoured to show by example what I would consider to be a crucial aspect of article writing: add the verification by means of appropriate citations of reliable sources as one enters new material, because my previous experience of being an article author and researcher in academia has shown me that it is sometimes impossible to easily do it later, especially in a context where anyone can edit material.


 * 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: It is inevitable in a context where many editors can contribute material, and differing opinions are held, that disagreements needing discussion will arise in the history of an active editor contributing content. The problem is in deciding when they turn into conflicts. Various breakdowns in behaviour can sometimes be used as indicators for this, but it isn't always cut and dry. I have always endeavoured to maintain civility, rationality, and respect in discussions over differences of opinion, but, of course, sometimes the situation means that, in retrospect, one's behaviour is seen to be not as appropriate as it could have been. In these cases, it is important to learn from the incidents. I have never received any formal warnings or had my behaviour reported to WP:AN/I or WP:Wikiquette alerts, for example, though I have made contributions to both those places and others on occasions. I can think of these incidents in particular that some may wish to consider in this RfA (an editor's RfA discussion could have been added here, but it has already been commented on by Bibliomaniac):
 * A discussion that some might have seen as heated about infoboxes in a particular article WT:CHES, which provoked some responses that I viewed as inappropriate. This included a response from a well-established editor to an enquiry that we had "the attention span of a gnat" when we asked him for clarification about his view. I took exception to this and found that the user had had some formal procedures about civility in the past, and so I posted an enquiry to section 51 in WP:AN/I here. I quickly realised I had unwittingly blundered into something that was ongoing and highly contentious, though I still believe that it does wikipedia no good at all when the first response that an established and respected editor gives to an enquiry about his reasoning is such an inappropriate response. My explanation is that it seemed to go against good wikipedia policy about communication, and that I had not seen the full extent of the controversy over the ArbCom case. The other contributions ranged in quality, but I was concerned, wearing my rationalist and critical thinking hat, at the degree to which some fallacious reasoning was used.
 * Some discussions involved an editor saying my behaviour was completely unacceptable when I pressed him hard, yet politely (I consider), over what I saw were unsustainable AfD requests: (see here, and here, and his message on my talk page.)
 * A more recent contribution to Wikiquette that referred to a previous disagreement: contribution to WP:WQA illustrating a diagreement
 * In all of these, I hope that my behaviour was viewed as being civil and rational, though I would probably take more care to not inflame matters if I repeated them now. I still maintain that it was correct to raise the matters, though I am certainly open to still be persuaded otherwise. As for what I do if such incidents affect me adversely: I must admit that sometimes I get fired up, but apart from affecting my motivation to be even more rational and logical, it doesn't affect me too much. I have, however, sometimes felt the need to offload matters off-wikipedia, as any professional person would do, I contend. If I have found that I am getting too bound up with things, I walk away for a bit and immerse myself in other matters, more often than not, off-internet, like walking, spending even more time with family, music, and so on. However, I view this as a normal part of "winding down" after some particularly tiring work, and I do not consider any of my contributions in these incidents to be particularly unusual in the context of normal UK academic debate and argument. Finally, if I think I could have done things differently and better, I also tend to discuss matters with trusted fellow editors, as it can always help to get different perspectives on the matters. In all of the above cases, I did so. I hope that addresses this question.


 * Optional question from Filll
 * 4. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.


 * Thanks for asking me. This message is just a place-holder. I will consider them and give a response, but I need some time to consider them a bit.  DDStretch    (talk)  23:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC) I've now answered one of these questions (2.3 Shockingly) on User:Ddstretch/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers.   DDStretch    (talk)  16:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Razorflame


 * 5. To show that you have at least a passing knowledge of the policies relevant to administrators, please answer the following questions:


 * 5a. What is the difference between a ban and a block. I am looking for creative answers, not just a copypaste from the policy page.


 * My apologies, but the word "creative" is causing me some difficulties; not because I can't think up any creative ways of illustrating the difference, but because I'm not sure whether you really mean "creative" or just mean "in your own words". Of course, I can do it either way. Could you clarify? In the meantime, here is perhaps an unusual yet still creative qua creative interpretation: We are in the UK in a pub or bar. A pub barman goes up to a man who is acting a bit worse the wear from drinking alcohol, and is yelling, interrupting darts games, telling inappropriate jokes to people, and generally being a bit of a pain. He says: "I think you've had enough to drink for now. Go home and recover, and when you've recovered, you're free to come back and drink here. I reckon it'll take you about 24 hours to sleep that lot off, and so I'll see you sometime after tomorrow. I'll help you on your way" and he assists the man in leaving and, if particularly helpful, may even call a taxi (cab) for him to take him home. Someone (not necessarily a barman) then notices two more people, one is an inveterate drunk, who is always disrupting other's people's enjoyment, picking up and drinking other people's beer, yelling, and so on. He's done this at least twenty times before, and it is getting on every regular's nerves so much so that they may well choose to go to another pub or bar. This is serious, and he and some other ordinary customers go over to the landlord (or landlady) to suggest something is done about this. The landlord (or landlady) of the pub (the licensee or person holding the license to sell alcohol at that place) assesses the situation, and hears what others are saying, and decides what to do. He (or she) goes up to the drunk. "You're barred from entering this pub. If you think you can behave better, make an appointment to see me, and I'll consider it, but otherwise, leave these premises immediately. I think you may have learned your lesson in 6 months, and so, as long as you promise not to do this again, I'll let you back in after 6 months. But beware. No more nonsense or you'll be out again!" That same night, another customer picks up a bottle, smashes it and attacks someone else in the pub, smashing the furniture in the attempt. Once again, after seeing or assessing what is happening, the landlord (or landlady) says to the fighter "You're barred. I'm not even going to allow you the chance of coming back in. You are barred permanently! Leave the premises immediately and never come back." The first case is a block. It is carried out by a barman (administrator), and is for a limited period of time (just enough time) to help prevent any more ongoing and current disruption to the rest of the pub's customers and to the pub (the wikipedia community and wikipedia itself) rather than to punish the man for being drunk. The second and third cases are bans (barrings from the pub) which are enforced by telling them to leave the pub (the mechanism of enforcing a ban can be by means of a block.) Bans are more formal matters, unable to be done by barstaff (administrators acting alone), and are decided and imposed by the licensee of the premises (ArbCom) or the owner (The Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales). In the second case, the ban is for a limited period, but in the third case it is permanent. Now, I really am not sure whether this kind of illustration was what you meant by using "creative", and, because it is an illustration by analogy, the process of abstraction will necessarily omit and simplify some of the details (e.g., the social construction element of a ban as opposed to a block is not really captured by the analogy.) It will also introduce some false apparent relationships caused by incidental features of the analogical domain, because an analogy cannot always be in an isomorphic relation with the domain of which it is an analogy: for example, in the analogy, the barstaff and customers are people, as is the licensee (landlord/landlady) and owner, but in the domain that the analogy is illustrating, the licensee and owner are groups of editors and administrators forming the committees that are enabled to decide these and other matters. Forgive me if this is an enormous faux pas on my part based on misconstruing "creative" in the question, but I can remedy that if you clarify the matter.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 5b. In your own words, when is it appropriate to block a user?


 * Generally, it would be appropriate to block an editor (including an administrator) if, after a series of warnings about their behaviour, the bad behaviour was continuing, and recent. The block is performed to prevent further disruption, rather than to punish the editor who has engaged in the disruptive behaviour. Because it can and does, prevent constructive editing work and remains on the editor's record or log thereafter, it really should be a last resort. The disruptive behaviour that might contribute to a decision to block a user can include repeated vandalism, edit warring (including 3rr violations), personal threats and attacks, and behaviour which is in violation of consensus and policy. In some cases, such as the possible evasion of a ban or block, or of sockpuppetry, some additional checks (such as getting a checkuser request fulfilled and investigated) to ensure any block is done on as certain a set of information as possible, because of the effects a block can have on the future work an editor could do.   DDStretch    (talk)  17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 5c. In your own words, when is it inappropriate to block a user?


 * If the previous answer's conditions were met, but an administrator was involved with the editor or the situation concerned, it would be inappropriate for that administrator to block a user, but other administrators might if they considered it appropriate. However, in the case of articles about living people then, so long as the relevant conditions mentioned in the previous answer held, even if an administrator was also involved in the matter, that administrator could possibly block the user. Nevertheless, if in doubt, that administrator should defer to another administrator to decide on any blocking. Probably the more usual inappropriate situations for blocking an editor would be as a punishment for disruption; if the disruption was not immediate or ongoing; or if the block were a so called "cool down block", as this would most likely have additional undesirable inflammatory effects. One should not use the block log as a means of recording incidents of bad behaviour by imposing very brief blocks (again because of the disproportionate negative impact any record in the log will have) though it could be used if the intent was to record an apology about an incorrect block being previously imposed (i.e., if it records an error of the administrator who previously blocked rather than an error of the editor.) Normally, blocking an editor on request by that editor should not be done, either. Finally, though it probably hardly needs stating, it would be inappropriate to block a user who is not being disruptive in any way.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 5d. In your own words, when do you semi-protect a page?


 * I would semi-protect a page when it is being vandalised by a number of editors, almost all of whom are unregistered, under conditions of: (a) many new unregistered editors "pop up" to engage in the vandalism over time, meaning that it would be extremely time-consuming and unfeasible to warn and ultimately block (if all else fails) those editors, (b) the costs associated with thereby discouraging useful edits from unregistered editors is more than cancelled out by the benefits associated with reducing the vandalism. Other factors may influence the matter. To give two example: if the page is about a living person, where repeated vandalism by unregistered editors may have additional consequences to wikipedia, or if the page is of such a quality that the effects of vandalism might harm it more than for other pages.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 5e. If a user continually vandalizes your user page, how would you proceed?


 * I would attempt to discuss the matter with them to resolve the problem. If that failed, then to be on the safe side in terms of even-handedness, I would ask another administrator to look into the matter and take whatever action seemed appropriate to them to help prevent the vandalism. I would give a pointer to my request to vandalising editor so that the policy of openness would be maintained.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 6. Would you be willing to place yourself in the Category:Administrators open for recall? If no, please explain.


 * I would certainly place myself on the list. I need to think a bit more about the criteria I would adopt in cases where I had not pre-empted the matter by reflection on my actions and resigned on my own initiative as a result. However, on reading the various different proposed criteria, Firsfron's seems a good contender.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 7. Suppose a user requests a semi-protection of a page, but instead of semi-protecting it, you fully protect it. Why?


 * To summarize first what full and semi-protection are: (a) Semi protection of a page is when editing by unregistered editors or editors who are newly registered (editors who have been registered for less than 4 days or who have less than 10 edits credited to them) are prevented from editing that page. (The newly registered editors are also said to have been not autoconfirmed); (b) Full protection of a page is when all but administrators are prevented from editing that page. Although not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines I read, it will also be the case that bureaucrats could also edit fully protected pages. The simplest reason why one might fully protect a page rather than semi protect it, as was requested, would be when the editor simply asked for the wrong kind of protection for the particular case. This might happen if the editors wished to force edit warring of a page due to a content to stop when registered users (perhaps including themselves) were one of the parties involved, and unregistered editors were the other party. On a principle of even handedness, it would be better to enforce no editing by all except by a uninvolved administrator until the content was resolved on the talk page. An erroneous request might also occur, if a deletion review of a page is being carried out, and for some reason, editing by unregistered users was expected during this process by the editor making the request. Once again, even-handedness and policy dictates that full-protection should be carried out. Finally, the request could just be a simple error, such as to prevent edit warring of a page (as in the first case I mentioned) when all the parties concerned are registered users. In this case, full protection would be appropriate, rather than semi protection.   DDStretch    (talk)  11:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Epbr123
 * 8. What is your definition of incivility, and how would you deal with a user you found to be uncivil? Epbr123 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Coldmachine
 * 9. You mention in Question 1 that you would actively utilise the mop to assist content contributors in the two WikiProjects in which you are involved (Cheshire, and UK Geography). You also mention in Question 3 that it is sometimes inevitable that content disputes emerge. How would you handle a content dispute in either of the two Wikiprojects named above?


 * Thanks for asking the question, which is quite a good one, I think. "I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth." (Karl Popper: "The open society and its enemies" Volume 2, chapter 24: The revolt against reason.) To begin with, I think it is worthwhile making the point that there are different kinds of content disputes: some are just disagreements that are resolved by discussion and debate focused entirely on the substantive issues involved. In others, various kinds of unhelpful or inappropriate behaviour may be used, such as edit-warring, or worse (personal attacks, etc). Of course, these can be just extreme points on a continuum. It would always be best to encourage behaviour which would avoid the unhelpful and inappropriate behaviour. To this end, my second initial point refers to the quote above. I consider it encapsulates what I think might be a good attitude to have when one is faced with disagreements on wikipedia (one should ignore the specific use of "truth", however.) So it could be well worth reminding people of the ideas it suggests when a content dispute occurs. Although we may have disagreements, our goals will be the same, and a pulling apart of ideas about content, critiquing each other's views, and so on, may help a solution emerge to the problem concerning content that is better than the different ones that first sparked off the disagreements. So, some aspects of content disputes might be beneficial to wikipedia so long as they don't become disruptive. I also consider that one can be more certain about a solution to a problem (in this case, resolving a content disagreement) when one exposes it to hard critical enquiry, though this can sometimes appear too fierce to those inexperienced with it on wikipedia (and so I have come to understand that one must tread more gently at times.) Finally, it is difficult to be very specific in my response because the nature of the question, whilst good, does not (and could not realistically) include any specific examples of disputes, and so one must answer in terms of more general tactics. With those points out of the way, a direct addressing of the question can be started. Prevention is always better than cure, and so helping to instil the ideas behind the Popper quote, along with other aspects of collaborative working on wikipedia would help, and they would still help in reminding people from time to time when a content dispute is happening. Utilising the ideas found in the dispute resolution material on wikipedia, and the links in that article could certainly help. This would include trying to get editors to seek out common ground, which can usefully inform the dispute and help a consensus be reached. If finding common ground fails, and edit-warring is taking place, it might become necessary to protect the page until the differences are resolved, but one would try to avoid this by appealing to the separate parties to discuss the matter, remind them still to try to find common ground, and uphold the various guidelines and policies about acceptable behaviour. One can always get outside perspectives on the matter by asking for comments from others (e.g., asking for a third opinion, posting a request for comment). At the most serious, if differences do not seem to be reconciled by the informal methods, it may best to recommend that a formal request for mediation is filed. It is probably best to avoid escalating such disputes, however, and with that in mind, I offer the following as a more detailed method that might be employed to informally resolve matter: I have found that there can be a need to help people focus their efforts on exactly what is under dispute. To this end, trying to get each "side" to simply and clearly express the material they would want included on the article's talk page can potentially help everyone see what is under dispute and then to be able to clearly discuss the relative merits and demerits of the various different solutions. If the matter is sufficiently serious to warrant it, a more directed form of getting this to happen could be suggested, but like all matters, it does require editors to agree to it to some extent, and perhaps one might try to persuade editors to engage in this following process. It is a five-step process which I have used on my own and which I have personally found very useful, and it may well be useful to others. It may appear to be long and involved, perhaps even too complicated, but any practical solution could simplify it, sometimes considerably, so that editors might merely be told of the procedure which they could carry out on their own in private, though it could be done in public if editors agreed it would be useful: Ideally, one might (a) ask that editors to advance as good a set of arguments that they can to advance their own preferred option; the next stage might be to (b) invite people to do the same for the contrary position to their own (this might be seen as novel, but there is a point to this); then they might (c) be invited to advance as best a set of arguments as they can in opposition to their preferred position; and finally they are (d) invited to advance as best a set of arguments as they can against the position they disagree with. In all of this, it is important to suggest that positive arguments are advanced (i.e., arguments of the form "because the other position is better" are not to be encouraged.) The feature to note is that the usual focus of any dispute: criticising the opposing positions, is done after the others, which helps to provide some understanding and insight into why preferred positions could be thought to be deficient in some way, and why opposing positions are thought to be advantageous. The final step (e) is to now consider all the material offered up in the first four steps and then to try afresh to reach a consensual and common viewpoint about it. I have found it is easier to reach a decision (and thus probably a consensus) after carrying out the four steps, since a number of them encourages one to empathize or "put oneself in the other's sides shoes" to appreciate their position and argument better. It may seem lengthy and perhaps difficult for the size of some of the disputes, but the general thrust of the five step process, above, can be simplified and made less lengthy and tedious, and it can be suggested rather than laboriously completed. In the above, I could act as a facilitator if required and if accepted by those involved in a content dispute. Of course, if I am involved, the matter becomes more tricky, but I would attempt to show by example what a good approach to reconciling the issues might be, and this might involve working through the five steps I outlined on the talk page itself to show people what might be achieved. I tried to do a small part of something like this on my own in the previously mentioned dispute about Little Moreton Hall, where I pointed out deficiencies in certain arguments and suggested means by which they could be strengthened (by supplying additional specific information, realistically capable of being found, which would certainly have altered my view if the material had been offered up.) Finally, of course, although although the question asked about the two projects I am primarily involved in, the above thoughts could and would inform similar content disputes arising outside those projects.

Optional question from InDeBiz1
 * 10. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?


 * Thanks for the question. First of all, for all but the most extreme disruptive behaviour, one should always allow people to demonstrate that they have changed for the better by being able to return to edit wikipedia. It seems part of assuming good faith to do so, and I think many people have stated that they know of editors who began by engaging in disruptive behaviour, and have become good editors. Some may even have gone on to become administrators, which, if verified, certainly then indicates that it is possible for trust to be regained. (In fact, this aspect of the question is an empirical question that could be solved by looking for the evidence in RfA discussions and viewing successful candidates' editing and block histories. Since administrators are often asked or assumed to ideally have higher standards of behaviour than editors, such a test would be a stringent test of the empirical question of whether trust can be regained by editors.) Similarly, we all were new and inexperienced once, and so care is needed to recognise and handle separately such new editors: indeed, I contend that in order to learn, one must be prepared to make mistakes, though obviously one should try to minimize any mistakes one does commit, and make any one does commit do as little harm as possible as quickly as possible by learning well. To return to the questions asked: In general, they asked about matters that are not clear-cut, not black and white, and for which a number of factors inform and influence individual editors about the degree of trust they each have in another editor, and this will, in turn, influence the degree of trust the community has in that editor, amalgamated together in some way from those who express a viewpoint in the process of reaching a consensus. The actual process of amalgamation may well be one factor, but I assume other factors would be expected to be mentioned at this point. The more obvious factors that would influence the extent to which trust could be regained would involve the type and severity of the actions that led to the loss of trust in the first place, and the actions that were seen to be done by the editor to demonstrate that they had changed. This might include an appropriate recognition and acceptance that their previous behaviour was inappropriate, perhaps together with an apology. If an administrator had been persuaded to lift a block, might one expect to see the request express regret for previous actions and promises that, if given another chance, they would strive to demonstrate real changes in behaviour to more appropriate kinds? Subsequent to being allowed to edit again, would one expect to see that any changes in behaviour were maintained and sustained? If the inappropriate behaviour led to another loss of trust, then perhaps this would be a factor that counted against any subsequent, second or third attempt to gain trust. In all of this, one should continue to assume good faith where possible, but perhaps there comes a point where a repeating pattern of promises of "reform" followed by slippage into inappropriate behaviour again means that it becomes reasonable to no longer assume good faith. In many cases, I imagine that a maximum of two such repeats would be allowed before trust was lost for a long time, pethaps irretrievably so. In all of these aspects or factors, it is difficult to produce hard and fast rules about how long to wait before trust is lost, before a state is reached where trust can never be regained, or before lost trust is regained, as it probably does depend upon the individual circumstances. Finally, I must wonder about the use of "complete trust" in the questions, and ask whether it is really complete trust that we are dealing with here? To what extent do we really have complete trust in people and processes in real life which could have quite serious, sometimes fatal, consequences if an error or failure in them occurred? Is wanting complete trust in editors on wikipedia not too much in the context of all other issues and aspects we face in real life, and should we be wanting such a stringent level of complete trust for editors on wikipedia, given that we are all fallible to some extent? Perhaps what we really need to focus on is whether or not the amount of trust we have in an editor is reasonably sufficient to allow them to get on with the job of editing with just the normal checks and balances of collaborative working, with any editor being able to see and comment on anyone else's contributions to wikipedia? If so, we need to refocus our attention on what would be reasonable and essentially "good enough". In which case, my previous comments about regaining trust would still apply. I can't address these questions here in more detail, for obvious time and space issues, which is a pity, and I realise that answering a question in a way which leaves a whole lot of extra questions at the end of an answer is perhaps not the most ideal way form of answer, but I think the question asked was good, and needs further discussion in a better forum than perhaps this RfA nomination.   DDStretch    (talk)  16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Ddstretch's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Ddstretch:

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

Support

 * 1) Finally. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Why the hell not?  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the previous two. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Most highest support possible - I have known Ddstretch for a while through WP:Derbys, and he can only use the mop for good!  Blue  Goblin 7even  10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A net positive and then some. Mature, educated, civil dedicated wikipedian. A pleasure to support. Pedro : Chat  10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I belive you won't abuse the tools. -- 'Kanonkas' : Take Contact  10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I have some reservations, but a net positive. Epbr123 (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Generally, a solid contributor, and an editor who has demonstrated a readiness for the sysop tools. Good luck! Anthøny  11:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support without reservation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A review of the contributions indicates nothing of concern. Impressed by attitude to conflict Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support While it may be hard to point to a single reason why I would support, I can't really find any reason why I wouldn't support. I see no issues with the candidate having the extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) support  Dloh  cierekim'''  14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - Indeed. Net positive per Pedro.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 15)  naerii  -  talk  15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Nominator. Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support; appears to be a good candidate with solid contributions. No reservations about this editor or his use of the tools. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support .  Rudget   (Help?) 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support  Speed CG  Talk  16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) KamStak23 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support What a pleasure to find out that Ddstretch is even more dedicated and more collaboration-prone than I knew. Full support. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support -- Brilliant wikipedian. Whole-hearted support. Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Looks good to me. --CapitalR (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong Support (provided he still has time and energy for WikiProject Cheshire!) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support – Excellent candidate Keeper   |   76 .  Now this is what I am talking about!  Great edit count that shows Article building rather than just vandal fighting.  Time with the project, coming up on two years – Civil but no push over, at least through the talk pages I reviewed.  Had some disagreements, but no real conflicts, at least on his part, that I can tell.  Best of luck to you.  ShoesssS Talk 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Excellent editor. I can't find anything even remotely negative. Tan   |   39  18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) support fantastically helpfull!!!(ARBAY (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC))
 * 28) Support. No problem here. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support a good candidate --Stephen 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support good editor. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support for the good of Wikipedia.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Three cheers and a tiger for this excellent candidate! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) dorftrottel (talk)  01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Very impressive. GlassCobra 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Capable of listening and self-criticism even in situations of disagreement. Won't throw around his weight any differently just because of a shiny new sysop badge. Certainly won't abuse tools. Explained how he could be more effective with tools. Good editor, good judgment. Should receive tools. ---Sluzzelin talk  03:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Support per Sluzzelin - capability of humility and open-mindedness is perhaps the most valuable human quality.  Vishnava talk  03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per my criteria. -- Chetblong ( talk ) 04:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Appears unlikely to run amok with the buttons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Totally!-- B a r k j o n 17:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) Support Shapiros10 Wuz Here    17:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Support I don't see how this user would abuse the tools. Spencer  T♦C 19:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Good editor. RE  TIR  ED   19:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Have seen nothing at all to doubt this candidate's commitment and competence. -- Rodhull andemu  23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) Uber Support An admirable candidate Prom3th3an (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) Support.  Has what it takes to admin with the best.   — Athaenara  ✉  10:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) Support. Will make an excellent administrator. Cheshire represent! Neıl  龱  15:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Support Yes yes yes! I thought Stretchy was already an admin. Sticky Parkin 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) Support, WP:50.  Wizardman  18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Support An editor who isn't addicted to talk pages but gets things done. Bill Reid | Talk 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Support This candidate is an exceptional candidate.  I support him per the answers to Q2, Q3, and most of the questions that I asked.  Most of the questions that I asked were geared towards policies that are relevant to administrators, and DDstretch answered every single question impressively and with a lot of thought.  This means that he would not just leap before looking when he is deleting a page or closing an AfD.  He will give each block and each protection and each deletion a lot of thought and his full attention before he goes through with it, and he will do it correctly.  I have complete faith that this user will do the job right the first time. Razorfl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b> 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) Support &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) Aye. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 20:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Hurrah From personal experience, a good and thoughtful contributor to Wikipedia. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Support I've noticed you doing a lot of good work, and you seem to have a good grip of policy from the questions above. Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk ) 22:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) Support Yep, meets my lenghty, edit count, and demeanor reqs.  MBisanz  talk 04:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 58) Support clear net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) Support - I am impressed. :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 09:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) Support we've not always agreed onarticle content, but discussions have always been civil and constructive. no reason not to.  David Underdown (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) Support Solid contributor, mature comments to AfD debates I have been involved in and meets my criteria. Orderinchaos 12:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) Support - most definitely. Good contribution record - and the essential ability to herd cats in the same general direction. Answers to questions demonstrate a good grasp of policy. Kbthompson (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 63) Support -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 64) Support. I've had nothing but good experiences with this editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 65) Support--per Sticky Parkin, Black Kite, and Sheffield Steel, because I always see them making sensible comments on AN/I and elsewhere, and trust their judgement. -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 66) Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 67) Support Don't like all the answers above, but don't see any important concerns either. From what I'm able to gather this user is the right kinda guy for adminship. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 68) Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 69) Support, no evidence that this user would maliciously abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
 * 70) Support We have 'met' on only a very few occasions including this wretched discussion. I can't fault your civility or open-mindedness during the debate and I have little doubt that you are a fine editor and are likely to make a good sysop. Ben MacDui<sup style="color:#228B22;">Talk /  Walk  19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 71) Strong Support I received a huge amount of support and guidance from this editor in my quest for a little bronze Featured Article star. He provided not only helpful suggestions, but a great deal of practical help as well. I would definitely give him my support as an administrator.-- seahamlass  20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 72) Weak Support This user has a good 9K edits, however 1K of them are just user talk. It is a little decieving. However, good luck. <em style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:DarkBlue">StewieGriffin!  &bull; Talk 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 73) Support, trust the nom and no compelling reason not to. user talk edits indicate that the user values the collaborative process. xenocidic (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 74) Support. A fine candidate. No red flags. Net positive. &mdash; Maggot Syn 07:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 75) Support An excellent editor, and should make an equally good admin. I do not see the diffs in the oppose section as representing anything other than civility. DGG (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 76) Support By far the strongest answer to my optional question from any candidate that I have posed it to thus far.  Doesn't look too much like you'll need it, but good luck!  --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 17:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 77) Support Considering the well thought out and lengthy comments Ddstretch usually seems to make, I'm surprised that there are so many brief support comments. I've observed that Ddstretch is a knowledgeable and thoughtful editor, one who I am certainly will use the admin tools wisely. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 78) Support Quality contributions, thoughtful comments. No reason to oppose. Cena rium  (talk)  22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 79) Support - top quality contributions, no concerns over interactions, patient answers to adminship questions. Warofdreams talk 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 80) Support per Warofdreams. &mdash;paranomia happy harry's high club 00:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 81) Support: User around for a long time. Contributor. Steady editing. Thoughtful. Actually barely needs the admin tools...But no reason to believe in any risks in giving the buttons too. 1.2 K user page edits ! Wow ! Still never wrote on my page ?? OK. You can leave a RFA-Thanks spam soon... ;) Keep up the good work in wikipedia. -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 82) Strong Support per noms and especially due to question 5a. That answer should be in a guideline somewhere.  It illustrates the differences perfectly!   Qb  | your 2 cents  12:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 83) Support: --Bhadani (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 84) Support: Following clarification on quality of interaction and ability to work with others. Coldmachine Talk 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 85) Support. Wow.  From what I read above, this individual is already a better administrator than I am.  I look forward to learning from what will doubtless be good examples.  Accounting4Taste: talk 02:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * (Oppose by Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC) moved to neutral; noting fact here to repair Tangobot's count.) UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral. I'm just not 100% convinced at this point. I'm concerned about this, whether it was made in jest or otherwise, and although I have the greatest of respect and admiration for the thorough, and academically rigorous, application of editing standards which User:Ddstretch exhibits I don't feel that this is actually a qualification for handling the mop; for being one of the project's leading editors, absolutely, but for handling disputes and engaging with other users? I'm not certain. My own question was unclear and I apologise for that: what I was aiming at was "you mention you'd use the mop to assist the WikiProjects in which you are involved: what if you were personally engaged in a content dispute in an article falling under the purview of one of these though?". The resolution processes which were highlighted in the response, however, are indeed thorough and sound as are the views extrapolated within other answers to the questions which have been asked of Ddstretch. I'm not convinced, however, that they would necessarily work well in a 'real life' application, as it were. That said I'm still open to being convinced to switch to support. In short, for me, I don't think editing experience is the be all and end all of the suitability for becoming a sysop and it seems that this is the basis on which most of the support !votes have been voiced. WP:GRFA highlights "quality of interaction and ability to work with others" in addition. Coldmachine Talk 14:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Coldmachine posted a message on my talk page where he clarified a request for more information about joint working I might have done. I have replied there, but it is probably informative for others to see a modified response here as well. I wish to thank Coldmachine for asking for clarification and, of course, I understand and accept why he felt a need for additional information. Just as I think it is important for us to try our best to reach decisions about content on wikipedia for the right reasons, naturally, as part of that, it is also important to reach decisions about an RFA candidate for the right reasons as well. Here is a selection of material that I think may address the issue. If the material I've added isn't exactly what is being looked for, please feel free say where I've gone wrong in my interpretation. I've assumed that quality of working together can include healthy disagreements which are concerned with working together to reach a solution that would be advantageous for wikipedia in terms of improving the quality of articles on wikipedia and the confidence with which one can be assured of this. It isn't in any strongly particular order.
 * Various contributions after it went "live" to Template talk:Infobox UK place, and joint working whilst it was being written, which can be found in Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1, as well as the other archives, but in particular in Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1, where I worked with a number of editors, some of whom have cited this template work in their own RfAs.
 * Template talk:Infobox England and Wales civil parish (including more work yet to be done.)
 * Denshaw, Talk:Denshaw and User talk:Ddstretch
 * Navenby, Talk:Navenby, User talk:Ddstretch, and Featured article candidates/Navenby
 * The King's School, Chester and Talk:The King's School, Chester, where I've tried to get edit-warring to end by being understanding and suggesting means of achieving consensus.
 * Diocese of Chester and Talk:Diocese of Chester
 * Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd
 * Sandbach School and User talk:Ddstretch (working with and advising a new user, User:ARBAY),
 * Widnes and its talk page and also User talk:Ddstretch
 * A number of smaller-scale instances of working together on various matters in WT:UKGEO and its archives.
 * Thank you.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral (modified from oppose).  It seems I may be in a minority here, but I need to express a slightly contrary view....  My experience of Ddstretch is generally in line with what others have said. Without question, he is conscientious, civil, and a major contributor of excellent articles and improvements.  But I'm not sure that would make him a good administrator.  His background is in academia - nothing wrong in that, but it can generate a particular sort of mind set that only the best, the most perfectly justified, the most precisely argued, is good enough.  Anything else is less than the perfection he seeks.  My specific experience followed my making a small edit (informative and interesting, I thought) which he reverted as being not in accordance with guidelines.  Nothing wrong with what he wanted to achieve, but I question how he did it, and how he would deal with similar issues in future.  Rather than showing flexibility and a light touch over what was, in essence, a small disagreement, Ddstretch escalated the issue by raising it on various talk pages and contributing ever lengthier and more precisely argued paragraphs to justify his position.  His view was not "wrong" - we all need rules - just mildly inappropriate for the messy and imperfect world in which the great majority of Wikipedia contributors live.  I worry that he would not have the occasionally necessary lightness of touch, or the correct tone, in dealing with well-meaning but less precise or academically qualified editors, and that this would discourage, rather than encourage, many potential contributors whose involvement would benefit Wikipedia.  So, I must reluctantly oppose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most nicely worded "opposes" I've read in weeks. Thanks Ghmyrtle for explaining above and beyond what you needed to explain.  You've made my support even stronger for Ddstretch based on our (obvious) difference of opinion on what he can provide in the way of leadership, intelligence, and thoroughness - qualities desparately lacking on Wikipedia.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand where I think Ghmyrtle is coming from. Ddstretch certainly can appear to be intimidating, and he is certainly demanding in those areas where he chooses to contribute. I only wish that there was a thousand more like him. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ghmyrtle that Ddstretch sometimes needs to be gentler with less experienced editors. A similar situation to the one Ghmyrtle described also occured here and here. However, now this has been brought to Ddstretch's attention, I'm sure he'd be willing to work on this. Epbr123 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the response on his talk page isn't too encouraging. Epbr123 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies to all for this message. I presume Epbr123 is referring to this conversation. I wouldn't normally comment here, but I think Epbr123 is missing the content of what I said in that talk page, taken together with a crucial sentence in my reply to question 9, above, where I stated: "I also consider that one can be more certain about a solution to a problem (in this case, resolving a content disagreement) when one exposes it to hard critical enquiry, though this can sometimes appear too fierce to those inexperienced with it on wikipedia (and so I have come to understand that one must tread more gently at times.)" As it happens, both Epbr123's and Ghmyrtle's examples involves users whose log files and talk pages indicated to me that they were not new, inexperienced editors. Consequently, the criticisms didn't and don't match up the evidence with the criticism in a significant manner. Thus, even though the conclusion is something I accept is something worth paying attention to, the evidence they provided in support of it, and hence the argument they advanced was weak, which is what I (correctly) stated. If people are now to go and view my talk pages following up links where necessary, you will be able to view examples where I have behaved with the necessary sensitivity towards inexperienced editors recently. See User talk:Ddstretch and related links at User talk:ARBAY, which together with that user's vote, above, shows that the messages were certainly not viewed as being inappropriate. Additionally, see User talk:Ddstretch which concerned Widnes, along with Talk:Widnes. These also show an interaction that did not put off an inexperienced editor. Finally, I must apologise for this message, which could be taken to be evidence of my undue attention to accuracy, which Ghmyrtle mentioned.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said less experienced instead of inexperienced. But as you've acknowledged that this is "something worth paying attention to", I'm happy to continue supporting your nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I clicked on both those links, and I cannot see how an editor could have been more gentle and civil. Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience, for what it's worth, is essentially here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've read the discussions and Ddstretch's reaction. Again I think that he, and one or two others, have misinterpreted my comments (which fact in itself raises some issues). My concerns are not over his civility, rather over his possible lack of empathy with those - who may not necessarily be any less experienced than him - who have rather more relaxed and less stringent views than he does over proper processes and adherence to guidelines. An over-rigorous approach can be at least as damaging, in my view, as one that is too flexible.  But I'm reasonably confident that as an administrator he'll take other perspectives into account in a civil way, so in the spirit of consensus I'm happy to modify my position to neutral and wish him good luck.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 4 June 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.