Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dmlandfair


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

Dmlandfair
final (3/10/7) ending 07:03 29 January 2006 (UTC)

– I have been editing on Wikipedia since slightly before June 13, 2005. I was using public IP addresses before that, so I can't access my edit history, but it was small. I have participated across Wikipedia in my different areas of interest as a content contributor and other areas doing maintenance tasks. Copy editing is my first love, but I've also helped out with vandalism problems to a small degree, and lately I've been getting pretty into working with NPOV problems the Category features, working to make sure that articles listed in categories have been appropriately moved out of inappropriate supercategories. I think I'll make a strong admin, and my edit history should confirm that. I'm always ready to have a pleasant discussion with another editor about any conflict that may arise. Dave 07:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom. I accept.

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support. Hey, I'll give it a shot.  J I P  | Talk 13:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Candidate appears to be reasonable and well-intentioned. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.--Alhutch 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems polite and focused. Dmn € &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 17:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Too little activity until recently, lack of project edits may indicate lack of understanding of policies. Too soon. NSL E (T+C) 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per NSLE --Jaranda wat's sup 07:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose same as abovePschemp | Talk 15:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Sorry, so little edits, 1148, so little time. Will glady suport a future nomination if he keeps contributing. — M o e   ε  00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Save as above. please withdraw and come back in three months! Olorin28 03:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per NSLE --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Please stay active, use summaries even for minor edits, and try again when you have more editing experience. Jonathunder 05:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, I'm not too concerned about edit summaries for minor edits. However, I really think you need a little more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures before I'm comfortable with supporting you. --Deathphoenix 14:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose not sufficiently active before this month. Try again in the future, though... (and do remember edit summaries, even for minor edits) └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. I agree with above.  Only active in the last month.  Also, to me, minor edit summaries are just as important as the major edit summaries.  More project edits would also a big plus. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral for now. 3 months of steadily increasing activity, and over 1000 edits, both serve you well - but I share NSLE's concerns about your lack of experience working in the Project (Wikipedia:) namespace. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Would like to see more UserTalk/Project work on your resume.  xaosflux  Talk  / CVU  14:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Keep on the doing good work for a couple more of months and try again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm not particularly swayed either way. --King of All the Franks 01:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. I'm conflicted here.  On the one hand, your lack of project namespace edits does look funny.  On the other hand, you have a similar amount of edits and active time to when I was granted admin status, so I can't oppose you in good conscience.  Mo0 [ talk ] 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral Good intentioned, but sorry. Get someone else to nominate you next time, that helps. Karm  a  fist  20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral It will be better if you have more editing experience.--Jusjih 10:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Edit summary usage: 96% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 84 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 07:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See information about Dmlandfair's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.



Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. Mostly, I plan to work on reverting vandalism and new page patrol, as far as sysop chores are concerned. I'm also going to keep working on NPOV and categorization problems, and I'd be sure to keep an eye on the pages listed on Requests for administrator attention to see where I could lend a helping hand.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My favorite of the articles I've created is Purple Pamphlet, a historical document that had significant impact on my alma mater about 50 years ago, long before I was born. I also created COLAGE, which I thought was a pretty important organization that was missing. I think the more important work I've done has been more minor stuff, like copy editing. Making sure that titles are appropriately italicized or placed in quotation marks, spelling errors, hyphenation—the little things that make Wikipedia more readable and ultimately more useful.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I've been involved in a few conflicts in the talk space. I can't recall any conflicts resulting in an edit war. The first couple conflicts that come to mind are Talk:Peppermint Patty and Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association. The first was peaceably resolved with the other user through some compromise and discussion, and the latter I eventually decided (after a few days of discussion) that I was less than capable of forming a neutral opinion to base a categorization decision on, and I left the debate, which is still ongoing, with moderation. I've not been stressed out at all by these conflicts. I thrive on conflict resolution, and after some more experience in the community, I might like to start working on mediation issues.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test1}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A. &#123;{test1}} seems most appropriate for simple blankings and minor vandalism; whereas &#123;{bv}} would be better for inserting irrelevant material.
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A. I would leave a comment on the user talk page, explaining the spirit of the law and asking them to use the article talk page.
 * 6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A. I would do a little bit of research, probably using Google and checking the Special:Whatlinkshere page to see if there's room for the article to be improved within the appropriate guidelines. If websearching and whatlinkshere indicate notability, I'd go to AFD.
 * 7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * A. I'd do that by ensuring that several viewpoints are represented with nothing to indicate that any POV(s) might be invalid, discussing it with editors of different ideologies who can contribute to the discussion positively.
 * 8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * A. I haven't really had any frustrations to speak of on Wikipedia. I could make up something about my edits being reverted or my attempts at NPOV being unappreciated, but I think that's one of the great things about Wikipedia, that I can't just decide that my POV is correct and verifiable and universal. Something that has bothered me is the essential inability to communicate with unregistered editors. Many people won't register for one reason or another, and leaving them messages becomes useless.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.