Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dpmuk


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

Dpmuk
Final (64/3/1); closed by Kingturtle on February 20, 2012 03:08:13 (UTC)

Nomination
– I've been active on Wikipedia for quite a few years now and feel the time has finally come to try an RfA. At 7,000 edits I realise that my number of edits isn't massively large but that's partly due to the area in which I work and which is the reason for this RfA (so as not to repeat myself I expand on this in Question 1). I would also like to explain the dip in my editing in the July-September timeframe last year. At that time I was writing my PhD thesis, and as I'm sure anyone who's written one can testify, that can be a time consuming experience. Now that's out of the way and I'm settled into a new job (in a new country) I expect my editing levels will pick back up (like they already have the past month or so). Dpmuk (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The main area in which I would (and indeed do) work is in copyright investigation. The ability to do revdels and deletions in this area would be beneficial, especially given the lack of editors operating in this area.  I think User:Moonriddengirl does a sterling job in this area but I seem often to be going to her for admin-related tasks, which if approved for adminship, I could do myself.  Working in this area is one of the main causes of my low edit count - a difficult investigation can often easily take half an hour or more and will often result in maybe a handful of edits.
 * I also sometimes look at CAT:CSD and WP:RM, normally when I need a break from copyright work, and I suspect it's quite likely that I would perform admin tasks in those areas. I'd certainly tread very carefully in WP:RM given the current arbcom activity.  In the case of speedy deletes I would work on the theory that a single admin should not delete a page without review, i.e. someone else first tagging it, except in cases where legal problems may arise (i.e. copyright, BLP or similar).  I realise that this is not required but think it's an important quality control step, especially while I was learning the ropes.  In the cases where legal problems could, potentially arise, I think the balance swings and getting rid of the material, possibly followed by review, has to be the way to go.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: The two contributions of which I'm most proud are Engkanto and Carl Jackson (caddie). The first of these was a DYK and I suspect if I'd done the rewrite quick enough on the second it would have had a reasonable chance as well.  I'm most proud of these as I saved them from speedy and took them to a reasonable level.  They're also probably my only really substantial content contributions.  Content contribution is not something I'm good at, as I don't think my writing skills are the best.  However given the effort I went too to save those two and the many interactions I've had about removing copyright content I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of those that do work more in content.
 * All that said, I think my best contributions from the point of view of the encyclopaedia, is my copyright work. This area is one of the areas that could have very real, and bad, consequences for Wikipedia if we get it wrong and as such the small amount of work I can do to reduce the chances of such consequences happening is important.


 * 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'd be remiss not to mention User:Dpmuk/Slovaks in Hungary discussion. I think that page talks for itself.  Did I deal with that as well as I could've done, no I did not.  I learnt a lot from it.  I still think the role of "procedures" and the like is undervalued and reaching the right result overvalued.  Yes, obviously we want the right result but if how we arrive there alienates editors there may still be a net loss for the encyclopaedia and I think this is often overlooked.  However I've modified how I deal with things in the year and a half since then and would not be so confrontational in future.  I also still hold the fundamental views I gave there, although I accept they are the views of only one editor and I'm giving to have to live with wikipedia being "imperfect" from my point of view (although I challenge any editor to say they're happy with how every single bit of wikipedia works).
 * Working in copyright there are often lots of things that cause me stress. For example finding a page that has had a copyright violation on it for years, especially if it's been commented on previously as well.  I'd like to think that my record shows that I don't often let these affect my actions and that when I do think it may adversely effect my actions I take a step back (for a recent example see this).


 * Optional questions from  Wifione  Message
 * 4. Please give your views on when it is editorially and administratively appropriate not to follow policy or guidelines.
 * A: Interesting question and one where what I'd do differs, in being more strict, than what the community allows. In my opinion, and what would guide my actions, is that, in normal circumstances, the only time it is appropriate to go against policy and guidelines is after a consensus has formed to do so.  How wide this consensus would need to be depends on the severity of the subject.  A relatively small edit against the MOS would need only a consensus on the article talk page, while if it concerned blocking an editor or similar it would need substantial discussion at a widely viewed board (say AN/I).  Of course there are some policies, such as some of those related to copyright, BLP etc, which are based on legal advice and should never be gone against, at least without prior approval of the WMF.  Unusual circumstances that might cause me to go against that are when the action is necessary to avoid possible legal issues, to ensure privacy or to stop technical harm to Wikipedia.  Obviously I don't know what situations I'll encounter so that's not exhaustive but I believe it should be at that level of severity.
 * The community as a whole, however, seems to take a slightly laxer view and many editors (both admins and others) believe that the right result is the most important thing and so will perform actions when they feel the right result is obvious, often citing WP:IAR. I don't believe in this, as I allude to above, because of the effect it may have on editors, primarily new editors, however given that there seems to be consensus for this position I would not do anything were I to see it happen.
 * Clarifying following discussion with Wifione's - they have informed me on their talk page that it was the text "I don't believe in this, as I allude to above" that they have problems with and with hindsight I can see why. It's not WP:IAR that I don't believe in, rather I believe it's often applied too widely.  As an example, in the Slovaks in Hungary issue, a page was userified by a non-admin.  This was, eventually, justified as an IAR cases - the page clearly did not belong in main space and so the right result had been achieved.  Although I'd agree the right result was achieved, from the enclyopedia content POV, I think the effect on a new editor of seeing there page being userfied without following any procedure in likely to be damaging and possible result in the editor leaving the project.  Editors leaving will likely result in a poorer encyclopaedia. In this instance I think little harm would've come of leaving the article in mainspace while an AfD was followed or an admin moved it as a speedy delete they were userfying instead of deleting.  I think the effects of invoking IAR on the editors involved, and the knock-on effects on the encyclopaedia, are often overlooked and the "right result" valued too highly.  Of course there will be plenty of times where IAR is the right thing to do, I just think it's currently applied too widely.  That said, that's my personal view, and I recognise and respect the consensus on it's use.


 * 5. Please explain how you would handle an AfD that has already been listed for a reasonable time and is awaiting closure, yet has not found even one comment or !vote. Please explain comprehensively and specifically taking the following three example articles in consideration, with each article being poorly sourced yet neutrally written: a BLP1E article, a BLP of a well known living personality, an article about a tourist destination.
 * A: I would like to start by saying that BLP is one area I've stayed out of and one which I'm likely to stay out of. One legal minefield (copyrights) in enough for me.  With that in mind if I had to deal with them I'd leave the first one be as I don't think I know enough about the area.  In the instances you describe I'd consider improving the article to be more important than acting as a closer so with the other two I'd try to find sources and add them to an article if I found them.  Having done such a search I'd then undoubtedly have an opinion as to whether the article should stay or not and so would !vote at the AfD as I'd then consider myself too involved to act as a closer.
 * In response to Wifione's !vote below it's obvious that I've not explained my knowledge of BLP very well, so I'll expand on my answers. With regard to BLP1E it is generally accepted that, although articles are not normally merited for one event, that if the event is significantly notable then it may be warranted.  With no !votes or comments this would be very hard to determine.  The distinction between what is and isn't significantly notable is one I wouldn't feel happy making except in reasonably obvious cases.  If I were somehow forced to deal with the AfD, and it were a minor event, then I'd close as delete citing WP:BLP1E.  If on the other hand it was clearly a major enough event I'd add sources (as these would exist) and vote !keep (as I'd then consider myself involved and anyway wouldn't feel happy closing against one !vote - the nom - as it would look too much like opposing my view).  In the grey area in between I'd probably add what sources I could and post at WP:BLP/N to try to get more eyes on it.
 * In the case of a more general BLP we now require, for new articles, at least one reliable source. In this instance I've assumed this exists as the questions said "poorly sourced" rather than no source.  Straying outside the question a bit if there was no source I'd look for one and if I couldn't find one vote !delete and this would hopefully be enough for the next reviewing admin to make a decision.  In the circumstances of the question it would seem obvious that the person deserves an article so I would try to improve the article and !vote instead.  Simply closing the AfD myself would, again, be imposing my view.
 * 6. An article about a notable robbery mentions a relatively unknown person as being one of the suspected robbers. All the allegations are properly validated with high quality, multiple reliable sources. The person writes to you to help him remove the allegation. What will be your response?
 * A: I'd suggest that I was not the best person to deal with them and suggest they contact OTRS - Given the circumstances I doubt they'd want the discussion to take place on-wiki.  As I say above BLP is not my area and I would feel a little out of my depth here.  I don't believe admins should need to know how to deal with anything but I do think it's important that they can recognise when they can't deal with a situation and know when to pass it on.
 * Expanding on this answer as well, I still think there'd be people better equipped to deal with the enquiry but I'll explain my understanding of the issues. What should happen would depend on the circumstances.  If the person had a small bit part in an otherwise notable event where it would seem that they would be quickly forgotten then I think the potential harm of naming a possibly innocent person outweighs other issues and the details should be removed.  If at the other end of the scale they're accused of a major part in a major event and so are likely to remain remembered regardless of what we do then as long as our text is well referenced and neutral then it should be kept.  Of course balances will change if they're found guilty as the potential extra harm we'd cause reduces.  Again, there's always likely to be grey areas.


 * Optional questions from jc37
 * In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
 * 7. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
 * 7a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
 * A: Obviously there will be odd cases but in general editors should be blocked when they are causing harm to the encyclopedia and attempts to get them to stop have failed. Blocks are there to protect the encylopedia not as punishment.  Blocks should be lifted when it appears clear the problematic behaviour will not continue.  Blocks are often for a set length partially on the assumption that the person involved will have had time to reflect and so the behaviour won't continue.
 * Expanding on this at the request of Jc37. I realise that I don't need to do this but as they've requested I do I think I should.  I suspect part of the request is due to me not really doing anything more than trot out my understanding of policy.  I don't really explain what I'd do in difficult situations.  Ultimately in any situation I would be guided by the "harm to the enclyclopedia" idea, that said I would obviously still act differently in different situations.  Dealing first with unblocking.  When deciding whether to undo a block made by someone else I would obviously take the situation into account.  If it were the editors first block, it seemed clear it was over one issue, that the issue was resolved and that the blocking admin wasn't available then I'd probably feel happy making the unblock myself and leaving the blocking admin a note.  If at the other end of the scale the reason for blocking was not obvious, the editor had been blocked multiple times or the case looked complicated in some other way then I'd wait much longer to see if the blocking admin would comment and / or ask for review at ANI depending on the situation as it would seem much more likely that in such a case I would not be aware of all pertinent information.  There is obviously a continuum between those two extremes.
 * On to blocking. There will be cases where blocking without warning will be appropriate, gross BLP violations on a high profile article, for example, that had already been re-inserted after a previous revert (although obviously I'd hope there would be warning in such a case).  Obviously in such cases I'd try to keep a close eye on the editor involved as they may have made an honest mistake but the risk of, for example, the media picking up on it would be enough that I think a block without warning would be warranted.  (Obvious socks are a case where immediate blocking is nearly always appropriate).  At the other end of the scale if the editor was obviously acting in good faith but missing something important, and the potential harm was small, then a block would be, very much, a last resort, preferably only after someone had left them a personalised message.


 * 7b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
 * A: Protection is normally used when there is edit warring and blocking isn't appropriate (e.g. when the edit war involves changing IPs), to stop the repeated insertion of problematic material (e.g. copyrighted material, BLP violations) by different editors or when a change to the file can cause significant harm (e.g. the main page). In answering such a general question my answer is necessary general, I will be happy to answer more questions.  Unprotection should occur when it's clear that the problem should have stopped, e.g. a consensus has been reached.  Protection is often for a set length for the same reason as blocks.
 * Adding a bit here, again at the request of jc37. I think if I was to explain more here about when I'd protect / unprotect I'd be covering a lot of the same ground as I've just covered above in the block question as I feel the decision to block / unblock is very similar to that to protect / unprotect.  The difference between the two is largely in which will be best, from  a technical point of view, at stopping the problem.  Multiple editors involved on a single page then protection is best, a single editor across multiple pages then block is better.  I think the point here is to achieve the desired effect with the least possible impact on other editors.


 * 7c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?
 * A: To put it simply speedy deletion only occurs when one of the speedy delete criteria is met. It is the community's desire that those criteria are interpreted narrowly and in case of doubt a different process should be used.  There may be the very occasional reason for a page to be deleted "speedily" outside these criteria, although with the maturity of the criteria I'd expect those to be incredibly rare and normally brought for review immediately.  Speedy restore should be relatively rare (except in the case of contested prods) and would mainly occur when the original deletion was obviously an error (someone deleting WP:V for example) or when the situation has obviously changed since the deletion (e.g. a G12 where the website copied from now has an appropriate license deceleration).


 * 7d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
 * A: I think I've commented on this a lot already. I'm going to assume these are standard questions and so I don't need to write more.  Please let me know if that's an incorrect assumption.
 * Would appear that I was wrong in my assumption so I'll expand and try to answer jc37's question below. I think it's difficult to say when I'd use IAR as I see it's main use being in situations that aren't directly covered by policy and are unusual enough that the reason they're not covered is no one's considered that circumstance.  As a recent example there was I believe a recent page that was automatically redirecting people to another wiki due to a glitch in the wikimedia software and editing the page here proved impossible.  Now I can't remember the exact circumstances but say that the redirect was a reasonable soft redirect but something had gone wrong in creating it and resulted in the glitch.  I'd suggest that deleting that page is a valid WP:IAR as none of the speedy rules really apply but it's speedy deletion is necessary to keep things running as we expect them to.  It would be in circumstance such as this where WP:IAR is required to avoid technical or legal issues and the relevant policies / guidelines while considering the broad area don't cover the specific circumstance where I'd use it.  I realise that this is much stricter than consensus on it's use but I'd by hypocritical if I used it in circumstances that I thought it shouldn't be just because I'd be allowed to.


 * . How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
 * A: Ohh, that's a difficult one to put in words. Essentially consensus is strength of argument although it's more complicated than that implies.  Arguments based on policy and guidelines will carry more weight than a I don't like it argument.  I'm willing to try and expand on this more if people want but I'm really struggling to put it in words.  As for the second part of the question, I don't think it should be determined differently, it's what that determination means that differs, essentially how wide the "no consensus" bit in the middle is.  In an informal talk page discussion the no consensus range may be non-existent as getting it wrong (by wrong I mean the consensus in the discussion isn't the same as the wider community discussion) isn't a big problem and is easy to overturn with more discussion.  As the consequences of the decision get larger the "no consensus" zone will often get larger so as to ensure that we have the correct consensus.  This is necessary as we are only ever going to get a small sub-set of the community commenting in a discussion and for important decisions we want to be more certain that the consensus determined from the discussion is the same as that held by the wider community.  As such there will generally need to be a stronger consensus to delete a page than in an informal talk page discussion.
 * Again in response to jc37s question. I'd disagree that there is no such thing as a "correct" consensus although I'd agree it's unobtainable.  A "correct" consensus would be one where the entire community was involved and everyone agreed with the close.  This will, of course, never happen, hence the reason there must be a "no consensus" to allow for this uncertainty caused either by those involved in the discussion not being suitably representative or by the closer not reading the consensus quite right.  This is of course also the reason we have reviews.  (I think of parts of this in way analogous to statistics and so may not be explaining it the best, sorry if that's the case).


 * . User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
 * A: This would very much depend on the exact circumstances. If no one had informed the users of the problems with their edits then I'd inform them and watch the situation to see if it calmed down.  If on the other hand they had both had edit warring warnings and it was still ongoing then blocks would probably be in order.  If both users were inexperienced but only one had a warning I'd probably start by trying to discuss as blocking the one who had the warning without the other would probably seem unfair to the blocked editor and that's not desired.  Obviously if that editor's a repeat offender with many blocks then the balance changes.  It's obviously impossible to cover all situations so I'd welcome more questions.


 * . Why do you wish to be an administrator?
 * A: I think this is covered reasonably well in the first few questions. Essentially because I think I do good and important work with copyrights and that there's not enough admins working in this area to do all the admin-required tasks.  I think I have enough knowledge to be an admin and hope I can help keep wikipedia safe.  I want to say improve the encyclopaedia but I'm not sure that's what we do in copyright work, rather we stop bad, potentiallly legal, problems happening.


 * Optional question from Epeefleche
 * 11. In AfD Julie Robinson (curator), one of the last AfDs at which you participated, you !voted delete in what was clearly a highly considered !vote, and the result was a (weak) keep. In retrospect, do you believe that your !vote was correct, or that the consensus/close was correct?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A: I don't believe that's an either/or situation. I believe both that my vote was correct and that the close was correct.  Given the close was opposite to my !vote that's obviously going to take a little bit of explaining.  I think that, at the time, policy was ambiguous as to whether curators should be considered artists / academic / neither or something else entirely.  As such I think that there were a wide range of positions that were compatible with the guidelines and it's inevitable in such circumstances that people will interpret them differently.  As such I would definitely consider my vote correct.  Would I vote the same way today then the answer would be yes, unless someone had already pointed out a wider consensus that has since formed that I am unaware of (a quick check of the relevant guidelines suggest not but it's possible I'm not aware of an emerging consensus amongst the thousands of AfDs that have happened since).  I would vote the same way as I still don't think the consensus is clear (especially given the weak keep close) and so my opinion has not changed.  Rather than giving my full rationale again I would point at the previous discussion to make it clear that I'd already given the argument and that it had been considered once.  Given that a firm consensus has not formed I have no problem with repeating myself as a different AfD may attract different editors with different views.  As to the close I think this one was well within admin discretion and would not have thought it wrong if it were closed either way. I may have preferred a no consensus close but the difference between that and a weak keep close is minimal and certainly not worth creating drama over. Dpmuk (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional question from StephenBuxton
 * 12. Please can you have a go at the exercise User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises and provide a link for your answers? Thank you
 * A: Posted on the talk page.

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for Dpmuk:
 * Edit summary usage for Dpmuk can be found here.
 * X!'s Edit Counter

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Edit stats are posted on the talk page. --   Luke      (Talk)   02:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Not withstanding the opinions in oppose, I am satisfied to support this candidate. My76Strat (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Regarding IAR, it's certainly a position not many editors take, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Dpmuk may not invoke it himself or approve of its wide useage, but that he will "recognise and respect the consensus on it's use" is enough for me. Will put the tools do good, if sparing, use in the copyright field.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  06:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – of course. Lowish edit count, but I don't see why xe shouldn't have the tools. -- B  music  ian  07:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - I like that you're self-noming because you've given a clear picture of what you would do with the tools. Your edit count's a little low but you have demonstrated content competence and most of your edits are to mainspace or mainspace talk. I'm also impressed by the tone in which you approached this, I definitely think you can be trusted.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 07:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Given your good reason for wanting the admin tools, thoughtful and sensible responses to the questions and good track record as an editor, I think that you'd use the admin tools responsibly. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Self-noms are hard to support but this user knows what he's doing. — cyberpower ( Talk to Me )( Contributions ) 11:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, not my understanding of IAR, but the nominee's position is logically thought out and not that horrifying. Willing to take a chance here!  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
 * 8) Support - adminship is no big deal, user has demonstrated sufficient competence in a specialized area where giving the user tools will be useful. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - My initial neutral vote was heavily based on a specific incident which I had failed to realised was 18 months ago. As my neutral vote rested heavily on that issue, and as I can hardly now hold it against him 18 months later, I support. There are still some minor issues, but nothing that outweighs the good work he has done, and can continue to do as an admin. Also, the civil & polite way in which Dpmuk conducted himself when contacting me about it gives all the more reason to support. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Keepscases (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) / ƒETCH  COMMS  /  19:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support (e/c) Dpmuk has done a lot of work. He's stated a reason for the bit. Given the above (conditioned) answers through 6, I don't see him abusing the privilege. He's cautious and tentative outside his comfort zone, but that's OK. He also seeks advice when unsure. I've crawled through some of his contribs and did not see anything untoward. I crossed paths with him on an RM; it's clear there's depth and focus. He's picked up some useful copyright bot work. It would be better if the article edit count were above 3,000 (currently 2,375), but there's no bright line. There is a small concern that he wants perfect information. Glrx (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - Per nom. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - I am very impressed by your answers to questions. I skimmed your user page on Slovaks in Hungary, etc.  I think that users who have had experiences like that will make the best administrators - it gives you a complete view of the upsides and downsides of treating process as holy. --  stillnotelf   is invisible  20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - After a look through their contributions, I don't see anything too concerning. I think this user would do fine with the mop. --   Luke      (Talk)   20:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Support it's about time; very sane editor, extremely helpful nailing socks of a particular banned user, only positives can come. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - User wants to work in an important area and nothing makes me think he would abuse the tools. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Impressed with answers above. Lord Roem (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) An enthusiastic support, and I'm delighted that User:Dpmuk is considering this. I have worked with him many times on copyright issues, and I find him to be diligent, level-headed and able there. I am particularly impressed that he looks beyond the obvious for work that needs doing, for instance undertaking review of articles tagged for copypaste, as these often sit for long periods of time without attention. I believe he would make excellent use of the tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) Stephen 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Good Work in copyright areas and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 24) Yes Secret account 03:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Good contributions, good answers, and intends to work in an area where help is needed. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Not a plethora of edits and not the colors I usually like to see in the pie chart. I was hoping Moonriddengirl would say yay or nay since this seems to be someone that's spending time in the copyvio department. Begging her pardon for stealing her prose, here's a comment about the nominee from her talk page: "That he's running is cause for celebration for me; I trust Dpmuk in copyright work, and he is sorely needed. I find him diligent and capable. His desire not to get heavily involved in BLP work is okay with me; we have plenty of specialist areas for admins, and one of the mark of a wise admin is the ability to know his strengths." Good enough for me. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh, just saw her comment above... Carrite (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I'm happy that I ran across this RFA. As I wrote on a recent barnstar to User:Dpmuk: his hard work and diligence in solving copyright problems has been greatly appreciated. I trust his work as an admin will be the same. — Cactus Writer (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per Moonriddengirl - any deficiencies in other areas are more than made up by his copyright work and our need for more Admins here. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support user has a need for the tools, don't see any problems here. --Rschen7754 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Moonriddengirl and Carrite. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Why not? Mop please!  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 12:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - per my discussion with the candidate below and on the talk page. - jc37 17:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 7)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I've encountered nom in the copyright area, and see level-headed actions. I'm convinced that the desire for the tools is to help out there, and venturing into newish areas like BLP will be rare, and undertaken carefully.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) The candidate has provided reasonable answers to the questions that have been presented to them, and from their contributions I think the admin toolset would help them assist in copyright cleanup areas. I am unconvinced by the rationales presented by those in opposition. Good luck,  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, sure. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I think en.wiki underestimates how many copyright violations there are on en.wiki and how much work it takes to investigate them, while editors who create them are essentially told to go forth and propagate more copyright violations. If it makes your job easier, and Moonriddengirl supports you, then you've got my support. Pseudofusulina (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per nom. --John (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Support I don't see why not, has 4+ years of editing history. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Mato (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - I'm happy to see that -- whether one might agree with his rationales or not -- candidate is given to thinking carefully about his positions, and explaining his rationales well.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Willing to tackle copyright, and has a good understanding of the CSD process. More importantly, will not wade in when he is unsure (see answer 7. Stephen! Coming... 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - good understanding of WP:CON demonstrated; I trust hir with the tools. Achowat (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to self identify as a him. Dpmuk (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No concerns, and I think you'll make a good administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed.  Swarm   X 05:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support-Well-deserving position.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 11:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Good experience, good answers, good interpersonal interactions. More admin hands on copyright work always welcome. I'm not bothered by the IAR opinion - I doubt there's an admin here who agrees 100% with all policies and guidelines - and I'm convinced that Dpmuk will follow consensus rather than personal opinion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Moonriddengirl's endorsement carries a lot of weight for me, and neither the answers to the questions nor a brief sample of contributions show anything of concern. Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. WJBscribe (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - it seems like Dpmuk would make an awesome admin. Seen him around a few times, always putting good work in. Excellent answers to the above questions too. Good luck! -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  13:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support – Adminship is no big deal, I'm not particularly concerned by any of Dpmuk's answers, and I am convinced that he has both an excellent work ethic and a genuine need for the mop. &mdash; madman 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Why not? I don't see any reason to oppose.--  В и к и  T   15:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Support While I'd like to see more article creation, dispute resolution, consensus building, etc, I am not seeing any reasons to oppose, and the willingness to deal with copyright concerns is a big plus. It's good to have admins who are well rounded, but it's also good to have admins who are comfortable and competent enough to work in one area.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Per Kumioko's opposition. No further explanation shall be given.  HandiGoatMasala (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Don't see much reason not to.  Lynch 7  18:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indented your !vote, only users with accounts can be numbered. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 19:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) No qualms.— S Marshall T/C 23:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Seems to be a good candidate and, given the interest in copyright issues, Moonriddengirl's endorsement is particularly convincing. Rlendog (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - long-time Wikipedian, ample experience in Admin areas (e.g. ANI, CSD), answers to questions show a solid understanding of policy & procedures--Hokeman (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) STRONG SUPPORT!!! - enough experiences to gain adminship, so you could be a great admin!!! --Il223334234 (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5)  Wifione  Message 15:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support nancy  16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 17:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 00:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose --Surturz (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because? Baseball   Watcher  04:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because. --Surturz (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be well aware that in the current system, your vote will have little bearing on the outcome of this RfA. &mdash;Dark 06:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think any individual vote should have much bearing on the outcome. The closing 'crat is free to count or discount my vote as he/she sees fit. I think it would be a brave 'crat indeed that granted admin status on the basis of one support vote with a rationale and 99 oppose votes without any rationales. So I am comfortable that my vote will have as much effect on the outcome as it should: a bit, but not much. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the !vote is fine and a 'crat will treat it just like any other. It's not like Surturz is irrational or out to get anyone and his reason for not explaining the !vote is fine in the sense that he has reasons but doesn't want to throw mud around.--v/r - TP 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Candidate's clarification is appreciated. Striking my oppose.  Wifione  Message 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)) My apologies; I do not wish to be in this bracket ever, especially when the matter concerns productive editors like you. I am ready to change my opposition in case you change your view towards IAR. I'll be not open to hand you the tools in case you disregard this policy due to your above mentioned views. Additionally, I really feel that - with due respect to your orientation towards protecting copyright on Wikipedia - you really need to shore up on your BLP orientation in case you wish to handle administration. Copyright issues will not come bracketed as BLP and non-BLP, and you really need to give stronger answers than those you've listed above. Your track record is good; one reason I mention that I would change my opposition in case you change your orientation towards IAR. I may also have perhaps misread your reply (specifically, that you don't believe in IAR). If you could clarify that sentence, perhaps my view could change. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 04:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The endorsement from user:Moonriddengirl means a lot to me and I support your candidacy on her recommendation. I also am personally grateful for the help you have given me in the Sexually transmitted disease article - thank you so much for your input. However, I overall must oppose your adminship at this time. I feel that admins are public figures and they need to have the ability to explain Wikipedia especially to new users. I recommend filling out your userpage. If you are an admin then people, especially new users having their first contact with Wikipedia, will look to you as a model. Your userpage is almost blank and I feel that this indicates a lack of participation in the Wikipedia community, regardless of whether that is true. Please make a userpage so that if you posted on a new user's talk page informing them about copyright violations as you said you intend to continue doing (and new users are the mostly likely targets), then when they come to your userpage to see who you are they learn more about the lesson you are trying to teach and the work you are doing on Wikipedia. Because of your limited experience and your heavy editing in one area, I feel that you are not going to be able to give sysop-level input on the majority of issues which arise. Edit count does not matter but it does take some amount of editing to get exposure to community interaction. You have not made 2500 article edits and your most extensive edits have been to bring two articles (Engkanto from 2008 and Carl Jackson (caddie) from 2010) from stub class to start class, and very little of what you do actually involves conversations with other users. I do not know what threshold of experience I am expecting from sysops but you have not met it. It was in October 2011 that you participated in this tiring discussion on talk:Contact fuze; you did nothing wrong except that I think you could have been a lot more efficient and done more to de-escalate invalid arguments if you had been more experienced. I would love to support you next year after which time surely you will have more experience. In the meantime please consider devoting time to take a tour of Wikipedia and become familiar with multiple areas of the project. Thank you so much for submitting your RfA. I look forward to continually working with you in the future.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the user page issue and I already planned to do something on it this week when I find the time - the main reason for it's blankness is privacy and the fact that I want to be assessed on what I do at wikipedia not any personal information I might post. I could, and will, add some info about my copyright work and other wikipedia interests.  Likewise I also plan to make my user talk page a little more friendly but thought it best to leave it in it's current state for the RfA.  I do not agree with some parts of the rest of you statement but thank you your comment regardless - it's always helpful to know what others think. Dpmuk (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. I do not believe that revdeletion is an important aspect of copyright investigation. I am also concerned by Dpmuk's intention to undertake speedy deletions. Apart from a spate of deletion tags on 17th June 2011, Dpmuk has not participated in many XfD discussions.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, both revdeletion and regular deletion are important tools in dealing with copyvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And with copyright investigation? In any case, I am still not convinced that revdeletion is an important part of handling copyright infringement. The vast majority of cases can be addressed with a simple reversion and a warning to the guilty editor.
 * Regarding deletion, I agree that it is relevant: from WP:CV "if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted." CSD:G12 is also important. Given Dpmuk's lack of participation in XfD discussions, this use of the admin tools worries me. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing your point about XfD or the candidate's experience, and I've not placed any !vote in this discussion - but note copyvio-revdel, or RevDel criterion 1. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that criterion. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral
Sorry about the confusion with the speedy question - never have got the hang of using the collective XfD term. I also think PROD can sometimes be used after a contested speedy - when the speedy was remove for procedural reasons, e.g. not being a valid subject for A7 and so the person contesting hasn't asserted they think it should be kept, rather just that they don't think it should be speedy.
 * 1) Neutral pro tem I don't often find myself in this box, but while I've seen this user around and never had problems, and applaud their taking on work in the area of copyright, I have reservations. (Makes me sound like the USA, that...) I work a lot in CSD and see a lot of copyright stuff - and a lot of it is also BLP. I'd be interested to hear how Dpmuk plans to cope with this if given a mop, and would suggest getting involved a bit more with BLP. It's not quite as bad as it looks. Peridon (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My reluctance to deal with BLPs is due to the importance the community, rightly, puts on it, and my lack of in-depth knowledge of previous discussions. This is, for example, why I'd be unhappy dealing with BLP AfDs as I don't know the precedents very well and I think this is one of the most important areas we get right.  That's not to say however, that I'd outright ignore them if I come across them during other work.  I think the speedy delete criteria, at least in this area, are sufficiently clear that I'd be happy dealing with such cases and likewise dealing with problems of similar severity but which don't affect the whole article (and so not a speedy candidate).  In the less obvious cases I'd deal with it like an experienced edit - tag appropriately, take to a noticeboard or discuss with the editors involved as the situation warranted.  I'm not saying I'd never deal more with BLP, just that, at the moment, except in obvious cases, I'd only be happy dealing with it as an experienced editor not an admin.  If and when I get more experience that may change.  On the specific BLP / Copyright intersection I find that in most cases where there's a copyright issue it's of a usable source - often the persons own website - and so BLP concerns are often reduced.  Dpmuk (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral I have no concerns regarding what the applicant plans to do with the tools, and I think he would do a good job in that respect. However, I still have a few problems with the stance on IAR. Though they've clarified that they do not oppose it outright, I am not convinced that it he will avoid stressful situations, as I think this lengthy justification suggests. Also, though it is a minor point, I would have liked to see more content creation from someone who plans to work with content. As I said above, this is not enough to me to oppose, but neither can I support the candidate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The response regarding IAR is not an issue for me; the candidate is not a policy & process wonk, which is what ultimately matters. But he used "it's" when he should have used "its" and ignoring that rule is simply unforgivable. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Bah, did I do that one again. I know the difference and most of the time I pick up on it when I re-read it but occasionally one will get through.  It's always means "it is", its is the possessive.  I know that but old habits die hard! Dpmuk (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now - Seems like a genuinely well meaning editor. After looking over contributions, and looking over questions, I'd like to ask for some clarification on a couple. I really would like more clarification on #6; 7c missed something vital; all the answers to the multipart question 7 felt a bit "light" (though I understand not wanting to just repeat the policy pages); yes please - more on IAR (You've commented how you don't like how often you feel it's used, please clarify more how, when, and why you would use it); and afaik, there's no such thing as a "correct" consensus. There's a lot on policy here that I'm concerned about, from what I'm reading, and I'm hoping further clarification will allay my concerns. - jc37 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to #6 could I ask if there's anything more specific you'd like more clarification on. I've already expanded my answer once and would prefer not to just keep adding to it until, by chance, I cover the bit you'd like clarity on.  As for 7 in general I'll give it some thought.  When I wrote it I thought it was light but, as you say, it's hard to know what to write that isn't just parroting the policies.  As for 7c I'm not currently aware of the "vital" thing I'm missing but I'd hope that's not because I'm not aware of it but rather I'm not thinking of it because it's "obvious" to me or I'm misunderstanding the question.  I'll give this more thought as well.  I've responded to your IAR and consensus comments in the questions. Dpmuk (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally understand. It's hard to know how to respond when you're guessing at what you need to respond to. And I'm looking at it and thinking that if I explain, then it's so obvious it defeats the purpose of asking for clarification.
 * First, this link may be helpful to indicate from what perspective my concerns are.
 * The problem I had with #6 was you seemed to entirely miss the word "suspected". That's a Big Deal. And when you suggest that the only reason you would like the mop is for copyrights - a legal issue, this was very concerning to me.
 * Vital is: contested speedy = XfD (with a few very specific exceptions).
 * And let me restate. There is no such thing as a "correct consensus". Saying that a consensus is "correct" suggests that there can be a "right" or a "wrong" consensus. That indicates bias of the closer. An admin's job is to determine what the consensus of a discussion is, not to determine if it's "correct". Beyond that, your answers concerning consensus seemed to me to be all over the place. My hope is that you're just having difficulty putting it into words, rather than showing a lack of understanding what consensus is.
 * And all these things (and more) are important to me in deciding whether to support. because even if someone says (even sincerely) that they intend to only do X as an admin. It almost never works out that way. If you are a "happy to help" editor (as you seem to be), you will find all sorts of requests to help of all sorts after becoming an admin. So having at least some sense about the policies and guidelines that directly affect the tools you receive as admin, is important (hence my general questions). I hope this helps clarify.
 * I sincerely respect Moonriddengirl's opinion, but if I took your answers as they looked now, combined with more than a few (with fairness older) edits (and some seemingly terse responses), I would be listed as an oppose. But there is good work in your contribs, and I'd like to support. So please help me : ) - jc37 04:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, firstly the speedy one as that's the easy one. Contested speedy = XfD is what I was getting at with "and in case of doubt a different process should be used", hence the reason I didn't know what you were getting at as I thought I'd already covered it.  I admit that, with hindsight, my statement was quite broad and not specifically about contested speedy (as it also covered situations where I was uncertain) but as far as I'm concerned contested = doubt so it was intended to cover contested speedys.
 * I did wonder if you were effectively having the opposite problem to me - not knowing how to say what you wanted without giving me the answer, so in that respect I'll think about 7 overnight and see if there's anything obvious I think I've missed or anything I think I can easily expand on.
 * With respect to 6, no I hadn't missed suspected, as I'd hope was clear by the comment that the balance would change if they were found guilty and my reference to possible innocent person. My point was that there can be circumstances, where even if only suspected, we might still name them, e.g. in Murder of Stephen Lawrence there is mention of several people never found guilty of that crime.  I see no conflict there with WP:BLP as due to the wide dissemination of their names by the media we are unlikely to do any further harm.  In most (probably the vast majority of) cases if they've never been found guilty then yes, naming them, would not be appropriate.  I perhaps concentrated too much on covering all the bases and not enough on covering the common case.
 * I think from what you've just said at least part of the consensus one is a misunderstanding. By correct consensus I was meaning that community consensus had been determined correctly not that in some way the admin thought the consensus was the correct decision.  I've closed discussions I've started before when it's been obvious consensus was against me.  This is what I meant by correct consensus - I'm certain I determined consensus correctly even though it was against my own views so, I think, not the correct consensus by your meaning.
 * If you'd still think my consensus answer is all over the place in light of the above I'll attempt to clarify. I'd like to think that I have a pretty good understanding of consensus but will admit that how I think of consensus is, unfortunately, hard to explain.
 * I'd agree with your view on admins staying in one area and I'd not make any promise to do so as I think it would be hard to keep. What I'd hope to get across is I know there are some areas where I know I'd need to observe first and find my way before acting as an admin.  No admin can have in-depth knowledge about all the areas they could work in and I think part of the point of RfA is proving that admins won't rush into these areas without first doing their research. Dpmuk (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Different process" could mean anything, and though I now see that you saw that as XfD, that's not what I envisioned you meant when I was reading it in context. Thank you for the clarification.
 * "I see no conflict there with WP:BLP as due to the wide dissemination of their names by the media we are unlikely to do any further harm." - I dunno if I would make that presumption without others' opinions. And don't think you're being singled out on this at least. To my recollection, similar situations have in the past been rather contentious.
 * "In most (probably the vast majority of) cases if they've never been found guilty then yes, naming them, would not be appropriate." - Safer land to stand on, I think. (and probably should apply even before guilt or non guilt has been determined.) Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a news media place. But again, find a dozen editors, and you may find 16 different opinions on this.
 * I'll wait for you to clarify more about consensus before asking more.
 * And yes, no editor needs to know about all aspects of Wikipedia. but some familiarity with at least the basics that I covered in my questions, shouldn't be beyond the pale. They are probably the most common things that you as an admin will do - regardless of venue or subject matter.
 * I've seen all sorts of questions at RfA. Including those designed to trip up a candidate etc. I finally decided to write some general questions myself. And when I did, I intentionally made an effort to keep them neutral. And the results have been interesting. How an editor answers them tends to tell as much if not more about the editor than just the questions themselves.
 * Anyway, thanks again for your clarifications. - jc37 09:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The BLP one has strayed into that awkward ground at RfA where I gave a personal view and you've possibly interpreted at my view of the wider consensus. In those sort of high profile cases I'd still expect a discussion but likewise, because I can see how it might be compatible with BLP I wouldn't think it needed urgent admin attention either.

Let's see if I can explain my position on consensus differently (and without using "correct" consensus). I'm going to take a slightly different angle on this and try to explain why two of the important bits of determining consensus exist. I'm still struggling with explaining consensus so feel free to ask me to try again. I'd also understand an oppose vote based on the fact that I haven't been able to explain myself very well (as I believe the ability to explain their actions is important in an admin) - I think my inability here is a bit of a one off but there's no way for you to know that.
 * Strength of argument vs vote count. When determining consensus it is not just a simple vote count because, depending on who !voted, a simple vote count may not reflect the will of the wider community (including those that didn't vote) or may go against one of the main principles of wikipedia.  Arguments based on guidelines and policy should be weighted more heavily because that guideline or policy will only have come about because it reflects the consensus of a much larger number of members of the community.  For example in an AfD for a very small band the band may manage to get several friends etc to !vote and so win a count but this is only likely to be because not enough other members bothered to !vote.  An argument based on guideline or policy is, in some ways, pointing out there is a much wider body of people that are very likely to agree with their view and that they just haven't !voted.  On top of that there are also the fundamental principles of wikipedia, the sort of stuff decided by the WMF (or before then, Jimbo) and which we as a community are in no position to go against so obviously any !vote that would go against the core principles needs to be given much less weight.
 * No consensus. Anyone determining consensus can get it wrong for two main reasons, 1) they read the consensus wrongly or 2) the discussion was not properly representative for some reason.  It is to allow for this that we have no consensus.  For example at AfD, community consensus is that we want to be pretty certain before deleting an article and that we should default to keep (as no consensus) if we are not confident that we can determine the will of the wider community from the discussion that has taken place.  RfA and the like are a slightly different beast.  Here we're looking for consensus that the person involved will have the support of most of the community so by definition a largish number of opposes suggests that won't happen.

I think I'm close to having something for question 7 but have run out of time now. Dpmuk (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You know it's responses like this which make me want to support. You could easily just ignore me, and likely still sail through to a successful nom.
 * And more, you have been showing a distinct and genuine willingness to discuss (with a goal for mutual understanding). That goes a long way for me.
 * Anyway, what I was still looking for in consensus is "consensus is not a vote". Though it did look like you were starting in that direction in your original answers, when talking about the strength of individual arguments.
 * And yes, an individual can correctly or incorrectly interpret consensus. But the consensus itself isn't "correct" or "incorrect". (though it can be "imperfectly conceived", I suppose : )
 * As for BLP. After OTRS (usually the best course imo when directly contacted by someone who may be part of a "current event"), WP:3PO and the like would be decent places to start : )
 * (There's also a BLP noticeboard.)
 * And I think the best way to look at IAR is WP:BOLD. (While always keeping WP:BRD in mind.) Never let the policies and guidelines get totally in the way of doing what is best for the encyclopedia. (While remembering what you feel is "best" may not be the same as the next person : )
 * And a key thing (to help try to save you from potential drama) is to always be prepared to explain any IAR action, of course.
 * Anyway, the links and such are intended to be helpful for someone that I think will be approved as an admin in the near future : )
 * Speaking from my observations, and also personal experience, there is a definite learning curve once you're an admin. (Compare it to being thrown in the deep end of the pool, surrounded by water treading kittens, and being told any move you make has the potential of drowning kittens...)
 * (But don't worry, eventually you'll be confidently drowning kittens : )
 * The answers to the various questions 7 were light (7a in particular) and you should probably flesh them out some for others, but I'm going to go ahead and support.
 * I wish you well, and hope to see you around the 'pedia in the future : ) - jc37 17:18, 14 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Finally got around to adding to question 7. Much later than I was hoping but the job I get paid for got in the way. :-(
 * WP:BLP/N was mentioned in a previous answer. A third opinion is something I often seek by asking someone else for an opinion (a lot of my recent listings at WP:CP have been because I wanted another opinion), although I've not had much need for WP:3O recently (as WP:CP has been acting in it's place) so it didn't immediately spring to mind but I am aware of it and indeed am certain I've used it in the past.
 * Anyway glad I was, finally, able to explain myself to you. It's been a useful, and thanks to you, not remotely stressful, experience! Dpmuk (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2012 (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.