Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dgies

Dgies

Voice your opinion (6/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dgies (talk · contribs) - I am honored to submit user Dgies for your consideration, whom for quite some time now has steadily been growing as a dedicated, experienced, trustworthy, remarkable user. Dgies underwent close scrutiny by me and Terence Ong through the admin coaching program. It is my firm belief that Dgies fulfils all the requirements to become an administrator, he undoubtedly possesses the knowledge and character to be entrusted with the admin tools. His contributions reveal a polyvalent user interacting with the most diverse areas of Wikipedia. Dgies is an outstanding vandalfighter, with countless adequate reports to WP:AIV and WP:RPP. He also often participates in WP:XFD, WP:RT, WP:RFCN, WP:ANI, WP:HD, etc. Dgies is a very polite, civil and communicative user. He will definitely make a fine administrator and I expect my fellow Wikipedians to provide him with all the support he genuinely deserves. Húsönd 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —dgies^t_c 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: I enjoy vandal fighting so I would start out with WP:AIV. I'm familiar with the blocking policy so I know when to block and when not to; I've occasionally cleared invalid reports and left the reporter a message such as {{uw-aiv}}. I would also help with WP:RPP and its neglected cousin Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I've done quite a bit of CSD tagging previously and know the criteria well so I feel I could help clear CAT:CSD. I might occasionally help with TfD, RfD, and MfD.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: On the more metapedian side, after stumbling upon Wikipedia:Requested templates I did a lot of work clearing out old requests and answering more recent ones, and I like to think I helped bring this project back to life. I'm also proud of the templates I made for requests there. More recently, I found a request I liked at WP:SPATRA and took it upon myself to translate the original es:Hernandarias into Hernando Arias de Saavedra, which I then expanded and added references; it was later featured on "Did you know?". I am also pleased with the work I did on Mother insult in which I took what was formerly a nonsense page converted to a redirect, and managed to make a well-referenced stub in an encyclopedic tone. I also like finding references and was pleased when I managed to add this fairly obscure old one.

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: One time I had a feud over table formatting where we both (almost) broke 3RR. I posted a message on the talk page to request a straw poll. It went against me but I could understand others' reasoning and accepted the outcome. I've also dealt with an editor who kept reverting an article to their preferred version. I made many attempts to get them to discuss it, even opening an RfC, but they never responded. The article got fully protected and it seems the other person gave up. I've had miscellaneous times where other editors made remarks to or about me that were either uncivil or failed to assume good faith. In these cases, I take a deep breath, count to ten, and as calmly as possible, explain the motivation for my actions, citing relevant policies/guidelines. I've found a dispassionate response works best to avoid escalating the dispute. Lastly for obvious trolling, I fall back on some variant of Revert, block, ignore (where for block, substitute WP:AIV).

General comments

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Beat-the-nom support. Heimstern Läufer 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support seen this user around AIV, and his reports are always very good, would do great work Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I've seen this user around, and he's doing good as an editor. No reason to oppose. Wooyi 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Support This user looks very promising, and has gained experience in the needed areas. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Comes highly recommended and is even polyvalent! Uses automation quite a bit on RC patrol, but actually leaves real human messages when interacting with established editors. A big win for the project if Dgies gets the mop. A Train^talk 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Although I had a disagreement with this user over his MfD on User:Cremepuff222's subpages, he was helpful and civil at all times. Also has impressive experience. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I sense a trigger-happy admin. HP 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Can you provide specific examples where he is shown to be "trigger-happy"? Wooyi 16:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, if you provide examples it will help others make their decisions, and lend credibility to you opposition. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   It's theoretic. For example, you see a one liner stub tagged for deletion, do you delete or do you check good or the page history to make sure its a legit deletion request.

   Checking AIV, it's where you report bad users. do you make sure its the final warning and if it is do you indefblock or give a 24 hour block. I am judging based on his tolerance. HP 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   In reply to your concerns, obviously a CSD must be checked for previous valid revisions. I don't believe I've ever tagged a page as WP:CSD#A1 when it was previously substantive. For AIV, I know someone must have a recent warning mentioning a block before they can be blocked, and an initial block should be short. There are exceptions though, such as cases of obvious sockpuppetry by a banned user. —dgies^t_c 16:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Theoretic? So there is no actual action this user has taken that you object to? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose, per his answer to question #7. Block "VOA" accounts could provoke SockPuppetry. Jeff Defender 16:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   First, there is not question 7 (there are only 3 question) so I think you made a typo; second, what is VOA account, do you mean vandal account? Wooyi 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps the message went to the wrong RfA? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

   I read his talk page. Many more questions and answers. Jeff Defender 16:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)