Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ddstretch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Speed CG (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 30 May 2008 (→‎Support: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ddstretch

Voice your opinion (talk page) (18/0/0); Scheduled to end 09:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ddstretch (talk · contribs) - I am honored to have the opportunity to bring Ddstretch to the community's attention as he has (finally!) agreed that the adminstrator 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)[reply]

Co-nom by bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs): 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. bibliomaniac15 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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):

  1. A discussion that some might have seen as heated about infoboxes in a particular article WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall, 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 ArbComm 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.
  2. 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.)
  3. 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.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Finally. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why the hell not? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per the previous two. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Most highest support possible - I have known Ddstretch for a while through WP:Derbys, and he can only use the mop for good! BlueGoblin7even 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. Support I belive you won't abuse the tools. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  10:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I have some reservations, but a net positive. Epbr123 (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  9. Support without reservation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A review of the contributions indicates nothing of concern. Impressed by attitude to conflict Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  13. support Dlohcierekim 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Indeed. Net positive per Pedro. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. naerii - talk 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nominator. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  18. Support. Rudget (Help?) 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Speed CG Talk 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ddstretch&oldid=215992594"