Dsmdgold (
talk·contribs) – I have been editing as as Dsmdgold since March 7, 2004. Before that I edited as David Stapleton beginning on September 29, 2003. I have 7000+ edits as Dsmdgold in all name-spaces, with 4000+ of those edits being in article space. (edit count
here) I have participated in AfD, and still follow it closely, although I rarely vote. I am a member of
WikiProject Middle Ages. I have done and continue to do some RC and New Pages patrolling. I have mainly worked on some obscure subjects, the main one being
illuminated manuscripts. I wrote the
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names), and started the ongoing conversation at
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. I will readily admit to often failing to provide adequate edit summaries, but I'm trying to get better, and so far a I can remember, I have never edited in such a manner that changes another editor's work without explaining.
Dsmdgold16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
This guy sounds real good. Including his other account, he's been around longer than I have, and seems to have a good grasp on policy. He's admitted some of his own mistakes, and has substantiated his self-nomination for me. --
King of All the Franks19:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I have interacted with him and found him reasonable and it's not very often I see an RfA for an editor I somewhat know and think is good. Please use edit summaries more... but, the amount of good he does I can't oppose on just that.
grenグレン?13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Fellow medievalist :) I remember being involved in a couple of debates with him in the past - one where we were on opposite sides (spelling of Old Norse names) and one where we were on the same side (his top-quality image galleries). He's made a good impression on me and does so in this nomination as well. I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin tools. I trust him to increase his use of edit summaries (they really make the 'pedia much easier to use :) and I especially encourage him to be thorough in documenting administrator actions. -
Haukur17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Good answers to questions, good track record. As for edit summaries, if one asks nicely, perhaps the
code fairy will bring you some javascript magic (from whereever HE got it) to make it almost impossible to forget to add them... whoever wrote this deserves hearty thanks. But I digress. Anyway, support! ++
Lar:
t/
c23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Low usage of edit summaries is a major problem for me. Also see this edit
[1]. Dsmdgold didn't leave a message on the talk page for that IP which concerns me. It was also done
here and
here. Dsmdgold explains his reasoning in question 5 down below, but I feel that it should be handled differently. I think potential administrators should be much more engaging in talking to users who blank pages instead of ignoring them completely. It is much harder to keep track if a user has been vandalizing pages if it isn't put on the user's talk page. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dsmdgold's PS2pcGAMER's reasoning. Looks like he makes really good contributions to the Wikipedia though, so I wish him the best, however this process turns out.
Johntex\talk01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose The combined weight of the concerns of both PS2pc and Oleg (edit warnings and low edit summaries) tip the balance in favor of my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct. No harm in editor waiting a few more months, as he is dedicated to the project; this will give time to see these concerns addressed.
Xoloz21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"Better safe than sorry"??? What would you have to be sorry about, were this person to become an admin? Anything can be undone (besides image deletion, which doesn't matter if sources are cited). I tend to fall on the side of "giving the nominee the benefit of the doubt". Adminship is no big deal, after all. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-14 23:59
Obviously, you haven't bothered to check my userpage, and you haven't noticed many of my votes around here, because that's a rationale I employ often. While most admin actions are reviewable, an obtuse, unfriendly, or thoughtless admin can cause much grief. Since adminship is difficult to revoke, I tend to be cautious in voting to confer it. It should be "no big deal" to be an admin, but a few rogue IAR users have made it become de facto a bigger deal than it should be. This is no reflection on the current candidate, except insofar as I support a bit more experience before I would feel comfortable seeing the editor as admin. As is usually the case when the common English phrase is used, I'm unsure whether I'd have anything to regret if candidate became an admin today, but (as I see the balance of probabilities) a little more time is a plus in this case. If you, Brain, would care for additional examples of the sorts of admin behavior that make me cautious, I welcome dialogue at my talk page; such discussion would have only indirect relevance here.
Xoloz05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, sorry, but I would prefer more edit summary usage, however I don't feel this is reason to oppose.
Ian13ID:54005316:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 20% for major edits and 35% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. Since I do some RC patrolling, I would find the rollback function useful. While doing new page patrolling I have marked a fair number of pages as candidates for speedy deletion. I would like to be able to do it myself. After the Seigenthaler debacle I
suggested a function similar to
Special:Unwatchedpages, and I would like access to it. Since I already follow AfD, I would probably close nominations there.
Dsmdgold16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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. Having toiled in obscure corners such as
illuminated manuscripts,
bird lists, and
local landmarks, I have encountered very little conflict or stress here. I can recall occasions when, in retrospect, I could have responded better. The first was when
UtherSRG questioned the usefulness of a project was engaged in, and I
replied in a less that civil manner. The second was when an article I had written was submitted to (then) VfD, and I
responded poorly to what I saw as an attack on my honesty. The final incident is the above mentioned
nomination of
List of North American birds, when I supported the nomination in a too confrontational manner. I have since tried to tone down my replies to those I disagree with.
Dsmdgold16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. The above three are well designed to allow those not familiar with a nominee's work to judge the nominee's temperament and intentions.
Dsmdgold16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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! --
Deathphoenix17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
5. When would you use {{
test1}}, and when would you use {{
bv}}?
A. I haven't, in the past, much used any templates on user pages. Most of the vandalism I've dealt with has been from one-off anon users, I don't quite see the point in using templates in that case. The few times I've dealt with recurring vandals, other editors had already used templates, so I staed out of their way. That said, I think that {{
bv}} is a bit confrontational, and has no advantage over {{
test1}} through {{
test4}}
6. 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. Again this is a circumstance I haven't had much experience with, having never gotten into anything that approached an edit war. However the spirit of the law is as important as the letter, and I would discuss the inadvisability trying to skirt the rules with the offender on his or her talk page. I'm not sure what I would do if it continued.
Dsmdgold18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
7. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under
CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an
AFD instead?
A. I read CSD A7 to mean that any assertion of notability in the article should be taken to AfD. An assertion of notability, in my mind, is an indication that outside world has noticed this person or group. In practical terms, that means the article should assert that the person has won some award, gotten press coverage, published something, released an albumn, held public office or something of the like. If an article asserts anything of that sort I'd send it to AfD.
Dsmdgold18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
8. How would you tell the difference between a
sockpuppet and a new user?
A. As I understand it you can only be certain by using Checkuser. As for suspicions, very low edit count editors that show unusual sophistication, editors that regiser only after the issue being discussed is raised, and stylitic simularities to known trouble makers would all raise warning flags. In most situations, such as AfD, it doesn't really matter much, since it is standard practice to ignore very new users and sockpuppets alike. In those situations, since the difference doesn't mater much, there is not much to be gained by screaming SOCK, and running the risk of running off new people.
Dsmdgold21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
9. How would you use
WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. Because of my interests, I haven't edited (other than reverting obvious vandalism) any really controversial articles. The closest I have come to it is was a brief disagreement over the place of origin of the
Book of Kells and the
Book of Durrow. (Which historically has been a touchy subject since Irish, English and Scottish nationalism all get mixed up into the argument). Another editor and I disagreed on the date of the founding of the [[Abbey of Kells]. I cited my sources, and he went away. (The discusion is at
Talk:Book of Kells) In the real world I have some rather strong views on political and social issues, and decided long ago that I should stay away from those topics on Wikipedia. If , I ever somehow got dragged into a NPOV dispute over an article, the only thing I would be able to think to do be to do much the same thing I did in the Kells dispute. Cite my sources.
Dsmdgold22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Dsmdgold (
talk·contribs) – I have been editing as as Dsmdgold since March 7, 2004. Before that I edited as David Stapleton beginning on September 29, 2003. I have 7000+ edits as Dsmdgold in all name-spaces, with 4000+ of those edits being in article space. (edit count
here) I have participated in AfD, and still follow it closely, although I rarely vote. I am a member of
WikiProject Middle Ages. I have done and continue to do some RC and New Pages patrolling. I have mainly worked on some obscure subjects, the main one being
illuminated manuscripts. I wrote the
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (manuscript names), and started the ongoing conversation at
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries. I will readily admit to often failing to provide adequate edit summaries, but I'm trying to get better, and so far a I can remember, I have never edited in such a manner that changes another editor's work without explaining.
Dsmdgold16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
This guy sounds real good. Including his other account, he's been around longer than I have, and seems to have a good grasp on policy. He's admitted some of his own mistakes, and has substantiated his self-nomination for me. --
King of All the Franks19:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I have interacted with him and found him reasonable and it's not very often I see an RfA for an editor I somewhat know and think is good. Please use edit summaries more... but, the amount of good he does I can't oppose on just that.
grenグレン?13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Fellow medievalist :) I remember being involved in a couple of debates with him in the past - one where we were on opposite sides (spelling of Old Norse names) and one where we were on the same side (his top-quality image galleries). He's made a good impression on me and does so in this nomination as well. I see no reason to think that he would abuse admin tools. I trust him to increase his use of edit summaries (they really make the 'pedia much easier to use :) and I especially encourage him to be thorough in documenting administrator actions. -
Haukur17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Good answers to questions, good track record. As for edit summaries, if one asks nicely, perhaps the
code fairy will bring you some javascript magic (from whereever HE got it) to make it almost impossible to forget to add them... whoever wrote this deserves hearty thanks. But I digress. Anyway, support! ++
Lar:
t/
c23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Low usage of edit summaries is a major problem for me. Also see this edit
[1]. Dsmdgold didn't leave a message on the talk page for that IP which concerns me. It was also done
here and
here. Dsmdgold explains his reasoning in question 5 down below, but I feel that it should be handled differently. I think potential administrators should be much more engaging in talking to users who blank pages instead of ignoring them completely. It is much harder to keep track if a user has been vandalizing pages if it isn't put on the user's talk page. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Dsmdgold's PS2pcGAMER's reasoning. Looks like he makes really good contributions to the Wikipedia though, so I wish him the best, however this process turns out.
Johntex\talk01:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose The combined weight of the concerns of both PS2pc and Oleg (edit warnings and low edit summaries) tip the balance in favor of my "better-safe-than-sorry" instinct. No harm in editor waiting a few more months, as he is dedicated to the project; this will give time to see these concerns addressed.
Xoloz21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"Better safe than sorry"??? What would you have to be sorry about, were this person to become an admin? Anything can be undone (besides image deletion, which doesn't matter if sources are cited). I tend to fall on the side of "giving the nominee the benefit of the doubt". Adminship is no big deal, after all. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-14 23:59
Obviously, you haven't bothered to check my userpage, and you haven't noticed many of my votes around here, because that's a rationale I employ often. While most admin actions are reviewable, an obtuse, unfriendly, or thoughtless admin can cause much grief. Since adminship is difficult to revoke, I tend to be cautious in voting to confer it. It should be "no big deal" to be an admin, but a few rogue IAR users have made it become de facto a bigger deal than it should be. This is no reflection on the current candidate, except insofar as I support a bit more experience before I would feel comfortable seeing the editor as admin. As is usually the case when the common English phrase is used, I'm unsure whether I'd have anything to regret if candidate became an admin today, but (as I see the balance of probabilities) a little more time is a plus in this case. If you, Brain, would care for additional examples of the sorts of admin behavior that make me cautious, I welcome dialogue at my talk page; such discussion would have only indirect relevance here.
Xoloz05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, sorry, but I would prefer more edit summary usage, however I don't feel this is reason to oppose.
Ian13ID:54005316:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 20% for major edits and 35% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. Since I do some RC patrolling, I would find the rollback function useful. While doing new page patrolling I have marked a fair number of pages as candidates for speedy deletion. I would like to be able to do it myself. After the Seigenthaler debacle I
suggested a function similar to
Special:Unwatchedpages, and I would like access to it. Since I already follow AfD, I would probably close nominations there.
Dsmdgold16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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. Having toiled in obscure corners such as
illuminated manuscripts,
bird lists, and
local landmarks, I have encountered very little conflict or stress here. I can recall occasions when, in retrospect, I could have responded better. The first was when
UtherSRG questioned the usefulness of a project was engaged in, and I
replied in a less that civil manner. The second was when an article I had written was submitted to (then) VfD, and I
responded poorly to what I saw as an attack on my honesty. The final incident is the above mentioned
nomination of
List of North American birds, when I supported the nomination in a too confrontational manner. I have since tried to tone down my replies to those I disagree with.
Dsmdgold16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. The above three are well designed to allow those not familiar with a nominee's work to judge the nominee's temperament and intentions.
Dsmdgold16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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! --
Deathphoenix17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
5. When would you use {{
test1}}, and when would you use {{
bv}}?
A. I haven't, in the past, much used any templates on user pages. Most of the vandalism I've dealt with has been from one-off anon users, I don't quite see the point in using templates in that case. The few times I've dealt with recurring vandals, other editors had already used templates, so I staed out of their way. That said, I think that {{
bv}} is a bit confrontational, and has no advantage over {{
test1}} through {{
test4}}
6. 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. Again this is a circumstance I haven't had much experience with, having never gotten into anything that approached an edit war. However the spirit of the law is as important as the letter, and I would discuss the inadvisability trying to skirt the rules with the offender on his or her talk page. I'm not sure what I would do if it continued.
Dsmdgold18:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
7. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under
CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an
AFD instead?
A. I read CSD A7 to mean that any assertion of notability in the article should be taken to AfD. An assertion of notability, in my mind, is an indication that outside world has noticed this person or group. In practical terms, that means the article should assert that the person has won some award, gotten press coverage, published something, released an albumn, held public office or something of the like. If an article asserts anything of that sort I'd send it to AfD.
Dsmdgold18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
8. How would you tell the difference between a
sockpuppet and a new user?
A. As I understand it you can only be certain by using Checkuser. As for suspicions, very low edit count editors that show unusual sophistication, editors that regiser only after the issue being discussed is raised, and stylitic simularities to known trouble makers would all raise warning flags. In most situations, such as AfD, it doesn't really matter much, since it is standard practice to ignore very new users and sockpuppets alike. In those situations, since the difference doesn't mater much, there is not much to be gained by screaming SOCK, and running the risk of running off new people.
Dsmdgold21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
9. How would you use
WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. Because of my interests, I haven't edited (other than reverting obvious vandalism) any really controversial articles. The closest I have come to it is was a brief disagreement over the place of origin of the
Book of Kells and the
Book of Durrow. (Which historically has been a touchy subject since Irish, English and Scottish nationalism all get mixed up into the argument). Another editor and I disagreed on the date of the founding of the [[Abbey of Kells]. I cited my sources, and he went away. (The discusion is at
Talk:Book of Kells) In the real world I have some rather strong views on political and social issues, and decided long ago that I should stay away from those topics on Wikipedia. If , I ever somehow got dragged into a NPOV dispute over an article, the only thing I would be able to think to do be to do much the same thing I did in the Kells dispute. Cite my sources.
Dsmdgold22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.