Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dalbury - Wikipedia


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

Final (71/1/0) Ended Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:40:11 (UTC)

Dalbury (talk · contribs) – Dalbury (Donald Albury) is one of the calmest, most mature, even-handed rational people I know here who is not an administrator already. His first edit as a registered user was on 9 August 2005, and since then he has racked up 11,477 well reasoned edits, which are nicely distributed over different namespaces, contributing greatly to the encyclopedia while always displaying civility and sound judgement. I have (via ankle biting and harassment, techniques the respectful and polite Dalbury would never use) obtained his consent to nominate him for Adminship, and feel Wikipedia would be well served with Dalbury at the mop. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Donald Albury 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been a janitor in real life, and a sysop on the web, and I've been hanging around in WP for more than a year now, so I have no illusions about the job, but I'm accepting anyway. -- Donald Albury 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would like to help initially with images that lack source information and/or copyright information, and images whose copyright status has been questioned. I'll continue to revert vandalism as I encounter it. -- Donald Albury 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've been working for the past few weeks on expanding Seminole Wars (and have split off Second Seminole War). It is by no means finished, but it is the largest single task I've undertaken in WP. A while back I created articles for most of the lighthouses in Florida. The articles vary in quality, but it was a satisfying project. -- Donald Albury 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: As I recall, my worst dispute was with User:Bkonrad in List of city nicknames in the United States. I had nominated the article for deletion, and when the discussion went badly against me, I started adding the 'fact' tag to items in the list. I ended up in a revert-war with Bkonrad.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], & [7] I calculated that he would hit three reverts first, so I pursued the revert-war, and then placed a 3RR on his talk page after his third revert.[8] The next day I repented, apologized to Bkonrad, and removed the article from my watchlist.[9] I try to use that incident as a reminder to myself to not get too personally involved in discussions.-- Donald Albury 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Aguerriero
4. From a cursory glance at your recent edit history, it appears that you do not often warn vandals. Can you explain why?
A: I used to slap a {test} template on every anonIP who had made a questionable edit, but I noticed that if there was only one or two edits on an article, there was almost never any further edits from such an anonIP for weeks or months afterwards. I thus decided that if an anonIP has made one or two edits on an article and nothing further, there was no benefit to adding a tag. I basically believe that with anonIPs if more than a day or two has passed since the last questionable edit, one has to assume a volatile IP address, and start over with the mildest warning. -- Donald Albury 01:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Fang Aili
5. It sounds like you don't really want to be an administrator. What does "I have no illusions about the job, but I'm accepting anyway" mean? Did you really have to be harassed into accepting this nomination? What does adminship mean to you? Adminship shouldn't be a "big deal", but it is a responsibility, and I'd rather you really want the job, and not just accept it as the "next step" of Wikipedia involvement. --Fang Aili talk 17:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I do not feel any driving need to become an administrator. I have contributed and can continue to contribute to Wikipedia without being an administrator. It really is no big thing. My passion is in improving Wikipedia, and that doesn't require adminship. Obviously, there are some ways of contributing to Wikipedia that require adminship, and I would like to expand the range of my contributions. However, if you feel that I do not exhibit enough desire for the position, you are free to express your opposition to this RfA. -- Donald Albury 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from James086
6. Do you think adminship is a political or a practical position? What I mean is, do you think being an administrator will help you in areas other than those offered by the extra tools? James086 Talk | Contribs 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Your question threw me a little. I'm here because I enjoy working on articles. Some of the maintenance work is less enjoyable, but it is necessary and I'm willing to do my share of it. The admin tools will make it easier to perform some of that maintenance, and will allow me to help on some things that only admins can do. Apart from being able to use the admin tools, I don't see any real advantage to being an admin. I don't think it will give my voice any more authority in discussions than it had before (if my comments carry any weight, it should be based on my record of contributions to the project, not on my being an admin). Nor do I think that adminship will offer me any protection beyond what the community has provided me in the past. My user page is as likely to be vandalized if I become an admin as it has been in the past, and if I am again threatened with legal action, I expect it will be handled in the same way as on the previous ocassion. -- Donald Albury 13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking to see if you would use the title of admin as leverage in content disputes or the like. I think you answered it well, hence my support vote. Good luck, though it doesn't look like you will need it :) James086 Talk | Contribs 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support T Rex | talk 23:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strongly Jaranda wat's sup 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks like another great admin candidate. Nishkid64 23:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good, strong, wikipedian. -Gphoto 23:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Suport Helpful and knowledgeable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support excellent editor. Rama's arrow 00:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support. Honestly, he was on my "short list" of users I was considering nominating. Polite, intelligent editor who is mindful(and follows) the rules. I know Dalbury will not abuse the tools. Jcam 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mike | Talk 01:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good candidate --Steve 01:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, excellent answers to questions, and clearly a thoughtful editor. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A very good editor. The additional tools given to him would only benefit this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Shows very good editorial experience and appears very promising as an admin.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Thoughtful, mature editor. KrakatoaKatie 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support Obviously trustworthy; sincere cliche moment for me. Xoloz 05:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - experienced user with good handle on image policy[10][11] --T-rex 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks like another good candidate. (aeropagitica) 07:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - calm, thoughtful and rational. Important qualities in an administrator. Great that you have experience in image policy, too. riana_dzasta 08:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support good work with images. feydey 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Looks like a valuable editor to Wikipedia. NauticaShades 11:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support as nominator-who-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-to-bed and ended up 21st! Ack! KillerChihuahua?!? 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Great nominee, would probably do a good job. ↔ ANAS - Talk 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support This user seems to be someone that would work out as an admin.Laleena 13:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - An excellent nominee. Is always civil, patient with new users, and thinks before speaking. --68.116.135.242 14:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You must log in for your support to be counted. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Seems good for me.-- danntm T C 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Experienced and mature user with a thoughtful mind --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per Riana_dzasta  Doctor Bruno  17:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - I have seen nothing but good things from this editor - in addition to being a good editor, he's very thoughtful and level-headed. Guettarda 17:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - M&NCenarius 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Michael 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, answer to question 5 is reasonable. Unlikely to abuse admin tools, good editing and civility record. --Fang Aili talk 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom •Jim62sch• 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak Support, Excellent edit count and knowledge of Wikipedia, but not sure about not warning anons (which I feel should always be done) and doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the job. Still, definitely wouldn't abuse tools. Alex43223 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Experienced, unlikely to abuse the tools. Hello32020 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support x 33⅓ - I like this comment from Alex43223 - doesn't seem very enthusiastic about the job - I like this level headed approach, which is in stark contrast to a number of perhaps more risky editors who come here demanding or begging to be made an admin because they've made x number of edits and leave me questioning their motives. Best Wishes Heligoland 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - He started most of the Lighthouses in Florida articles, I made some minor additions to them in some of my early edits, he was very helpful and made it worth staying. No doubt he will make an excellent admin. --Dual Freq 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support. Very knowledgeable and civil. — TKD::Talk 03:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support x13. Oops, number 13 comes again--¿Exir?¡Kamalabadi! 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Excellent nominee. Strong editing record, good reasoning and not too keen (a huge plus in my book). Rockpocket 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Always good work, and per nom.--MONGO 09:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Yes --Docg 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support', hell yes. Guy 23:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sure' ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Merovingian ※ Talk 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Very honest and reasonable. Will likely use sysop tools wisely. Sir Studieselot 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support with pleasure. An excellent editor; very sensible, calm, cares about the policies. Will make a great admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. His edits (and his responses to questions) are thought out, and I like his attitude to editing the Wikipedia. > Iridescence < ( talk )( contrib ) 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I have not seen or interacted with Dalbury before coming across this RFA, and normally I wouldn't comment. However, looking into his edit history and his answers to the questions here, this guy would make a great admin. I really liked his answer to User:Fang Aili's question above. Appears to be over-flowing with good judgement and honesty. -- Ned Scott 08:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per all above Steveo2 12:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support, sounds like he would make a great admin, also my question was well answered. James086 Talk | Contribs 14:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I do agree with Radiant! and Doc that Dalbury needs to ease up on the bureaucracy in the future, though. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I dont see why not. KazakhPol 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Bucketsofg 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, wishing you good luck in vandal patrolling if need be. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Hope you will be a good admin. - Darwinek 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Seems very mature and fair to me. -- Bearly541 talk 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per nom. John254 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Will do well. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. If Mr. Chihuahua nominated this user, then I shall blindly support. --Dangherous 09:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Good editor Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Per nom. --Emc² (contact me) 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Dedicated, thoughtful editor and seems to have a good attitude towards adminship. Seems okay to me. --W.marsh 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support strong candidate. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. El_C 10:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Zaxem 11:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support semper fi — Moe 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. A solid Wikipedian. Sharkface217 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support AnnH ♫ 00:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Rmhermen 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Strong Support - I see him often on my watchlist and trust him greatly, so... super support! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support another excellent user. — Deckiller 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I object. Dalbury appears to be of the opinion that every change to a policy page, no matter how small, needs to be discussed first, e.g. [12], [13], [14] and [15]. I find this overly bureaucratic and less than constructive. >Radiant< 10:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too think it is overly bureaucratic, but I see it as no reason to withhold admin tools.--Docg 16:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.