Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dougweller

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

Dougweller

FINAL (101/0/2); closed by EVula at 19:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk · contribs) - Doug is an ideal admin candidate. Adult, rational, calm, civil (always), Doug takes no nonsense but has dealing with problem users down to a T, devoting many hours to proving civilly that they have no case. A good anti-vandal fighter and a calm voice of sense at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and elsewhere, Doug is easily in touch with contemporary trends in many areas of academia, thus ensuring that he is able to contribute usefully in many different areas of Wikipedia: his article work, particularly when it comes to fixing broken ones, is top-class. His policy knowledge is fine and he possesses excellent clue and intuitive sense. If I had to sum Doug up in one word, it would be "thoughtful": he always analyzes not only the problem at hand, but the best approach to the problem. Exactly the sort of person we should trust with extra sysop responsibilities. Moreschi (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the kind words and the nomination, which I accept with pleasure. Doug Weller (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I do a lot of anti-vandalism work already and shall continue that. It would be nice to have the tools to block repeat vandals. Virtually every article I've edited is on my watchlist (which has a bit over 2000 articles on it now) and I look at it regularly and check for vandalism. When I find a vandal I also check for earlier vandalism. Where it seems appropriate I leave them Welcome messages rather than warning them. I'd also probably get involved in ANI, WP:RFPP, and disruptive user blocking. I've got quite a bit of experience of moderating elsewhere on the Internet -- UseNet, mailing lists and a webforum where I'm a director, focusing on issues of civility, sources and tendentious editing. I shall of course continue to work on improving articles on ancient history and archaeology where I have some background and good resources.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm not sure. Vandal patrol is important, but I get a lot of enjoyment from simply being able to find good sources for un-sourced material in articles on history, pre-history and archaeology and expanding them when possible. I also think I've made some good contributions in removing unreliable stuff from articles. I've only written one article and that was on a family member, Worth Hamilton Weller, so I'll have to put my hands up to COI. It's short but I think ok.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, I have been in a couple of conflicts, but I wouldn't say they cause me stress (you want stress, look at UseNet). I took the initiative in moving Walam Olum from a pretty poor unstructured article to something that I think is structured and better sourced (with help of course). During this there was quite a bit of conflict with another editor which ended up in an RfC [1]. At the same time I came into conflict with the same editor over well-sourced material I had added to Monk's Mound. In both situations I think I acted with patience and attempts to explain WP policies and guidelines (and also, to make sure the information I had was correct, personally contacted various writers and archaeologists not to use the information for the article as it would obviously not be verifable, but to satisfy myself that I was being accurate). More recently I have come into contact with User:SageMab.Again I think I have acted patiently with a very difficult editor who kept telling me I didn't understand OR, accused me of NPOV (yes, accused me!), etc. I made two serious efforts on his/her talk page at reconciliation and explanation. I think it is always important to own up immediately and apologise when I'm wrong no matter what I think of the other person's behaviour.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. How do you envision Wikipedia 50 years from now?

A: I'll have a go anyway, although I can't even imagine what the Internet will be like 50 years from now! Well, whatever replaces it, that is. (I'm assuming nothing stops technology based societies from growing and that may be wrong). But as I'm interested in reliable sources, my hope (and I'd like to think this will happen in a lot less than 50 years) is that more and more of these will be online and freely accessible. Editors, Admins, etc will need sophisticated technology themselves to keep track of changes. More intelligent wikilinking. Automatic grammar correction please (or 'grammer correction'. And instantaneous response from servers with no messages that Wikipedia is locked. Doug Weller (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from xenocidic

5. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: The IP seems pretty persistent. Yes, they added a constructive albeit unsourced comment and mentioned it in their revised unblock request. But the two intervening edits don't make the request terribly convincing. I'd turn down the request, saying that I would have been more likely to grant it those two edits hadn't been made, and adding that if he's (or she's) serious, a week isn't a long time to wait and in the meantime he should read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and think about some edits/contributions he'd like to make. I'd add a welcome menu to give him some links. As an aside, I note that the IP spells 'sex' 'secks, and 'douche' 'duche' and yet can spell aesthetically correctly. Something doesn't look right about that. Possible troll?

Optional quetsion from DragonflySixtyseven:

6 Why have you not done any newpage patrolling? DS (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A: Lack of time and other Wikipedia interests I'd say. I've done it once or twice, but with the number of pages I have on my Watchlist (and I also look at all Egyptology related changes) and the work I want to do on improving articles, etc., it's never been a priority. I have a backlog of article work I want to do and where I've been gathering resources (any excuse to buy books(, eg Mesolithic, Beaker culture, some Phoenician related stuff, sub-Roman Britain, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from zzuuzz:

7. You recently reported a testing newbie to AIV, for vandalising after a final warning despite not receiving any communications in over four months. As an admin you would presumably have blocked them. Please explain why you would have blocked without warning, and how long for. Why did you not ask them to stop?

A: Seeing that again, I'm not altogether happy with what I did, as I've been trying to look at editors' other edits to see if they are also vandalism. I then warn them on their talk page for all of them so that acts as a record. (It was already mentioned that I should have placed a warning on a couple of IPs' talk pages even though it was their first vandalism). This IP had already had a final warning which seems to have had no effect. I often wonder how many IPs even know they have a talk page, let alone read it. Anyway, the IP had 8 edits on the 26th, 9 in April, and although you might call some of them testing, there was also deletion of text in List of caliphs and in April which vandalised the articles in question. You tell me that as an Admin I would have blocked them. Would I have? I've read a bit about blocking policy, but if I do become an Admin, before I start blocking people I intend to have read a lot more. What I do know now is that we block to "reduce the likelihood of further problems." Now it may be that the IP editor had stopped and wasn't going to come back for some time, or, as in April, would be back in a few hours. All the editor's edits were testing or vandalism, giving no reason to expect a spontaneous change. So, and I may feel differently when I've read a bit more about blocking, I quite likely would have put on a 24 hour block. That would have insured that if they did return within that time they couldn't vandalise. Also, if they did return during that time, being blocked might have spurred them into finding out about their talk page and why they were blocked (although they probably would have guessed). What I sometimes do, and perhaps should have done in this case, is also put a welcome message on their talk page. But in fact, no block was made, which suggests I may well be talking nonsense and I need to find out what I should have done as an editor and what I should do in such a case if I become an administrator.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

8. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: In a nutshell, veriability is policy, consensus is guideline. I'd think that properly interpreted policy would always override consensus, although I guess the disgruntled editors might point to another policy, WP:IAR and claim that consensus allows them to ignore the need for verifiabilty. I'd disagree -- without verifiability and reliable sources, Wikipedia would not be an encyclopedia, or at least not one I would want to spend my time on. (Consensus couldn't be used to break copyright in an article either, or allow violations of BLP - WP:IAR can't be taken literally.) The question to me becomes how to implement policy, and I'd want to know more about what I assume would be some sort of content dispute, with the new user saying such and such is X, the others saying it's Y. I would start a discussion on the talk page, asking the disgruntled editors why they think on unverified statement is better than a verified one, pointing out the importance of WP:VERIFIABILITY. If I got nowhere with that, I'd suggest that they take it to RfC or mediation and assist them with that. The other alternative, if that didn't work, would be to take it to ANI for advice. As I'm assuming the disgruntled editors are generally good editors, I don't see where the use of Admin tools, etc. would be helpful and might be counterproductive . And before I got involved at all, I'd read and reread W:New admin school/Dealing with disputes and it's talk page to see how that would help. Doug Weller (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

9. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: This is a bit embarassing. I'm sure I've done it on article talk pages but nothing springs to mind. I've gone through my own talk page. All I can really find is User:Ariobarza where I first encountered him when I started changing some of his articles which he was quickly producing -- see [2] and after discussions on each others talk pages and various articles, I now get requests like [3]. Those who remember the saga involving Dr Boubouleix may remember that he asked me to email him [4] which I did, and I think I was of help to him, but that was by email, so no evidence. Although I'm sure I've got much to learn about the different types of problems inexperiences encounter, I'm confident that with my past experience here and elsewhere I can do a decent job.

10. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: I've been thinking about this. I know it's going to have to evolve over time. First, I need be more efficient with the time that I spend on Wikipedia. The way I do it right now is pretty wasteful for various reasons. Obviously I'm not going to give up article work which I think is one of my strengths, but I may try to focus more on certain topics. I've said I'll probably get involved in ANI, WP:RFPP, and disruptive user blocking, and I'll probably cut down on some of my simple vandal reporting stuff - I've got too many articles on my watch list that I'm not interested in, mainly there from looking at vandals' other vandalism and fixing it, and I may drop some where I know there are other editors watching them. And I plan to talk to Moreschi and a few other Admins and editors I know for advice on how I can be most helpful to Wikipedia.

Optional questions from ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ——

11. There is an article on a topic which you consider to be pseudoscience. An editor comes along and makes a statement such as "there is no scientific evidence that [article topic] exists." This is not sourced, or is sourced to the opinion of one or two people, who are known to be active against the subject. Should the statement be Attributed, kept as-is, or removed?

A: If it can be attributed to a reliable source, it certainly should be attributed. If not, my personal opinion is that it should stay until someone can provide scientific evidence that [article topic] exists. In cases such as this, I think the burden of proof is on the advocates of the existence of [article topic] to show that there is supporting scientific evidence, as the claim may be so bizarre that no scientist has ever seen it worthwhile to write anything about it (if in fact any scientists had even heard of it).

12. There is a biography of a person whom you believe to be a pseudoscientist, but who has many or all of the degrees and position of a scientist (university position, peer-reviewed work etc.). Someone changes the statement "Mainstream scientists such as Y have criticized X's work as pseudoscience" to "Scientists say X's work is pseudoscience." What should we do?

A: Not get too excited about the change. The phrase 'mainstream scientists' is used a lot, and I can imagine some people would prefer it as it implies the existence of non-mainstream scientists who aren't pseudoscientists. In other words, this change might be seen as a negative one by supporters of the person in question, and I prefer the original wording as in this specific case it seems more neutral. I'd probably open up a discussion on the talk page. Another alternative would be 'other scientists', which could be an acceptable compromise. I'd certainly try my best to get consensus. Of course, the statement would need to be referenced in any case. As an aside, I don't see any need to use Admin tools in either of these scenarios.

13 Follow-up question. Thanks for your answers. No, you wouldn't need to use admin tools, probably, but admins are often called upon as far more than "people with admin tools:" they are called upon as the most respected members of the community, to help others to settle disputes. So my question is: Your answer to my first question indicates that you are willing to tolerate some level of WP:OR when something is unsourced. "No scientific evidence" not only says that people have read all the available sources, but they have knowledge that no unpublished evidence exists ("science" is not a very well-defined term). So, you feel that in some instances, it is not up to the person inserting material to source it, but rather up to people who wish to remove material to source their removal. Could you elaborate on what circumstances you feel these different rules should be applied? By different, I mean different from "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found." I have never once seen a RS willing to make a negative statement about the absolute existence of scientific evidence. There are of course alternative wordings one could use: "[article subject] is not accepted within the scientific community" or, if some fringe scientists accept it "[article subject] is not accepted within the mainstream scientific community." If you deal in FRINGE topics, you'll have to help out with this kind of dispute. The cases above are from life, and in fact from dozens of editors.

A: I did say it was my personal opinion and didn't try to base it on policy. You probably know I am aware of policy on OR. I wouldn't expect an RS to try to prove a negative either. I've already explained some of my reasoning. I could argue policy, using WP:IAR, etc. and try to justify putting some sort of statement in the that points out the apparent lack of scientific evidence (a statement that could be easily falsifable and thus should be removed as soom as someone finds some). Certainly I've seen fringe editors use policy the opposite way, and when you get a determined believer arguing policy will get you nowhere and consensus can be impossible. The key thing here though is to think about this in light of our goals - I'm sure everyone participating here has as at least one of their objectives building, collaboratively, a trustworthy encyclopedia. Doesn't that mean that we owe our readers some sort of pointer towards the (apparent) lack of scientific evidence? The burden of proof should be firmly on those suggesting or implying in any way that the subject is scientific. So, how do we do that? We could, I guess, try to get something in policy/guidelines which would allow such a statement, with a caveat saying it must be removed if even just one RS is found falsifying it. Or how about this? We've got lots of tags for articles, could we create one simply stating 'This article provides no scientific evidence for the existence of X' - or some such wording? I'm happy to carry on this discussion elsewhere if the idea isn't total nonsense, which it may be as I'm not familiar with the possible issues around such a tag. Yet.

Excellent idea "Any evidence presented in this article for the existence of X is highly controversial, and the reader is warned to carefully evaluate all opinions presented here." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from TomStar81 (Talk):

14. What is your opinion on the use of optional questions in an rfa? Are they helpful or hurtful to a potential candidate undergoing an rfa?

A:I think decisions about a candidate should be made on the basis of what they've done, not on what they say they're going to do (this shouldn't be an election) and I recognise Moreschi's point that questions won't stop a Poetlister. A shrewd candidate should be able to figure out what answers people want to general questions about policy, etc. I think they can play a useful role where there are any issues in an editor's contributions that might require an explanation. If there are, they give an applicant a chance to explain their actions which they might not have otherwise. A limit would probably be useful, both to the total number of questions and how many one person can ask (although in Martin^phi's case I thought of what might actually be a good idea because of his 3rd question, and maybe got his vote because of my answer). Whether they hurt or help will depend upon the candidate's record and their skills at answering questions. If you haven't seen Wikipedia:RfA Review/Recommend, it says that from the Questions phase, 54 editors favored "questions that relate directly to the candidate and their experiences, contributions, conflicts, etc."

General comments

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

• Links for Dougweller: Dougweller (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• Just to add: I've watched Doug develop as an editor for many months now. I had him earmarked as potential admin material from the first, and he has lived up to all my expectations. I can think of few others more suitable for sysop buttons. Moreschi (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Look, please. If this RFA winds up as 25 questions of pointless nonsense, 25 questions designed only to increase the reputation of their authors as "wise persons", 25 questions the answers to which no one will read anyway, then it's barely worth the bother. Please, people, think a bit more about the candidate and less about your own egos. A few relevant extra questions are fine. 10 max. Otherwise it's just getting silly. Doug's not a magician - how on earth do you answer a question like "how do you envisage Wikipedia in 50 years time"? Moreschi (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Keepscases always makes silly questions and he rarely actually votes. I doubt anybody really cares if he answers it. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I quite like Keepcases's questions a lot of the time, they're always quite odd but quite often draw interesting responses out of the candidate that say things that policy-knowledge questions don't touch on. I found the candidate's answer to the question reasonably informative about him. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I liked the question (and the response) too. In some ways, such questions are much better at gauging the type of person behind the moniker than are the usual policy questions. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Keepscases questions have gotten slightly more relevant than in the past, though you may want to review the various commentary on his talk page regarding this. But for what it's worth I don't understand the nominators insistance on keeping the questions to 10 maximum... heck, recent events suggest that we need to vet our candidates more stringently. if they're not willing to answer a few simple questions... –xeno (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just silly. You're not going to root out the next Poetlister that way, believe me. In fact, a hallmark of the Poetbeast sockfarm was that MB was perfect at passing RFA-style processes - he would answer all the questions, certainly. Moreschi (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Looks like a good mainspace editor with his head screwed on right. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Nominated by Moreschi. naerii 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
3. He's someone I've had on my list as well, though I didn't follow through. Definitely a good candidate from what I've seen. Wizardman 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
4. More sane admins in fringey areas are always good. Also Moreschi nom. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. No concerns at all about Dougweller from what I've seen so far. rootology (C)(T) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Thank you for your thoughtful response, you've lived up to the nomination statement. Keepscases (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - I can't imagine a better candidate. ClovisPt (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Good candidate. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - yes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Great editor, I can trust with the tools. America69 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support - Looks like he'd be a fantastic, trustworthy admin. --Smashville^BONK! 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Looks good. Dlohcierekim 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Seems like a quality editor through and through. —Sunday ^Scribe 22:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Nothing alarming = support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support to my knowledge we have never met on site here, but I see a lot of names I know and trust in the support column, so I will lend you my support as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support All is well. Húsönd 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - Can't argue with this one... Xclamation point 23:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - great editor Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
19. Support No reason to oppose. LittleMountain5 ^review! 00:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support, best answer to question 4 I've seen. — CharlotteWebb 02:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
21. zOMG! LOLCATROFLCOPTER!! You're not an admin? I thot u wuz wun already!!1!!eleven!1!!. But seriously, a great and helpful editor. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. Everything checks out; experienced, communicative, civil, knows policy, and works in the mainspace. It's a green light from me. (Ironically, per your answer to Keepcases' question, I got an error when submitting this comment). Useight (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. From What i've seen.. all checks out. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. Good luck to you. GlassCobra 05:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Seen him in action, yes. - Merzbow (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Net Positive by granting the buttons. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  06:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Support As civil, good vandal fighter who has not made any troubles I could find - you will make a good janitor...I mean admin. SoWhy 07:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - I've seen this guy around quite a bit and everything looks to be in order. Yup! - Alison ^❤ 07:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
29. 100% Support -- exactly the kind of addition the admin population so desperately needs. --dab (��) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
30. user:Everyme 08:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I've edited alongside this editor recently and he is the right man to have the admin tools. I hope to continue to edit with and learn from him. All the best. Verbal chat
32. Strong support Exactly the kind of admin we need. --Folantin (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support This is an excellent editor and very worthy to be given extra tools, which I'm sure he'll use well. DollyD (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

     Bureaucrat note:DollyD is a confirmed troll/sock, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HaasSoul — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

33. Conditional Support Will change to Freewheelin' Fun Support if you'll swear a blood oath to fix the freakin' Terracotta Army article. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Always seems calm, capable, and in full control of his rational faculties. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Judging by his past conversations he is always levelheaded and shows his wisdom in ending disputes. --Banime (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
36. Strong support I frequently perceive this user's contributions as a breath of fresh air and a veritable gale of commonsense. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
37. Having watched many of his interactions, I have been impressed with his calm, informed demeaner. His presence in a discussion tends to make them go smoothly, even if no agreement is obtained. Importantly, he seems to know the name a certain garden tool, but wisely doesn't brag about it. I call this having compassionate clue, and the project is well served when its admins have this. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ken Jennings could totally be an admin here [5]. — CharlotteWebb 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

38. Looks good. No problems here. Keeper ǀ 76 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Would like to see more article work, but for such a solid contributor, that's not a showstopper. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. Quite reasonable for somebody who majored in Political Science ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. A balanced contributor who always tries to seek sources for people's contributions if at all possible and has remained open and tolerant in his responses even to users who subject him to abuse when they disagree with his edits. Would be a solid addition to WP. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
42. Support: Nominated by Moreschi, which goes a long way, and a review of his contributions indicates maturity and thoughtfulness. Properly skeptical of Ctesias and Herodotus. Everything looks to be in order; I think Doug will be an excellent admin. We need more candidates like this. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, now this is a good point. Moreschi's new rule for adminship: "anyone who takes Herodotus seriously is permanently banned from RFA until they manage by other means to demonstrate that they actually can evaluate sources after all". I like it - MastCell, I think you've just found the new litmus test. Source evaluation is such a critical skill for adminship - certainly, this beats the hell out of the usual "what'sthedifferencebetweenablockandaban" crap (guys, haven't you realised yet that they just copy-paste from Bloggin's RFA that passed last week?). Moreschi (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

43. Support - nice contrubutions, good answers... enough for a support. macy 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
44. Great editor. Will be good with the tools. (Acalamari from alternate account.) Bellatrix Kerrigan 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. Looks great to me. Malinaccier (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - Looks like a civil, thoughtful user and I have no doubts that we can trust you to "wield" the mop and bucket. I would like it if you made it slightly easier to access your talk page archives though - the current pointer is a redlink, I had to go searching, and after all that it turned out you weren't hiding anything! How disappointing. :P – Toon^(talk) 21:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
47. Support no big negs but (and I'm sure you are preoccupied this week) I would prefer when you revert this sort of stuff I would like to see warnings - that way we can deter people early and we know whether this is a first or fourth offence. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
48. Looks fine to me. --Tex (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
49. Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. Nothing but net positive. DiverseMentality^{(Discuss it)} 02:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
51. Strongly, per MastCell. Giggy (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
52. Support net positive, to be sure. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
54. Support, he doesn't shun away from dealing with problem editors.--Berig (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
55. Support per nom and Q2. Academic interest in the project is always a plus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Absolutely. henrik•talk 13:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
57. Moreschi candidate. Clearly excellent. Caulde 14:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. A superlative contributor from the get-go. Doug's expertise, rationality and ability to handle sticky confrontations with aplomb and grace has been a great boon to the project. Can only admire his range and work ethic, dunno how he manages it along with everything else but I'm very glad he does. I trust entirely his good judgement and common sense in editing and dealing with others, have no doubts that once an admin these qualities will continue to benefit the project.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
59. Support - a very good candidate who can be trusted with administrative tools, I feel. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
60. Support. This editor seems to be well-suited for the task of administrating. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. Doug participates well in discussions and has learnt from minor mistakes in the past. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
62. Support, seems sensible enough. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. I can see nothing bad from Doug's contribs. Spencer^T♦C 00:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Absolutely. Very solid and sensible in all situations I've seen.John Z (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
65. Per Moreschi and MastCell. I feel that we don't need more admins in general and would probably even benefit from a sizeable reduction of the current corps, but we do need more admins with the set of skills Doug seems to have. --JayHenry (t) 07:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
66. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 13:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
67. Support. Quite convicing candidate. However, taking more care of newbie users and helping them to make useful contributions would be fine. That Doug couldn't remember any such incident is really somewhat embarrassing. Gray62 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    This is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. While obviously we should help confused newbies when they cross our path, we are under no obligation to actually go looking for confused newbies to befriend and aid. Other things are more important. Moreschi (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Judging from many inter-wiki discussions I've read, I somehow have the feeling this IS a social neworking side alright. Only that some editors are more interested in collectively defending "their" article against unwanted additions than in helping newcomers. And, sry, but I don't support your view about having "no obigation" to help confused newbies. Quite to the contrary, imho narrow minded selfishness is a major point of what's going wrong with wikipedia. Ok, sry for letting this go off topic, what's important is that in the meantime Doug clarified his stance towards newbs and posted some good examples at my talk page. Very impressive, this fast reaction, Doug, and thx! Gray62 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Of course we have an obligation to help confused newbies - ones who cross our paths. We don't have to actively search the wikiforests searching for damsels in distress, however. Moreschi (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    And I never claimed you have to. Gray62 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yet you demand it from the candidate. Everyme 08:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

    No, not at all. Where do I say Doug should "actively search the wikiforests searching for damsels in distress", hmm? Of course, I meant he should help noobs when necessary or requested, not that he should patrol WP for them. Pls pay more attention to what is actually written here. Gray62 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

68. Moreschi nominated. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
69. Support, no good reason not to. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Looks like a good candidate. No obvious problems.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
71. Support -- Yes please. Good head on the shoulders of that one. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
72. Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. This is a no-brainer for me. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
74. Support : Nothing that concerns me... Best wishes again -- Tinu Cherian - 07:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
75. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 07:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
76. Support, yes please. fish&karate 11:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
77. Support As remarked above, a no-brainer and some say I have no brains, so... More seriously, one of the better RfA candidates we've seen lately. JayHenry's remarks are especially apropos. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
78. Support. First class editor, impeccable judgement. Mathsci (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
79. Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
80. Support. Highly clueful. Skinwalker (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
81. Support. Don't recall how Dougweller wound up on my watchlist, but I see a constant string of comments related to productive edits. Plus, adminship is no big deal. Mop away, my friend! -Pete (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
82. Support -Dureo (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
83. Support I had always assumed that Doug was an administrator. Let it happen. Aramgar (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
84. Support. No worries about this editor. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
85. Obviously. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
86. Support. Trustworthy experienced and useful editor. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
87. Support I see no reason for concern, the candidate should be a net positive to the project. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
88. Support - net positive. While I understand Realist's concern, I think that the general Gnomey-ness, coupled with a careful approach works for me. Best of luck, Gazimoff 13:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
89. Support. — Jojo • Talk • 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
90. Hello, is this where I sign up to go hunting for Thomas Jefferson's ghost? Oh, wrong queue. While I am here: Support -- everyone else said it best, and earlier. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
91. Support As per Moreschi and track is very good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
92. Support per answers to 8, 11, 12. VasileGaburici (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
93. Support per answer to question 8, and nothing big jumps out that would make me oppose. The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
94. Support Thinks outside the box and is reasonable and willing to listen. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
95. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
96. Support Good Editor Lucifer (Talk) 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
97. Ah yep. Seen em around with good effect. Shenme (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Support: Nothing that concerns me... -- Tinu Cherian - 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Noted, but you've already supported, above. Good candidates are worth supporting twice, though. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 11:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

    Well thanq , ya Good candidates like him are worth supporting twice. :) My bad..I had researched on the candidate sometime back and found no concerns. When I came back today, I didnt see my support vote :( ( and wondered I didnt support yet) and hence added again. Thanks again -- Tinu Cherian - 11:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

98. Support. I'm seeing good contributions here, and I don't have any reservations about granting this editor the tools. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 11:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
99. Strong support, with many thanks for showing wisdom in the Hrafn affair. If you ever want to discuss something I'll be glad to try to help, but suspect that you already know more about it than I do. . . dave souza, talk 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
100. WP:100 support for this fine editor.  Frank  |  talk  16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
101. Support We can always use more admins (see my user page) and there isn't a problem with this one. SpecialK is currently on editor review 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Strongly Oppose This editor actually contributes to articles rather than being a self-assuming authority figure ready to wield admin buttons in the service of petty vendettas. HaasSoul (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

— HaasSoul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. –xeno (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've indented it as an obvious joke oppose, most probably coming from a sockpuppet of an experienced editor. Everyme 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note:HassSoul is a confirmed troll/sock, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HaasSoul — Rlevse • Talk • 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE - lack of knowledge with the basics - user unsure how to edit redlinks [6], commits silly errors [7] and inserting outsourced material into articles [8]. I WOULD NOT trust this user with admin tools, lest he continues to make stupid mistakes --Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this account was created only minutes prior to delivering this message, but that is no reason to disregard it Thanks --Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is likely a bad faith or misguided oppose - Links are over 2 years old. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please dont bite the newcomer - this was not done in bad faith at all. Some people never change, and in this case Doug is not suitable for the job --Iva*Siwela (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Previously blocked user User:Iva_siwel or imitator to no good purpose. Shenme (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And indeed you are correct. Account was blocked indef for disruption. MER-C 06:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Lack's article work for me to support, but I wouldn't object to you being an admin at all. Best of luck whatever happens. — Realist² 00:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

   Silly Realist, don't you know that consensus is key to keeping Wikipedia functioning well? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   Baaaaa. – Toon^(talk) 18:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

   I'm hardly rocking the boat. — Realist² 21:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral at this time. Bwrs (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

   Why? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (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.