Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:30, 18 April 2012 edit28bytes (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators32,522 edits →Oppose: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 00:05, 19 April 2012 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Neutral: reply to MontyNext edit →
Line 107: Line 107:
#:::::Patrolling the back end of the New Articles queue is a better idea than jumping on new articles and tagging them like this within minutes of their creation as he was doing in these cases. The articles were skimpy on refs at the time he tagged them, but some had only been up for 20 minutes. I would feel better about the tags if the article had been in the New Pages queue for a week or two and were still this skimpy on refs. Some did have a claim (however unsupported) of notability. He seems to be sensible and responsive to criticism, so I will be in the "Support" column.] (]) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) #:::::Patrolling the back end of the New Articles queue is a better idea than jumping on new articles and tagging them like this within minutes of their creation as he was doing in these cases. The articles were skimpy on refs at the time he tagged them, but some had only been up for 20 minutes. I would feel better about the tags if the article had been in the New Pages queue for a week or two and were still this skimpy on refs. Some did have a claim (however unsupported) of notability. He seems to be sensible and responsive to criticism, so I will be in the "Support" column.] (]) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
#::::::The one Pedro linked is very borderline, in that while it does explain the significance, writing the book, just writing any book is a pretty weak claim of importance. Of the other 4, 1 wasn't a topic eligible for A7, and the other 3 clearly did indicate why the subject was important, even if the subjects are questionably notable. Particularly makes it very clear why the subject is important, and the assertions when properly referenced certainly would establish notability. ]] 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC) #::::::The one Pedro linked is very borderline, in that while it does explain the significance, writing the book, just writing any book is a pretty weak claim of importance. Of the other 4, 1 wasn't a topic eligible for A7, and the other 3 clearly did indicate why the subject was important, even if the subjects are questionably notable. Particularly makes it very clear why the subject is important, and the assertions when properly referenced certainly would establish notability. ]] 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
#:I felt like I should reply here because Monty (and others) have expressed a valid concern. My desire to serve on CSD isn't because I feel I excel in this area, it is because there appears to be a need. Additionally, it is an area where I can actually learn something, a challenge if you will. I won't bore you with my life story, but in short, I'm motivated by personal challenges. In the past, I had someone with a mop to make sure I was right, and virtually no consequences for being wrong. If I'm handed the mop, you will find me much more conservative, and asking for other admin's opinions before acting, perhaps annoyingly so. I've been here a long time and have had a lot of opportunity to screw up my CSD ratio before even considering serving as an admin, and I'm still at 91% since 2008, as pointed out above. That isn't good enough to work CSD, obviously, but imagine if I was being mindful. I would stay out of CSD if asked, but I am a quick study and I'm more concerned about making mistakes than you are. This concern will guide me in learning how to properly apply policy, if given the opportunity. ] ] ] 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:05, 19 April 2012

Dennis Brown

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (22/4/1); Scheduled to end 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-Nomination from Pedro

Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to offer Dennis up for the tools. Dennis approached me to consider his readiness six months ago . I responded that whilst his editing history was clearly impressive there were some minor concerns over speedy deletions, specifically tagging too quickly or not quite accurately. As a mature editor, Dennis responded well to my hopefuly useful feedback at that time and has been careful and diligent in this area.

Dennis recently asked me to reasses him, and after considerable input from many members of the community on his talk page, has been persuaded that he should ask for the extra tools.

The candidate is a tenured editor, albeit with a break for a couple of years between 2008/2010. Since returning to active editing Dennis has amassed many thousands of edits, with a sensible balance across the mainspace and project areas. The usual housekeeping items are all in place - block free, sensible user page and signature etc.

In summary, a well rounded courteous and dependable editor who learns from rare mistakes. I can't put it much better than User:Orangemike who recently wrote "Solid but not showy, moderate and civil". Indeed. Pedro :  Chat  14:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-Nomination from User:Elen of the Roads

Late to party (as ever) but I am delighted to nominate User:Dennis Brown for the mop. Since his return to active editing, he has involved himself in many areas of the project, and has proved a sensible, moderate and reflective voice. Some want perfection in their admins. I prefer a hardworking candidate, who promptly puts his hands up if he has missed something. Dennis is a mature candidate, who can communicate well, take feedback on board, and generally act in a grown up way to keep this project on track. And he makes less mistakes with the Mediawiki interface than I do.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: CSD, ANI, vandalism, and likely copyright issues within a year. I have 30 years working with computers, 15 with Linux and Perl, so assisting on a somewhat more technical level is possible down the road.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I've created a few articles on regional topics and uploaded several images, but my better contributions have been more gnomish such as sourcing List of nocturnal animals, a topic I knew nothing about but enjoyed the personal challenge. Looking at the article on Lexington, NC (my new home) before and after my contributions shows some of what I like to do over time, including researching and adding all the climate data. I don't mind repetitive type tasks with no end date, and try to always have something like that in the works. I've begun working with others in settling disputes, which I find satisfying. Being a generalist by nature, my contributions have been in a wide variety of subjects, often making minor corrections to articles that I was simply reading about. I've begun to like adopting new articles by new users and polishing them up. I've also done a reasonable amount of work over the years patrolling for vandals. I would like to think I have a good sense of fairness.
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: I intentionally involved myself in the debates over merge in MMA articles as an outside party, with the goal of trying to bring some order to what was then, a large and ugly battlefield full of sockpuppets, meatpuppeting, blocks and incivility. To be truthful, it was part of a self-test to determine if I was capable of keeping a cool head and remaining objective, as a prerequisite to considering a request for admin. In the end, I feel I did an acceptable job, along with the help of many others, in eventually defusing what was an explosive situation. Many of the strongest objectors are now working on improving the new omnibus system. As to other examples, I have learned over the years to simply avoid any topic to which I have a personal interest, COI, or strong personal feelings. This greatly reduces the stress as I don't have a personal investment in the topic. I'm a much happier person this way. I've never been afraid to ask an admin if my actions were too strong or improper, or if my understanding of policy is wrong. I do this quite frequently. When I make a mistake (and I do), I am quick to admit it and have discovered that others are usually just as quick to forgive when you are sincere.
Additional question from 28bytes
4. What are your thoughts on this A7 mentioned in the neutral section? Leaving aside the question of notability, is an appearance on an ABC Family TV show and an IMDB entry a "credible claim of significance or importance"? Why or why not?
A: Having a role on a cable television show is not quite the same as having a major role on a network program, particularly when reliable sources, then as now, are not readily available. Even with the lack of notability, as demonstrated by a lack of significant coverage, however, it likely was enough of a "claim" that I should not have tagged it, and instead waited a day and PROD'ed it. While I still have doubts as to the notability of the subject matter, (as you point out) that isn't the issue at CSD, so in the end, it wasn't my best call. Short answer: It was a little sloppy. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from Yasht101
5. I went through your contributions and found that you have a success rate of 91% while dealing with CSD using (Denominator and Neumerator). Most of your declined deletions are A7. So how would you deal with a CSD:A7 request?
A: I trust your 91% calculation and note that many of those were from 2008. To be honest, I'm surprised my ratio is over 90% when you go back that far, as I was much less cautious then. I know I've struggled with A7s in the past, which is why I've worked so hard with CSDs now. Part of it was just not getting it, confusing it with notability (no one really explained it back then). Part of it might have been a little laziness on my part as well. This was before I installed TW, and I likely saw it as an alternative to manually adding an AFD. But my perspective is different now. To answer your question directly, how I expect to handle A7s when I have the mop is to only delete the most obvious ones, and ask for opinions on the others, A7 or otherwise. This is the only way I know how to learn. Just the other day, I found an image that I was sure was a copy vio but I had a tiny reservation. Instead of nominating it, I went and asked RHaworth who promptly deleted it. That doesn't show up as a red link, and this isn't the only time I've done this recently, but the main point is that I'm already much more conservative about nominating for CSD, if anything, I will be more cautious when weilding the mop, as the stakes are higher, and the likelihood of someone fixing my mistake is lower. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Support As per my nomination statement. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. Strong, edit-conflicted Support - I've had this watchlisted for several days now. Dennis is a clueful, humble, hardworking editor who will only become more valuable if given the tools. He's had a trial by fire in the mess that was the MMA discussions and came out unscathed, with a head just as cool as ever. From what I've seen, he's not afraid to admit to his mistakes (the few that he makes), and has worked tirelessly to improve his knowledge and application of policy. Dennis is also often a voice of reason on the drama boards and will be able to do even more in defusing drama/conflict there given a mop and bucket. No reservations here. Keilana| 20:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. SupportTotal Support, and beat the co-nom!--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support. Easy decision. Dennis Brown has been popping up in all sorts of discussions offering thoughtful and valuable opinions in a clear and calm way, and I've kept thinking he'd make a great admin. We won't get any drama here, just calm and rational mopping up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Clued in. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support: An arb thinks he's good. That must be something. Good contribs. Good work in the community. Whenaxis (contribs) 20:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Significant contributions, good balance across all areas. Quick learner, accepts behavioral feedback, can pick up things fast. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support - Clueful, level-headed user who I would have no problem supporting in adminship. I am also impressed by his seeking additional opinions on adminship - he seems like he'll respond well to criticism, which is always an important trait to have in an administrator. ItsZippy 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support I've only seen good things from this editor. SÆdon 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  10. Support Great (and plenty of) contributions from him, and works hard against vandalism. Drla8th! (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support I greatly admire someone who can step back and objectively repair mistakes they've made. You have my full support Dennis; I have little doubt you will make great use of your mop. --Nick Wilson (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support based on noms and spot review of CSD tags. No concerns here.  Frank  |  talk  21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support – Dennis' history shows that he can use good judgment in messy disputes of the kind that admins often face. This gives us some assurance he will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. Not just somebody to whom it is safe to entrust the tools, but a person who we can anticipate will do useful things with them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  14. Secret 21:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I just realized his previous username and its a strongest possible support, I'm glad that he decided to do an RFA. He was one of the best voices of reason in AFD back when AFD was just as bad of a drama shithole as AN/I. Would make a brilliant administrator. Secret 22:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support - Really a good editor and have seen him around for while. No doubts... Yasht101 21:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  16. Support A review of his input to AFDs shows he is thoughtful and level headed in general. His pattern of edits shows a good percentage to articles and their talk pages rather than a high percentage on dramah boards. I expect good things from his use of the mop. Edison (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  17. Support I had participated in the the MMA discussions for a while, and the work Dennis did there was commendable. He is quite helpful at ANI from what I have seen, and can easily be trusted with the tools. Much deserved, and overdue on this one. --kelapstick 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  18. Support as co-nom. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  19. Support. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  20. Support I've found this editor to be very reasoned and professional in my interactions with him. I've also noticed his attempts to be a voice of reason at ANI. I think he exhibits sound judgement and I believe he'd make a fine admin. Mojoworker (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  21. Support - I've briefly examined this users' history, and I see the user's been here since 2006, has a clean block log, has demonstrated, in my opinion, good judgement in recent history, and has not engaged in any questionable activities in recent history. PCHS-NJROTC 22:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  22. Support Why not? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose - Recently declined CSD tagging doesn't inspire me with confidence, particularly when CSD is #1 on the list of things on which the candidate plans on working. Some 2012 examples:
    ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 22:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I am not seeing examples where this users benefit to the program will be increased by additional user rights. - Youreallycan 22:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I spent last Thursday thru to Monday being (it felt like) the only admin in the place. I'm sure I wasn't (there was some other guy I kept hearing in the corridors) but for example every single notice board backed up. You're right, a mop won't improve Dennis's abilities at negotiating, but it would help keep the project running more generally. That's my perspective anyway. Your view may vary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Yes - occasionally there is a lack of admins available to protect articles and suchlike - I just don't feel that is a good reason to promote limited candidates- Often I need to block vandals and protect articles but I can't - but the wheels don't drop off. Youreallycan 23:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Far too erratic of an edit history. Even ignoring the break from '09-'11: 468 in 7/07, then 64 in 9/07, then 1096 in 1/08, then 22 in 5/08, then 1744 in 10/08, 14 in 2/11, 655 in 4/11, then 16 in 7/11, and back to 1289 in 2/12. Will move to support if I see a legitimate reason for these massive hills and valleys in editing. A non-consistent editing history does not inspire me to believe admin contributions will be consistent. A412 (Talk • C) 22:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Why would admin (or any other) actions need to be numerically consistent month-by-month? (I'm not trying to badger you, I'm just genuinely curious as to why you might have what seems to me to be a rather bizarre requirement) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Bizarre is a kind way of putting it. Why a candidate has more time to spend volunteering some months than others is nobody's business but his own. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. Per Scottywong. →Στc. 23:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. While I have no doubt that Dennis Brown is a well meaning and productive editor, I'm concerned about CSD A7 nominations they made in the last 3 months that were declined, particularly in light of the intent to work with CSD indicated by the answer to question 1. (diffs available if requested) Monty845 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Diffs requested; nevertheless I will say that I'm highly inclined to support regardless.  Frank  |  talk  21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Article versions as tagged: Monty845 21:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not too concerned about this. I learned through experience that, if CSD tagging is an issue at your RfA, you go very cautiously with CSDs. I said in my support that this user responds well to criticism; I have little doubt that they will be aware of this issue, be willing to start cautiously and listen to any feedback on their CSDs they get. ItsZippy 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I would delete three of those five under CSD as they exist today, and would have deleted all five as they were tagged without a second thought. I may even nominate some at AFD now.  Frank  |  talk  21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Have to mostly agree with you Frank. I'm pretty cautious with speedies in general (and the respected User:DGG even more so!) but anything like this I'd have deleted without batting much of an eyelid. Having said that, I appreciate Monty845's concern and thank him for his diligence in research; and it's noted Monty is neutral not opposing. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Patrolling the back end of the New Articles queue is a better idea than jumping on new articles and tagging them like this within minutes of their creation as he was doing in these cases. The articles were skimpy on refs at the time he tagged them, but some had only been up for 20 minutes. I would feel better about the tags if the article had been in the New Pages queue for a week or two and were still this skimpy on refs. Some did have a claim (however unsupported) of notability. He seems to be sensible and responsive to criticism, so I will be in the "Support" column.Edison (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    The one Pedro linked is very borderline, in that while it does explain the significance, writing the book, just writing any book is a pretty weak claim of importance. Of the other 4, 1 wasn't a topic eligible for A7, and the other 3 clearly did indicate why the subject was important, even if the subjects are questionably notable. Particularly makes it very clear why the subject is important, and the assertions when properly referenced certainly would establish notability. Monty845 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I felt like I should reply here because Monty (and others) have expressed a valid concern. My desire to serve on CSD isn't because I feel I excel in this area, it is because there appears to be a need. Additionally, it is an area where I can actually learn something, a challenge if you will. I won't bore you with my life story, but in short, I'm motivated by personal challenges. In the past, I had someone with a mop to make sure I was right, and virtually no consequences for being wrong. If I'm handed the mop, you will find me much more conservative, and asking for other admin's opinions before acting, perhaps annoyingly so. I've been here a long time and have had a lot of opportunity to screw up my CSD ratio before even considering serving as an admin, and I'm still at 91% since 2008, as pointed out above. That isn't good enough to work CSD, obviously, but imagine if I was being mindful. I would stay out of CSD if asked, but I am a quick study and I'm more concerned about making mistakes than you are. This concern will guide me in learning how to properly apply policy, if given the opportunity. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)