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

DGG[edit]

Final (111/1/1); Ended Tues, 9 May 2007 02:18 UTC

DGG (talk · contribs) - DGG a.k.a. David Goodman is one of the most knowledgable Wikipedians I have come across. I first came across him when I was closing some AfD discussions, and I have found he has always put forward his arguments in a clear, consistent and correct manner - I've been very impressed. He certainly knows our policies and guidelines, and I can imagine him to be a frequent AfD closer if promoted. With regards to writing, he is often found adding references on various topics, and expanding various articles. He is just the kind of person this site needs as an administrator – I hope the community can agree with me. Majorly (hot!) 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I accept. DGG 01:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my general views on wikipedia, please see my user page, an essay about my view of WP, written when I was new here and adjusted a little since, and a discussion inspired by some editing controversies.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My main concerns in wikipedia are getting unsatisfactory but rescuable pages improved to keepable status, getting new users started writing good pages, and trying to establish consistency in article deletion decisions. When I check CAT:CSD and elsewhere to search for pages need rescuing, I necessarily see much larger numbers of utterly worthless or even harmful articles that should be deleted, and it would be very useful to be able to delete them as I went along. When helping new users with deleted pages, it is useful to be able help them in detail, by seeing just what was wrong with the page, and being able to undelete for the purpose. When commenting at AfD and Deletion Review, I occasionally need to check the nature of a deleted article in order to comment intelligently, and it would help if I did not have to ask others for this.
I would also be able to close XfDs, though I do not intend to close any discussion in which I have also debated. And of course I come upon vandals, and the sooner action is taken the better.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My most successful contributions to specific articles has been improving and maintaining the pages on Gutenberg and related topics. There are very strong positions taken there about whether his inventions certainly had an Asian origin, or certainly did not, and it requires continual intervention to keep a balance, since there is no positive evidence and reputable authorities on each side.
My most successful rescues from speedy deletion has been Brown Girl, Brownstones, a famous pioneering children's book, and 740 Park Avenue, the 2nd most famous NYC apartment house. I spotted them, but of course others helped.
At AfD, I think I have been instrumental in helping establish the idea that full professors at major universities are almost certain notable, and assistant professors usually not. And also establishing the more frequently needed idea that most elementary schools are not notable, and should be combined in the school district, that high schools usually are notable if sourced carefully enough, and that middle schools vary.
I also have a variety of specialized databases conveniently available, and I am often able to help at AfD by finding esoteric references. But some of my successes have simply been with Google, using patience and actually looking at the results--see Aluka.
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 have engaged in many of debates at AfD, and generally not everyone usually agrees with me, with some feeling strongly about it. I try not to be personal, but its easy to misinterpret an argument. This happened with Lotusduck once, but I think we understand each other now. I sometime respond to RfCs, and try to mediate. It's inevitable that both sides get angry during this, or the RfC wouldn't have been needed. I once had a unpleasant back and forth with The Jade Knight over the relative size of some libraries; I entered a neutral edit and disengaged; eventually someone else came along and made the appropriate good edit. I just had an exchange with about public domain sources with Coren, but we're on the way to understanding here as well.
But I have never gotten a serious warning, come close to 3RR, or been threatened with a block. I hope to continue that way, even as an admin. I've been active removing spam links, but I've managed to keep them out by persistence, not conflict. Rapid action, repeated as needed, can repress most troublemakers.
I cope personally with situations that threaten to become emotional by dealing with many different things, not concentrating on a single subject. I avoid editing in a few things I deeply care about that would threaten my ability to be objective. I compromise everything that can be compromised. And if anyone even thinks I have done something inappropriate, I apologize. When I make the inevitable errors, I hope people will continue to tell me.
4. To anticipate: Under what circumstances should one ignore all rules?
A: Almost always, there can be a satisfactory resolution or compromise within the existing rules. Most of the operating rules are guidelines permitting flexible interpretations, and a great deal depends on the choice of rule and the interpretation. In my experience so far, I have not come across a situation where the appropriate use of one or another of the policies or guidelines would not meet the situation--where it would have been impossible to keep a worthy article or edit or remove a bad one within the existing rules. But it's important to have IAR established as a possibility in case it is needed.
I have rarely seen an editing dispute that cannot be settled by compromise, and there are many ways to do compromises. If one party is not acting in good faith, then the way is to try to find supporters and hold fast. If there are two opposing parties neither of which seem to be in good faith, then the way is to propose compromises in order to make it clear that there are potential compromises and that it would benefit everyone to try for one. If the topic also is interesting to other sensible people, they'll help. If the people at each other's throats are the only ones who really care, then there may be no solution in a wiki, and I do not see how IAR will help. I've been involved in one such, when I responded to the RfC on Gordon James Klingenschmitt; I think I succeeded, but I didn't want to stay forever; the various parties destroyed the article after I left, and it was eventually deleted.
5. (Optional question from Mangojuicetalk) Suppose you looking around for XfD debates to close and you come across one that has, say 6 favoring deletion and 2 favoring keeping, and you think the article is rescuable from the unsourced/nn/possibly promotional state it is currently in. Under what circumstances would you not close the debate as a delete?
A: I would evaluate the arguments raised. If most of the 6 delete arguments showed careful consideration of the possible notability and chance of improvement, and the 2 favoring keeping had no strong argument otherwise, then I would assume my opinion was aberrant and I would close for deletion, and suggest the possibility of re-creation in the close. Otherwise, I would add my opinion to the discussion, and let someone else close. I would not close as a keep or no consensus; even if all 6 of the delete arguments were nonsense, which is not likely, it would be fairer to add my voice as a debater. I think it totally wrong to close debates to favor one's own argument, no matter how strong one thinks the argument: someone else should evaluate it. (Does this mean I will not close debates on academics or elementary schools unless opinion is essentially unanimous: yes, it does, I would not close any debate where my own opinion might conceivably influence the close. There's quite enough other ones needing closure.)DGG 22:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping into someone else's conversation here - but I don't think DGG's as much of an inclusionist as he's painted. Yes, he sometimes is the sole voice saying keep, but sometimes so am I; I've never seen him saying keep without a legitimate reason (even if I don't always think it's valid). And he can be as ruthless a deleter as anyone if he doesn't see a valid reason to keep - just ask Billy Hathorn if he'd consider him an inclusionist... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I noticed there is a proposal to change "contentious" to "negative," which is a change I would support. The principle is right; the rigor of enforcement depends on the actual sourcing, and the nature of the content. I have always supported deleting articles whose main point is to make accusations of serious crime that have not yet been legally proven, or based on trivial misdemeanors of private individuals that have nonetheless attracted some public attention. For all information involving opinion or accusation, I prefer to rely on direct sourced quotes, not rewritings by WP editors, which run the risk of introducing our own opinions. DGG 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject has requested deletion, what weight would you give this information?--Docg 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Once more, this depends upon the detailed circumstances. If it is a matter of genuine public interest, and the material is fairly reported, I think the biography should generally stay. But if the notabilty is really borderline, then this consideration can reasonably affect the final balance. DGG 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. What do you consider to be your weak points in your Wikipedia editing skills and general behavior on the site? - Mgm|(talk) 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: The one that most embarrasses me is the frequency in which I make typing or formatting errors. I am now fairly scrupulous about using a spelling checker, but I need to find or devise a program to take care of other problems--in the absence of one, I obviously must use the preview button a good deal more. Many my minor edits are ones going back and correcting my own work. This is especially important as an admin if I'm making a critical comment or trying to repress a vandal: it thoroughly weakens the effect to have it sloppy. Now that I've publicly confessed it, maybe I('ve shamed myself into watch out properly.
9. Your views on WP page lists some things where you appear to disagree with current practice. If you had to pick one thing to change right now, what would it be and how would you change it? (P.S. The "some say" bit you mentioned in there, may be used, but it's actually weasel wording which policy/guidelines say should be avoided). - Mgm|(talk) 22:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: As mentioned there, the essay was written in early days here. I'm still troubled by the way major POV differences are handled, but, I'm not at all sure I know a solution. Broad issues are difficult to summarize briefly. But there are two related procedural changes I would make:
First, not permit repeated nominations for AfD until a reasonable interval: I think it would greatly encourage meaningful compromise.
Second, have a "3CC" rule limiting anyone to 3 comments a day in any particular discussion. I think this would greatly decrease the number and bitterness of arguments, and reduce the work at ArbCom, RfC, and ANI. If you can't say what you mean in three tries, you should wait till another day.
The way I would accomplish change is to suggest these from time to time when it seems appropriate, but certainly not bring these up continually or nag about them. I hope that the merits would appeal to at least the newcomers who might share the experience that no other organized body in the world operates without some form of closure and some limits to debate. WP shouldn't be Slashdot. At Slashdot all that's wanted is talk, but here we need work.
I am aware that I am probably in the minority on both of these--and perhaps a small minority--but I want to give an honest answer here even if not politic. DGG 00:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)
A:::

It meets the requirements of being secure to a greater degree than those mentioned. I have been following (and joining) the discussion of this on WP:SECURITY, WP:ADMIN and on the wikien-l list and I see there is no agreement yet on just what the requirement should be and how it should be worded, though there certainly is agreement on a requirement--as there should have been all along. DGG 04:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/DGG before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Majorly (hot!) 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. John Vandenberg 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ G1ggy! ...chatterbox... 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support from my recent interactions, and his commitment to building an encyclopaedia --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I've seen him around and I like what I've seen. He has the policy knowledge and enough experience. --Shirahadasha 02:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support most definitely. Sensible user, good communicator and not likely to delete the main page. Pascal.Tesson 02:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Y not? 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I have seen DGG around AfD for quite some time and, although we do not always agree, he is consistently polite, articulate, and has a solid understanding of policy and procedure. A trustworthy editor who will make a solid admin. -- Satori Son 02:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. This editor knows policy. I trust him! the_undertow talk 02:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support.Experienced enough and has good knowledge of policy.--Dacium 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Impressive answers. Captain panda 03:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support have seen for some time at AFD and seems very reasonable. No compelling reason presented yet not to support. --W.marsh 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Switched to neutral. --W.marsh 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I often disagree with his arguments at AfD, but he's got a solid grasp on policies and is a good communicator. His answers to the questions show a commitment to keeping civil and resolving disputes. I trust he'll put the extra buttons to judicious use. Krimpet (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I disagree with his thinking in AfD (I think he places far too much weight on academic's rank in judging WP:PROF notability, comparing academic position to the average academic position. I think the they ought to be judged according to comparison of average academic's impact outside their own circle, judged by being subjects of secondary sources) but such minor gripes aside, he's sane and reasonable and I trust him with the tools. He'll use them well. Pete.Hurd 04:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support enthusiastically. Exactly the sort of workhorse we need more of. Yay for librarians and Ph.Ds! --JayHenry 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. An excellent contributor, and seems very trustworthy. I see nothing which would lead me to believe the tools would be abused. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. RfA cliche #1 Seriously, I thought he was one and I just missed the RfA. Teke 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Duh, why aren't you already? In other words, great answers, great editor, good luck! Jmlk17 05:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support for sure. Guy (Help!) 06:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. An excellent, level-headed editor. This RfA is long overdue. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Addhoc 07:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support--MONGO 07:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I am quite shocked to find DGG isn't an admin already. The candidate significantly exceeds my standards. Not only do I have no reason to believe he will abuse the tools, but instead I have every reason to believe he will use the tools well. Vassyana 07:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I'm quite surprised you're not an admin already! Sr13 (T|C) 08:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Q Original 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support excellent candidate. Great answers. —Anas talk? 08:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Why the hell not?. James086Talk | Email 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: Oh yeah. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - great user. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No need to hesitate. --Folantin 10:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Not evil. Maybe. Moreschi Talk 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. As Majorly writes above, DGG is "the kind of person this site needs as an administrator". Stammer 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I have seen him around and have a good impression from what I've seen. CMummert · talk 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I appreciate his honesty regarding his thoughts on Elementary schools. That's potentially a bone of contention but he did not shy from it. JodyB 14:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support -- a thoughtful and hard-working editor will surely become a thoughtful and hard-working administrator. semper fictilis 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support —AldeBaer 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support Excellent candidate; extraordinarily thoughtful. Xoloz 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support It is always a pleasure to read his thoughtful comments. Kla'quot 16:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - How did I miss this(excellent Contributor)..--Cometstyles 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support good answers. A fine user. Acalamari 17:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per the answers to the questions, seeing the user around and my opinion on adminship. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Looks great. El_C 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I can't believe you're not already an admin! I always just assumed you were. Rockstar (T/C) 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - I see DGG around frequently at XfDs, and he clearly has a good knowledge of policy. Through his XfD !votes and his answers to the questions, he's demonstrated a very strong respect for process and procedure as well, which is good. Walton Need some help? 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support I'm shocked he isn't already. We need more people like him to defend common sense against the swarm of wikilawyer "it technically breaches policy because this newspaper's three readers short of being a significant source" deletionists who seem to currently be gaining in number on XfD — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - clearly has the experience. Philippe 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I've seen him regularly on XFD's and while we are often on different sides of the fence his opinions are always well formulated and thought out. Excellent contributions to the project. Can't think of any reason not to support. Arkyan • (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Looks like a great candidate - great answers to the questions, as well. I am interested to hear your thoughts on the latest question posted above, though. Pastor David † (Review) 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. —Ruud 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Excellent candidate. BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Per nom and above. VegaDark 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support; I have experienced this user being reasonable and calm first-hand. My only concern has been addressed quite well in the answer to my question. Mangojuicetalk 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. A sensible editor in my experience.--ragesoss 00:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support as a reasonable frequenter of AfD. By the neutral comment below by W.marsh, DGG should attempt to reply to any follow-ups unless that is a very rare example given. By no means dominate a debate, but a debate should be seen to the end if any lingering concerns can be resolved with further clarification, elaboration, etc. –Pomte 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Thoughtful answers to questions, experienced and prolific contributor. JavaTenor 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. as per various aboves. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support excellent at contributing to articles, and generally a very thoughtful and calming editor (and I rarely look at AfD). Johnbod 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong Support Being that Majorly nominated the user, I have no doubt that the canadate will assume good faith, a very important guideline to say the least.--U.S.A. cubed 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (linking to User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. to unconfuse a bot)[reply]
  58. Support Good user, great potential. gidonb 03:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Jumping on the bandwagon; I have seen enough of DGG to know he is a good neutral editor who can only benefit from sysop status and will use 'mop'n'bucket' powers wisely.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. From my interactions and observations, I think that this user can be trusted to excercise good judgement in the main. Good Luck. -- Avi 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Is an excellent judge of the unquantifiable notion of notability and being a librarian, knows the value of knowledge, that may be obscure and not available through google searches. More such people needed especially since AfD needs no qualification. Shyamal 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Based on my experience, DGG is fair and ready to listen to opinions of other users. I would only wish him to be a little bit more an "inclusionist".Biophys 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Satisfactory answers re BLP--Docg 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Me too. *sound of crickets chirping* Uh, I mean, a reasonable, polite and mature editor who I trust will make a great admin. A no brainer, as far as I am concerned. -- Seed 2.0 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per nom. DGG is an excellent editor who has demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of policy. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Looks good, and his answers to the optional questions are excellent. -Mschel 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support He looks like he'll be a great administrator. — Wenli 01:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Give him a go - The Transhumanist 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I've seen you around several AfDs and, even where we disagree, I find your comments to be thought provoking and insightful.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - regular contributor to AfDs - shows intelligence and a good knowledge of the relevant policies. Other contribs look good too. I suspect he may have a mild case of inclusionism, but I think you can get pills for that these days... WjBscribe 06:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Not concentrating upon a single subject, helping to clear backlogs, adding to the discussion and letting it continue rather than closing it if one disagrees or has something additional to contribute — many of these answers are what I would also say. Indeed, some are what I did say back when I was asked. ☺ It also appears that this person has a good grasp of the fact that being an administrator doesn't mean that one gives up the use of all of the non-administrator tools that one already has. I think that entrusting xem with administrator tools will be a net benefit to the project. Uncle G 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support per reasons set out on my user page. Edivorce 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support: Nice amount of time here, plenty of good quality edits, and excellent answers to questions. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Response to my criticism was sincere, above supports are compelling. --W.marsh 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support — per reasons and answers to questions above. (Also, Q4 redirects to WikiProject Aircraft, and not ignore all rules :P) –Spebi 23:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. I have interacted with this user in many places and I fully support him being made admin. He will be a good admin. --Bduke 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support looks excellent.-- danntm T C 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong Support. Many favorable impressions of this editor (even if we don't always agree). Jehochman (talk/contrib) 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Less pragmatic than I'd like, but we're not here to find the ideal administrator. —Cryptic 12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Joe I 18:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Samir 22:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Oh my gosh! User:Kelly Martin has voted something other than oppose! You should run for president! Cool Bluetalk to me 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really an appropriate comment, Kelly doesn't always oppose. In fact, I think she goes neutral a lot of the time. And she definitely doesn't vote :) Majorly (hot!) 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support; fine and qualified candidate. Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support John254 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Go to town --Infrangible 01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Have seen him at AfD and have been impressed by his judgement. Top user. – Rianaऋ 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Very reasonable voter at XfD and very civil and open-minded editor with a broad outlook. Colchicum 10:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "voter? [sic] - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Trustworthy user. — CharlotteWebb 17:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. strong support he is a great editor he does a lot of work on here i help him and he help me in the pass so yes he should be an adminOo7565 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Happily Support -- I've worked with DGG on a few articles, as we have similar interests, and have always found him fair-minded, intelligent and sensible. He's got a good grasp of the fact that we're building an encyclopedia. And, a librarian! -- phoebe/(talk) 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. I can't find anything wrong. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Seems trustworthy and committed enought ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Glad to see you here. What took so long? ··coelacan 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support In my experience his edits are rationalised and he always keeps calm. Have also seen him willing to change opinion based on changing circumstances. David D. (Talk) 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support: Alright, DGG and I've gotten into it a few times on AfD; we don't often agree. Where I do agree, however, is that he is a dedicated and thoughtful editor who fights his corner without going over the line. He would be an asset as an admin.  RGTraynor  20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Good fellow who I'm sure can be trusted with some extra buttons gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. {ec; almost WP:100!!!) Awesome user who can be trusted. Cbrown1023 talk 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support well-rounded & established candidate. — Scientizzle 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - I have seen this editor in action and I can say DGG operates with tact and politeness and a kind and honest demeanor throughout the project. Smee 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  104. Support - excellent candidate. We have debated many schools AfDs and though we sometimes disagree he is always polite and rational in the discussions. TerriersFan 03:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per everyone else.--Wizardman 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Sensible user with good experience. utcursch | talk 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. A review of his edits and approach to other editors makes me want to be like him. --Blue Tie 06:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. I have seen DGG's work on AfD frequently on Wikipedia, and have always been impressed by his ability. --Ali 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support I haven't had the time to dig up the diffs that an oppose vote really deserves and now that I've come back to look for them it's 108 to what...3? Most of the time when you're "that guy" you might just have a paradigm issue :). I still have reservations about interpretation of deletion criteria but I don't fear a misuse of the tools after his additional statements on closing AfDs. Besides with that kind of outpouring of trust from the community I might just have to entertain the idea that I'm batshit crazy. Good luck DGG. NeoFreak 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support especially per great work on AfD; EliminatorJR Talk 22:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support To repeat the cliche, I thought he was one already. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

Oppose Changed to SupportSeems to be a good guy and dedicated editor but my interactions with him in AfD has left me with the impression that he doesn't have a grasp of policy and how it realistically applies to inclusion and deletion criteria. In past exchanges he advanced an understanding of policy that is in almost direct conflict with the actual wording. I don't feel comfortable giving him broader powers in XfD areas and I fear alot of time in deletion review if he closes AfDs like he participates. If this is too vauge for anyone I can dig up some specific diffs. NeoFreak 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any specific example? As it is, your reasoning isn't specific enough to tel whether your concerns are well founded. In many cases, the true policy does disagree with some readings of the policy documents. CMummert · talk 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NeoFreak, I respect your opinion and I have to agree that DGG is probably on the inclusionist end of the deletion spectrum. I too have found I disagreed with his interpretation of policy a number of times but then again I believe that he's voiced his opinions in a responsible way and I really don't see him as the kind of editor who would abuse his position as an admin to push his agenda. Pascal.Tesson 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I don't have any doubts about his character and I don't want anyone to think that I'm suggesting he'd intentionally abuse the tools. I just have some concerns about grasp of the criteria for deletion and how he will apply that to closes. I will dig up those diffs as well when I get a chance but I'm at work at the moment and don't have the time to do an adequate search. Soon though, thanks for your patience. NeoFreak 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. Like I said, I respect your opinion and I know exactly what your concerns are. We just disagree on how important these concerns are. Pascal.Tesson 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am a little on the inclusionist side about many, but not all, types of articles--but there is no type that I do not evaluate article by article individually on its own merits. I do not intend to do really controversial closes until I have a good deal more experience. And I would never close on the basis of my own opinion if it were different from the consensus. But if I have a strong opinion on a AfD I'll debate, and let others close.DGG 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. This user has strong anti-Russian< some bias and votes for keeping conspiracy articles like Internet brigades which are supported by sources at best linking to pure allegations without any real facts and some text was original research. I don't think this user is equally pleasant with all Wikipedia users. And I am pretty sure he would would use his administrator's privileges for his personal goals. He is also limited in his knowledge of foreign languages and his edits are clear pattern of that. He voted for keeping Internet brigades which were sourced by Russian only sources without any knowledge of Russian and without any research on Russian sources. Sorry DGG, but you didn't help with cleaning out the mess (original research, false translations) from the article, although you was too quick to vote to keep it. I don't believe you would perform your administrator's duties timely enough. You also suggested discussion on a talk page, but look there - no single post from you although you voted to keep the article. See how many policies this article was violating here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_%282nd_nomination%29. You haven't answered to these, but voted to keep the article. I don't believe you have addressed all these issues. Vlad fedorov 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As he's probably too polite to make the point, I'll do it for him — yes, he !voted keep in the AfD you mention but so did almost everyone else. It's not as if he was the sole person arguing against deleting something everyone else found too offensive to keep — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing that I am trying to say is not whether his support was bad or good. The thing is that he voted for the article which was crippled with violations of Wikipedia policies and has done nothing to improve that alhough he took part in voting. I believe that if an individual takes part in voting in AfD, he should take care at least after that voting about the article. Moreover, I still think that knowledge of at least two languages is necessary for admin. Vlad fedorov 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And, by the way, admin is not a man like "everyone else" - he is vested with a duty to keep up the Wikipedia encyclopedia policies and guidelines. He is a librarian who should take care about its articles. I delete my objections about bias - everyone has his own bias, and I am not going to judge political affiliations, unless there is a clear pattern of WP:TEND.Vlad fedorov 12:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I wish to oppose him on the bases of his keep vote in an AFD that clearly does not represents main stream Islam [1], . The wording of his keep vote is wrong and comes without any research about this topic. I cannot trust him with tool. --- A. L. M. 10:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wording of his keep !vote looks exactly right to me. Concept is notable, Wikipedia is not limited to orthodox theology, and the content of the article is an editorial dispute outside the bounds of AFD. ··coelacan 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case 90% Muslims do NOT take it as sixth pillar hence either the article should be deleted or renamed. However, because I do not know him much and so many people are supporting him. I think I should give him benefit of doubt and should not oppose. --- A. L. M. 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Seems quite suitable, but I find that I cannot adequately judge his collaborative skills in a reasonable time, and thus cannot support. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should take a look at clear evidence of participation in various WikiProjects [2]. Is that unreasonable? Pascal.Tesson 04:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed his article talk edits and was not convinced. You may wish to provide evidence of specific incidents of collaborative editing, as that would be more useful. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought Talk:Johannes Gutenberg would give enough to go on. Johnbod 02:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    switched to support Found an AFD where his grasp of a core policy (WP:V/WP:RS/WP:A) was questionable (admittedly I had a strong opinion in the AFD). Not nearly enough to oppose as the issue was really debatable, I need to think more on this. I just would think that a librarian of all people would know that an image on Google Maps was not a secondary source. Here's the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places blurred out on Google Maps. --W.marsh 14:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity I reviewed the above discussion (to which DGG only made one, brief comment). But I have to say I find your statement above to be a complete misrepresentation of DGG's comments which anyone can review for themselves. He never said that Google Maps was a secondary source at all. That's really a misleading claim. It's clear he was referencing the secondary sources about google maps, presumably the BBC article, ABC news and other good sources. You claimed (in the AFD) that his comment about censorship was original research, but in fact the claims of "censorship" appear in several of the listed references on the article. I really think your above statement is unfair to the candidate as well as misleading. --JayHenry 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not with respect to any particular edit or comment, if i thought myself infallible, I would not be qualified. DGG 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the reply 2 hours after his comment... there were typos of some important words in his comment and if I misunderstood what he meant, it would have been good for him to have replied to clear things up. Again, I'm not opposing here... I guess neutrals get pounced on nowadays too. I notice from this page's talk page that he doesn't seem to make many comments in the same AFDs, in fact he's never made more than 5 in the same AFD apparently. I wouldn't have said anything except this seems to have been an AFD where multiple comments would have been helpful. --W.marsh 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My intention wasn't to pounce, but I was trying to clear up the bit about censorship that looked to me like confusion (or the statement that he's a librarian who doesn't know what a secondary source is, which IMO looks sorta like an insult.) Your comment in the AFD didn't have anything to do with secondary sources, so I'm not sure how he was supposed to know that additional clarification was needed in that regard. Anyways, I'm not a regular at RFA and i didn't mean to cause trouble, just giving my take. Certainly no offense intended. --JayHenry 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's another interesting point just been raised: I deliberately try not to make more than my share of comments, or dominate any debate. DGG 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't agree with that... AFD works best when people treat it as a discussion, and thus comment until they feel they've fully expressed their opinion and everyone understands who's willing to understand. Just incidentally I've seen several AFDs where people have challenged or questioned your comments and you made no reply. I don't really think this is the best way to go about AFD, but obviously I have about the exact opposite approach, routinely turning AFDs into very out-dented streams of discussion, but that's what I think AFD is about. As an admin it's important to make sure people understand your actions and admin-related statements, even if you have to comment a lot in a discussion. --W.marsh 12:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to have your opinion on this, for nobody can really judge by themselves the effect they are having. As I mean to strike a balance, I will certainly take it into account in discussions. Especially when the point may be the critical one, I see good reason for your view. DGG 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem DGG, that one should participate in AfD not just voting for keeping the article using standart phrases, but by advising other participants on the relevant Wikipedia Policies by citing them and helping to explain them. It is that point that you lack in your AfD comments. Vlad fedorov 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category