Drmies (talk·contribs) – I have been working with Drmies here for some time now. He is a great content contributor, having created many articles and done a great deal of cleanup of unreferenced BLPs - both in referencing and expanding those that can be, and in nominating for deletion those that do not meet notability standards. He is very active at WP:DYK, nominating not only his own articles, but other new articles he notices, and helping with the review process. He has two Good Articles to his credit, and has helped get a Featured List and a Featured Article promoted. While some editors pick a niche of content creation or fighting vandalism, Drmies slides well from one to the other, and having the admin toolkit will help with his work. He helps out new editors and veteran, and has a good sense of humor about it all. LadyofShalott 03:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Lady, thank you for your kind words. I accept. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Since I'm pretty active looking at recent changes, tagging for CSD and looking at vandalism (besides looking for interesting articles and welcoming new users), I will take that one step further. That is, I expect to delete the occasional article and block the occasional IP. I used to be more active at AfD than I am these days, but closing AfD discussions is another area of interest. What I won't do yet is close AfDs like this one. Then there's minor things one can do with a mop that make life easier, such as requested moves; I would be checking in much more on those pages. Also, I'm a big fan of userfication (I may have one or two in my own space) and will gladly userfy (about-to-be-)deleted articles. And of course I want to block Mr. Wales and delete the main page.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: An FL, Kronos Quartet discography, and an FA, Green children of Woolpit; I'm pretty proud of them, and of two recent GAs. I'm really proud of Greyhound Bus Station (Montgomery, Alabama): the museum opens tomorrow. Hooding was not fun, but I felt it was important. I helped out on Bacon Explosion, a high hitter at DYK, that was fun. I have over 150 DYK articles right now and that tickles me. But the funnest things are those articles that seem to go nowhere. Once upon a time, I looked at Unthanksgiving Day and thought it a bunch of boloney, too weird to be true, and nominated it as a hoax--then I looked into it some more (which I should have done in the first place), corrected myself, and with the help of some others it was a DYK shortly afterward--I don't mind being proven wrong. Oh, Key Largo Woodrat, also a DYK, with User:Ucucha, that was a ton of fun, even after User:Gatoclassbusted me.
Working with new editors and getting a DYK template on their talk page (here, for instance) is really exciting. Occasionally I try to mediate a bit, and once or twice that worked (don't ask me for the diffs--I forget the good sooner than the bad). With the new DYK rules I'm also more active there; I try to tread lightly, though, and gladly gain advice from others. I try to be a team player.
I'm a writer of content, a copy editor, a proofreader, a supplier of references, though I admit I need all the help I can get reading my own copy (that's why I supply User:Mandarax with beer). If it hadn't been for the help of others (esp. Malleus), those two GAs wouldn't have happened, and the green children wouldn't have been promoted.
Whether any of my edits in the immediate future will be any good depends in part on what Keepscases has to ask, of course.
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: Hmm. The most recent case was at Clan of Xymox, which ended with one editor and his socks being indefinitely blocked (another one popped up last week). The most serious one was over a year ago with a wanna-be politician, whose article I NPOVed and subsequently nominated for deletion. It became laughable when they called me at work (!) and yelled at me. I was trolled recently, which started here and was continued by a sock of theirs. That was not fun, and I like to think that I walked away early enough--but it's always best to walk away even sooner.
I was mildly unnerved over a discussion at User talk:Freakshownerd, which in hindsight was a confrontation floating in a sea of irony, and walked away from that one too. NeutralHomer and I used to duke it out, and I wasn't always as friendly as I should have been, but we worked it out and have reached agreement over some content/BLP issues on articles for TV stations (Homer, we still need to write that up!). I've had many article content disputes, and have learned from past experiences that sometimes it's best to walk away (though I feel strongly about BLPs): there's millions more articles, and one more bad article (bad in my righteous opinion, of course) won't matter much; my time and energy are better spent working on others. Wikistress is not fun; I try to avoid it by avoiding it earlier than I did years ago. In general, though, I have very pleasant interactions with many of the great editors here, and the good far, far outweighs the bad.
Additional question from Intoronto1125
4. Using the edit summary box is unnecessary. Do you agree with this statement why or why not?
A: I think in most cases using the edit summary box is very necessary, if only so an editor can keep track of what they did in their own edits, particularly when multiple editors are working on the same article. But most importantly, this is a collaborative project and unless an editor owns the article (which they don't) they should keep other editors abreast of what they're doing and give arguments or explanations for their edits, esp. when removing information. Tacitly, I think a lot of Recent changes patrollers are more likely to call removal of content 'vandalism' if that removal is unexplained, and "rv unexplained changes" is a pretty decent argument for a lot of reverts. But it also depends on the circumstances--you'll not find a lot of edit summaries in this history, but then I started that article and was working on it by myself for a while.
5. I know this will come off as a silly question but I have to ask... How is your username pronounced? Is it like "Doctor Mice" or "Durr-meez"?
A: Not silly at all, /et ɘ mɑ/ (sorry--whose mother?). It's kind of in between: calling me 'Doctor /mis/'--'Doctor mees'?--is just fine, but I also answer to "liefste papa van de wereld."
... which, in Dutch, means "sweetest father in the world". Ucucha 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would you consider nominating another user for adminship at this time? If so, who?
A: There are lots of excellent editors here, and many of them have a good temperament for such a job. Some of them were promoted fairly recently, which is good. But right now I can't really give names since it would be in an offhand manner, and those things require some preparation. So if you don't mind, and since you're not really pressing the point yet, I won't give any names at this moment, except for one: User:Kelapstick, with whom I've worked pleasantly for a long time, who is friendly to new editors, has the right temperament (he's drama-free, for instance), knows the ins and outs of the place, and just scored another big fattie at DYK. Please don't go messing with him right away--he's got a job to do first.
11. Will you apply the same criteria to admins as you do to regular editors? For example, will you block admins as promptly as you do regular editors? And by the same exact principles? Or will you block them more promptly (i.e. apply a higher standard)? Or will you be more reluctant to block them? Explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindbunny (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Mindbunny, that is a valid question. I hope you won't mind if I take a moment (or two) to ponder this--it is not simple. Well, one part is easy: admins need to be held to a higher standard. How that would apply to blocking and to me, that's the complicated part, so bear with me--"my mind is a raging torrent."
I think it's very common for admins to say admins should be held to a higher standard. But, it is also common to find admins giving each other more leeway, which is similar to being held to lower standards. Mindbunny (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If you think my answer is somewhat vague, it's because thinking about drastic measures such as blocking and taking a drastic measure such as blocking are two different things, to me anyway. First of all, obviously I've never blocked anyone yet, though I have filed such requests at AIV. But those were relatively simple, for run-off-the-mill vandalism--the standard IP vandalism on schools and rasssling and the nasty BLP violations (insults, obscenities, etc.). The "vandalism-only" accounts fall into that category as well (think 4chan attacks, of which I've seen a few).
Setting aside those cases, all of a sudden it is a lot more complicated--for starters because one is often dealing not with successive acts of vandalism (indicated simply by escalating vandalism warnings, etc., and WP:DTTR pretty much suggests that that won't happen) but with an editing pattern judged to be disruptive, an accusation of abuse of power, and/or an ANI discussion, for instance. There are of course clear-line violations (3RR (or even 1R) and sock puppetry, for instance), but in many cases one has to judge both the intent and the extent of the disruptive edit(s). In principle, one should expect admins to know better than non-admins, if only because an admin should know the rule they are accused of breaking. There is a process, of course, and more than one, to redress such matters. The thing is, I've always been more interested in defusing such issues than in letting them escalate, and I am not here because I specifically seek the power to block. I've seen a user or two get indef-blocked or banned and I've seen admins get desysopped, and seeing those things happen fills me with sadness more than with joy. In other words, I'm going to think twice, or three times, before I push that button (I assume it's a button). But if I think it needs to be pushed, then an editor also being an admin will not stop me.
Yes, it is too vague. You hedged your bets. Admins have broad discretionary power. They can block for edit warring in the absence of a 3RR violation. Violations such as "disruption," "POINTiness," and attacking (as opposed to criticism) are judgement calls. I want to know if you will commit to holding fellow admins to the same--or stricter--standards, in discretionary cases, as us peons. And if not, then what does it mean to hold admins to a higher standard? As a side note, I wonder how you would describe the current practice. Mindbunny (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[If this is not the right place to bring this up, someone please move it to the right spot--thanks.] WSC and WFC brought something up, below, about CSD tagging, and I was reminded rightly that one shouldn't jump the gun on A1 and A3. Undoubtedly I have done so a few times, and I hope someone caught me. Now, besides the fact that since then I have gotten sooooo much older and wiser (though I don't know when I placed those tags), there's another kind of safeguard: I have no intention of shooting from the hip (deleting something if it hasn't been nominated for speedy deletion already), unless in blatant cases of abuse (esp. attack pages etc.). Drmies (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as nominator. LadyofShalott 04:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – willing and capable. Airplaneman ✈ 04:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support! - great editor with the personality to be a good admin. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hard-working, long-term contributor with an impressive portfolio of article creations and plenty of clue. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Generally clueful, no reason to expect abuse, and decent level of participation/agreement at AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absurdly over-qualified from a content perspective. Never blocked, either. I thank you for your outstanding service and wish you the best in this Rfa, and afterwards. Jusdafax 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great editor with a patient and helpful attitude toward newbies--Sodabottle (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see any bad recent CSD nominations, which is great in my book. Clean block log, great content contributions. You'll do fine in this RfA :) Good luck! LoganTalkContributions 04:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent candidate. High quality contributor. Good experience, all round. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great content creator, fair when offering opinions, very collegial. Keeps things in perspective. Bongomatic 05:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Psst, Cirt, Bongo--no one has said anything yet about bacon. You think we can keep this under wraps for a while? And then take over? And speedily delete Template:Ham, as an abomination of pork? Drmies (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In accordance with prophecy: When the link turns blue / I voice support for you. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My interactions with this user have been positive and straightforward; no reason to think they would misuse a mop. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Drmies does it all. He's a prolific contributor of high quality content who's very comfortable working collaboratively with others, an active vandalism fighter, a referencer of unreferenced BLPs, and a thoughtful participant in various areas such as AfD. He's firm with vandals and POV-pushers where called for, but very supportive of constructive editors, and nurturing to newbies who might benefit from his assistance and encouragement. He's very helpful to others, and, conversely, when unsure of something himself, he's not afraid to admit it, and ask for help. I find him to be one of the nicest people I've encountered. He inspired me to write my first DYK as well as several other articles, so, in addition to writing over 390 articles, he's also indirectly responsible for even more. Presenting an exemplary image of a Wikipedian, he's an incredible asset and will be even more so as an admin. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Longterm contributor with a clean blocklog and shedloads of experience. I noticed one overhasty A1 and I'd remind you that one should not be hasty with A1s and A3s - some unpromising first sentences have grown into useful articles if you wait for the second sentence to be added. But I saw more than enough good tagging and other work for me to support. ϢereSpielChequers 06:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WSC and WFC (you make a nice couple!)--I can't see the incorrect tag, "The Red Flower" is now a redirect, obviously something different from what I tagged. In the footy glossary, I don't see myself--but it is possible, I imagine, that I tagged it incorrectly and it got deleted incorrectly, before The Rambling Man took it up again. Anyway, there are tags that I'd like to take back, yes, and sometimes I get there on time; I guess in these two cases I didn't, and I apologize for that. But let me address the point a bit more generally, above. Thanks for your comments. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not being clear. You didn't tag the footy glossary. My point was simply to illustrate the value in waiting. The diff that I posted could quite possibly have qualified as an A3. But 48 hours later, it has developed into a good-quality collabourative project, 80kb long, with 70 references and counting. Good luck with world dominationthe mop, I'm sure you'll be an excellent admin. —WFC— 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A late response: thanks for clarifying. Strictly speaking, it could have been tagged for no content, I guess. Usually, though, I find it more interesting to see if there's anything to it and start contributing. Personally, I try to take WP:BEFORE to heart (esp. since Unthanksgiving Day, referenced above), and a gloss of soccer terms has merit to it even if it is initially empty. I wouldn't tag something like that, no, and if I have in the past, I hope someone set me straight--I have come to realize more and more the value of cooperation, of others watching our edits as we watch theirs. Which reminds me: in many cases (that hopefully we can't see anymore since the articles were deleted) I type out a brief reason on the talk page, "CSD rationale," in which I briefly state what I think the issue is--no credible claim to notability, no relevant hits, or an explanation of why I think something might be a hoax or an attack.
Support. I have been collaborating with the good doctor for a little over two years, and am glad it has finally come to this. Drmies is one of the best editors that we have around here, which will only improve after he is able to abuse his admin privileges to my benefit is given more tools to further help the encyclopedia. I am happy to support in this long overdue RfA. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 06:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Long overdue.[reply]
Clueful and constructive. —WFC— 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bloodyminded support. I'm skeptical that GAs &c are necessarily what makes a good admin, so I'm not swayed much by the content arguments above. However, I am confident that Drmies has the policy knowledge and the temperament for adminship and that they'd be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of what adminship used to be about - helping good editors contribute. - filelakeshoe 09:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very easy decision - this one is long overdue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly the sort of admin we need. Concur with Boing! said Zebedee... (good taste in music too) Catfish Jim& the soapdish 10:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Literally thought already was. Hobit (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support More than the nominator. Is going to do good work as sysop. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 11:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent work in the trenches as well as in content creation. Kuru(talk) 11:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic, tolerant, and has an excellent sense of humor. Wait, sorry, this is adminship you're applying for... Juliancolton (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support With half of the supporters being admins (so far), how is this a losing proposition? ArcAngel (talk) ) 11:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, totally. I agree with Werespeilchequers just to take a breath before CSD. GedUK 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WSC and Fastily :) —James(Talk • Contribs) • 10:43pm • 12:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As someone said above, should have been an admin long ago. Wide editing experience. (Probably there in bits I haven't even found yet ...) Sensible and calm, good educator and explainer. Peridon (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - terrific work, great sense of humor, lots of clue. Why not? PrincessofLlyrroyal court 13:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the best candidates for the job. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support About time. Do try to resist the urge to block lazing admins though. I can hear the bells toll! --rgpk (comment) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ubiquitous presence, very knowledgeable without coming across as a know-it-all, and a great sense of humor. A definite positive asset. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Intelligent, helpful, well-meaning, pleasant demeanor. No reservations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems like an excellent candidate. Rlendog (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My interactions with Drmies has been excellent. Drmies can be trusted with the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support An excellent candidate, he does a great job around here. No doubt that he'll put the tools to good use. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel that this is an editor who will think things through before acting and I agree that this is long overdo. MarnetteD | Talk 14:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wheeeeeee. Please don't stop writing articles even after you become an admin. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good, solid editor. I don't recall any negativity or drama from this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fully qualified editor, whom my own interactions with for the Ambassador program have been generally positive. Shows signs of being a mindful Wikipedian, Sadads (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —DoRD (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent admin material. Somehow he has managed to maintain his sense of humor in this place, but I trust that this as well as his habit of writing contents will disappear once he gets the mop. Learning from the recent Lars von Trier debacle, I better emphasize that I am being ironic. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly, what the people above have said mirrors my sentiments. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clueful, helpful, knowledgeable about policies, very valued contributor, virtually always maintains his composure, stops to assist new (and old) editors and admits if he makes a mistake (ummm, Dmries, not that you make any... )ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support based largely on previous experiences seeing this editor's work, as well as a brief review of contributions. --joe deckertalk to me 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Well-thought-out answers to the questions, solid credentials — in fact, close to an "ideal" candidate.--Hokeman (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great candidate with solid contributions and experience. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - AfD record is pretty good, no nutball observations/votes that I can find. Since Freakshownerd turned out to be a CoM sock, I don't begrudge anyone who tussled with him, so that angle's fine. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is one of those cases where I feel I know the candidate well enough from interactions and discussions I've participated in, and feel totally confident in them. Objectively speaking, content contribution is fantastic and I've seen many cases where Drmies shows plenty of clue. -- Atama頭 18:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good answer to question and no reason to oppose. I definitely support this request. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've frequently come across Drmies' edits, and am always impressed with his communication skills and commitment to the project --CutOffTies (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Happy to see this editor nominated for tools. A trusted user who cares about content. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This person is clearly over-qualified. Definitely someone I've seen around numerous times, and not only are there no red flags, but there is no question in my mind that the candidate is an outstanding member of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought you already were an admin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to add my name to the list. Per nomination and above. Pedro : Chat 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Positive experiences that leave little doubt that this candidate couldn't be trusted. Tommy! 22:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Add my name to the list of people who thought you already had the mop. Obvious support. – GorillaWarfaretalk • contribs 22:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - surprised you weren't one already. Mature, common-sense editor whose adminship would be a benefit to the project. --NellieBly (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've seen this editor around alot, always doing great work with excellent attitude and knowledge. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar☥ 05:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Will be a good admin, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seen the name around so often, you get the obligatory 'thought he already was one' vote from me. -- Ϫ 11:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Drmies strengthens Wikipedia with every edit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Positive impression of this user strengthened by so-far unanimous support from broad section of community leads me to first RfA vote in a long time. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most certainly. Great editor, I have seen doing some good work. No problems here, they will do a good job.--NortyNort(Holla) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - experienced quality contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was honestly surprised Drmies wasn't an admin already; a review of our interactions over the years makes me glad we're correcting this oversight. Even when we disagreed, he was always reasonable and civil. RayTalk 17:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being nominated by an atheist is good, although being nominated by an antitheist would be even better, and if we have to have administrators then we might as well have administrators who understand how to build decent content. MalleusFatuorum 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are we sure he isn't an admin already? Oh well as a wise HJ Mitchell once said, "better late than never!" I don't see any problem with him being an admin he has done good work so I say we let him do more, Adwiii Talk 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't find anything to oppose him with :-) Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If at first you don't succeed..." My life partner would like to have a word with you, Crazymonkey, to tell you that you're insane. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies is a joy to work with, especially if you're a newbie. He'd be an asset to the admin community. --DracoEssentialis (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Friendly, great sense of humor, hard working, doesn't seem to get stressed at all. Will be an asset to the admin corps, though honestly I thought he (?) was already an admin! TK(talk) 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one like Boing Said Zebedee's RfA where one asks them self, "You mean he isn't already an admin?". Well...he should be. Full support. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Naturally! I'd have thought he already was an admin.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the highest of regard for this editor and his tireless dedication to improving the project! Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This RfA should quiet the bellies of the content beasts. Damn good work, as per Fetchcomms, write with one hand while wielding the mop in the other. Mlpearcpowwow 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great editor. I'm offended I didn't know about this RFA sooner. Drmies rewrote the article about me fantastically, among other things. tedder (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your invitation may have gotten lost in the mail, Tedder. That article was so much fun, a real learning experience, and I appreciate the help you gave me then and afterwards. At the time, User:decltype challenged me to turn "their" article into a DYK, and it is one of my regrets that I wasn't able to do so (frankly, I don't even understand the first sentence of that article)--but I see that they brought it up to GA (which I find truly amazing). Please give my regards to Mrs. Tedder. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know I've seen them around, and while I can't recall the circumstances exactly, something rings a bell in a good way for me. However, in looking at the contribs and all, it appears they are quite qualified to click on a few extra buttons here and there. — Ched : ? 19:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have seen nothing but sense from Drmies.Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --John (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support More than qualified as an editor, quite helpful to other editors, and has the positive attitude that will make a great admin. First Light (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another editor who should have gotten the tools a while back. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Every interaction I have had with Drmies has been a positive encyclopedia-building experience. Binksternet (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support because I want to join the bandwagon It seems that everyone believes he will handle the mop well, so... This is my first time voting here General Rommel (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I rarely vote in these, but Drmies is a great candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Based solely on the fact that I have trusted his judgment at DYK for a very long time. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I fully trust Drmies. He's a great contributor, and highly clueful.--ragesoss (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great editor, excellent judgement. Will make an excellent admin; I'd say more, but other people have already said it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, not a lot to add. Congratulations. - Dank (push to talk) 17:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No reason not to support, and frankly the oppose below is baseless, should close as 100% if someone can't come up with a real reason. Monty845 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter to you what the percentage is? MalleusFatuorum 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't going to pile on but doing so to neutralize the baseless oppose. SwarmX 18:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - haven't seen anything wrong in a cursory review and from what I've seen of him around the wiki. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Contributions look good. Axl¤[Talk] 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Results are exactly the same. jorgenev 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link I provided should work for anybody. The original one only works for people with specific search options set in their preferences. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that calls up Every Sperm Is Sacred. I still can't believe someone brought that to AfD, and it was so much fun to work on. BTW, thanks Mandarax, you are correct: the first link brought zero results for me. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I often see this editor doing good work and offering sensible input. Will Bebacktalk 01:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've recently had the pleasure of speaking with the candidate on an issue concerning vandalism and reverting. He is certainly a very friendly and well-spoken individual, and very knowledgeable on policy. Contributions look sound and in order. Bring on the mop! Kinaro(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks good. You seem competent and well-adjusted. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 04:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support May you wield your mop well. ;-) Steven Walling 05:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is (I think) my first ever vote at RfA (I saw it in The Signpost). My interactions with Drmies have unfailingly be pleasant and constructive. Excellent candidate! --Crusio (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know this candidate on wiki for quite some time .. he is a highly dedicated editor with a good judgment, and I believe his character and attitude fit very well into the administrator position. Thanks for agreeing to run and good luck. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Note blindfold. -Wikid77 Experienced, active. Highly consistent editing-pattern 3 years: 50%-60% article, 8% WP-project pages, 30% talk-pages, so already prepared to talk to a lot of people. Re Opposes: I am concerned about Drmies vague answer at Question 11, about holding admins to a different standard, with the reminder that Lady Justice has worn the blindfold for a long time, for a good reason. However, I think everyone should be given a chance to learn. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:30, revised 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support An editor whose opinion I value, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very experienced and trustworthy editor. JohnHWikitalk - 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Content is king" Has written a lot of articles (which is our product here, and which requires and integrating knowledge of various aspects of Wiki) and is willing to serve as a moderator. TCO (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support seems like the right person for the tools, everything looks good to me. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 01:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Too many admins currently but I'll support. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen his name everywhere and I am genuinely shocked to find that he isn't an administrator already. Full support per all the above. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You have my full support. WilbysuffolkTalk to me 05:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – why not? Especially after taking a while just to see the opposes? Sp33dyphilReady • to • Rumble 10:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support no brainer. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't find any problems or concerns; well-rounded candidate. I think, and hope, that having SysOp will have very little affect on your contributions. And remember not to joke around with anything serious (e.g. in blocks and stuff). Q11, I'd rather see an answer that merely being Admin would make no difference at all, but that you'd consider them in the same manner as any other experienced editor. But then, I would say that. Best of luck with it, Chzz ► 11:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken ("merely"). Chzz, I can assure you that I have no intention of joking around with blocks, no--there's nothing funny about that. Thanks!
Support. Let's go for 200. —Soap— 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support With excellence in both content contributions and work in administrative areas, Drmies is a worthy, well-balanced candidate. It seems that he is sensible and able to communicate well, with a good sense of humor to boot. The points raised in the section below do not concern me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Think we can get this dog and pony to WP:200 before it closes? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reviewed some of the user's contributions and they seem to exhibit considerable clue, and an ability to learn from mistakes. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well qualified to handle a mop. bd2412T 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are now beyond the 200 wall (Nice content work)--Guerillero | My Talk 02:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To put it simply, Drmies know what Wikipedia is about. This understanding means Drmies will be one of our best admins and I look forward to his contributions in the admin areas. Besides, I owe him for a fur massage he gave me last year. . - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you rascal, now you told everyone. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Broad support from the community, and should represent the community well. :D Dru of Id (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A candidate who knows when to be serious and when to be humorless, Drmies has shown clear aptitude for the tools through his knowledge of policy as evinced by his answers to the questions, his impressive content work, and his insightful participation at numerous AfDs. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. He is like most admins: unwilling to do the research to get facts straight on any case more complicated than obvious vandalism. And lacking the self-awareness to avoid powertrips. We already have a 99% prevalence of such traits in the admin culture, we don't need more. Mindbunny (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you direct the participants here to the experiences that lead you to this opinion? It would be useful for those forming opinions. Bongomatic 02:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling I know where this is coming from, but I'll let Mindbunny respond. Suffice to say that if it's what I'm thinking, it's extremely tangentially related at best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can also guess where this comes from. I think at best this is a blanket expression of disquiet with the entire corps of admins, and is based purely on opinion with no attempt to do the research and get the facts straight. If Mindbunny has any concerns about admins, he should take them to the proper venue and address specific issues - RfA is not a place to be disrupted to make a point. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a good feeling about where this is coming from also, and that MB's own actions caused the hammer to drop on him/her. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason everybody feels compelled to second-guess someone else's vote? My comment was sincere. It reflects my experience of Wikipedia and the candidate. It is disruptive not to respect that. The admin community, in my view, has too many insiders. It is prone to double-standards. A fundamental problem in any community, on any scale, is the need for positions of power. Power (as opposed to empowerment) attracts those who enjoy power over others (as opposed to equality with others). It leads to a social dynamic in which those who have power act to circle the wagons and defend their mutual privilege. This is hardly a novel theory. When a community has very weak mechanisms for holding those with power accountable, it should avoid insidership. The combination of weak accountability and an insider culture leads to abuse. The candidate, in my experience, is an insider. He will be a generic admin. He will say admins should be held to a higher standard, while holding them (and himself) to a different one. That is my impression, and mine alone. I have no interest in persuading others to share it. It is mine, and belongs to my vote. Mindbunny (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable position to me, and one that I have some sympathy with in general. MalleusFatuorum 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a reasonable position in light of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process which states that RfA is "not a vote" and references WP:AAAD. AAAD, in turn, recommends opposers to "give examples, and explain why the examples presented give rise to the conclusion that the user cannot be trusted with the administrator tools", and states that "oppose" opinions "should give the candidate an idea of what they should change in order that you could trust them". The rationale points to nothing specific in the nominee's history that can be considered examples or pointers to what could be changed. Bongomatic 15:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mindbunny, your beef is with what you perceive as a general situation, yet you frame it as "He is..." — the "he is..." part here is an accusation against a particular person, and as such, it is reasonable to ask for examples. Otherwise, you vote here can simply be dismissed as a pointy or disruptive "Opposed to all admins, anyone who wants to be an admin is my enemy anyways, and this whole thing is bullshit."Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 16:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have guessed Bongomatic I don't give a rat's arse for your beloved Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process. (Thanks for the blue link BTW, they're always so helpful.) Anyone who believes that RfA is anything other than a vote is in serious need of counselling in my opinion. It is perfectly reasonable for any editor to oppose a candidate for a position that that editor considers to be corrupt, for instance. MalleusFatuorum 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason many editors want to second-guess a vote and ask for more information (such as tying it to concrete examples) is that further information show if the person running for adminship (adminee? admin-wanna-be? goat?) has a problem that others missed. That lets us evaluate the user again and distinguish "I don't like him" and/or "I don't like the process" !votes from "He has a serious problem." Not backing that up actually provides more information than a concrete example, unfortunately. tedder (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this oppose starts off with the words, "he is like most admins", I would consider this oppose to actually help this candidacy. It's a backwards support. -- Atama頭 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are, in this respect (that is, in the issue that links Mindbunny to me), I presumably am like the rest of the admins and the bureaucrats as well. On an ANI thread I had argued that Mindbunny should not be blocked for a few BLP remarks (I felt that the thread was just fanning the flames), and they weren't--they were later blocked for repeatedly and disruptively inserting pointy edits. On the now-deleted RfC (Mindbunny vs. Sandstein) I argued a point about our BLP policy, which (you admins who can see this, correct me if I'm wrong) corresponded to what Newyorkbrad said at Mindbunny's Arbitration request.
So, in at least that respect (of the scope of our BLP policy, that it extends to all pages in our project) I will be like many of them, yes. But I refuse to accept the premise that all or even most of the admins are on powertrips and lack self-awareness. I know at least one who is incorruptible, and I tried to corrupt her many times--but she may well be a supporter of an atheist group. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even I refuse to accept that premise, although many of them are. MalleusFatuorum 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've posed a question for Drmies, although something went awry. His answer will provide the specificity that others are requesting here. Maybe it will prompt me to change my vote. In essence, I support admins who see themselves as outsiders rather than insiders (as I defined it above). As a bare minimum, that means admins who apply the same standards to all editors, regardless of admin status. Agree that it is a silly pretense to insist this is not a vote. It meets the definition of a vote. Wikipedia has a lot of "policies" that originate in the clouds and never leave. Mindbunny (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This oppose makes a surprising charge. Drmies introduced himself by opposing a DYK of mine. He was right on many points, but when I objected to the number of issues he raised, he asked for a second opinion, and then backed away (writing me a nice note). His comments were very clear and thoughtful, and they prompted me to improve the article. It would be hard to imagine greater independence of thought and constructive engagement in an editor, at least in my experience (and many others'). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mindbunny, I'd suggest you (a) take a look at Keifer's statement above mine, and (b) actually look at Drmies contributions, actions and interactions (not other admins or candidates, but his). Perhaps it may be best if you judge the candidate based on that, as opposed to how you perceive other admins (or admins in general) behave. I must concur with having first hand seen experiences such as what Keifer (and various others) have pointed out. Both in this RfA, and elsewhere over Drmies' editing history, I've noted that exact same type of behavior (ie: exemplary, including being free to admit when he's made a mistake). We are all human, we all will make mistakes... often (such as on Wikipedia) how we deal with those mistakes is a good indication of how we'd deal with "extra power". I for one want an admin who's been so willing in the past (and present) to admit their mistakes and step out of the situation when warranted. YMMV, and your opinion is respected (at least by me), though I do hope it is not clouded by any current or previous situations you've been caught up in. Hopefully, instead, you will judge Drmies by his contributions and actions (or deem you don't know enough about those to be able to decide). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Drmies had no reason to step back, apart from wanting to keep the atmosphere at DYK friendly (when I was irritated by a series of objections); he said that he would trust the DYK community's judgment. I think that a proper respect for others' thoughts and humility are more important than "independence"---"intellectuals" being defined as "the herd of independent minds". Most importantly, Drmies writes well and is often funny. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After some reflection, I've decided to maintain my oppose. I asked a key and straightforward question: will you apply the same standards to admins and peons alike? His answer, by his own admission, was vague. I require a clear and unwavering commitment to equality in order to support. Mindbunny (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with the users position here - a disruptive account requires restriction as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<offtopic> I think this is an unfortunate oppose for expressing an opinion as an ordinary Wikipedian. If he said he would unilaterally block/unblock, or insisted on a committed position, that would be different. I think we need more well-participated discussions on when we block/ban. In my opinion, the main reason DR is weak is because we are weak in dealing with mild to moderate misbehaviour, and I think we are weak because we don’t have a clear community position on blocking in response to mild to moderate misbehaviour, and we don’t have a clear community position because discussions on the matter are not well-participated. So, I think it unfortunate that this oppose may serve to discourage wikipedians in future from entering the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be surprising to you that people may hold opinions on this issue different from your own. It's a difference in opinion, and nothing more. You're certainly entitled to oppose over it, but is it really necessary? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that the two opposes are Mindbunny, whose banning is opposed by Dr M, and Off2riorob who is vehemently opposed to Mindbunny NOT being banned. Nice to know that the two of them do agree on something..... Peridon (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think I can bring people together. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the !vote shows that, with a stellar 180 supports as of this posting. Congrats in advance... @Peridon: thanks for my best Wikipedia chuckle of the week! Jusdafax 08:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose. Keepscases (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of this !vote moved to the talk page.SwarmX 19:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The candidate states the value of edit summaries in Q4 but only uses them for 52% of their minor edits (although 99% of major edits). If you really believe that they are important for communication (as they are), then you should use them all the time. Especially with minor edits it's useful to know what you did since the definition of "minor" varies from editor to editor. As such, I'm unable to support this request although since you use them for major edits almost all the time, I will not oppose. Regards SoWhy 14:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even more childish than Keepscases' "neutral" vote, but to each his own I guess. :/ Tarc (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see this !vote as very valid and not childish. It won't move me to not support Drmies, but it does seem somewhat hypocritical if he believes in edit summaries but doesn't use them himself for almost half of his minor edits. LoganTalkContributions 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent perhaps, but not hypocritical. MalleusFatuorum 01:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good distinction there. LadyofShalott 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, SoWhy comments also on the difficulty of determining what makes an edit a minor edit. I can try to count, and maybe argue that a lot of them are "ce" for copy edit (and that a lot of them are probably in articles I started, where I was in the initial stages), but that's kind of lame. I can go up and insert some phrase about "minor edits" in my answer above (which is probably what I should have said in the first place), but that would really be lame--or I can take SoWhy's comment to heart. I think I know what I'll do. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a lack of edit sumamries for minor edits is really a big deal. If he were adding a comma, for example, it would take longer to write "comma" in the edit summary box than to insert the comma. Perhaps it's lazy, but there's no real need to explain such an insignificant edit. Of course, I don't know exactly how Drmies prefers to use the minor edit button, it can be a little idiosynchratic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Anyone callous enough to put boobies on their userpage, juxtaposed with their addiction to bacon, is just not acceptable. --PoliticallyCorrectEditorCabal (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be only one booby (the Blue-footed Booby pictured on the top left of my user page) until BongoMatic added the other, and the joke. If the joke's not clear anymore and has become offensive because the userboxes interfere, I'll be glad to remove them. For the record: I'm not addicted to bacon. I can quit anytime I want. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first step in rehab is admitting you have a problem. If you can't admit you have a problem with bacon, it doesn't bode well for you as an administrator. --PoliticallyCorrectEditorCabal (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding a tit on his talkpage a while ago, but it got archived. Which is possibly a good reason to oppose. Who would support a candidate who archives tits? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here, have another: . /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:43, 26 May 2011 (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.
Support with the highest of regard for this editor and his tireless dedication to improving the project! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
--Σ ☭★ 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC).jpg){kind=small}
