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

NrDg[edit]

Final (55/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 18:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NrDg (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentleman, I give you: NrDg. NrDg has been an active contributor to Wikipedia since the late June 2007. Since then, he has amassed over 10,000 edits across all namespaces. I first encountered this user a few months when I had a sudden craving for AIV work. I saw dozens and dozens of reports filed from some user named NrDg. I looked through the user's work, and I saw he was definitely capable to be an administrator. However, he was still a "newbie" here, so I decided to wait a while. :) Well, a few months have passed, and I think he is even more deserving of the tools now. NrDg is our resident expert on all things Disney-related. He has spent much of his time here working on existing articles, reverting vandals and fixing inaccuracies. Through his line of work, he has been involved in a number of admin-related situations. At AIV, he has made over 250 reports, almost all (if not all) of which has resulted in blocks. He has made a number of successful requests at both RFPP and UAA. He has accurately tagged over hundreds of pages for speedy deletion. NrDg also has experience dealing with sockpuppeteers. He has identified dozens of sockpuppets (72.75.136.75, 58.187.64.7, Bryceia, Rozrozroz, etc.) and he has sought appropriate action against them. Despite his sometimes challenging line of work, he has always remained civil and friendly in discussion. He is a very approachable person, and given all his other qualities, he would be an excellent administrator here. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.--NrDg 20:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to assist in evaluating and acting on the AIV and the RFPP queues to start as I feel that I have a good understanding of the principals involved and the processes used to evaluate the entries. I will continue to add to the queues things I am not certain of until I gain more experience and confidence. I will handle obvious deletions of pages and images when nominated by others but will continue to just tag the ones I find on my own unless blatantly obvious. I will move into other areas when I feel I can contribute effectively.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Mostly undoing the sneaky vandalism rot from the Disney and some other entertainment related articles. Obvious vandalism removal is mostly one step above what a bot would do, the sneaky stuff requires investigation and some knowledge of the subject to do correctly as don't want to revert valid corrections. I am also pleased with my contributions to the Jason Earles article. This one was an issue of multiple very reliable sources contradicting each other about his birth year and therefore age. I got involved because the article was unstable with lots of editors correcting other editor's corrections. We came up with a somewhat stable solution that acknowledged and explained the conflicting information that seems to have, if not pleased, somewhat mollified everyone. This was a good learning experience to me about the benefits of avoiding original research and letting the sources speak to the subject.
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 had some conflicts that I got stressed about.
One time it was about the requirements for justifying individual episode articles in the set of interrelated articles about a [notable show (Hannah Montana). I saw the problem as a partitioning and organizational issue, felt very strongly that I was correct, wanted the individual episode articles and disagreed with the consensus. But consensus was there and supported by guidelines so I went with the decision and helped implement redirecting the articles back to the list of episodes article. I modified the list of episode article a bit though to capture some of the information that was in the individual articles so felt that most of my content desires were met, just not in the way I would have most liked. I understand now that the individual show talk page was the wrong forum to debate the overall issue but I have no desire to push on this issue right now as I am happy with the compromise.
I generally don't have conflicts about editing as I am pretty accepting of what other people add to articles as long as it is not inaccurate and I am able to verify it. I will let a lot of things slide with a citation needed note if I think the information is plausible. I want to see good articles but am willing to watch them evolve somewhat organically with little nudges as needed. In the Disney show sphere there are a lot of young people who genuinely want to contribute but are not skilled. I want to encourage this participation as much as possible within the discretion allowed by Wikipedia policy.
The only users that cause me a bit of stress now are a couple of sockpuppets and roving IP vandals. I sometimes feel like I am holding back the tide trying to track and undo the damage, only to have the same thing reappear again. This is mostly frustration on my part. I get upset that there are bad-faith people who want to harm or negate the good work of others. Sneaky vandalism is the most frustrating to me as I have to do some amount of checking to ensure that fact changes are really wrong and track down and undo the damage.
Other users I have interacted with have mostly been about adding information that is not properly supported, usually about future episode information that is likely correct but obtained from untrusted sources. I try to explain what kinds of support I'd like to see but this is more educational then conflicting. An example of this is the Noelia article. I worked with a knowledgeable editor to find a source of her age that was better than the known wrong one in the original reference.
I am generally stress adverse. I deal with it by withdrawing for a short time. I don't want to be in conflicts with others. I will probably avoid involvement in articles about topics I am emotionally invested in. As an administrator I will definitely avoid involvement in anything where I don't feel I can maintain a neutral perspective.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Would you support an initiative to provide one free toaster to an editor once he or she reaches 10,000 edits? Keepscases 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. What a wonderful thoughtful idea. --NrDg 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from LaraLove

5. Did you edit under a different account before this one? Lara❤Love 21:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have had only one logged in account, NrDg. I did a few edits Feb 07 as a not logged in Special:Contributions/71.221.115.15 which is a dynamic IP and possibly some others real early on that I can't find. --NrDg 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pedro

6. User_talk:NrDg/Archive_071102 Looks pretty worrying to me. over anxious tagging, failing to follow policy on reporting to AIV and more over reactionary reporting. This all looks pretty recent. Coupled with your user talk page comment regarding this nomination "and, based on what I've seen, think that my chances are, at this time, marginal for being confirmed due to limited experience in some of the areas administrators are expected to be proficient" do you think that you will be able to avoid these kind of errors if granted adminship? I have no issue with trusting you not to go crazy, but repeated bad calls just adds to the workload of other admins. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A. I've made some bad calls but not many - I think I have learned from the feedback provided and won't make the same mistakes again. My basic problem was trying to get, what was to me, an obvious vandal blocked and not understanding how close the final warning needed to be before asking for a block on the next vandalism - I thought in that case 8 hours met the definition of soon. I was taking the final warning as being a final warning. There were two username issues. I found one name sounded the same as an article and reported it. The other name was a sock puppet who really was impersonating someone it turned out see here. I definitely don't want to add to the workload, I want to help, not hinder. I will be careful. --NrDg 22:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Tvoz

Hello - can you explain what this is about, and why this new user Derekhunter is canvassing against you here and here? Thank you. Tvoz |talk 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I strongly suspect that Derekhunter is in fact another sock of Dereks1x, but I'm wondering why he targeted you in this way. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first I have seen about this and am not sure what to make of it. I have never posted before as any other logged in user. I am on a DSL link with a dynamic IP so don't think a checkuser will prove anything either way. Current IP is User_talk:71.221.116.150 for location for those who would like to check it out. I think someone is messing with me. --NrDg 18:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since asking my question the situation has been resolved with a couple of blocks of the accuser and also another person whose self-nominated RfA was opened and shut just before yours opened, and who was yet another sock from that farm. Sorry to have brought it up, but with this hanging out there I thought it best to ask. Tvoz |talk 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this now and yes, the checkuser case has now been declined and the accuser blocked as a sock of Dereks1x - Alison ❤ 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Qst 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Excellent vandal fighter. Epbr123 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support. Disney Channel articles are like blank walls in gang territory, they get vandalized very thoroughly. I think another admin working in these situations is needed. I've seen NrDg in action, and he's pretty good with warding off these vandals. bibliomaniac15 21:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support; excellent edit history and level-headed talk page. That's not trivial when you consider this user's involvement in Hannah Montana pages and the average age of contributors to those articles. It takes extra care and patience in your writing to have a fair and productive conversation with younger editors. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support No reason to oppose. :) GlassCobra 21:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Keepscases 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Conditional Support I will only support if this user is true to his/her promise concerning question number four. All joking aside, this user is a great vandal fighter, actively participates, and overall is just a great benefit to the community. What's not to love? Icestorm815 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Will make a fine admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support "I will be careful" per your answer to my Q6. Yep, that's the ticket. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I see no reason to not support. I've been beat quite a few times to a revert by this editor. -MBK004 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support looks like a good, trustworthy user. Cbrown1023 talk 23:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, cannot see any reason not to support this nom. Lankiveil 00:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  15. Support I see experience and enthusiasm tempered by restraint and a sense of caution and a willingness to learn. When can i pick up my toaster? <<joke>> Dlohcierekim 00:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Blah. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:09, December 2, 2007
  17. Support Very much so! Jmlk17 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No reason to oppose. A fine editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Great choice! Knows so much about wikipedia. --Yankeesrj12 05:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. His answers above give me the impresion that NrDg is teachable - a valuable asset in any editor, but especially in admins. Level-headedness is a big plus as well. I see little reason to believe that the tools will be misused here. Tijuana Brass 05:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - No concerns here. --WinHunter (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I looked over his talk page and was very pleased with the way he responded to other folks, even when the others offered criticism or were outright hostile. Seems friendly and willing to learn. Good work! delldot talk 10:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Seems like a good candidate too --MoRsE 10:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Good news everybody! - I support this nomination. — Rudget contributions 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Yep! - eo 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Great user who could use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, excellent editor. Everyking 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support A great editor. Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 20:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Suppport. Good vandal fighter, but I hope that you can work on some articles more. Maybe take a look at AFD? Jack?! 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, as per the nomination. Redrocketboy 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom, seems to know what he's doing. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - An Excellent Contributor and Prospective Admin. PookeyMaster 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Per nom, great editor. --Caldorwards4 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Good editor. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support I have come across NrDg edits many times within the last couple of months. He is a great vandlism fighter and would make a great adminstrator. He has my vote. QuasyBoy 12:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Excellent contributions; not to contract editcountitis, but I'm liking how many talk page edits he has alongside a solid number of mainspace edits. Being able to communicate with other users effectively is a valuable skill. Master of Puppets Care to share? 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I never confuse warranted defense with unwarranted anger- very deserving. Monsieurdl 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. I trust that NrDg will act accordingly :) Spebi 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - should be just fine :) - Alison ❤ 05:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - very impressed with nurturing attitude towards young/new users who need guidance rather than a slap on the hand and letting articles develop organically. Benjiboi 08:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support- I don't really take part in any Rfa, but anyway, your a fantastic user who deserves to be an admin. Your work on the 'pedia really shows you off.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 16:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I have no reason to oppose or be concerned. Bearian 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support good vandalism fighter as far as I see. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Excellent work against vandals. Always need more people who are vigilant with that. -Djsasso (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Nobody voiced any concerns that this candidate might abuse the tools. — Sebastian 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) (If anyone sees a reason to change my vote, please let me know on my talk page. I'm not voting to do the candidate a favor, but because I think it's the right decision for Wikipedia. Therefore, please refrain from thanking me on my talk page, unless you have a really original or funny idea.)[reply]
  46. Support 10,000 edits is great. He will do a good job as an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support Vandal fighters, especially effective ones, have been shown to be amongst the most effective admins on Wikipedia. Hopefully this user lives up to that legacy. --Sharkface217 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. An excellent candidate. Acalamari 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --A. B. (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I can't really see any reason not to. James086Talk | Email 12:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Per Impressive answers to questions. --WriterListener (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Supported, happily. Auroranorth (!) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support you are ready. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: I see no major reason outside of a few nitpicks, why this editor cannot step up to the plate of an administrator. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose — I was leaning towards neutral (your amassing 10,000 edits in such a short period of time makes me concerned about your true intentions, but you are clearly a well-rounded content contributor) until I saw this: [1].

    Now, I have no comment on whether or not the bit the anon added is actually true or not. But that edit indicates to me that you do not understand WP:V. Citing a source for a statement is most emphatically not required unless it is a direct quotation. While other editors are free to remove other unsourced material, the individual adding it is not required to cite a source himself. As long as no one challenges it, it's fine.

    If it is challenged, then of course if the individual adding it must be able to cite a source if he wants it to stay. But from your comments (yes, I know you used a template--so what? The template is wrong. You should have confirmed that what it says is actually correct before you used it.) you seemed to imply that he had to include a source right from the get-go, which is simply incorrect.

    In truth, from his subsequent edits I would not be surprised if the anon was a bad-faith editor. But you had no way of knowing that at the time of the edit to which I am referring. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP's contribs clearly show the purposeful addition of factually inaccurate information. For the above template message in question, that was in response to this, which obviously should have included a reference. Lara❤Love 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed this earlier. NrDg's actions must be judged in the context in which they occurred. At the time he made the comment in question, he had no way of knowing that about the user. I'm quite aware of the edit to which the template was in response, and no reference was needed for it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I disagree with your interpretation of WP:V. I put a lot of weight in the WP:PROVEIT section and particularly the advise in the quote at the bottom. In the instant case the information added is known by me as being false and the warning template is designed as an assume-good-faith request for a reference and to communicate to the editor the need to back up the information they do add. I remove all dubious information and plan to continue to do so. I leave plausible information with the ((cn)) tag. There is a huge amount of made up, speculation and crystal balling in these types of articles. I think it degrades the articles by leaving that type of information there, particularly when I know the likelihood of it being usable in the article is minimal.--NrDg 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - Seems on or after October 6, 2007 something happened, this person changed. This is the closest I have gotten to giving support to someone. I still do not feel completely good about giving a “support”. I would like to see this person go through training and get a little more experience. Then I could support him/her. --Jeanenawhitney 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to share what changed? :) Jmlk17 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We're all changing, could you please cite specifics of what changed to cause you concern enough to post? Benjiboi 08:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has also got me curious. I haven't perceived a change in myself. Of course I could be delusional but I hope not. I would appreciate a bit more expansion on your insight.--NrDg 14:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So those who wield a mop may be able to interpret this better than I but this user didn't seem to exist with this name until around that time. Benjiboi 15:18, 4 December 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