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

Final: (108/0/0); ended 09:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dweller (talk ·contribs) - Co-nominated byThe Transhumanist,The Rambling Man,Ryan Postlethwaite andAGK.

We are delighted to co-nominate Dweller for adminship...

Co-nomination byThe Transhumanist: As his Admin Coach, I'm proud to recommend Dweller for the mop. Dweller has over 8700 edits, with nearly 3000 in the main namespace. He is an avid participant atFeatured Article Candidates, and has participated enthusiastically in a wide range of Wikipedia's departments, from theWikipedia:WikiProject Cricket toWP:AfD toWP:RfA. Having "graduated" from theVirtual classroom, Dweller is currently a coach there, where he is very active in training others on how to use Wikipedia, including giving advice, making assignments, and he has even written alesson on improving articles to featured article status. I have always found Dweller to be kind, courteous, and very very helpful. He would make an excellent admin. Sincerely,The Transhumanist20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination byThe Rambling Man: Our firstmeeting was back in June 2006, about 8000 edits ago, but Dweller beganwelcoming users soon after with good advice on how to avoid speedy deletions, a true sign of an editor who holds the policy ofassume good faith in high regard.

Since then he's worked collaboratively with wikiprojectscricket andfootball to produce fivefeatured articles, (one,two,three,four andfive) with asixth in development and has used this experience to produce a definitivelesson in how to produce a featured article in theVirtual Classroom.

He's a frequenter ofWikiproject Castles and a member of theAssociation of Members' Advocates. He also spends (some would say too much) time atarticles for deletion,the various reference desks,Administrators intervention against vandalism,the administrator's noticeboard andrequests for adminship showing a clear understanding of policies.

He's infinitely patient, even with potential trolls, asthis section shows. He's helpful, willing to spend time and effort to get things right and has only the best interests of the Wikipedia in everything he does. Promotion to administrator would only benefit the project so I wholeheartedly urge you to support this request for adminship.The Rambling Man20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination byRyan Postlethwaite: I first bumped into Dweller atWP:RFCN, he showed a firm grasp of policy when commenting on usernames and I was impressed by his diligence on a page which too often gets jump-on-the-bandwagonbiting. He has been extremely active atWikipedia:Featured article candidates showing a great ability to determine what makes a good article, this is important for admins who may be expected to mediate content disputes, it also shows that he fully understands ourinclusioncriteria. I am particularly impressed by Dweller's comments in a wide range of XfD debates;[1],[2], I have full confidence in his ability to close these debates with fair, consensus based reasoning. What is also very important for an administator is to be able to interact with the newbies, Dweller actively welcomes these new users - I'm sure we all remember how hard it was when we first started here, and that warm message is often a ray of sunlight. He also does new page patrol - whenever he tags a page for deletion, healways leaves a note to the creator, this allows users to understand whytheir article has been deleted. His vandalism reverting is always correct, again, followed by an appropriate warning - users that disrupt wikipedia need to be warned appropriately so they know their actions are wrong - Dweller would be a great help atWP:AIV and I am positive he wouldn't betrigger-happy with the block button. Finally, I'd like to bring to your attention Dweller's work atWikipedia:Reference Desk, he goes out of his way to help other users which is befitting of an administrator. I really hope you can help this excellent user gain the tools - I am in no doubts that he will be an asset to the administration.Ryan Postlethwaite20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination byAGK: I'm delighted to have the oppurtunity to co-nominate Dweller, a truly great contributor; in lieu of repeating everything above, I'll just summarise: Dweller has contributed to a wide range of areas of the encyclopedia, and as a by-product of this, has demonstrated a clear requirement for themop - he contributes toDeletion Debates (especiallyAfD) - and is alwayscivil and helpful. Overall, Dweller would be an excellent addition to the sysop team, and I strongly urge those considering this RfA to lean towards granting this excellent contributor the mop ~Anthony12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm overwhelmed that three different people each contacted me, wanting to nominate me for adminship. I thank them and am pleased to accept. If this RfA fails, I have no doubt I'll emerge a better contributor as a result of the feedback received. Thanks for your confidence in me to, respectively, my coach, "Wikipedia partner" and a helpful admin. --Dweller09:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check outCategory:Wikipedia backlog andCategory:Administrative backlog, and read the page aboutadministrators and theadministrators' reading list.

A: I suppose the best answer here is that some of my existing contributions will be enhanced - I already am an active vandal fighter, speedy tagger, XfD participant and contribute atRequests for comment/User names and increasingly atRequests for page protection. I would like to be able to handle my own work and that of others' in these areas - and others. As with all of my work at Wikipedia, I would begin small and check that I've got the hang of it.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: When I look back atthis effort and see how it grew tothis, I'm exceedingly proud, as well as slightly embarrassed at how poor, on reflection, the early effort was for all sorts of reasons. I'd recommend all newbies undertake developing a Featured Article; it's a brilliant way to learn all about all kinds of policies and guidelines - that's why I was so pleased to writea lesson about it for the Virtual Classroom; I wrote with newbies in mind. I'm always proud of my efforts when I help a fellow user, whether answering questions on the Ref Desks, calming disputes or trying to turn vandals into productive contributors.

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: Oh yes. I think it's become an RfA cliche, but it really is impossible to do vandal fighting work without conflict. Curiously, I find this very easy to deal with. If they vandalise my userpage, it's no big deal and I'm delighted they're wasting their efforts on non encyclopedic content, rather than on, say, a stub about Mongolian railways that may not be on many watchlists. (Apologies to railway/Mongolia enthusiasts - you get my point.)

I'vevery occasionally had conflicts with good faith editors - I can think of one occasion when I got hot under the collar some months back. My attitude is to apologise if I've done wrong... and to apologise if I've been perceived to have done wrong and to leave the issue for a while. I also like soliciting third party opinions from experienced editors whose judgement I trust and I can depend on to "give it to me straight". However, it's very very rare for me to enter dispute as a combatant (rather than a peacemaker - i do enjoy doing that) and I'll usually push AGF as far as I can to avoid any potential for conflict.

Optional question fromStammer

4. An edit conflict revolves around the interpretation of certain apparently reliable sources, which however are not accessible to you, because they are, say, in Tibetan, or require some other kind of exoteric knowledge that you do not have. Different editors are accusing each other of wilfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting the sources. How would you proceed?Stammer11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'd tread carefully. Disputes between experts are hard enough to deal with, without the additional layer of difficulty presented by not understanding myself. On the other hand, it can help ensure admin impartiality. I'd first of all look to calm things down. There's no need for useful contributors to get het up and earn a block for incivility or 3RR warring. I'd request both sides to stop editing the article and work on the dispute in talk space. This is essential and I'd be prepare to use protection or preventative blocks if people repeatedly offended. So long as everyone is angry, there's no chance of achieving some kind of compromise that both sides could agree to; this would be my aim, taking matters step by step in the manner I've seen work so well in a similar caseUser:The Transhumanist has been dealing with for AMA. I'd also consider soliciting relevant WikiProjects for additional expertise, particularly in a 1 v 1 scenario, where "consensus" is a hard word to utilise! If all of this comes to no good, I'd be considering some form of formalised dispute resolution, such asWP:RfC, but I'd regard going there as my failure. One last thing; as mentioned elsewhere, I'm a big believer in my own fallibility and I like asking those I trust to give me feedback on how I'm doing; if things became really bloody, I would find someone with experience in dispute resolution and discuss with them in a private forum how I'm doing. This is a short answer - I hope it doesn't come across as trite. Thank you for the question. --Dweller12:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question fromHipocrite

5. If you saw an article that did not meet anycriteria for speedy deletion, but was undoubtedly and unquestionably harmful to the encyclopedia, would you delete it?

A:Hi Hipocrite, welcome back. I've been offline for a while; apologies for slow response. This is a tough one to call. First, in my opinion not all content that is "undoubtedly and unquestionably harmful" to Wikipedia is necessarily deleteworthy, speedily or otherwise. My keep comment forEssjay controversy has already been referenced by one of my noms above; I do believe that the article is damaging for the Project, but that it should be kept. The next angle on your question is that I find it hard to construe circumstances that make it possible. Much that's damaging (say releasing admins' passwords) is really vandalism and could be arguably be deleted under the CSD using G3. Other actions (and I really struggle to hypothesise here) could be referred by me to be deleted by the staff under G9. If in doubt, I wouldn't speedy it, but take it to AfD, but your question presupposes no doubt. So I guess if none of the above seemed appropriate, I'd flag it atWP:ANI. If the damage done was likely to be time-critical, I would first delete under G3 before reporting my actions at ANI for review and, if necessary, recreation. As with everthing I do here, I'm happy to be advised that what I did was wrong. I'd happily recreate it myself under those circumstances, as with my actions shownin this thread. Cheers, --Dweller22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question fromdaveh4h

6. As an editor, what do you consider your greatest weakness? What is your greatest strength?

A:As some of my favouritegnomes know (gnow?), I'm not too keen on the technicalities of citing. I'd rather work in collaboration with another who'll get it right, than waste time endlessly getting it wrong myself. You can see this in action atHarlech Castle, which I'm working on currently. (Thank you gnomes). I can do it, when I put my mind to it. I just arrogantly think my time's better spent on things I'm good at. Greatest strength? Well, perhaps that's for others to say. I'd like to think it's my ability to see the other side of the coin, whether that's including unflattering info in a biography to avoid hagiography, or taking seriously opposition to an idea/edit of mine and being flexible-minded enough to be able to agree. Refusing to U-turn may be a good policy for politicians, but has no real place when trying to develop scholarly articles. --Dweller22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SeeDweller's edit summary usage withmathbot's tool. For the edit count, see thetalk page.

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

• My understanding is that"delete and merge" isn't a valid option at AFD because theGFDL encourages keeping post-merger material as redirects to preserve attribution history. Any comments from experienced AFD closers?--Chaser -T20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely. Delete and merge is an option totally incompatible with GDFL. I am surprised that an admin candidate would think this was a possible AfD outcome.WjBscribe23:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Strong support as co-nom. Good luck mate!The Rambling Man09:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. You have these three for nominators, you must be good.Moreschi^Talk10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. What I know about the candidate leads me to believe that he would make an excellent administrator.John Reaves(talk)10:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oh, hell yeah! –Riana10:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. A wonderful editor, kind, intelligent, thoughtful-a real asset to Wikipedia in every sense. I cannot imagine anyone better in the admin. role. Ever onwards, Canaries!Clio the Muse
6. Strong Support this RfA is long overdue! No doubt an excellent candidate. —Anas^talk?10:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong support as co-nom - best of luck sir!Ryan Postlethwaite10:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Dweller hopefully doesn't remember an incident in which he was calm and clear-headed, and I was not. A scan of recent contributions seems to indicate that these qualities of his have not changed, while his experiences on the wiki have grown. Will make a fine admin. -BanyanTree10:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong supportMajorly(hot!)10:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. About time. --ALoan(Talk)10:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Terence11:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Pomte11:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Excellent hard working editor who'll make a fine admin.Nick mallory11:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support cue cliche "he wasn't one already?".James086^{Talk |Email}11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support I've seen him around and especially at theVirtual Clasroom. He's what we need.JodyB _talk11:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support In addition to being a valuable asset to this project in terms of improving articles, and a creative editor in terms of thinking about wiki-processes, Dweller is always helpful, both at the reference desk and when assisting less experienced users, such as myself, in dealing with Wikipedia's more nefarious users. Familiarity with policies combined with common sense and collegiality. Just the qualities I'd be looking for in an administrator. ---Sluzzelintalk11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong Support— as co-nominator ~Anthony12:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Unimpeachable.Stammer12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong Support. Definitely yes on this one. --BozMotalk12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - a well rounded editor..----Cometstyles12:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oh? Not an admin? --Y not?12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. 4 co-noms? I wanted to be the 5th but this is mysupport. --FayssalF -^{Wiki me up®}13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Abso-freakin'-lutely.KrakatoaKatie13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support just asThe Rambling Man. Superb user.Michaelas¹⁰13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. I'mMailer Diablo and Iapprove this message! -14:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. No possible reason to oppose. --Mschel15:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support an excellent editor who will make an equally excellent administrator. Good luck,Gwernol15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong Support Clearly a good editor. Knows all the processes. Perfect for admin.TwentyYears15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support No problems here.(aeropagitica)15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Default support.Suspiciously little reason to oppose though, admins need to besomewhat controversial in order to prove their thick skin... :D —AldeBaer15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - way past due :) -Alison☺15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Excellent contributor. —Moondyne16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Looks good, no red flags and I trust all the co-noms.NeoFreak16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong support Damn!Another user who you think is already an administrator, and then you see them here and realize how wrong you were! :)Acalamari16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support will be a good admin.Oldelpaso17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Stated attitude for harmony and cooperation and appears less likely to be heavy handed.VK3517:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support A great editor and who will also be a great admin. --Alabamaboy18:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Support: this is one of the strongest supports that I have given for some time. A formidable editor who will make a fantastic administrator, I have no doubt. --It's-is-not-a-genitive18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Should have been given the tools already.Jmlk1719:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - Well experienced, kind and friendly; he should make a great admin. The nominators comments and answers to the questions were good also.Camaron1 | Chris19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Courteous, good-humoured, prolific... all the right qualities.Johnlp20:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Thoroughly deserved.Dave101→talk 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Super Support - A great Wikipedian who is always out there to help others with any problems they have, especially in the Virtual Classroom. He's well experienced and very friendly so there is no reason to not have the tools. He should 'ave already had 'em! Good luck Dweller!Extranet^talk20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Strong support Absolutely without a doubt. –B.hotep^u/_t•20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support O yes!the_undertow^talk21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Wow --St.daniel^Talk22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support, you bet. --Phoenix22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, no brainer. --Random^{Say it here!}23:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Excellent editor.Boricuaeddie^{Talk •Contribs •Spreadthe love!}23:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong support from me, too. A good conscientious editor - should make a fine admin.Grutness...wha?00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Having seen some of the work he's done at WP Cricket I'm thoroughly impressed and am glad to see this nom up.AllynJ00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. OverdueJaranda^{wat's sup}00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, a great editor.Tim.bounceback^{(review me! |talk |contribs |ubxen)}00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support His vast knowledge and experience will help Wikipedia if he were to become an admin.Gizza^Chat©01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Very glad tosupport, no concerns at all.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}01:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Hrm, thought he was already an admin. Dweller is a dedicated volunteer who I thought was already helping out with some of the backlogs^{Conas tá tú?}01:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. I must pledge mysupport.Dar-Ape02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support for all the reasons already mentioned, great contributor.--THUGCHILDz03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. The lack of any problematic edits suggests that Dweller is exceptionally good at covering up all of his past misdeeds. I think anyone who can be that devious deserves to be admired and will thereforesupport his candidacy.;-) --Black Falcon^(Talk)03:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - What more can I say. Well-deserved!--Eva^bd03:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support --Gogo Dodo04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. --DS1953^talk04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. What Riana said.Daniel Bryant05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. What everyone else above said. --Srikeit05:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. What Srikeit said.Philippe06:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support per the above, I trust this person to behold administrative tools.RFerreira06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. For what it's worth,unreserved support, one of the best eds I have come across. Thoroughly deserves this. –MDCollins (talk)08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. I've seen his hard work atWP:CRICKET. Reading this page has only made me more sure that he would make a great admin.Stephen Turner (Talk)08:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support very experienced, very knowledgable, and... another cliche (gosh, Dweller, you must be getting sick of this one by now :), but...) I thought he was already an admin. Trusted editor.CattleGirl ^{talk |sign!}08:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support Didn't even take the time to read the noms or questions, that's how much I trust this guy (I'll do it later when I'm bored). ·11:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Decent guy.Tintin11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support with a "bah!". I should've noticed he was a candidate myself. Don't you dare stop writing featured articles, though. -Mgm|^(talk)12:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Lots of work helpingWP:CRICKET and definitely deserves this.Loganberry (Talk)12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Looks A Good Candidate and should get adminship.16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Strong Support. 70+ Supports and notone opposed or even neutral (at this time)? What the hell are we waiting for? Give Dweller the mop, bucket, squeegie, broom, and dustpan; and best regards. --T-dot (Talk |contribs)18:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. I've seen him around; no reason to think he wouldn't use the tools well.Coemgenus19:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Better than most, he likes to eat toast. Cheers,Dfrg.msc22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. SupportJohn25400:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support--Nenyedi^TalkDeeds_@00:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support: Plenty of experience, edit summary usage is excellent, editor seems very civil, and nice answers to questions. User should be a fine asset as an administrator.  |01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Absolutely.Dina03:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. G.He05:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Good admin.Captainpanda13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not yet? :p –Riana15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

84. Support I find it extremely difficult to express how completely astonished I am to find out that this user isn't already an admin. If there's anybody else out there with the kind of record dweller has, please, please, nominate yourself for admin or find somebod who'll nominate you.AKAF17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Will make a good admin.Davewild19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Snowolf^{How can I help?}supports this candidate for adminship, as he is confident that this user won't do anything stupid with the tools (added on19:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
87. Support active participator and talker. cheers,Cas Liber |talk |contribs23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. support it is my pleaseure to see this person become a administrator after all this timeyuckfoo00:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - completely without question. Has been, and [hopefully] always will be an asset to the project. ---Michael Billington (talk)07:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Strong Support - hope you get the admin!R_Orange10:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support my only regret is that I have but one vote to give for this rfa. --Infrangible17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support — impressive contributions, persuasive arguments by co-noms,assumes good faith when potential conflicts arise. --Paul Erik19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Strong Support long live cricket.Grumpygrumpy01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - excellent candidate, no concerns with Dweller packing toolage whatsoever.Rockpocket05:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support Great editor, strong answers.daveh4h05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support per noms. Dweller is a great candidate, and I'm sure will make a great admin.Sarah14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support per co-noms. Good luck and good work.Carlosguitar16:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support - as a nominator, and his admin coach. Good job, Dweller.  ;-)The Transhumanist19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Better late than never :-PRyan Postlethwaite19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :-)-TT

99. Rettetast19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. 100^th Support –WjBscribe19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Switch to oppose.WjBscribe23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Restored, see below.WjBscribe10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

101. Support.Zaxem10:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. PeaceNT10:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Know this user will be a great admin.GDonato (talk)14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. I haven'tsupported him yet? Took me long enough.--Wizardman17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. I'll let it slide that you don't have enough MediaWiki edits. —Malcolm^{Usetheschwartz!}19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
106. SupportCricket0215:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Based partly on his handling of the situation below, and the rest on everything said above.--Chaser -T15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Of course! --Jreferee16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose(switched from support). This project is founded on the need to comply with GFDL. Contributions must remain attributable to those who made them. Given the diff supplied above by Chaser[3] it appears (to my surprise) that Dweller has misunderstood a crucial element of GFDL. Deleted content cannot be merged. If the outcome of an AfD is merge, the article from which the content is merged must be redirected to the target of that merge. I require those asking for the ability to delete content to show a full understanding of when that ability should be exercised.WjBscribe23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect WJBscribe, in the numerous AfD's that Dweller has participated in, it seems that this is one of the only ones where he has made an honest mistake. I'm sure that many new admins will not fully understand the complexities of merging articles with respect to the GFDL. Adminship is certainly a learning curve and Dweller would have soon been questioned about this, I think the key to it is how he would have reacted - he would have no doubt have admitted his mistake, and taken steps to rectify himself. With respect to the merge in question, it seems that Dweller was implying that the content be completely re-written, with sources found if anything was to be put into the other article, it looks like more of a poor use of the termmerge than a misunderstanding of GFDL.Ryan Postlethwaite00:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Ryan but I disagree. This was a recent AfD discussion that shows a lack of familiarity with fundamental principles and policies. A quick read ofWP:MERGE would show that the suggestion was untenable. The number of times I see "delete and merge" when closing AfDs is trully depressing and seeing such an opinion expressed by someone asking for the tools (and thereby the ability to close such discussions) is extremely frustrating. I'm all for this being a learning curve, but I think there are a few policies people need to read up on before they ask for the tools. Our policy for merging content and the relevant elements of GFDL can be learnt through some basic research, they don't need to picked up on the job.WjBscribe00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think this is going to have to be a case of agreeing to disagree, doing a correct merge is obviously important for legaility reasons, but as I said previously - I think what Dweller was trying to say was that any merge should be completely re-written and sources found if anything was going to be merged (although I use the word merge in this respect very loosely), I disagree that if someone was going tomerge content into another article about one that had been deleted, but completed all new research into it, that it would infringe on the GFDL.Ryan Postlethwaite00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing isn't a merge, its writing new content based on the sources used in the deleted article, which is fine. You can't redefine the word merge to dig Dweller out of a hole. As an experienced RfA contributor, I have to assume he knows what the word "merge" means in the context of Wikipedia.WjBscribe00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I think Dweller was suggesting, if anything was going to be added to the other article it should be completely resourced and rewritten (hence why I think Dweller misused the wordmerge), however, it probably would be best if Dweller moved in at this point to give his insight.....Ryan Postlethwaite01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing this issue at Chaser's talkpage --Dweller10:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've slept on this issue and given it some thought. I have also listened to Dweller's comment on the subject atUser talk:Chaser. It seems clear to me that what Dweller meant to propose would have been compatible with GFDL, however it is important to be clear in offering opinions in AfDs if the closer is to comprehend them. The term "merge" has a particular meaning in theWP:MERGE sense. That said, given that the point has been made and Dweller has shown a commendable eagerness to learn (seeking out Chaser to know more even before my oppose) I cannot but support this candidate and to oppose when the matter has now been resolved and understood would be quite unnecessary.WjBscribe10:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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 eitherthis nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.