Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DESiegel

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

DESiegel

[edit]

Final (51/2/0) ended 03:55 28 September 2005 (UTC)

DESiegel (talk · contribs) – DESiegel has been a Wikipedian since 7 February 2005, and in that time has accumulated about 4800 edits. My reasons for nomination are two fold; firstly because I have noticed him tirelessly tagging speedies and participating in WP:AFD, and also because in my recent interactions with him I have found him to be - while of strong opinion - very logical, rational and calm, he is also very polite. Martin 18:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. I hope that the community will feel that I would make a good admin, although it is supposed to be "no big deal". DES (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support of course. Martin 18:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good chap. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - I've seen him a lot and I've always been impressed. And (of course), my omnipresent standards are met too. --Celestianpower hab 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support great work on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Clear-thinking, thorough and level headed. Well involved in the behind-the-scenes stuff, ranging from policy discussions to all the other stuff. -Splashtalk 18:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I'd explain all the reasons, but then this page would take forever to load. (by the way, I got edit-conflicted three times while trying to cast this vote - surely a good sign! ;-) -- BD2412 talk 19:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, great editor. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, solid editor. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - good editor. -Satori (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - for all the reasons stated above --Doc (?) 19:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obvious support. David is the archetype of a good WP admin: very well-informed, helpful, responsible, and, while he holds some strong opinions on policy matters—and will usually leave you in no doubt what he thinks about an issue!—is very reasonable and open to discussion. That Aubrey-Maturin venture, incidentally, is quite an impressive bit of mergism [1] (originial). Denying him adminship would be something like denying Dirac a Nobel.—encephalonεγκέφαλον 19:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  12. Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  13. Support as per all. --Blackcap | talk 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Thunderbrand 20:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Regularly see DES about the place, should make a good admin. Alf melmac 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Kirill Lokshin 21:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Friday (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Good Editor normally see him alot -- Aranda56 yeah 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yup. A good one. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. I honestly thought he was already an admin. --cesarb 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. What?! I hereby command everyone to go out and find one person that should have been an admin a long time ago and nominate them, just like DES should have been. Dmcdevit·t 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Extremely strong support. He's done things all over the place, from the Manual of Style, RC Patrol, the deletion processes, and is very active on all namespaces. I can't say I didn't know he wasn't admin, but I thought a long time ago that he should be given the mop and the flamethrower. Besides, if Tony Sidaway supports him (even after DES admitted himself that he's butted heads against him), isn't that a good sign? Titoxd 03:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, as I was left with a positive impression of the editor after we had a discussion regarding the changing of a guideline. He was quite calm and made an effort to address all concerns, which is good enough in my book. --Sn0wflake 03:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Another fine user that I have seen all over the place Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Very fine contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Absolute support. In addition to all the reasons above, he's a regular at the Reference desk, where he obviously takes the time to give helpful answers to users' questions. What more could you ask for in an admin? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support unquestioningly and without the slightest hint of the mere thought of speculating otherwise. There are no reasons not to support, and he meets my standards (which are publicised in the apropriate place but I'm feeling too lazy to link to at the moment). To summarise, he will be a fine admin I'm sure. (oh, and don't worry about the wordiness thing :)). Thryduulf 10:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support a sensible type. Vizjim 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --Scimitar parley 16:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Jaxl | talk 03:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support El_C 06:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Lectonar 07:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, Usrnme h8er 07:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--Jusjih 08:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Shimgray 11:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support Stewart Adcock 15:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support MONGO 15:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support- --Bhadani 16:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Cool. JuntungWu 17:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, although I am against voting during an ongoing Rfa, I thought I had already voiced my support here, so I will before it closes. ∞Who?¿? 22:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support: I've seen him around and he's a good editor. Jonathunder 00:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Type O Spud 03:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support (trusting that you will have taken note of the concerns expressed below) --Doc (?) 18:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I will indeed take note and be particualrly careful with nn-bio in future. I will also tag&bag as I said. DES (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Neutral Enthusiam is good, but those speedies might be a little over the top. Support ok, on review I think those speedies were good after all, sorry about that. And your commitment to tag and bag is laudable, even if it is perhaps a bit overly time consuming. --fvw* 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Neutral. Edit history looks good, but of course speedied articles don't show up there. The potential for overuse of the speedy tag to become over use of the delete button has me a bit spooked. I might be willing to support if, say, editor would only actually delete things tagged by others. --Alan Au 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, except for the most obvious nonsense and vandalism cases, I don't plan to speedy delete any page not tagged by another editor -- when I find an untagged page that I think merits a speedy, I will tag it for another admin's attention. Indeed I would favor a policy change that made such an approach mandatory for most speedy categories (although not for vandalish and patent nonsense), and i proposed adding it to the "Blatent copyvio" speedy proposal, now being voted on. From the reaction on that proposal, i suspect that such a policy change would not achieve consensus, but i would support it. Note that I said i would use tag&bag in my responses to the standard questions, before anyone had raise this issue. DES (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, changing to support. --Alan Au 21:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support JYolkowski is a Wikipedian whose judgment I respect, but I'm satisfied with DESiegel's promise not to delete things unless they've been tagged by someone else. Ann Heneghan (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Unfocused 04:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Neutral. What the hell... Support. I believe DES is going to do a good job, even if we do seem to be on opposite sides of policy interpretation more often than not. Just keep in mind, when in doubt, send to AFD. Extended discussion moved to comments. Dragons flight 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support in protest at "I don't agree with you on deletion issues therefore I shall vote against you for adminship regardless of any other issues" votes. Ambi 16:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I just saw DES elsewhere arguing against deletionist tendencies, so any idea that he'd be too aggressive with deletion powers is unfounded. Any such idea is further unfounded when you consider that he clearly repeats at every turn that he believes in not just deleting articles on his own and would instead tag them for someone else to delete and delete articles that other people have tagged. How can you argue against someone who so clearly respects consensus as a principle in policy-making? Looking at WP:RFA today I was somewhat suprised to see he was currently going through RFA, because I would have assumed he was already. Jdavidb 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I've seen him tag a lot of things as speedies that aren't valid speedy candidates, so I'm not confident I would trust him with a delete button. JYolkowski // talk 00:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way. I have tried to stay strictly within the precise limits of WP:CSD as I understand them. I have also untagged a number of pages tagged as speedies when I felt they were wrongly tagged, and brought a couple of itmnes to VfU after what I thought were improper speedy deletes. If it gives you any comfort, i belive in tag and bag, so i would only be deleteing pages tagged by some other editor, with the exception of the most obvious nonsense/vandalism (random characters, or "Jon Doe is an <expletive>!" type pages). Anthing else I think is a speedy I would continue to tag for another admin's attention. If you want to discuss the merits of particuar cases or genereeral priniciples i would be quite willing. I do take CSD A7 (non-notable bios) a bit more widely than soem, but I have explained on the talk page at seome length exactly where I think that line should be drawn, and a number of people have supported my views. If a clear consensus develops on how to interpret A7, i will follow it, even if I disagree. DES (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On User talk:fvw you wrote: "Looking at articles where I personally have removed CSD tags placed by him, I see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6],..." Let's look at thes in a little detail. The first stated that the subject waas an actor, was married to a model and actess, and had a notable brother. None of theose is a claim of notability to me. No indication that he was a notable actor. Thew second said that the subject was "a contemporary Christian music artist." no indication of any published work or public performaces. The third was the same subject as the second. the fourth was said to be "a Japanese actress". Her height and blood type was also given. No furhter content. The fifth was said to be "a noted game designer and games researcher" but no achievements or other claims of notability were mentioned. In general I don't consider a statement of a profession, such as "actor" or "designer" to be a claim of notability. This was also content reposted after a previous deletion. Off all of these, only the first is in my current opnion not a clearly valid nn-bio. The first is arguable. DES (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose His deletionist tendencies tend to run ahead of his research on some topics. He recently put an article I was working on (William Rees) up for deletion while I was working on it, the day it was first posted—this despite the fact that I listed my sources and placed abundant notes as to what I was doing. There were links in the article, which if he had researched them, would have provided abundant information to convince just about anyone capable of NPOV of the need for an article on Rees. It is not as if I am some anon IP or something, he could have taken the time to check out some of the articles I have created. It is demotivating for a serious editor to have someone do this sort of thing. He needs to slow down and do his homework, otherwise he could easily abuse admin "powers." He is not ready for admin responsibilities, IMO. Sunray 20:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That judgement was harsh. The discussion has been worthwhile, I think. I would change my vote if it made a difference. :-) Sunray 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes i encounterd that article on new-page patrol. In fact, most articles I have nominated for AfD I have encountered on new-page patrol. Perhaps i should have done more reseasrch on it. But, of course, nominating articles for AfD has nothing to do with admin powers. I wouild not have delet3ed that articel without a consensus discussion on AfD, I did not even speedy-tag it. DES (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suggesting that this "tag and bag" mentality is great for dealing with vandalism, etc., but that an admin needs to do his homework before taking precipitous action. You obviously thought you saw a copvio. A note on the talk page or my user page might have saved some time. Or one might even do some editing! Wikipedia Editing policy recognizes that new articles do no always spring full-formed from the ground. A wiki is, after all, a collaborative authoring tool. Sunray 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A quote from my talk page from David; Note I would still use speedy tags -- I belive in the tag and bag rule. except for obvious vandalism and true patent nonsense, i would generally only speedy delete a page that anothr editor had tagged, and would tag pages I found for another admin's attention. He ain't no deletionist, thats for sure. Martin 16:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I use the term deletionist to mean "someone who is in favor of deleting some pages that others prefer to keep."[7] Sunray 17:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm somewhat surprised such a definition found its way onto that page. It's quite ridiculous—virtually every WPn to whom these matters are important would qualify as a "deletionist" under those terms, including Kappa and even Xiong. I do think that the truest bit about that definition is the sentence that follows; although as a newbie I myself used such terms in wiki-conversation, I've since concluded that they do more harm than good (they're labels affixed to editors by others, and often paint them in ways that do not do justice to their views), and believe they should not be used except in the broadest sense to describe "wiki-philosophies".—encephalonεγκέφαλον 01:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, the context of the definition is that of a wiki, which is a collaborative authoring project. The whole point of a wiki is to build on each others' contributions, is it not? Sunray 02:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that I am more deLetionist than some, more inclusionist than others. I am cetianly more deletionist than, say, User:Kappa, and probably more so than User:Tony Sidaway. I like to think of myself as more of a mergist than either a deletionist or an inclusionist. I try to follow consistant principles and come to reasoanble conclusions on such matters, and i do soemtimes change my mind. And I know I am not infallibel on such judgements, either. In this case I nominsted an artilce for AfD (not please note, for a speedy). It is true thst the phrase that content had been copied from the professors course notes raised a flag for me -- it is aldo true that I made this judgement pretty much on the basis of the article itself, without doing much independant research -- which was probably a mistake. Note that I would not have acted the same in regard to an actual deletion -- I do rely on the fact that AfD means lots of people will look at an article. But still i probably should havw just put it on my watch list and come back to it when i had more tiem and/or left a note on the creator's talk page. I will try to remember this for the future -- wether I become an admin or not, since a non-admin can, and I no doubt will, put pages on AfD. I'm sorry not to have taken more time over this case. I will promise, if I do become an admin, not to rush any deletion or other use of admin power (except for vandalism reverts, which need to be quick). DES (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I was pretty steamed, but you handled it well. It looks like you will be awarded the mop. Best of luck with it. Sunray 05:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Long discussion, moved out of the voting space. Dragons flight 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Support. The guy has strong opinions and ideas (both horrible qualities for an admin), and while I haven't always agreed with him, I do think he behaves in a reasonable way and is more than worthy of a mop. Dragons flight 20:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I take allegations about abusing CSD criteria quite seriously, so following JYolkowski's comment (in Oppose), I looked through your last 500 article space edits (roughly 6 weeks). While it is not possible to know how many things you have tagged for speedy which were in fact deleted (since deleted articles aren't included in contribs), I did find several {{nn-bio}}s on articles that have been spared deletion and which give me pause. There were a couple I noticed where you wanted to speedy an actor or musician stub and someone else argued that one sentence saying "actor" or "musician" counts as asserting notability. That is a boundary argument I don't really care about, but there were also two other nn-bio claims that really surprised me. [8] [9]. Could you please comment on what standard you are using in judging that articles such as these are not making claims of notability, and whether you expect to propose similar articles for deletion in the future? Dragons flight 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My criteria fon nn-bios are spelled out in some detail, at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Interpretation of WP:CSD A7 (non-notable bios). I have made no secret of this -- it is a proposal on which i have sought site-wide consensus, and which i hope to have formally adopted. If the response is to adopt a different standard as consensus, then i will follw that standard, whateveer it will be. As to Seth_Schoen as I recall the article when i tagged it basically said he was a programemr with a particualr specialty, and a good one, but nothing about any achievements or other claims to notability. This is from memory -- I will need to recheck the facts. In general I wouldn't consider that to be a claim of notability under A7. DES (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On looking furhter, Mike Kinkella appeared to me to be a high-school athelete, who was said to have achieved records in a local high-school level league. I wouldn't call that a claim of notability, although the records make it marginal. I later learned that the league involved is not strictly high-school level, and with that info retracted my argumetn for speedy, but I still voted to delete this at AfD, and ZI think that some voters there were (IMO unwisely) swayed by statemtens that some of his relatives are notable, or know notable people. I don't generally consider that to be relevant to a person's own notability. Also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kinkella where several other editors expressed the view that this was a speedy candidate, and note that it had previously been tagged by an editor and speedy deleted by an admin other than me. My view here does not seem to have been wildly out of the mainstream. DES (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    On Seth Schoen, what was stted about him was 1)He works for EFF, which is praisworthy but not notable; 2)He has been involved in discussing various issues (anyone can discuss) 3) he is considered an expert in "trusted computing" (ther are lots of 'experts, but maybe I should have allowed this as a claim of notability) 4)He founded a political protest group while in college, whith no indication of how large or influential that group was or is; 5) He wrote a haiku about a software program 6) He is "rumored" to be writing a book. Probably the combination of all of these should have been enough not to tag this as a speedy, but i would argue for deeltion again if this article were placed on AfD tomorrow. I don't, however, feel strongly enough to re-nominate it. And no one of those points is IMO a "claim of notability" under A7, nor should it be. DES (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat, however, that if I think a page I find qualifies under A7, I will always tag it for anotehr admin, even if I become an admin. I will only delete under that criterion if some other editor has tagged a page. DES (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I should add, i recently created {{nn-warn}}. I now use it whenever I tag soemthing with {{nn-bio}} unless the creator is using a one-off IP address. This at least allows the creator of an article to know what is happing and perhaps to register a differing view. Also, please look at the number of times on AfD I have said "Not a speedy". DES (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I certainly can't fault you for having a well articulated statement of your position on A7 already drawn up. However, I seriously disagree with you over your interpretation of A7. From CSD A7: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance". You have proposed that this should be explained such that: "A claim of notability is a statement made in an article that, if true, would persuade some significant proportion of likely people who might discuss and vote on AfD that the subject is notable."
    In my opinion, A7 should be construed much more narrowly than that. The only question we should be asking is whether the article makes statements attempting to explain why the person is important or significant. If yes, then it is not a candidate for speedy in my opinion and should be directed to AFD. Any judgment about whether the claims being made are sufficient to persuade people that a subject is notable is inevitably the provenance of AFD. Obviously, you didn't know that I find writing the DeCSS Haiku to be an inherently notable action, instead you put yourself in the position of guessing whether other people would find the statements about Schoen to be sufficient evidence of notability, which strikes me as a significant problem.
    Maybe your actions are not uncommon and there are many people abusing A7 in this way, but I certainly would not have voted for it if I knew that people would be subsistuting their own judgment rather than AFD's when it comes to deciding whether a given set of the claims about what makes a person important and significant are notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Obviously, if an article says: "John Smith is a tailor for Ohio with 3 children and 2 dogs", that isn't trying to be notable and should be speedied. An article that says: Mike Kinkella is a star quarterback and 3 time MVP of his arena football league, certainly is trying to sound notable and deserves to be discussed on AFD. (Incidentally, I agree it should be deleted, just not that it could be speedied.)
    I think you are a good sort, and not trying to create problem, but it does seem that you (and perhaps many others) are making judgments about the validity of notability claims which I think have no business in the speedy process. Dragons flight 01:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I am already doing a good deal of new page and soem RC patrol. the admin roll-back would help on this. I tag a number of speedy deletes, mostly found on NP or on AfD. I would not delete on sight (except for clear patent nonese of the ranndom characters sort, and other obvious vandalism) instead I would continue to tag for another admin to delete, but I would start reveiwing stuff tagged by other editors and eitehr deleting or removing the speedy tags (as seemd appropriate in particular cases). I would do some AfD closes, and maybe TfD closes. I already do some stubsorting, but although that is in a sense janitorial, it doen't make any particular use of the admin powers. I might try to help with other backlogged process pages. And no doubt I would get into vandal fighting a bit more, and also learn about things I haven't really known about at all yet.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I first came here to work on Vanity press in the wake of the "Atlanta nights" hoax. I then helped broker a compromise to end an edit war in First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I did a lot of work on Prior restraint, and i think I improved the article a good deal. I am quite proud of the merge I did at Aubrey-Maturin series. That combined 22 articles, mostly stubs, into one much better article. Around the same time I did a number of other merges of multiple books in single series into joint articles about the series, starting with The Dark is Rising Sequence. The most ambitious of these was the merge of the Wheel of Time books into a single article. This was praised by several editors, but one editor in particular opposed it, undid the merge and then vastly expanded the articles (many of which had been stubs) and they remain separate today. I still think a merged version would be better. I am to some extent a mergeist: "More information, fewer articles" -- I think that one long article is generally better than several stubs on closely related topics. Oh, I should mention Thomas Shipp. I found this on NP patrol as an unsourced stub, and I expanded and sourced it, added an image, and then with some prodding from anothe editor, converted it into an (IMO) quite well-referenced albiet short article.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. yes. I was in a dispute with User:Netoholic over the use of {{spoiler-other}} (which he strongly disliked. this got into soemthing of a revert war, but i tried to discuss issues on the relevant talk pages, and to stay reasonable, and not to approach the 3RR (I don't think I have ever has a 3RR violation). This caused me some frustration, but I didn't get too streesed. I have often been rather outspoken on proposal and process pages. Sometimes I get frustrated with people who fail to see the obvious wisdom of my positions, but i try to engage in reasoned discussion in proper places. I have reverted undiscussed changes to process pages and templates, but I have never, i think, refused to discuss, or to abide by the eventual consensus. I am frustrated by people who feel that policy and procedure can be freely ignored for what seem to them good reasons. (much more than with simple vandals, who are just like bad weather -- slog through and ignore it). I got into a nasty but brief dispute with User:Kim Bruning over some pages that user deleted unilaterally as part of the fallout from the last GNAA VfD. I know that Kim had the best interests of wikipedia at heart, but i disagreed with the actions taken, and i would not act that way as an admin. But I remained polite, if somewhat insistant. I'm sure I frustrated Kim, but the issue passed rapidly. More recently i have been involved with several policy proposals. A few editors, including User:Tony Sidaway have taken strong issue with my views, but i have tried to remain polite and rational, and the matter has not descended to personal attacks on eithr side. In sorth i am outspoken when i have a stong view, but I do try and will try to be polite and rational always, and to remeber to discuss and seek consensus. I have particualrly tried to be frendly and encouragign to newcomers. i have lost count of the number of times i have used {{welcome}}. In a few cases this has become frustrating, particularly in the case of User:Maoririder, but mostly I think it is helpful. (oh yes, and i am too wordy :) ). DES (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2005 (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.