Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nick Dowling

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

Nick Dowling

[edit]

(49/0/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling (talk · contribs) - Nick Dowling has been editing Wikipedia for more than two years, during which time he has made over 10,000 edits, including 6,700 to mainspace. He has excellent article writing experience, having contributed to two featured articles, Australian Defence Force and Axis naval activity in Australian waters. He is a member of WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Alternative music, and has done a lot of work towards the featured portal, Military of Australia. He has participated in about 50 XfD discussions, specialising in those connected with the military, and has shown a good knowledge of policies and guidelines. Nick Dowling is an experienced, polite user who would make good use of the tools. Epbr123 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm happy to accept this nomination. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 21 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 intend to initially focus on articles on topics which I know the most about - military history topics, alternative bands and Australian politics. I hope to be able to help protect these articles from attacks from vandals and spammers, contribute to AfD debates and help mediate any disputes which arise. As I gain confidence in the role I will look to contribute in other ways, but won't venture into disputes over topics I don't know anything about as I don't think that that would be helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm particularly happy with the two articles in which I played the lead role in developing to FA standard and my contributions to several other articles on Australian military history which have been assessed as A-class or FA standard. Both the articles I took the lead on included very substantial contributions from other editors (especially Grant65 for Axis naval activity in Australian waters and Alant for Australian Defence Force) and I think that I worked well with these editors. I'm also proud of my contributions to Portal:Military of Australia which include writing most of the unit of the day articles, taking a lead role in maintaining the list of new articles relating to the Australian military and promoting the portal to new editors.
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'm happy to say that I've never been in any serious conflicts with other editors in the past. I've argued with other editors over content from time to time, and have always sought to settle these disputes by improving the article so disputed material has a strong citation. This has normally proven successful, and I've acknowledged my error when it turned out that the sources didn't support my wording or that the alternative viewpoint was equally valid. I will enter any conflicts in the future by assuming good faith and encouraging citations to be provided for everything. I am, however, aware of the processes which are used for particularly troublesome editors, and have taken part in procedures which have led to bans and permanent blocks so can use these mechanisms as a last resort if I have to.

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 13:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: No, I wasn't previously aware of that that decision - I haven't written many biographies and am not a member of the relevant Wikiproject. After reading the discussion of the issue and the decision, my understanding of the issue is that it reinforces the need for strict adherence to WP:BLP and the decision makes perfect sense to me. Articles on living people are clearly the most sensitive on Wikipedia, and I support taking a strict line against the inclusion of non-notable material on notable people (particularly if the material is personal or embarrassing) and swiftly deleting articles on non-notable people who've gained public attention through being being mocked in the media or internet. I'm comfortable with the concept of articles on notable topics being so seriously flawed that the only way forward is to delete the article and rebuilt from sratch once reliable sources can be found, and have voted in AfD debates on such articles.
5. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: First of all, I wouldn't assume that the article was mistakenly deleted and I have a god-given right to return it to Wikipedia - at least 99 times out of 100 there's going to be a very good reason for the deletion. As a first step, I would review the reasons for why the article was deleted. If it is clear that there'd been a serious breech of process (eg, an uncontested prod deletion of a clearly acceptable article slipping through or a rouge admin) I'd restore the article. However, in any other circumstance I'd take the matter to deletion review and let the community decide whether the relevant policies had been wrongly applied - as noted above, I'm not very experienced with the ins and outs of writing biographies and would err on the side of caution.

Additional questions from Sarah

6. Nick, could you please elaborate on question one? Specifically, what admin tools do you envision yourself using and in what capacity? The activities you listed in question one (mediation, dealing with vandals, spammers, and contributing to AfDs) are all activities that you can do now as an editor. Specifically, what admin duties are you interested in? For example, are you interested in working in deletion (say on speedy deletion or closing out PRODS etc), requests for vandal blocks, and so on. Sarah 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Good question Sarah - I was rather vague. I'd like to initially focus on blocking vandals, as they appear to be getting more common and I think that they're the greatest problem Wikipedia faces at the moment. A lot of the mil-hist articles on my watchlist get repeatedly vandalised by vandals who also hit other articles, but due to lack of admin manpower they're not followed up - it's not uncommon to see an IP talk page with multiple last warnings for vandalism which have not been acted upon after the vandal re-offended. I would also like to contribute to reviewing and actioning requests for speedy deletion and PRODs, especially for military history topics, where I think that I'm qualified to help sort the truly objectionable articles from the ones which should go through an XfD process and the ones which are OK.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • While the editor knows the policies and guidelines, the answer to Q1 bothers me since none of those desired tasks require +sysop. Administrators can aid in the dispute resolution process by the ability to block and protect to prevent disruption, but this is the mop work that comes with adminship. Any user can be selected mediator and arbitrator, administrative access as not a criteria for these positions. In other words: the buttons, while they carry gravity in maintaining the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time, does not hold a special power in controlling content or disputes. They are specific functions that a user should be trusted with to maintain the editorial and communal standards of the project. Theoretically, that is. While I trust the candidate to do those things, I just want to make it that the candidate understands the fundamental difference in Wikipedia administration and other online systems: a janitor, not a cop. I may supply a comment in the following sections later. Keegantalk 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. I have no hesitation in supporting this nomination. I don't know much about Nick, apart from his editing on Wikipedia, but he is one of the most reasonable, mature and professional editors I have encountered. He would make an ideal admin. Grant | Talk 08:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wot Grant said - we could do with more like Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support as nomination. cf38talk 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support, not much experience in process and policy areas, but otherwise solid. --Coredesat 12:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support seems to knwo his stuff from what I've seen on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history recently. David Underdown (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As per Cordesat. I am slightly concerned about the Wikipedia namespace contributions, and user talk edits, which currently stand at 270, since November 2005. Lack of interaction is an issue, but considering your other contributions, I have to support. Rt. 14:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Experienced, cool headed; just what we need! Harland1 (t/c) 14:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Great work everywhere you've been thus far. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I would like to have seen some a lot more Wikipedia: namespace contributions, but that's certinally #not a reason not to give him the tools. I think he will use them well, and will learn more about Wikipedia: namespace processes on the job. Otherwise looks like a very solid editor. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nick is an excellent Australian editor and I think he will do just fine as an administrator. I do agree that participation in policy and admin areas is very lacking with only four edits to ANi (and they seem to have been over a year ago) and no reports to AIV etc. However, I've seen enough of Nick around the Australian articles to feel quite comfortable giving him the mop but I do hope he eases into admin work as he suggested in question 1. Sarah 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support We need more admins who understand the writing of articles, rather than just sit on 'twinkle' all day. Nick mallory (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I agree with Nick mallory above. No concerns. Jack?! 21:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Looks good. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak support. Plenty of editing experience that's for sure which is the main reason for the support vote, although the WP pages contributions is quite low (around 400 out of over 10000). --JForget 00:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Would be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Per Nick mallory. -- Iterator12n Talk 03:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, I can't see any possible reason to oppose, as user seems stable and sensible enough. Will make a good admin. Lankiveil (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  19. Support Good experience so far. Just give some more edits to admin and policy areas as stated above. -huntersquid <°)))>< Calamari Cove 05:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I've seen this user around a lot, and I'm impressed by what I've seen. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - No obvious problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 10:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Very good editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I too would have liked to see greater experience in admin related areas. However, I believe nom has shown sufficient understanding to use the tools in requested areas. I would suggest that nom gain greater understanding of WP:BLP as I feel from answers that he may have missed a point or two. I believe the nom will err on the side of caution or ask when doubt exists and is thus unlikely to abuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 15:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good answers to the questions, near perfect edit summary usage; both very good. Like Dlohcierekim said, I would also have liked to see more experience in sysop areas, but I don't think that is enough to get in the way. Best of luck.   jj137 ♠ 20:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I have seen him for a while around Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and have seen he is a good editor. Kyriakos (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Jmlk17 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as it appears he is well experienced and will make a good admin. --Bduke (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support John254 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - No reason to believe the tools will be abused if granted to this user. -MBK004 06:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support great user with real hands on experience. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Daniel 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. The Transhumanist 03:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support — As I once screamed after a Madison Scouts performance in 2003, "THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' 'BOUT!" Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support More than qualified. --Sharkface217 07:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support experienced user, the only problem I see is the Wikipedia namespace contributions. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 07:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support. After reading Axis naval activity in Australian waters and Australian Defence Force, a slight lack of process contributions doesn't worry me a bit. henrik•talk 08:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support as per Nick Mallory etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support My only real test is "Can this user be trusted not to abuse the tools?" and Nick clearly passes. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Never had any contact with but seems like a worthy candidate. Archtransit (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support just in case there are further concerns raised of cabal being used I'll keep my support for Nick quiet Gnangarra 03:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  44. Support Appears to have a cool head and a good handle on policy and process, from what I've seen. --Canley (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I particularly like his answer to question 6. The only problem I see is a lack of WP space contributions, but I think that s/he has good enough judgment not to misuse the tools. Keilana 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Everything I've seen of this user's editing in my various spheres of interest has led me to conclude the user would use the mop well and be of considerable use and service to the project as an admin as he has been an editor. Orderinchaos 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support--n1yaNt 06:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I know from personal experience working with him in WP:MILHIST that he is definitely an asset to the project and should be even more so as an admin. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Should have been an admin ages ago. Rebecca (talk) 11:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Weak Oppose Good editor, but I am concerned about the lack of experience in admin-related areas. Jmlk17 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to support, as I went a bit more in-depth in his contributions. Jmlk17 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. I was going to support, only the answer to the first question makes me wonder if you realise what you are letting yourself in for. Deb (talk) 21:12, 24 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.