Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CBDunkerson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

CBDunkerson

[edit]

Final (111/1/0) ended 01:30, 03 April 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson (talk · contribs) – Conrad Dunkerson has had a Wikipedia account since 2003, became an active contributor last October, and is currently nearing 6,000 edits. His main areas of contributions deal with the Template namespace and the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien. I first encountered Conrad during a difficult period where several Administrators and the Arbitration Committee were dealing with a highly controversial user. Conrad was one of the few people who were willing to speak up on that user's behalf, and encourage everyone to try to act in a fair, equitable, and considered manner. While I did find myself in disagreement with his opinions at times, I also found that I had a high level of respect for his ability to rationally and articulately state his well thought and mature opinions. Since then I have continued to encounter him in various discussions around Wikipedia, and I continue to find his thoughts worth consideration. I believe he would make an excellent Administrator, and I am pleased to offer my nomination of CBDunkerson. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept with thanks. --CBDunkerson 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Please see further questions below. NSLE (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-03-27)
  2. Support. Yup, don't see any problems here. -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 01:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not-very-but-still-weak support. He seems to be a good editor and he isn't likely to abuse Admin powers, but he has been inactive for quite a few months --TBC??? ??? ??? 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean by that. He got his username several years before he became active, he's had over 800 edits a month since December, with 400 something the previous month and 200 before that in October. It's more accurate to say he was inactive, but right now he's a very active contributor and has several months of activity. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support CBDunkerson is a wonderful asset for Wikipedia, and would do well with the mop. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely support despite my serious concerns with the distribution of his edit totals. I mean, here this long, and only 3 edits to "Category talk" namespace? But I'm going to overlook that this time and not just go blindly by the edit count numbers because I think he will be a fantastic admin. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an incredibly arbitrary choice of namespace. I should guess that having even that many Category talk: edits is unusually high, and healthily low. I for example, have only 4. -Splashtalk 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh... obscure in-joke Splash. He isn't serious. I think. :] --CBDunkerson 02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh right. Perhaps my sense of humour has switched off. -Splashtalk 02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I have to explain it, then it must not be funny, so I'm going to not explain it and hope that it is funny. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that it is. -Splashtalk 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I have 9 Category talk edits in my much shorter time here, so I suppose any future RfA for me is doomed by my unhealthily high number of edits to that namespace. Oh well. ;-} —Doug Bell talk•contrib 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, great editor. And {{day+1}} was on my personal wishlist. Kusma (討論) 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear it. Someone requested 'day+1' on the talk Main Page so I created it... and then tried to figure out what to actually do with the thing. Fortunately, a few people have been finding uses for it. :] --CBDunkerson 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - he's a good choice for admin. - Richardcavell 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Suppport, worked with him—good editor and not somebody who'd abuse admin powers. —Mirlen 02:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support good user as far as I know, everything appears to in order. good luck.--Alhutch 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. My impression of this user has always been good, and examining recent edits gives no cause for concern and much cause for supporting adminship. Evidently slightly idiosyncratic views on 3RR, so should be careful to respect others' views on when or not to block at WP:AN3 if he should decide to get involved; this presumably isn't a problem since he says he simply won't work over there much. -Splashtalk 03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Admittedly 'idiosyncratic' views, but I generally won't go there and certainly wouldn't be disputing 3RR actions of others (unless only one side of a mutual 3RR violation were blocked or something like that). --CBDunkerson 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per Mirlen. --Quiddity 03:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Thoroughly wonderful editor. Xoloz 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - seems like a great choice for admin to me -- Tawker 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. pschemp | talk 05:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support for keeping his head cool and showing good judgement in the Pigsonthewing case. Conscious 05:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Very good user. --TantalumTelluride 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Has the experience and the quality of edits. GizzaChat © 07:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support a very good editor. I liked his answer to question 1 on 3RR. David | Talk 08:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Everything in order here. Proto||type 08:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, will make a good admin and very good edits Leidiot 12:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Looks great from all angles. ×Meegs 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, although he has only been really active for a few months, I see no major problems. JIP | Talk 13:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems here. A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support A reasoned voice in the whole WP:AUM mess. Unlikely to abuse the tools. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per nom and everyone else. I couldn't not support a user like this. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, definitely. --Terence Ong 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, very active, no fear of burnout. bd2412 T 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Merecat 16:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support was one of the first people to help me when I started editing. -Dawson 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Sango123 (e) 19:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Solid contributor. Put him to work. No Guru 19:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Definitely --Jay(Reply) 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Wholeheartedly Thryduulf 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strongly support solid, levelheaded, supportive, etc. I have full confidence in you. --Mmounties (Talk) 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, good user. Fetofs Hello! 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support meets my criteria. — Deckiller 23:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. 'Course. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support I thought he was one --Jaranda wat's sup 00:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support this wandering mop-wielder. Deizio 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support looks good to me. --Rob from NY 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I thought he already was an admin?!! --Cyde Weys 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per Cyde :-) SoLando (Talk) 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, {{Rfa cliche1}}. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support It's all been said, won't abuse tools and is a good editor. Good luck! Rx StrangeLove 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support well deserved--Looper5920 08:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Certainly, for a fine user. Marskell 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, excellent user. the wub "?!" 10:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support giving him One Mop To Rule Them All!! - Aksi_great 12:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support: helpful and friendly user, may his soul rest in peace (of which he'll have precious little once this passes :-). —Phil | Talk 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --Ugur Basak 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, of course. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support.  Grue  15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, Per above.--Masssiveego 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, looks great, keep it up. Prodego talk 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support There is no reason not too. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per above. Yamaguchi先生 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Thunderbrand 01:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Moe ε 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. User:Go for it!/Vote StrongSupport I just awarded him a barnstar for his help with template programming on the Tip of the day project, and was considering nominating him myself. But somebody beat me to it! --Go for it! 05:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - all looks just fine. Sandstein 05:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support with a Slam Dunkerson. Bad pun. -- Samir (the scope) 05:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support This is such an obvious case for adminship that i say hand him the mop now! TruthCrusader 08:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Piling on Support of course. --hydnjo talk 13:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support seems to be a decent candidate for promotion.--MONGO 13:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak support, Good contributor from last few months. Shyam (T/C) 16:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I hope to aspire to CBD's level someday. He can stay calm under any situation. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 23:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support good candidate --rogerd 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I have 11 Category talk edits... should I be proud or nervous??? More candidates like this one please!TMSupport ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Everything seems to be in order here, give 'em the mop! — xaosflux Talk 05:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support --Jusjih 09:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support cj | talk 09:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Is this a joke? You mean he's not an admin yet? Misza13 T C 12:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support MONGO 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pssst! MONGO, you were #72 above. Not that I don't appreciate the support. :] --CBDunkerson 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Funny thing. I just ran into him. Noticed he wasn't an admin. Said "huh?". Did some poking around thinking I might nominate him. And here he is. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per Rick. Hiding talk 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an example of Block voting or a Voting block? --hydnjo talk 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Plus, he has almost doubled his "Category talk" namespace edits in the last week! --Alan Au 23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack! Doomed. -Splashtalk 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Painfully redundant support. How is he not an admin yet? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Umm, yeah, support. Whoa. This is a shocker. Really... he's NOT an admin? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Delete, nn. templatecruft. Wait, wrong page... Alphax τεχ 12:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. SupportGuettarda 13:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Wait a secund... he's been here 3 years and still no adminship? Set things right! _-M o P-_ 13:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Willing to let the Category talk namespace edits slide.  ;-) Hall Monitor 19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. {{subst:Rfa cliche1}}, even though he only has 7 edits to the Portal talk: namespace. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Joe I 23:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, 93 people can't be wrong! Rock on to 100! Weatherman90 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - BanyanTree 02:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Will use the mop well. --Alf melmac 08:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support easy. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Blatant pileon on my part, sorry, I saw an RFA with 97 votes and felt it needed to be 100. Just kidding...CBDunkerson is a fine editor, whom I always took to be an admin already. He deserves this. Banez 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --Edwy 15:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support 100! Way to go. --FloNight talk 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. I have researched this user and like what I see. --Danaman5 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Impressed with contributions and attitude to resolving disputes. Carcharoth 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Great choice. Covington 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. It's a pile-on at this point, but I only seem to get to this page once a week or so. Anyway, good choice. Jayjg (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Let's make it a Slam Dunk for Mr. Dunkerson--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Seems like a good editor. - Tangotango 10:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. SushiGeek 19:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Congrats! – WB 21:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support AnnH ♫ 01:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Last Minute Nominator Support. What more can I say? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, 3RR is the least subjective aspect of blocking policy. Discussion should take place before it escalates to that level. Also, I'm not very impressed by his role in the proliferation of utterly frivolous meta-templates, which quite frankly should be a software extension. If "date math" is needed that badly, (it might be useful somewhere, but we've gotten along without it), go talk to the devs. — Apr. 2, '06 [03:31] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Yes, discussion should take place first, but in my experience the usual reason for 3RR is that it hasn't. Yes, we can then throw a block at people and hope that will inspire them to start talking... but in my opinion it is better to skip the potentially aggravating block and go directly to having the discussion. As for "the proliferation of utterly frivolous meta-templates" - obviously we disagree on what is and is not 'frivolous'. I do agree that many of these functions ought to be software extensions... however, since they aren't I see no reason to not implement them using viable/approved methods currently available. We can convert them if and when the software capabilities are added. Finally, I can't accept all the credit for Category:Date math. More than half the pages in that category, the creation of the category itself, and the associated help page, are the exemplary work of Ed Poor. Efficiency ideas and improvements have also been contributed by Alfakim and many users have suggested inclusion of various features. --CBDunkerson 14:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

  • Could CBDunkerson clarify Q1? Does he mean that he would choose not to act on 3RR reports or that he would reject them when they were otherwise in-order? -Splashtalk 02:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My style of dealing with conflict is generally to resolve it through discussion. If that fails then blocks may be needed, but I wouldn't be imposing blocks for 3RR without first trying to resolve the situation. See my answers (in progress) to NSLE below for examples of what I mean. I want the ability to block when nothing else works, but don't think it should be used as the first option. --CBDunkerson 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A more direct answer....? -Splashtalk 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrrrrm? "Yes"... and "no". It depends on the situation. I'd block for 3RR/edit warring when I felt it was needed. Overall I think my personal bar for 'needed' on that issue is higher than average. Does that clarify? --CBDunkerson 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
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 voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I am something of a 'Wiki nomad' in that I move around from one project to another fairly often. Thus, over time I'd expect to get involved in alot of different admin tasks. However, there are some areas I know I will be actively involved in on an ongoing basis. I currently keep an eye on templates for deletion and work to help clear out the holding cell and as an admin would close out discussions and delete templates once they have been cleared from the holding cell. I'd also like to be able to perform speedy deletes and use rollback during bouts of recent changes patrolling.
I generally dislike WP:3RR and other blocks because, far from 'allowing people to cool down', they all too often result in escalating anger. Obviously, blocks are the only way to deal with persistent vandals and I anticipate using them often for such, but otherwise I'd plan to block only in cases where it is clear that there is no other option. Similarly I'm not a big fan of page protection because it can stagnate attempts to work out a compromise or annoy those who feel it was protected on the 'wrong' version. I've done informal mediation several times and it would be very helpful to be able to unprotect pages once the parties are ready to look for mutually acceptable text.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Three years ago I was first introduced to Wikipedia by articles here about the Middle-earth stories by J. R. R. Tolkien, and I recently helped to get the Tolkien article itself promoted to featured article status. I founded the Middle-earth Wikiproject, completed work on the Middle-earth Portal to get it up and running, have made hundreds of edits/new articles on this topic, and more than half of the 5,205 pages currently on my watchlist relate to this subject.
I created and maintain the Wikipedia:Featured content page and the logic which allows it to display randomly selected 'article of the day' and 'picture of the day' content from the past. I first became aware of the new Main Page design project after they decided to link to this featured content page and have subsequently helped to make some minor 'code' improvements to the Main Page for screen reader accessibility. I was also able to get similar accessibility improvements added to nearly all of the portals with help on formatting from AzaToth, Kmf164, and several individual portal maintainers.
I also do quite a bit of work with templates. In late January I discovered Wikipedia:Requested templates and have since been clearing out a six month backlog there while also answering new requests. Of the templates I have created I am particularly proud of {{Babel-X}} (a variable size 'babel box' which is now more commonly used than all but a few of the older fixed size {{Babel-5}} type templates), {{User Infobox}} (originally created as an alternative to having dozens of userboxes and now in use on over one hundred user pages), and just recently {{day+1}} / {{day-1}} (which allow new date incrementing capabilities for which I expect numerous uses will soon be found). Some of the other templates which I have helped work on are {{taxobox}}, {{FAOL}}, {{academia}}, et cetera.
Finally, I have also enjoyed and plan to continue my work on WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Missing Articles, merging duplicate articles, recent changes/vandal fighting, and various other tasks as I encounter them.
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. I used to participate in editing pages relating to current politics, but found that it was often very difficult to work with the 'radicals' on either side. I stopped following these after the BigDaddy777 incident and this is indicative of how I generally deal with "stress" of this kind. Wikipedia is a vast resource, any errors will be resolved eventually, and there is always something else to do.
Similarly, I have been involved in the disagreement over the relative merits of qif conditionals vs hiddenStructure conditionals, but was not named as a party in the current arbitration case on the same matter largely because I have walked away when things got heated.
This is not to say that I am shy about expressing my opinions. I try to disagree without being disagreeable and have taken part in several arbitration cases that I was not a party to (e.g., Pigsonthewing & Freestylefrappe) - either at the request of one or more parties/arbitors or on my own perogative. I even disagreed with Jimbo during the pedophile userbox wheel war case and was pleased when he reconsidered his position; though I couldn't say that my comments had anything to do with that.
Question from NSLE: What are your thoughts on Can't sleep, clown will eat me's 2nd RFA? NSLE (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-03-27)
I saw the discussion about this on the talk page. My general feeling is that there was probably no intent to 'game the system', but it is important that all RFAs be handled in the same way so that there is always the perception of a 'level playing field'. Thus, I think that CSCWEM's decision to withdraw and refile is correct... though I might have suggested just clearing the votes and continuing with the RFA. --CBDunkerson 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    Well, as I won't have checkuser access I'd probably only find out if it was publicly announced, but assuming that I somehow came by the information before it was well known I would immediately tell the person to stop and use admin actions to enforce that while discussing the situation with other admins. Things like this can generate alot of conflict ('you are mistreating well-known-and-liked!', 'well-known-and-liked gets away with everything!', 'you cannot prove well-liked-and-known is a sock of well-known-and-liked!', et cetera) and have a disproportionate impact on community morale - so I'd want to get other admins involved to consider the matter thoroughly and proceed in the least destructive way possible. --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    Ask the supporters to put together a cleaned up draft on a sandbox page somewhere and then run it past the admin who speedied. If they still felt it wasn't viable I'd put up a deletion review request with a link to the cleaned up page. --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    I've been in similar situations a few times. Generally, I discuss the matter with the person and can usually come to some kind of reasonable solution. If that failed I would ask on AN/I for someone uninvolved to review the situation. An example of this sort is a case where I reverted vandalism, got insulted for it, but made a joke of it and was thereby able to get the user to stop. Another was when a user strongly objected to some AFDs, but eventually came around through discussion (as shown in the links). --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    I don't think it is an either/or decision... I'd respect the other admin's action, but continue trying to resolve matters in my own way. I'd let the other admin know that I have been working on the issue, try to keep the parties moving forward towards a resolution, contribute to the RFAR, and continue trying to resolve the situation regardless of the outcome/progress of the RFAR. My involvement with the Pigsonthewing arbitration was similar to this. I presented evidence while working to resolve disputes on various pages (Birmingham, The Merry Widow, et cetera) which had led to the RFAR in the first place. By the time the arbitration was over all the edit wars had been settled - unfortunately there were then other problems not so easily resolved. :[ --CBDunkerson 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions from MasssiveegoE:

This question is worth 25%

1. Why there are a large number of orphan pictures in your gallery, mainly maps? --Masssiveego 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request for help translating a template and maps linked to the template from the Turkish Wikipedia for use in articles on Turkey here. The user apparently hasn't gotten around to implementing the template/images yet. --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is worth 25%

2. Why was this page blanked by you? [[1]] --Masssiveego 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started to post a question, thought of a way to resolve the issue, but accidentally hit 'enter' and saved a header with no info. Since I had no comment to make I then 'blanked' the empty "== Odd situation ==" header. Deleting the page didn't seem worth bothering an admin about, but if promoted I'll be happy to do so myself. :] --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is worth 10%

3. Why is there a decline in your post counts for the last 3 months? --Masssiveego 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different kinds of edits. In December I was doing alot of vandalism patrol and small edits on Tolkien articles, in January I edited hundreds of userpages to fix userboxes which had gotten broken in the WP:AUM wars, in February I did alot of complicated template work and longer article edits which took more time for each edit and thus resulted in fewer, and in March I've been doing much the same but have slightly more edits than I did in February. Really the same amount of time spent on Wikipedia throughout, but different activities result in different edit counts. --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question: Why do your questions only add up to 60%? :] --CBDunkerson 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically 25 to 40% of what I use to determine the vote are examining other factors. I prefer the 60% questions. 40% history approach in determining Admin qualifications. --Masssiveego 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CBDunkerson&oldid=1083754080"