Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xdamr

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


Xdamr

Final (47/0/0); Ended 01:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Xdamr (talk · contribs) - I noticed Xdamr while plowing through the CFD backlog one day. After checking more of his edits, I felt that this user would be an asset to the administrator community. First off, we need another CfD regular after RobertG's untimely departure, and we can definitely trust him. Plus, he actually had the balls to bring the actors by series categories up for discussion (see the Jan 25 log), so we know he won't let other users push him around. Most importantly, I really like his demeanor. He's generally a good guy and is very good at leading discussion. His edit count is also nice and balanced for those that care about that (7k edits, 1k wikispace). I can find nothing against this user, and I am proud to be able to nominate him. Wizardman 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you very much for the vote of trust, I am happy to accept. --Xdamrtalk 13:36, 26 March 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First and foremost I intend to remain active at CfD. The burden of closing debates there tends to fall on a small group of admins, so in the interests of efficiency and of general helpfulness I'd be willing to help out there. As a non admin it is of course possible for me to close certain discussions at the moment, although only those with a unambiguous Keep result. I have done this from time to time, but the nature of nominations and debates on CfD means that that sort of result doesn't arise too frequently—Delete, Merge, Rename, and indeed No consensus are all far more common.
Aside from CfD I know that many of the other XfD processes suffer from a similar problem, closing debates falls on the shoulders of one or two 'regulars', with resulting backlog when they take a break. I'd certainly look to broaden my activity into some of these processes as well.
I've done a reasonable bit of anti-vandal work in my time, so WP:AIV would probably be a regular port-of-call. Likewise with WP:CSD and its fairly regular backlog.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My particular project on Wikipedia is expanding the articles on Jan Smuts, hopefully getting them up to FA status. This work is still incomplete, but I am pleased with what has been accomplished so far; Early life of Jan Smuts has actually been rated as GA, so with work FA can't be too far away.
Great power is another article that I am satisfied with. It was a bit of a morass of nationalistic argument/POV until it was taken in hand. In cooperation with some other excellent editors, I played my part in straightening it out. This too is now rated as GA.
Wikipedia's coverage of military/civil orders, decorations, and medals is the other main area that I am pleased with. I set up the Orders, Decorations, and Medals WikiProject to address this area. We now have a healthy membership and have evolved some useful common standards for this area in terms of categorisation, templates, etc.
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: Yes and no. There has been nothing that I would consider worth taking to mediation or RFC, but I have been involved in occasional content disputes, primarily while working on Great power. It wasn't anything dramatic really, it would usually take the form that an editor would be adamant that country X should be added to the article because country Y was there, etc. I, and the other rewrite editors, would usually be strongly against adding this OR, at least until such time as it was sourced and ceased to be OR. Given the potential the page has for nationalistic self-aggrandisement this refusal would often result in something of an argument. However at the end of it all, policy invariably won out.
4. Optional question from James086Talk | Email If mediating or closing a discussion would another admin's view hold more weight than a relatively new user? i.e. would you listen more to other admin comments in an XfD, content dispute, on talk pages or in other discussions?
A: Good question. By and large, no. The merits of the arguments would be my primary concern; a bad point made by an admin is not something which I would prefer over a well-reasoned argument by a new user.
However, given the fact that admins are, by definition, long-term, experienced editors, with a good grasp of policy, the likelihood of spurious argument is less than from a new and inexperienced user. Nevertheless, given that my basis of consideration is the quality of argument and adherence to policy, the status of the editor is irrelevant. I've been around long enough to see some top-notch contributions made by new users/IP addresses, and foolish acts which have been committed by admins - I'd like to think that I have few illusions on that score.
5. Extremely important question from >Radiant<: How do you pronounce your username?
A: I'm not entirely sure, I don't tend to talk about myself in the 3rd person (at least not with my WP username) :) It's actually based on my initials - DAMR. This was the name I initially tried to register under but it was taken, so I simply added an 'X' to the front. As to pronunciation, let's see... probably two syllables, X'damr, damr being pronounced phonetically - 'Eks dammer'. So there :)
General comments

Statement of thanks from candidate

Rather than bombard your talk pages with the customary 'thank you' message I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to Wizardman for the nomination, and to thank each of you who have been generous enough to support me (including those who were so committed to seeing this go through that they voted for me twice ;) ). There is still some little time to go before the scheduled end of this discussion, but I trust that this little note is not too premature. If, in the future, I can be of any assistance then please do not hesitate to drop me a note.

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 23:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support fine candidate. Good article work and CfD can use someone dedicated like Xdamr. - Anas talk? 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support has been here consistently for 7 months, clearly knows the way to go about doing things, and contributes a ton. You've got my vote! Kntrabssi 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)→ nomination ;-)[reply]
  4. Support good contributions, good luck from me. The Rambling Man 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as nom.--Wizardman 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Seems to be a very solid contributor. Shows a need for the tools, and a knowledge of how to use them properly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I don't suppose the answer to question one was supposed to make me laugh, as well as cheer, but it did. Anyway, from what I've seen at CFD you seem like a sensible bloke. The fact that you have a how-to-close-CFDs checklist on your user page makes me happy. Solid mainspace contributions are always a plus, and even if your wikispace edits are limited in scope, you clearly understand CFD. I admit to having a bias, perhaps even to having prejudged the matter, when it comes to would-be-admins who want to work on CFD. Still, I can't see any substantive reason to oppose, and a damn good reason to support. One thing: forget that NPWatcher gizmo. We have loads of editors who like nothing better than endlessly patrolling recent changes and new pages. Please don't steal their fun. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support obviously. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support If you can help at CFD, by all means do it. YechielMan 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Sounds like someone who ought be be an administrator to me.... Homestarmy 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - It is appropriate to elevate users to admin to address specific needs, such as CFD. Xdamr has been with Wikipedia for over a year and has gained good experience. I believe that he will use the administrator tools wisely. -- Jreferee 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per above. Addhoc 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I have no doubt that he will use his tools well. Good Luck:) James, La gloria è a dio 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - a great editor, that can definitely trusted with the tools.--Aldux 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support X-power. Xiner (talk, email) 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Jreferee.Bakaman 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Looks like a fine candidate. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Xupport ~ trialsanderrors 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support this editor is a fantastic editor Gutworth 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I agree with Gutworth. A fantasitc editor. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support sounds good to me! James086Talk | Email 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Solid contributor, solid canidate. - Denny 13:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Terence 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I believe this to be a reasonable user. >Radiant< 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Looks good. I'm stoked about the Smuts article too ;) NeoFreak 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - I've seen you about CFD before & everything else checks out - Alison☺ 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support looks alright to me.-- danntm T C 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support definitely qualifies. Lakers 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support So many great things the votes above have said. I will definately support. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You really like my nom, thanks :) (you voted twice)--Wizardman 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Just the kind of admin we need Crested Penguin 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support didnt get this far without being somewhat decent Twenty Years 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Michael 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I see Xdamr in CFD often, and based on sensible input there, I'm ready for this user to start closing CFDs. Thanks, Wizardman, for making this nom. — coelacan — 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Looks like a great user who we can trust and can use to get rid of the backlogs. Cbrown1023 talk 02:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Zaxem 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per nom. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Answer to question 5 is clearly incorrect Support Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support no issues or questions here. Anynobody 06:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I support this candidate to be an administrator based on a review of work done. I certify that I do not personally know the candidate nor do I have a stake in the outcome.Dereks1x 00:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support for three reasons, listed in order of increasing importance. (1) We need someone to help at CFD, which is currently backlogged back to March 16. (2) From your contributions history, I get a positive impression of you as a reasonable discussant and valuable editor. (3) Your responses to the 5 questions come across as completely honest and down-to-earth, yet also well-formed and considered. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, it seems a good candidate ;-) Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you can't voice your opinion twice.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. If he's willing to check the page history and check for reliable sources on google, yes. Deletion/recreation wheel wars often lead to blocks. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Olando 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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 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/Xdamr&oldid=1142546323"