Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beetstra

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cecropia (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 8 June 2007 (Close and archive). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Beetstra

Closed as successful by Cecropia 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) at (57/0/0); Scheduled end time 13:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra (talk · contribs) - I would like to nominate Dirk Beetstra for adminship. Dirk has been a contributor to the English Wikipedia since March 2006 and has well over 20000 edits, distributed across Mainspace (>15000), Wikipedia/Wikipedia Talk space (>1000), User Talk, etc. Dirk has had a remarkably positive impact on Wikipedia. I have interacted with him primarly because we are both active contributors to the wikiprojects Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. With a PhD in chemistry and his current position doing research at Cardiff University, Dirk has been able to provide invaluable experience and knowledge to these projects through his contributions. I have worked with him on many occasions and found him to be the kind of person who does collaborative work very well – obviously a great asset for someone working in the Wikipedia environment. I believe Wikipedia needs more administrators trained and educated in the fields of science, and Dirk could certainly help fill that gap.

I have been particularly impressed with Dirk’s abilities to improve what I will call the supporting architecture of Wikipedia – templates, infoboxes, bots, automated reports, etc. – but particularly with his significant contributions to the template {{chembox new}} (just looking at the history of that template will reveal how much work he put into improving throughout the early part of this year). There were times when I had suggested a new feature for the infobox, and by the next time I logged in he had incorporated the feature, tested it, and rolled it out to several articles to show how it works. More recently Dirk has been heavily involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, running COIBot (talk · contribs), etc.

I find Dirk’s editing to be notable for the civility that he demonstates. As anyone who has removed quite a bit of linkspam knows, the response from those inserting the links is sometimes angry and indignant. Dirk routinely responds politely but firmly. I would like to recount one personal experience that I think exemplifies Dirk’s character. A while back I made some edits to paraben, a slightly controversial chemistry topic, and I was frustrated by the response of someone with a significantly different opinion – this person disparaged my edits, called me names, vandalized my user pages, etc causing me to take a Wikibreak because I simply couldn’t tolerate trying to deal with him. When I returned, I was pleasantly surprised to find that Dirk had cleaned up the article and put it in a state that both the other editor and myself were content with.

I know I’ve been a little bit long-winded (there is still plenty more I could say, though), but I would like to sum it up by saying that Dirk has demonstated himself to be a valuable, intelligent, civil editor and I’m confident he will be a valuable, intelligent, civil administrator - and Wikipedia will benefit from it.--Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: One of the things that should be of prime importance for Wikipedia is that the information we present is increasing in reliability. I think it is a shame, that we have to write in large capitals as the first sentence in our Wikipedia:General_disclaimer:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

It would be great, if we could improve this, and I think that one of the ways to do that is by improving the reliability of our sources. I therefore strongly advocate the use of (external) links (to reliable sources) as references, not as a link in an external link section (where I often think that it is doing a disservice to the quality of the link; is there really nothing to tell in the wikipedia article that would warrant using it as a reference?).
I therefore joined the wikiproject on spam to fight spam (I read this word as described in the guideline), and I wrote a bot that monitors page edits and link additions to early detect conflicts of interest (in a broad sense of the definition). I believe that it is important to notify (new) editors early on that their edits could be explained as being in conflict with our policies or guidelines (and I am always happy to explain that in more detail).
The admin chores that I expect to be working on are mainly related to that field: stopping the addition of spam or acts of vandalism (and when editors appear non-responsive to messages or warnings by using page protection or by temporarily removing the edit rights of an editor) and removing cases of blatant advertising (and other nonsense/vandalism &c.).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: There are a couple of contributions that would qualify that. First there is the earlier mentioned {{chembox new}} (and some small parts of {{drugbox}} and {{protein}} have been adapted with parts of the code of the 'chembox new'). The template has been completely rebuild to contain a lot of possible chemical properties and I am glad to see that the template is being used more and more on articles about chemicals.
Another example is the rewrite of continuous distillation (mainly rewritten in my sandbox, User:Beetstra/Continuous_distillation). Editing on that article started with a bit of a conflict with Milton Beychok about the approach to the article. Although our discussion was sometimes heated, we continued listening to each other, and in the end we worked together on a rewrite of that article (twice!), and our combined efforts have resulted in a good article class article (is this the proper place to thank Milton for the pleasant cooperation?).
A third example is chemical compound. That is one of the core chemical articles, and I believe that that article should explain that concept in a proper, understandable way.
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 already mentioned Continuous distillation, and I am glad how that was resolved.
Regarding removal of spam there have been some major conflicts. As Edgar181 already stated, people do not always agree when their linkadditions (or those of others) are being reverted. But I believe that certain edits have to be addressed, and that, how cruel it may seem, removal/reversion followed by a considered re-addition of these edits is better than leaving the edits as is, because some of the edits were proper. As I stated above, I am always willing to discuss my reversions, and I have no problem with people again reverting my edits.
I think it is proper to mention the stain on my edit history here (Silicon carbide): a block for 3RR. I now realise that sometimes, when attempts to discuss do not help, it is better to step away from a discussion.

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Beetstra before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. --Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good contributer, trustworthy. Would make a fine admin. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, why not. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Majorly (talk | meet) 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wicked-Strong Support per nom. Black Harry 01:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per nomination. I think he deserves the tools. E talk 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support All is well here. Acalamari 01:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Very good user. Gutworth 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support -- I've seen a lot of Dirk in connection with our work on WikiProject Spam together. Dirk is a key player in reducing the impact of spam, both with his tools and with direct interactions with spammers. He's firm yet I have never seen him be unreasonable and he resists the urge to get self-righteous in spite of considerable provocation by COI editors and spammers. --A. B. (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Great answers, contribs., motivation...no reason to oppose. Ganfon 02:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support key player in dealing with spam, per A. B., and goes well beyond the simple revert and template-warn reaction; he's willing to engage in discussion when appropriate and does an admirable job of it. Highly qualified. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. No concerns here. -- MarcoTolo 03:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I realize the following is extraordinarily clichéd and I don't believe I've said it before in an RFA, but I thought he already was one. JavaTenor 05:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support User seems very focused on a specific aspect of WP, but one that needs to be, and his access to admin tools can only be a plus. Interactions with other users on his talk page are exemplary. Best wishes Dirk! Lipsticked Pig 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Another good user to be made into a great admin. Jmlk17 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Because the bloody Vikings said so. MER-C 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Herby talk thyme 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I have come across this editor on chemistry articles and elswwhere. He is clearly a top class wikipedian and I support everything the nom said about Dirk. He will be an excellent admin. --Bduke 07:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. What a brilliant candidate. This is the type of proven dedication to the project that makes me confident (and happy) to say support. Daniel 10:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Looks like another fine editor to me... --Dark Falls talk 11:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support I echo Daniel; this is a brilliant candidate for adminship. Should be an asset. —Anas talk? 11:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Your comments in Q1 were refreshing and exciting. I think you possess more than just trustworthiness, maybe even the leadership to help us improve even more. JodyB talk 15:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support- Excellent editor. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 15:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Positive set of contributions, and will make a great admin. hmwithtalk 17:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support A man of sound common sense. Nunquam Dormio 17:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Peacent 17:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Adminship is no big deal. Plus, this user seems competent and highly experienced. WaltonAssistance! 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Good user and particularly good answer to Q1. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Absolutely, without a doubt. --HappyCamper 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Nobody tells me anything these days. I'd have been a lot earlier to support or co-nom. Bah Humbug. Nick 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support you are the wind beneath my wings --Infrangible 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Looks good to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Catalytic Support--The Joke النكتة‎ 10:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Cool, sensible, ferocious work rate Johnbod 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Dirk's civility clinches it for me. His work "fighting" spam is invaluable, and certainly one of our most valuable editors on chemistry topics as well. I seriously thought he was already an admin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Very good user, reliable, could use the admin tools.--James, La gloria è a dio 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Excellent candidate. Can find no reason to oppose, whatsoever. GoodnightmushTalk 23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Dirk is one of the rare editors who excels at both meta- and exo- contributions. He has a temperament well-suited for the role of admin and will make good use of the tools. It doesn’t hurt that he’s wicked smart, too. -- Satori Son 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support--BozMo talk 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Seems to be the sort that should have the tools. Captain panda 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Top-notch contributor, will make good use of the tools --Versageek 23:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. El_C 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - as per nom :) ..--Cometstyles 14:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --ST47Talk 23:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. «Snowolf How can I help?» supports this candidate as he's confident that the user wont' misuse the tools. Also, he should have co-nominated the user, but he was quite busy off wikipedia :-( (added on 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  50. Support. See no issues. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Thought he was one, etc., etc. Kafziel Talk 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - great editor & good track record. Will be a great admin - Alison ☺ 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support! I was actually pretty sure he was one, with 20 000 edits and all. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No concerns here. A great candidate. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support one of the best. See his good work everywhere, seemingly, and the answers to the questions are excellent. I'm delighted to see a nomination which does him justice. Riana ⁂ 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. In my experience of this editor, he's been nothing but helpful, civil, and knowledgeable. Alai 00:00, 8 June 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Beetstra&oldid=136864615"