Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daveydweeb

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.


Daveydweeb[edit]

Final (72/0/1) Ended 12:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Daveydweeb (talk · contribs) – This user is basically anawesome editor. He helps out in all forms of Wikipedia & is always civil. Daveydweeb knows the site's protocol & would make a great administrator. I don't need to say much about this user, his efforts should do the rest of the talking. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by riana_dzasta

If Spawn Man doesn't mind, I'd like to co-nominate Daveydweeb for adminship (because I've been saying I will for a long time). Daveydweeb previously contributed under the name RandyWang, until concerns about the nature of his username came up [1]in his last RfA. The other major concern which arose was misuse of speedy deletion tags; other editors were concerned [2]that David tagged articles too hastily, and did not warn article creators enough. However, he is currently undergoing admin coaching from Yanksox, and even a quick overview of that page shows that he is willing and able to learn from past mistakes, and that his recent attempts at new page patrolling have been non-controversial and following policy.

Daveydweeb has over 4500 edits under his belt, well-distributed across the namespaces. His contributions to projectspace are particularly impressive - he is an active participant in AfD[3], [4], [5] and WikiProject Computer and video games. He has also given multiple helpful editor reviews [6], [7], [8], regularly gives his opinion at RfAs , and is one of the Wikipedia Weekly podcasters, where - if you take a listen </plug> - he has consistently shown his ability to discuss policy, procedures and happenings in a calm and rational manner.

David doesn't do much recent changes patrol anymore, as his focus appears to have shifted to NPP. However, judging by his previous reverts [9], [10], [11], I have no doubt that he would be able to handle this aspect of adminship. As for other mainspace contributions, Daveydweeb has a good article under his belt with Personal computer game; thus he can appreciate this aspect of editing, and how hard it can be for contributors to raise articles to such high standards.

David's interactions with other users are unfailingly polite [12], civil and friendly [13], and while he has a sense of humour, I've never seen him cross the line. He welcomes new users [14], helps them out [15], and is willing to explain policies [16].

As for the paperwork - 99%/100% edit summary usage for major/minor edits, short signature, non-controversial userpage, talk page archiving.

I think all the problems from David's last RfA have been worked on and improved on, and I see no reason why he should not make a very fine administrator. He shows knowledge of policy, civility, and understands the fundamentals of NPOV, NOR, BITE and our deletion policies. David would make a diligent and helpful admin, and I'm sure he will continue to be an asset to the encyclopedia. riana_dzasta 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very gratefully accept. Thank you. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 08:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick statement from Daveydweeb

As Riana notes above, I had a previous RfA that was ultimately unsuccessful for various reasons. The first, the matter of my username, has obviously been fixed.

The second, my involvement at speedy deletion, has been a major focus of my efforts in the recent past. The first part of the problem was simply that I took a whack-a-mole attitude toward new content, preferring to immediately tag it with {{db-nonsense}} and leave it to be deleted by someone else without warning the user. Since then, I've taken some time to improve my habits as much as possible through admin coaching with Yanksox, who has been very helpful on a number of matters (see my answer to question 3). The {{prod}} tag is now much more useful to me than it ever was, and I generally give article creators enough time to expand their articles before deciding on what should be done with them.

To address the second point of opposition surrounding my deletion habits -- namely, that I implicitly bit new users by failing to warn them of deletion tagging -- I now take the time to warn the creator of every good faith article that I mark for speedy deletion, as a matter of courtesy to the user and in the hope of preventing the creation of additional deleteable articles. Beyond that, I often try to remind other users to do so (and sometimes other things as well), usually with excellent results. I believe my attitude toward deletion has been totally overhauled, and is now much better suited to adminship.

-- Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 08:06, 27 November 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: First and foremost, I'd like to help with clearing out C:CSD as necessary. This category often exceeds 100 items in need of administrative consideration, and can take a great effort to clear out again. Since much of my experience is in this area, I'd anticipate helping to keep the number of items in this category down to a reasonable level.
Edit: As of 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC), there are exactly 100 articles in that category.
Secondly, I'd like to make myself useful closing AfD debates. I spend a fair amount of time at WP:AFD/T, and try to maintain a fairly constant presence there; I believe I now have quite enough experience to help with closing out older deletions and any which need speedy attention.
Thirdly, and if I'm not exhausted by then ( :) ), I intend to keep an eye on WP:AIV and WP:ANI and make myself available when necessary. While blocking users and chasing down sockpuppets would not be the focus of my activities, I recognise that a speedy response to such things is often necessary and would be willing to provide one.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, of course! I'm torn between being proud of my contributions to Personal computer game, which raised it to good article status, and depressed that it still has so far to go. As happy as I am with that article, it still has a few issues which need to be dealt with in order to raise it to featured quality; it's something I will be forever working on, but I really like doing so.
As well as that, I'm very happy with my previous contributions to editor review. In the past I challenged myself to respond to every single request for review and was successful in doing so, until the lead-up to my final school exams a couple of months ago. I'm pleased that I was able to contribute to this exercise and would dearly love to continue with it, time permitting.
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: Absolutely, and I want to draw !voters attention to two of them in particular:
First and most importantly, one of my earliest experiences at Wikipedia was when I had what could be described as "a bit of a tiff" with User:Xino, regarding his use of copyvio material, "owning" of articles and the like, all of which ended with his indefinite blocking when the case was taken to ArbCom. From that, I gained a pretty good experience in distancing myself from arguments on Wikipedia, and I've taken away from it my knowledge of dispute resolution and ability to distance myself from disagreements on Wikipedia without too much difficulty.
More recently, I came across User:Nunh-huh, an admin, who I don't believe reacted well to my inappropriate tagging of Mock Duck with {{db-repost}} (only the conversation as I was directly involved is shown in that diff, but it continued for a bit afterwards). I initially responded in what I'm sure was a reasonable manner when he pointed out (correctly) that I'd misused the tag, and asked for the advice of Yanksox and the administrator who originally deleted the article in question. When User:Chacor took it to RfC because of Nunh-huh's unfriendly replies, I responded as shown at that page and on the talk; while I believe my initial handling of the dispute was passable (not great), I'm unhappy that I became as worked up as I did when it was taken to RfC. In the future, I would attempt to distance myself further from the dispute -- I broke the golden rule of waiting a few hours to cool down before responding to formal dispute resolution process, and have resolved myself not to do that again.
4. Optional question from James086 Did you create a new account or get a bureaucrat to change your name? I'm asking to find out whether you retained your contributions as RandyWang.
A: I changed my name, because at that point I had considerably fewer contributions. If I were ever to do it again, I'd probably just create a new account and have each one refer back to the other, for two reasons: firstly, to reduce the load on the WMF's limited server resources, and secondly, because changing all those broken links is really tedious. :)
5. Optional question from WatchingYouLikeAHawk Did you get your FA-Article yet? BTW, I had to read your old username a few times over and I thought it was hilarious. Never mind, I read your anwser to #2, which answers this question.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support - Of course I'm going to support. :) Spawn Man 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my co-nomination. riana_dzasta 08:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Not only have there been good edits, but they have been to some obscure articles that many would shy away from. Deserving of adminship. StayinAnon 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merovingian ※ Talk 09:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No-brainer support, one who I was planning on nominating myself (but Spawn and Riana beat me). A great editor, user, person, advocate for Wikipedia, and I imagine will be a great adminsitrator. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, ofcourse. He is one of the best, isn't he? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - at least until someone gives me a compelling reason why not. Doesn't appear to be the world's most prolific article writer, but I could be wrong and it's hard to argue with 1 GA. Moreschi 10:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --Terence Ong (C | R) 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. I've been waiting for this RfA for ages. Must be one of the best users on here. Very good luck with this mate! --Majorly (Talk) 12:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support ;) - crz crztalk 12:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    :o Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Aw damn Support Geez, sorry about this one. I'm getting off Wikibreak to support this. Daveydweeb will be an excellent sysop. Yanksox 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I've seen this username time and again on new pages, recent changes, vandal warnings and speedy delete patrols. No problems with supporting. (aeropagitica) 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. No single doubt about this user. -- Szvest Ωおめが Wiki Me Up ® 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes, yes, yes. Perfectly suited for adminship at this point. – Chacor 14:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support not a difficult decision.-- danntm T C 14:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support very good editor. Particularly like the new AfD template he is working on. And who hasn't got into trouble over speedy deletion before? Good admin material, IMHO. Bubba hotep 14:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Enthusiastic support. A kind, conscientious editor who is eager to help and to improve in his capacity. Excellent material for adminship. -- Merope 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Looks like he'll make a good admin. NauticaShades 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Excellent, trustworthy, friendly editor. Xoloz 16:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support glad I didn't miss this one. Absolutely. - Mike (Talk) 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support is here! Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I am pleased to see someone else take up the "New Pages Patrol is not Whack-a-mole" mantra, and RW/DD seems to have taken the feedback from his last RFA to heart and then some. Randy support! -- nae'blis 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - hahnchen 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per Riana's nom. I think he'll definitely be a great admin. ← ANAS Talk? 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated too ya know... ;) Spawn Man 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? *runs away* :D ← ANAS Talk? 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Computerjoe's talk 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. My concerns from the last RfA seem to have been addressed. Agent 86 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mucho Support I hold this user in exceptionally high regard; furthermore, that garbage at Daveydweeb's first RfA about his name having some sexual secondary meaning in Hindu (or something) is frankly a farce. This user is long overdue adminship and I wish him the best of luck. (oh and his WP:ER work is also notable as showing Daveydweeb as a civil Wikipedian and a non-biter.) Cheers, Anthonycfc (talk • email) 12:11, Wednesday May 22 2024 (UTC)
  29. Support --Rettetast 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Although I was a bit worried about potential problems regarding dispute resolution, I see that your level of civility and kindness will probably not be tainted. You'll make a fine admin. =) Nishkid64 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support of course. Great user.--Húsönd 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Special:Makesysop - /me goes to look for a 'crat to press the button -- Tawker 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so that's what the link is called! Fredil 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tried that link and it didn't work for me... --T-rex 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 'crats and stewards can see that. It says, "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups "Bureaucrats", "Stewards"." Nishkid64 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak Support - A truely excellent editor and a brilliant admin candidate, but there's the usual Esperanza pile on happening and I sincerly wish other candidates could count on similair numbers voters for their RfAs. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. What's being in Esperanza have to do with an RFA? bibliomaniac15 00:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate underwent Esperanza Admin Coaching, and thus is well-known by the Esperanza community. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support looks like a good candidate Tyson Moore es 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. If Spawn Man and Riana both nominate, that's a good sign. No bad things coming from this user. We need more moppers :D Fredil 01:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support with pleasure. Genuinely nice guy with a good head on his shoulders -- Samir धर्म 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Terrific user; will make a good admin. Hello32020 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I feel that it is now time to give this user the mop. A great contributor to this project and the added tools given to him would only improve the quality of this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Good candidate in my humble opinion. (Hate using the acronym!) bibliomaniac15 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See #34. riana_dzasta 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! We have a criminal amongst us? Someone is a bit too eager me thinks... ;) Spawn Man 06:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Definitely merits the tools. Heimstern Läufer 05:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I've been waiting to support this guy †he Bread 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support because I have seen the candidate's contributions and he's unfailingly pleasant and an asset to WP. -Kubigula (ave) 05:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of Esperanza)[reply]
  43. Strong Support. Sorry to use the over-used clichè, but I thought he already was one. ;) —  $PЯINGrαあるふぁgђ  Always loyal! 05:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned for personal attacks. --Rory096 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strongly Support anyone like this guy.  Jorcogαあるふぁ  06:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - good editor — Lost(talk) 10:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support seen him around (though never interacted) and he sounds great. James086Talk | Contribs 13:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Pile On Support Do I really have a choice in the matter? Excellent editor. Canadian-Bacon t c 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per riana. Think she covered all the points --Agεいぷしろんθしーた020 (ΔでるたT • ФC) 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. I've seen Daveydweeb (I still remember him as RandyWang) around a few times at deletion discussions and my editor review, and though we haven't interacted much, I still feel safe to say that I've had good experiences around him. He seems to have everything I look for in a good adminship candidate. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Everything looks good.Sharkface217 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - I supported last time, so I see no reason why not now --T-rex 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support - Excellent contributor, mature, responsible and committed to the community. Full disclosure - I am not an Esperanzan, but he is a co-podcaster at Wikipedia Weekly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support John254 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Wiki Warfare to Infinity 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it's a bit odd for the candidate to do this, but the 'crats should probably be aware of this user's brief history of contributions. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken the vote above, not that I doubt the good intentions of the user. But with only one edit to article space before voting on RfA, that is much too low. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I indented it as well. riana_dzasta 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really mind. I do not think the candidate is in any danger of not succeeding. Wiki Warfare to Infinity 04:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Good editor. Nice response to last RfA. No concern whatsoever. Rockpocket 07:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Took on feedback from his previous Rfa, and did great work at WP:ER 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:53 29/11/2006 (UTC)
  56. Support (changed from previous neutral leaning support below). My change here has nothing to do with the unusual alarm my previous neutral position seems to have caused and everything to do with the nominee's qualifications and demeanor. —Doug Bell talk 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the alarm was that bad Doug, rather just confused about the unsual neutral IMHO... Spawn Man 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only making the comment here because I don't want my change in position to be incorrectly interpretted as any problem I have with my original reasons to be neutral. I think my previous position was perfectly reasonable and my change here has nothing to do with how people reacted to it, and in fact, was a change I had already indicated I might make in my original neutral comment. —Doug Bell talk 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Alphachimp 02:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Seems responsible and responsive. IronDuke 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --MustTC 07:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 November 2006
  61. Support per nominations. Sarah Ewart 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Seen him around? Check. Here to build an encyclopaedia? Check. No evidence of being batshit? Check. No big deal; next please :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
  63. Hmm...What is that word, ah yes Support. I love to see kind and civil wikipedians running for administratorship.__Seadog ♪ 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per noms; a good editor and will be a good admin. JoeSmack Talk 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Bucketsofg 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Rudjek 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I don't see why not. --210physicq (c) 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Looks good. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per noms. Acs4b 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per all of above. Dionyseus 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I'm 5 minutes late, but this is an easy one. james(talk) 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral leaning toward Support. A fantastic editor, but I believe the user spends too much time at the Wikipedia namespace and not enough time making major contributions to articles. The user has made around 250 mainspace edits since his last RfA, however he has made around 1600 edits since then. So, basically 15% of his last 1600 edits have been in the mainspace. Now, people may think I shouldn't base my vote on the number of edits made by the user. Okay, I won't. Just take a look at the type of mainspace edits the user has made. Some are stub-sorting, some are revertions, and most are basic remedial work. You're a great user, but I think that you've obsessed too much over AfD's and such, and forgot about what the real point of Wikipedia is. Nishkid64 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair point, but I think you're forgetting about the fact that this deals with adminship and not an overview of one's role on the Wiki. This is a request for adminship, not "Request for a Giant lovefest about how awesome I am." Which, sadly, is what RfA becomes, but Daveydweeb shows the admin aspect quite well, which is what meets the bill. Yanksox 16:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point, Yanksox. I agree. - crz crztalk 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he has got a good article, Nish. He's not completely useless in the mainspace :) And, like Yanksox says, already doing admin-like chores means that he will make a good admin. Just my 2 cents. riana_dzasta 17:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. My only concern was about how he would handle editing disputes and stuff of that nature, because his lack of experience in the mainspace gave me the impression that he wasn't that experienced with edit conflicts as much as other people are. I'll probably go support this RfA, but I just want to think it out. Nishkid64 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support. Nishkid64 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning support. No reason not to support, but the fact that the nominee is a member of Esperanza and that ⅔ of the support votes are from Esperanza members is enough to keep me on the fence for now. I'm not assuming any bad faith or collusion here, it's just enough to make me uncertain. —Doug Bell talk 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support based on having had time to look further into candidate's qualifications. —Doug Bell talk 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to this opinion has been moved to the talk page
  1. Neutral This editor does not meet my strict and different requirements for adminship, but his desire to get an FA-article has not gone unnoticed. It appears Daveydweeb will get his adminship, but I only hope that he continues to perservere in getting an FA-article. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 23:04, 28 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Daveydweeb&oldid=1146560783"