Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davewild

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.

Davewild

[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC) at (38/0/0); Scheduled to end 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davewild (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure to nominate Davewild for adminship. Dave has had an account here for more than two years (October 1, 2005) and has compiled more than 14,000 edits in that time. He's an active vandal fighter (resulting in quite a bit of user page vandalism and barnstars) and is active at WP:AFD [1] and CAT:CSD [2] and created several categories[3]. Template work includes creating all of the Icelandic election results. His talk page is full of thanks for his vast WP:RFA experience, article assistance and mistake-catching, and I could not find anything even approaching incivility in his messages to others. He is even good about letting folks know when their articles have been nominated for deletion. An all-around solid Wikipedian and candidate for adminship. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, many thanks to Wknight94 for his nomination. Davewild 20:50, 28 October 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 hope to continue doing a substantial amount of article work but there are a couple of main areas where I feel I could benefit from using the admin tools.
If I am given the tools I would be interested in blocking persistent vandals after they have received warnings instead of having to take them to Administrator intervention against vandalism as at the moment. I have got over 3,000 pages on my watch list and try to keep an eye on them for vandalism. I hope I could also help to deal with any backlogs that arise at WP:AIV.
I would also hope to help out in deletion at each of WP:AFD, WP:PROD and WP:CSD. I have nominated quite a few articles to each, especially speedy deletion and proposed deletion, and contributed to AFDs - I generally read down the list of AFDs the day after they are nominated for deletion and will contribute to any that really catch my eye. I have noticed backlogs sometimes on these pages and have previously wished I could help clear them, so in the future hope to be able to do so.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: When I first started contributing to wikipedia I was greatly assisted by help from some other wikipedians who stopped me from making too many mistakes and I hope I will always remain open to feedback. I have since created a lot of election articles which I have a strong interest in. However I have not limited myself to election articles having started articles such as Erwin Huber when I find an area I am interested in.
I have also been active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year where I have made some significant contributions such as on List of state leaders in 1999. Fairly recently I joined Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and am pleased at the work I did on Alan Craig which was easily going to be deleted until I completely rewrote the article.
As well as bursts of fighting vandals, I also spend time trying to reduce the backlog on Category:Category needed. As well as categorising articles I try to improve articles where I feel I can and nominating those articles that clearly need it for deletion via whichever process seems appropriate.
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: When I was quite new on wikipedia I got into a bit of a content dispute on the Lytham St Annes page. After a a few edits each and a user talk page discussion failed to resolve the dispute I took it to Wikipedia:Third opinion and this resolved the disagreement.
Since then, apart from vandalism, which does not really bother me, I remember a few deletion discussions where I have strongly disagreed with other users but believe I have always remained civil and tried to explain my thinking.
Generally I have avoided getting into too many stressful incidents for me. I have got a bit stressed occasionally on wikipedia, generally when I disagree with other users actions/remarks but have tried to avoid escalating any disagreements and hope that whenever I do get involved in any conflicts I will continue to be able to take a breather, keep my cool and remember to assume good faith!
4. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?
A: The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking which I would certainly follow. As the policy states I would contact the blocking admin and discuss it with them to try and reach agreement on the block (as a new admin there would probably be something I missed and the other admin would be able to show me this). If we are are unable to reach agreement or the other admin is not available (and I would be very careful before assuming the other admin is not available) then I would post on WP:AN and open a discussion there. If consensus emerged that the block should be reversed I think it would be better if another admin then performs the unblocking to demonstrate that this was after discussion and not just me unilaterally reversing the block. Davewild 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support– Anybody who has over 3,000 pages in their watchlist just to fight vandalism definitely is dedicated to the cause. Heck, I don't even have 1% of that... literally. I've got less than 30 pages in mine. Ksy92003(talk) 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support: As nominator. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Mr. elections Dave. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Per above reasons!! PatPolitics rule! 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support a dedicated editor who clearly shan't abuse the tools. Marlith T/C 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. You seem extremely well-experienced with vandalism work, and the tools will help you continue. As has already been commented on, you've got great dedication! Dylan 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very good user--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, definitely. Neil ☎ 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Ρх₥α 23:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Great Track and Vandal fighter with 14000 edits and has been a very regular contributor.Pharaoh of the Wizards 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Excellent user: no evidence to suggest that he will abuse the tools. Acalamari 01:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Very strong anti-vandal. Definitely seems worthy of adminship. tosh²(talk) 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per above. NHRHS2010 talk 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support. Good vandal-fighting work. Some additional article-writing experience will make you an even better editor and admin. Majoreditor 02:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support John254 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Usually when I go to the 2nd lot of 500 contribs and pick at random 10 non-vandalism reverting ones, I find something I disagree with. Not here, will make a good sysop --Pumpmeup 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A great editor and vandal fighter. Time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Sure thing. Jmlk17 05:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Easy (and Strong) Support per the same reasons I supported GlassCobra's above. Good editor, strong contrib set, good answers to questions, etc. K. Scott Bailey 14:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support GOOD LUCK Dustihowe 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Impressive, should make a good admin. LАМВDОІD T C 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Over 50 reports to AIV, ALOT of experience, great user! Tiddly-Tom 19:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - huge edit count, especially at AIV. A vandal-fighter like this could use the tools, and will likely be trusty with them. Bearian 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support east.718 at 21:57, 10/29/2007
  26. Support - good work at CSD, more of an inclusionist than average, but knows the policies and won't misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I reviewed your contributions earlier and failed to then back that up with comment here!! Candidate ticks all the boxes in terms of CSD, AFD, Article work, civility etc etc. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - flicked through, looks fine. Rudget Contributions 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. the_undertow talk 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, a dedicated vandal fighter with a civil attitude, great combo. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Nothing to add. Phgao 03:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, seen this user a lot at AIV, great candidate with a good deal of experience. --Coredesat 05:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Candidate has indicated that they will deal with all article deletion backlogs. Somebody has to – Gurch 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Woo, I'm not the only blatant inclusionist running! Good luck! GlassCobra 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. I see no reasons why not to oppose. Good luck:)--SJP 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--MONGO 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - No reason not to. Best regards, Neranei (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
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/Davewild&oldid=1243740351"