Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:45, 4 July 2009 editOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Support← Previous edit Revision as of 16:50, 4 July 2009 edit undoDavid Fuchs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,973 edits →Oppose: cmtNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 62: Line 62:
#:As much as you may dislike somebody's oppose rationale, calling their actions "trolling" is usually not helpful, and sometimes paints the accuser in the same light. Just saying. ]<sup>]</sup>] 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC) #:As much as you may dislike somebody's oppose rationale, calling their actions "trolling" is usually not helpful, and sometimes paints the accuser in the same light. Just saying. ]<sup>]</sup>] 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
#:As stated, that is one article chosen as an example of what is common over dozens of his articles. It is also his most recent FA, which is supposed to be well written. It fails multiple policies and guidelines, which demonstrates a severe ignorance about those policies and guidelines and also involves dishonesty in falsifying what sources say. Such a thing is a potentially blockable offense. ] (]) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC) #:As stated, that is one article chosen as an example of what is common over dozens of his articles. It is also his most recent FA, which is supposed to be well written. It fails multiple policies and guidelines, which demonstrates a severe ignorance about those policies and guidelines and also involves dishonesty in falsifying what sources say. Such a thing is a potentially blockable offense. ] (]) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
#::And? You are just out to fail any productive user - as proven with Leftorium. You are trolling RFAs of high-level contributors and not helping the cause. And there are millions of articles, you have to go after person because of 1 mistake? This proves that RFA needs fixing.<font color="red">'']''</font>/<font color="black">'']''</font> 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I see nothing that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools and am unpersuaded by the opposes. ] (]) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) #'''Support''' I see nothing that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools and am unpersuaded by the opposes. ] (]) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
#'''Support''' —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC) #'''Support''' —&nbsp;]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>] 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 80: Line 81:
#:I've worked on highway articles for well over a year now, so I can say that deriving obscure info from normally useless sources (eg. maps and press releases) is a necessity in said articles. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) #:I've worked on highway articles for well over a year now, so I can say that deriving obscure info from normally useless sources (eg. maps and press releases) is a necessity in said articles. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
#::Check the talk page - as I showed, one paragraph went on and on about Route 50 and yet Route 50 does not appear in the two sources used. To also make comparisons with one length and another would be synthesis at best (as in saying "google maps says A to B is this distance, which is the same as C to D"). ] (]) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) #::Check the talk page - as I showed, one paragraph went on and on about Route 50 and yet Route 50 does not appear in the two sources used. To also make comparisons with one length and another would be synthesis at best (as in saying "google maps says A to B is this distance, which is the same as C to D"). ] (]) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
#:::There's good synthesis (the general combination of related facts from many sources into a comprehensive whole), and then there's ''bad'' synthesis, the type prescribed against in ]. In my opinion, he's performing the latter. I've got nothing against press releases or maps, but the way the candidate has used them is against our policies. --<font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


=====Neutral===== =====Neutral=====

Revision as of 16:50, 4 July 2009

Davemeistermoab

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (21/3/0); Scheduled to end 03:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs) – I've worked with Davemeistermoab at the U.S. roads project for over a year now, and I've been consistently impressed with his work. Dave is generally a low-profile editor who avoids drama and significant disputes, but instead spends his time working on content. He has about 5,000 edits spread out over the period of several years and well-distributed amongst the namespaces. Contrary to the statement on his userpage, Dave is familiar with nearly all of Misplaced Pages's major guidelines and policies.

As noted, Dave is most active around road articles. He has contributed (nearly single-handedly) to four featured articles and seven good articles, as well as a handful of DYKs. In response, he has received a Triple Crown and numerous barnstars. Outside of article work, he frequently participates in discussions, and has an extraordinary ability to resolve minor quarrels and disputes. Based on my observations, Dave is a friendly and helpful editor who's willing to help out newbies (like myself at one point!). He occasionally take parts in AfD discussions and other admin-related tasks, and while he doesn't have a lot of deleted edits, he's familiar with deletion policies. To top it off, he maintains a clean block log, and has been trusted with the rollback tool.

I think we can trust Davemeistermoab to push the proverbial mop wisely. –Juliancolton |  03:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. Thanks.Dave (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: AfD (and similar), image deletions (due to copyright violations and/or moved to commons). I've tried to help if asked for a variety of tasks. I am more than happy to help in tasks where there may be a significant demand, such as page moves or the various dispute resolution processes, but would initially ask for second opinions from more experienced admins before using the bits, as I've not been involved with those processes until recently.
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: One of my proudest moments is when I stumble across a foreign language article that is a translation of content I wrote. That's happened a few times, however I dont' keep track of these, and would have to search. I am proud of the articles I've worked to get to FA's, as I'm not a talented writer, and I have to work hard at it. However,[REDACTED] has helped me improve. My most recent FA is U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, which passed a lot quicker, and with half the number of copyeditors, than my first: Interstate 70 in Utah. I have seen two articles I've worked on be TFA, which isn't quite the honor it seems, due to the vandalism revert duty that goes with it. An interesting case is two of my first article creations for Misplaced Pages: Cisco, Utah and Soldier Summit, Utah. They are how I became an editor instead of a reader. I saw several articles that had red links to those two places. I said, "Hey, I've been there, I could throw something together". They aren't exactly FA's, and I haven't significantly contributed to them since starting them, but it's been fun to watch how they have developed.
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. Like any editor, I've matured a bit and handled more recent bushes better than early ones. One of my first rubs was with a couple of editors to the Mountain Meadows massacre article, which will always be a tough article to maintain. In that case, I tried to take any serious changes to the talk page first, and wait for some of the rational editors to support the idea. While I now feel I could have made my case better, and come up with better ideas at compromise wordings, I do not feel I have anything to apologize for. At one frustrating moment, I switched to other interests until things had cooled down. To be honest, I have never returned to the activity level with this article I once had, but that's partly because the article is in better hands now than when I was trying to mediate the controversies. I am currently participating in one RfC, but have calmly explained my position on the appropriate pages. I don't think I have said anything that would be considered bad faith. A final case is a user that I have a lot of common interests with, and as such our paths cross frequently. We have differing opinions, which has lead to us occasionally butting heads. However, in the end we've been able to resolve issues or at least work around them, and at least two articles that we both have worked on have reached FA status. In the end, I respect this user's hard labor and efforts to improve the encyclopedia, despite differing attitudes, and I would hope he would say the same about me. My crystal ball is as unreliable as the next person's, but would hope to remain calm and not take things personally in any future dispute.Dave (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


General comments

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

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support
  1. Obvious support as nom. –Juliancolton |  04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support This user has shown nothing but maturity in his actions on Wiki and IRC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support. A fine contributor and a pleasure to work with. BRMo (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Definite support - I've worked with Dave many times and the interactions between us leaves no doubt for me that he would make an exemplary administrator. He does well serving as peacekeeper whenever there is a dispute at the US Roads project, and I think those skills could translate well into all areas of Misplaced Pages. CL — 05:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support - Even though we have just passed by here and there, he is a striving force in my view of Misplaced Pages, mainly centered on roads. –CG 05:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support A fine editor... no reason to see that he will abuse the tools. Until It Sleeps 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support. No problems here. Matt (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support in large part because you've got a good ratio of article edits and FAs on what I find to be boring topics. The encyclopedia doesn't need people who've set out to become administrators, and article creation content counts more than "administrator wannabe" edit areas (ANI, AFD, etc.) in my book. Jclemens (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support, though I would encourage you to move slowly with admin tools - I can see pretty sparse contributions to the deletion areas that you mention in question 1. Having said that though, all the edits I've reviewed give the impression of a very clued-up editor with the best interests of Misplaced Pages very much at heart. Even if you just use the admin tools for various noncontroversial stuff in the course of your regular editing, I'm confident you'll be a net positive to the project in doing so. ~ mazca 07:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support. I have dealt with Dave many times through the U.S. Roads project and I feel he could definitely benefit the project by having the tools. Dave has proven himself to be a level-headed editor time and again, so I foresee no problems with promoting him. —Scott5114↗ 08:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support Yup yup. Wisdom89 (T / ) 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support Fully comfortable with having you behind the controls! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support per my RfA criteria. Aditya ß 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support iMatthew  at  13:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support Looks fine to me. hmwithτ 15:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support per nom and above. No issues here. GlassCobra 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  19. Strong support - He definitely deserves this. As for the two major opposes here - you guys are opposing over 1 article? I think you're just out to be given the TROLL award.Mitch/HC32 16:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    As much as you may dislike somebody's oppose rationale, calling their actions "trolling" is usually not helpful, and sometimes paints the accuser in the same light. Just saying. JamieS93 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    As stated, that is one article chosen as an example of what is common over dozens of his articles. It is also his most recent FA, which is supposed to be well written. It fails multiple policies and guidelines, which demonstrates a severe ignorance about those policies and guidelines and also involves dishonesty in falsifying what sources say. Such a thing is a potentially blockable offense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    And? You are just out to fail any productive user - as proven with Leftorium. You are trolling RFAs of high-level contributors and not helping the cause. And there are millions of articles, you have to go after person because of 1 mistake? This proves that RFA needs fixing.Mitch/HC32 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support I see nothing that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools and am unpersuaded by the opposes. Davewild (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support — Aitias // discussion 16:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Strong oppose - sorry. I looked at your contributions, including "The now two lane US50 crosses remote terrain, crossing many instances of the geographical Basin and Range construct. ". There are many things wrong with that sentence. We are here to build a comprehensive, accurate and readable reference work. Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    ...personally, I see nothing seriously wrong with that sentence... and you're opposing based solely on that one sentence with a little error in it? Do we have to be perfectionists in order to run for RfA? Until It Sleeps 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    No, we don't. Matt (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, the ability to write flawlessly has no bearing whatsoever on one's ability to push two or three buttons. –Juliancolton |  06:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    We don't really need to discuss Peter's opposes, do we? Jclemens (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    As stated above, I freely admit I'm not a talented writer. The diff edit you are referring to was one of many interim saves while fixing concerns raised in the FAC review. That sentence was corrected by the time the FAC closed.Dave (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    The edit is still there in the article, not corrected. If anyone does not see something seriously wrong with that sentence, I do not understand what they are doing here. This is an enyclopedia, correct? Peter Damian (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    There is nothing terribly wrong with that sentence, though it is a bit poorly worded. I'm not sure what a geographical construct is. But to oppose someone because they happened to make an edit with a few mistakes is not very...kosher, for lack of a better word. Sure, this is an encyclopedia, but we're volunteers. We don't get proofreaders, secretaries and the cachet of being in a written-and-bound book. CL — 08:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    Talk about fishing for an oppose - forgive my abrasiveness, but what a load of nausea inducing rubbish. Wisdom89 (T / ) 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    What an extraordinary collection of reasons we have here. "The inability to write flawlessly" has no bearing on being elected to an administrative function in a reference work. What? "We are volunteers" - that old argument well I am a volunteer, and I spend much time trying to clear up this sort of mess. "To oppose someone because they happened to make an edit with a few mistakes is not very...kosher, for lack of a better word". My god. "what a load of nausea inducing rubbish" - referring not to the article but to my criticism - if I had made such a rude personal attack I would of course have been blocked within seconds. Final proof that the RfA process is irretrievably broken. Peter Damian (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose - heavy use of original research in your FA shows an misunderstanding of policy and guidelines. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors for examples of original research, use of peacock terms, misapplying references, claiming references say things that they do not, and other serious problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Ottava, mostly. If it were simply a matter of misattribution here or there, I could brush it off as honest mistakes (I know I'd made similar in research, and as long as he fixes them, no foul.) However the manipulation of references suggests the candidate is unfamiliar with WP:NOR, a serious editorial issue as well as an area admins should be expected to know about when evaluating ANI reports or the like. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    I've worked on highway articles for well over a year now, so I can say that deriving obscure info from normally useless sources (eg. maps and press releases) is a necessity in said articles. –Juliancolton |  15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    Check the talk page - as I showed, one paragraph went on and on about Route 50 and yet Route 50 does not appear in the two sources used. To also make comparisons with one length and another would be synthesis at best (as in saying "google maps says A to B is this distance, which is the same as C to D"). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    There's good synthesis (the general combination of related facts from many sources into a comprehensive whole), and then there's bad synthesis, the type prescribed against in WP:OR. In my opinion, he's performing the latter. I've got nothing against press releases or maps, but the way the candidate has used them is against our policies. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Neutral


Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab: Difference between revisions Add topic