Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David D.

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

David D.

Final (52/0/0); Ended 01:20,

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept

David D. (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: My primary need for the tools are for editing and vandalism reasons.

• For Editing:
  • Page deletion: When moving articles to more appropriate titles there is sometimes a need to delete an older page.
  • Editing protected pages: Working with templates sometimes needs the ability to work on protected pages.

I have come across both these issues in my time at wikipedia. I have got around this in the past by asking other admins for help. Most admins are receptive to helping but it can be slow progress and often make one think twice before initiating improvements that require such requests.

• Controlling vandalism:
  • Semi-protection to prevent random vandals: Some pages are much more susceptible to vandalism than others and these sometimes require a semi protect, especially at the start of the school year. Examples include anything that is taught in high school (from core topics; photosynthesis, to vandalising the rival school; Horace Mann School) or political hot potatoes (Jesse Owens, cloning). Currently I make request to other admins, although if I can use my own judgement in such cases that will mean other admins do not need to spend time reassessing the situation.
  • Semi-protection to prevent vendetta editing: When banned or blocked users go on a vandalism spree, using new IP's, pages need to be semi protected so regular users do not have to waste their valuable editing time reverting pages to a more NPOV version. Examples I have come across include The Skeptic's Annotated Bible and Louisiana Baptist University.
  • Full-protection to prevent edit warring: To have the ability to protect a page is useful is when regular users just won't stop edit warring. Examples I have seen include University of Ottawa and Barrington Hall; in both cases highly POV edits from alumni including original research. As an outside observer it is sometimes useful to protect the page for a while to force the aggrieved users to use the talk page.

How often would I use these powers to protect or semi protect a page? This is not clear, but obviously if I'm involved in the editing I would request the input from another admin, as I do now.

• Blocking: As an outside observer in a dispute I normally discuss issues on talk pages and have found that other admins normally step in before I would have blocked a user. I think I have a fairly high threshold before I find all avenues of dialog have been exhausted (see answer three for more info). There are exceptional cases. One is when an IP starts to add spam (such as their local directories) to town articles. Normally they will add their spam to tens or more articles. If such a user continues despite warnings I find the use of a block justifiable since such users have no intention of being contributors to the encyclopedia, their mass additions are just exploiting wikipedia as a marketing tool and a block prevents further damage that must be undone by other volunteers.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Working with other wikipedians to improve the science articles, especially working with the

talk · contribs) and is currently been implemented on a small scale by ProteinBoxBot (talk · contribs

).

I have been active on some articles that I would consider controversial from the perspective of NPOV. Some I came to from my biological interests such as Answers in Genesis and Jonathan Sarfati. These have been particularly hard to edit with respect to finding a stable article that both creationists and scientists find satisfactory. I have found writing from a creationist perspective on biology to be good practice for finding a true NPOV. In these cases i have found my best contributions are often on the talk page, trying to negotiate something acceptable. I experienced a similar slow but rewarding progression on the human article, again my edits on the talk page i feel are more important than the contributions i made to the article itself.

A collaboration with

1994 European Championships in Athletics

.

Finally I have participated in the science reference desk on and off. There is a hard core group of contributors there that only answer questions and I do not match their contributions, nevertheless, I often make tweeks to articles in wikipedia based on answers I have provided on the ref desk. I think this is one of my better contributions since not only is this providing a services to readers but a valuable feedback to the quality of wikipedia articles too.

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: As a scientist I find my biases are often problematic when the science/religion boundary mixes in wikipedia. I have tried hard to take the higher ground and do all my fight with rational discussion. Sometimes this has led to little headway but much discussion which is frustrating. In one case,

talk · contribs) would never listen to reason continually pushing his chronic POV and revisionist history. In fact, this user was banned before I ran out of dialog with him so i think my patience to talk is quite high. This was a worst case scenario and on some other pages such as Answers in Genesis and Jonathan Sarfati

mentioned above, quite stable articles have resulted from long and patient rounds of discussion.

Similarly in the school debate, which seems like eons ago now, but I found much common ground with Thivierr (talk · contribs) despite the fact we started at different ends of the spectrum for the argument. I realise patience can actually solve problems here if other users really do wish to improve the encylopedia. In the Human article I found protagonists in Goethean (talk · contribs) and Sam Spade (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if we really resolved our differences but at least we managed to talk it through and tried to keep the debate at an academic level rather than a personal one.

Every so often I have lost it. I have to admit I had some harsh words for the Ref desk trio of StuRat (talk · contribs), Light current (talk · contribs), and Loomis51 (talk · contribs). I was in a camp that felt the ref desk should not be the place for toilet humour and unreferenced "best guesses". These three really wanted the right to behave as they wished. The problem here was that middle ground was an impossible goal since the three would not budge. Here I did lose my cool a few times, and I'm not particularly proud of that. Nevertheless, at the time I felt strongly the ref desk was heading for anarchy and was becoming less useful.

In summary, no one is perfect. I have tried to use dialog where possible, for as long as possible. This will always be my goal with respect to resolving issues on wikipedia. It is my view that placing impersonal templates on users pages or worse, blocking users is unacceptable in the long term if we are trying to find real solutions to a problem.

4. 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?--MONGO 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'd discuss the issue with the blocking editor. If I had a good case I assume that the bocking editor would do the right thing and unblock.

General comments

• See
  David D.'s edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page
  .
• Links for User:David D..:
  David D. (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi
  )

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

Discussion

Support

1. As nominator Tim Vickers 23:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I see nothing wrong with this user. Good luck!--
   SJP 23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Most overdue nomination in the history of overdues This is a Secret ^account 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I think user would be good at handling the role of admin-ship and continue to be an excellent editor. TOL 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. This is a long overdue nomination indeed, the best of luck to you. RFerreira 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support - in my limited involvement with
   Addhoc 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. No problem.
   Resurgent insurgent 01:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Strong support We can scarcely ask for an administrator with better qualities: scientifically expert, knowledgeable about Wikipedia, always willing to help, clear-sighted about our goals, patient and resourceful. And beyond that, he's really, really clever. :) Willow 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - Reading through some of the talk pages of articles David D. has been involved in, his sheer amount of patience and civility in the face of obvious
   Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
   ]
10. Support The more proper scientists here the better. Nick mallory 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong support. I wish you the best. Keep up the good work. —
    Thomas H. Larsen 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Support Partially based on the clarify/detail/truth of his answers to the above questions, and partially because of his edit summary. --businessman332211 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. A polite, cheerful, and witty voice of reason who argues brilliantly for the encyclopedia without ever being argumentative for the sake of it, and who always maintains his sense of humor. Good answers, though I'm surprised at one of the conflicts he mentions as an example for "having lost it". I followed that particular cluster closely, and remember David D. as being one of the coolest, least aggressive and most sensible voices throughout the disputes at the reference desk. The kind who never has to be right, but often is. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Jmlk17 08:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support as per
    user talkpage. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Support. Firm grasp of the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, absolutely.
    ☎ 12:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support. Strong candidate. Kingturtle 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support not afraid to work on controversial articles, while keeping his record pristine. Attention to detail in his edits and interactions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support little likelihood will abuse the tools. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong support: Good encyclopedic contributions, experience in the trenches, civil contributions to disputes, good answers to the questions, solid understanding of policy. Will be an excellent admin. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - I don't have time to closely examine this users entire history and edits, however I do trust that Tim Vickers would not nominate someone unqualified so I'm going to support. If serious oppositions arise and they concern me then I'll change my vote respectively. For now though I see no issues. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. -- Merope 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support looks good to me. Hut 8.5 20:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - I was reading some of the comments that you left on your Ref Desk buddies' talk pages, and well, you're a helluva lot smarter than I am, because I didn't get the pun either (or hardly anything else you were talking about). Jauerback 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support--MONGO 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support should be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 02:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per Sluzzellin above and the candid nature of David's answer to Q3. K. Scott Bailey 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. A great editor as well. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Rudget _ 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support You want that mop. So do I. You deserve it.
    talk 23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
33. Sure. He's been reasonable in my experience, yet has a curiously low number of supports. Friday (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. support I was pleasantly surprised that Enzyme made it to FAC. Very often for science articles we either dumb them down too much or make them not explainable to the laypeople but Enzyme was in the Goldilocks spot. However, writing ability has little to do with ability as an admin. Luckily, David has shown to be consistent, calm, reasonable and having a good background in policy. We should have made him an admin long ago. JoshuaZ 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - recognise this user from the Reference Desks and trust them to use the tools productively. Carcharoth 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support-in the strongest way I can. I will never forget your kindness and your assistance, David, in the midst of some difficult times. I think you will make a superb admin. Clio the Muse 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - per noms above. Good luck!
    Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support I actually have a friend called David D... Phgao 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 06:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support without hesitation. I would have co-nominated if I had had my eye on the ball. David is a superb editor, extremely reasonable and I trust his interpretation of our policies and that he has the temperament to implement them under sometimes challenging circumstances. Rockpocket 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Sandstein 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Good user. Acalamari 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support - What User:Rockpocket said, and then some! (And glad I didn't miss this one as I usually miss these : ) - jc37 09:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Excellent bloke. Alun 11:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. It was (is) a pleasure working with David D. Extremely thoughtful and insightful editor.
    AndrewGNF 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
47. Crawling-out-of-the-woodwork-for-unnecessary-pileon support. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Biophys 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - yet another fine candidate! Deserves to be made a sysop. Lradrama 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Good editor, they'll do fine with the mop. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support John254 03:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support You are ready. Good luck. Carlosguitar 11:40, 12 November 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.