Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:09, 5 July 2009

Davemeistermoab

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (44/13/2); 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, wikipedia 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)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. An editor who has been editing the project consistently for three months has begun to be interested in road articles. Specifically, the editor disagrees with the notability of some road articles and proposes that roads should only have one article dedicated to each, and adds a merge tag to your FA, U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. The editor has reverted the removal of the tag by an uninvolved user, and continues to claim that the particular aspect of road is not notable. What administrative actions, if any, would you take?

A: Administrative action: none, as there is no violation of 3RR or similar. Assuming the situation degrades into edit warring, I'd recuse myself and ask another admin to judge the situation. Non-admin actions: I'd refer both editors to the notability guideline put together by the USRD project to give guidance on this subject and request they discuss changing the guideline there.Dave (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

5. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Misplaced Pages? That is, what do you think an ideal Misplaced Pages would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I am of the opinion that many media sources devote too much attention to subjects that have a pop culture appeal and not enough attention to advances in science, political misdeeds, etc. I am also of the opinion that one should be accommodating to certain factors when making a decision on sources and notability. For example, It's much easier to find reliable issues on an event that happened in New York City in 2001 than it would be for an event that happened in a remote area hundreds of years ago, even though the two events could have had an equal impact on humanity. Were I to spot an example of each at an AfD discussion, I would expect more and better sources on the former than the latter. That's not an indication of how I'd vote, just how I'd feel.Dave (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

5a. Thank you for the detailed answer. I would like a further clarification. I gather that you feel certain "academic"/long ago topics can be notable without an abundance of source, however I am unclear about whether you feel certain current pop culture items should be considered non-notable despite coverage? (That is are you saying some trivial topics should be excluded? Or are you just saying we should try to focus on more important things that may not be well covered, but that there is still room for both?)

A: There is room for both. To give a more specific example, it's hard to argue that Family Guy is a cultural phenomenon, and as such deserves an article. However, I grow frustrated when I see articles about an unrelated subject with a one-liner, such as, "XYZ was mentioned in episode 1234 of Family Guy where Peter..." If the article is not frequently edited, I'll usually delete. If it appears there are active editors, I'll usually ask what relevance this has on the article.

The best example I can think of regarding sources (or lack thereof) is my work with the Mountain Meadows massacre. While the massacre is well documented, by definition, one side didn't survive to tell their side of the story. As such virtually all primary sources are one-sided. Only recently have secondary sources begun to appear that would meet the WP:RS thresholds. However, that does not detract from notability. This event is one of many stories about the what otherwise good people are capable of doing while submerged in a toxic mix of fear and unquestioned loyalty to a charismatic leader. In my opinion, these stories need to be told. I try to stick to what is known; and present context where secondary sources are necessarily relying on speculation. I've made mistakes in doing this. However, I believe I've tried to be flexible and learn from the experience.Dave (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and please advise if this does not address your concerns.Dave (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A: Most notability guidelines are vague, out of necessity. In the BIO guideline under entertainers I see a few flaws, such as

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Taken literally, one must first establish the notability of the film, before they can establish the notability of the actor/director/whatever. With the second point, those are relative standards, for example, the article on cult movie is subject to content disputes on what is a cult movie.

In the past, if I wasn't sure weather to vote delete or not, I've tried to start a discussion. If an article is truly notable, it should be able to be defended as such to a reasonable audience.Dave (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Sk8er5000

7. Would you be open to recall of the admin tools?

A:

General comments

• Links for Davemeistermoab: Davemeistermoab (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Davemeistermoab can be found here.

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

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

    Agreed, I would move slowly. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.Dave (talk) 18:34, 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? 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)

    And so I am also trolling, then, because I agree with Ottava? I am explicitly looking for high-quality contributions in RfA candidates, but I'm not trying to rubber-stamp some criteria. If there are critical issues with their contributions—fatal, policy-breaking flaws—should this not be brought up? In the interest of everyone, I suggest taking further discussion to the talk, Ottava and Mitch. But please, no names. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Wasn't reffering to you, David, was referring the first two, Ottava and Peter.Mitch/HC32 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't mean to go all persecution complex on you. Still, discussions at RfA get a little heated, it's best not to drag them out at this venue at least. That's what the talk page is for :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:13, 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)
22. Support--Giants27 (c|s) 17:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Support — As an editor that has worked with Dave for over a year and a half now working on articles, I find his contributions to the encyclopedia to be valuable. As a comment to the bureaucrat that's reviewing this, please note something about one of the opposition below. Mgillfr (talk · contribs) is currently the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mgillfr in which Dave is a party. As is being demonstrated there, Dave's been patient in trying to mentor this editor, but his efforts get rebuffed. If the opposition takes issue with articles, the proper forum for that discussion is WP:FARC, not here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong support It's a collaborative wiki, so perfection is not required. It's all about fixing each others mistakes and combining our strengths. Thanks for your contributions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    This may very well be the first time I've ever agreed with somebody 110%. :) –Juliancolton |  19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Nice point, ChildofMidnight. AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

25. Support, I agree with ChildofMidnight. Theleftorium 19:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Support He seems like an intelligent guy. I can trust him to run things. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support No reason to oppose. Good luck. America69 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Adequate knowledge of admin function, and has made it evident during this discussion that he has sufficient patience to do them calmly. Some klnowledge of article writing is necessary in an admin, but not particular skill at every part of it. DGG (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment :I am great admirer of you and in particular in the deletion area.The User wishes to work in Deletion namely WP:AFD,WP:CSD ,WP:PROD and WP:IFD Now how can one work in areas without experience of having worked there ?I do not see it in the edits. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

29. Support If the opposers are correct, then hopefully he can modify his writing style. However, I don't consider this to be a valid reason not to give him a mop. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Admins need to be able to use the tools responsibly, not write brilliant prose. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: this is not an issue of 'prose' but an issue of logical and grammatical errors, and of verifiability. Stifle, you of all people should appreciate the need for administrators to understand what they are making judgments about, i.e. the need for understand content (Stifle absurdly and needlessly tried to delete one of my articles some time ago, and was duly reproved, correct?). Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

31. Support - per ChildofMidnight. AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Handles opposes reasonably well. Writing imperfect, but perfect prose and no OR are unattainable goals. What is important is that the principles are understood. Their application is always debatable.John Z (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    No original research is like every other a necessary encyclopedic standard and not something we can just say "its okay if you don't bother". It is a policy. It was agreed to as a community consensus standard. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

33. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support in direct contrast to OR's oppose. I personally see nothing wrong with Dave's edits and we need more people like him because he is not afraid to make contributions to the projects. Nobody is perfect and we don't need people nitpicking their contributions to find any reason to oppose. Besides, I don't think any of that would hurt somebody's ability to function as an admin. Tavix |  Talk  21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    You see nothing long with claiming a source states something which it clearly does not? I hope you never go to college or have a professor that bothers to review your essays to see if a source actually says what you claim it does. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

35. Support The candidate has a clean block log and as this RFA shows can handle himself under fire. I've gone through the opposes and taken part in the discussion on this talk page. The plagiarism discussion seems to be unrelated to this candidate, other than in terms of RFA !voters coordinating what they are checking for. The rest seems to be largely a misunderstanding amongst some of the opposers as to our policy on verifiability. wp:verifiability currently says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If editors wish to change the policy to "Editors shall provide reliable sources for all material that they write" this RFA is not the place to change policy. The issue here is can we trust this candidate to wield the mop in accordance with policy, in the absence of any reason not to trust the candidate and with plenty of reasons to trust him I support. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    The above user seems ignorant that citations are needed throughout a page when put up for Feature Article status, and attributing a source to information not contained in the source is extremely academically dishonest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    WSC, I think you're misunderstanding me. My issue isn't with non-use of sources, which you seem to be rebutting; it's about misuse of sources. Yes, on occasion we allow unsourced statements to remain until challenged (although I'll point you towards "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."), but the two examples I gave were of adding sources which don't support the statements made, which is a different matter altogether. – iridescent 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Iridescent, I'm not sure we are as far apart as you might think. My point is that not every fact in an article needs citing, but I see no contradiction between that and "pseudo information should be excised ruthlessly" or "Material that should be removed without discussion includes contentious material about a living person, clear examples of original research, and anything that is ludicrous or damaging to the project" as WP:When_to_cite puts it. I'm not familiar enough with US roads to know whether any of the information in question falls into that category, or whether it falls into WP:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed. In particular "Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions." ". Sourcing at FA is indeed stricter than our default, but it still links to and includes wp:When_to_cite. But more pertinently, we are deciding here whether to appoint someone as an admin, not as a substitute for SandyGeorgia. If you think that one of the candidate's FA articles has flaws that an FA reviewer should have picked up that's interesting, but I think it more relevant to wp:FAC than RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    The second question asks what the user's best contributions are. Gaming the FA system while putting forth something academically dishonest is definitely not something that anyone should be proud of, and it is evidence to not trust them. He would have to know that the FA standards for citations would require such a degree of citing and passing these off as such is highly inappropriate and a blockable offense if done egregiously. This is not something you can just shrug off lightly. It gives a bad reputation to FA and Misplaced Pages as a whole and is insulting to those who work hard to put forth content without passing it off as something that it is not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    If you think he gamed the system, then why don't you take it to FARC? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    FAR requires 6 months to have passed (Route 50 is 29 March 2009 - so September). This passed in April. When Theleftorium was involved in an FA that had problems revealed during his RfA, that was close enough to allow that FA to go to FAR. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    So... why did the article pass if it doesn't meet the FA standards? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Probably for the same reason that there are so many supports stating that they don't care - people don't have standards or the same respect for policies so they let such improprieties get by without a care. I can point you to where GAs are gamed constantly, where some people wait months for a review and others can get 2 or 3 passed in a day by their friends. It happens and the best way to prevent it is to not allow those who do it to get away with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    So you consider yourself the prosecutor, judge, and jury in this case? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    We are all part of an encyclopedia. It is our obligation as members of this encyclopedia to defend the encyclopedia's integrity. Those who do not stand up for our policies and guidelines that ensure the encyclopedia's integrity are not doing their job here. Every single person who is accepting of falsifying of references is contributing to the destruction of this encyclopedia. Since you are a member of the roads wikiproject, you should be ashamed that a fellow member should dishonor that project in such a way and give them a bad reputation. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    You have yet to prove that such falsification has occurred. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    See the talk page. Unless you haven't read it, there is no way to claim such. The one instance was a paragraph cited to two sources claiming that Route 50 had such attributes when the source clearly lacks any claim that Route 50 has such descriptions. Another claims something about Route 80 when Route 80 is not even mentioned. This would take a serious case of denial to claim that there isn't falsification there. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    The talk page critique is hard to read; any author could slip anything by if theycrammedtheirtexttogether. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    First you claim there is no problem. Now you are claiming that you were unable to read the very obvious series of problems pointed out. Have you even bothered to look yourself? It is obvious to anyone who takes his pages at randomly and looks at what the sources actually say. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

36. Support Looks like a good user to me (the opposes are unpersuasive as to his likely administrative ability). I am concerned by relative lack of AfD experience, as this is one of the areas Dave proposes to work in, but I don't think RfA is so much about demonstrated administrative competence as demonstrated trust (and lack of demonstrated incompetence), so I'm happy to support. Ray 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I am primarily looking two things in an admin: dedication to the project and a strong ability to reason. Dave's dedication to the project is apparent from his steady contributions to the project for 2+ years (plus intermittent contributions from before that). His reasoning abilities are demonstrated by his thoughtful answers to my questions. Thus I am happy to support his candidacy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support, looks fine. --candle•wicke 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support- Looks great to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support The oppose votes appear to be a petty witchhunt of some kind. I've known Dave from his USRD work and he's one who has the temperament to be an admin. He's one who will always make sure he's doing something right by consulting with others in cases where he's unsure. Ability to work with others is, in my opinion, one of the main characteristics one should look for in an admin. --Polaron | Talk 04:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    comment on what basis do you judge it to be a 'witchhunt'? You have checked and verified the claims made below? Or is it that Dave seems to be a nice guy? Peter Damian (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

41. Support I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more admin-type experience, but above all I don't want to see the sorts of opposes we have here determining an RFA. And after all I don't have any real concerns. Looie496 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    So, people shouldn't oppose because of a long history of blatant policy violation? We already have enough corrupt admin, why do you want another? Ottava Rima (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

42. Support per ChildofMidnight. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Diffs such as the one offered in the 06:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC) oppose, far from supporting the notion that this nominee's writing skills are under par, actually illustrate the contrary. I am disturbed by the sideshow of opposition strategy which has little to do with Davemeistermoab's readiness to take up the tools. He is ready. He'll use them well. — Athaenara ✉ 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Why do you think this? I gave a detailed rationale on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

44. Support. Does it really matter if his prose aren't brilliant? I can't see him stuffing anything up in admin areas. Aaroncrick 11:29, 5 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)

   I'm not totally fond of what Peter's been doing around RFA lately, but it's certainly valid to oppose RFAs. I oppose more than I support, myself. If someone is cruising to success and I agree with it, I rarely comment. If someone is cruising to success and I disagree, I'm likely to state my opinion. Numbers are not the point to be made here. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 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)

   I've given it a shot, but I'm not sure why you didn't fix it yourself. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 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)

   - Opposing every new administrator running? Really? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 5 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)

   That said, the Four corners article was not nearly so bad. I'm not sure what to make of this. Peter Damian (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you are referring to Four Corners Monument, a GA I nominated. Four Corners is in terrible shape, was quickly thrown together, and I feel it would be unfair to judge me on the content of that article.Dave (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Correct. Four Corners Monument was good. The other one, as you say, is terrible. Peter Damian (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors - it explains it all. I see problems with grammatical (and a bit of spelling) structures throughout Davemeistermoab's work on multiple articles. Check history on U.S. Route 395 in California, Four Corners Monument, and U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Mgillfr (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Closing bureaucrat please note Dave's vote on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mgillfr. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   If you are going to mention such things, why not mention that you are part of the wiki roads project and work with Dave? It would definitely show a lack of objectivity. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   This comment is

   There are several USRD users that I would not support for adminship. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   Should we wish to discuss objectivity, how's this? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, lets talk about objectivity - you have pointed out two people that may have other reasons. However, I can list you and 20 people above that are friends of the user and don't care about blatant policy violations and severe impropriety. That is a severe disrespect for our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per above.--Caspian blue 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Sorry about this, and I did come here expressly to support, after an argument a frank discussion with Peter about this. To avoid what may have been problems only affecting a single article, I deliberately chose another of yours to review in light of Peter, Ottava and David's concerns (Utah State Route 128), and the very first reference I checked (ref 3 at the time of writing) turns out to be a falsified claim ("Residents of Moab frequently refer to SR-128 as the river road", with this article which says nothing of the sort as the sole source). "Onion Creek receives its name from naturally occurring minerals that produce a strong odor in the stream" has this as the sole source, which again says nothing of the kind (the only mention of odor of any kind is "Stinking Spring itself smells strongly of sulfur gas", with no mention of onions). Websites do change, and if it was just a one-off case I'd happily assume that that was indeed what the site said at the time you accessed it, but there's a clear pattern here. – iridescent 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Agree - the first link you mention may just have been broken. But the second was still there, and it says nothing about the name 'onion' being connected with the smell of onions. Peter Damian (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have responded on the talk page to this charge.Dave (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I don't see experience in the administrative areas you say you would be involved in, and while prose problems in the mainspace are of secondary concern, it is vital that administrators be able to communicate with other editors effectively. I don't see evidence of that in your writing here, and you've made several errors in your answers to Q1 and Q2. I think you have also erred in your treatment of those who raised concerns on the talk page. Your responses seem to be alternatively combative and dismissive, rather than collaborative. None of this means that I think you have a negative effect on the project in your current capacity. I hope that you will continue to add content, as long as it is verifiable. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   comment. Again, my objection is not to 'prose' or 'style', but to logical and grammatical errors (some of them connected with NPOV) in the articles. Peter Damian (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps it's my failure, but I've always taken "prose" to mean "writing with a grammatical structure" (in opposition to verse, which ignores such structure). At any rate, this is pretty far off topic. Dekimasuよ! 01:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   It's very on-topic. People above are downplaying the problems with the article on the grounds that they are not polished style or perfectly written. I object to this. Grammatical and particularly logical problems with writing show poor thinking, and suggest poor judgment. Peter Damian (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose User has been around since Jan 2006 but did not find the user involving him/her in Deletions that isWP:AFD or WP:CSD or WP:IFD orWP:PROD where you wish to work in .But as the answer to Quesion 1 the user wants to be involved in deletion.But clearly has no experience.Deletion in particular WP:CSD is a very sensitive area and for example only 2 users are involved the recent page patroller and the Admin and most proably a new user creating his/her first page(which is not an attack page or copyright violation} whether the page is to be deleted within (it is marked in many cases within minutes of its creation) or not is a decision taken by the admin and I feel in areas like this experience is required and moreover WP:CSD deletion unlike Protection of Pages or even WP:UAA or Blocks another admin and other users see it and if is wrong or questionable raise it and change it .But in WP:CSD normarlly no one checks which new page has been deleted by another admin and whether is correct or wrong.Hence if he/she wishes to be involved in deletions he/she needs to be experienced.Hence feel alone involved in WP:CSD Sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   What? Do you mean to say that he has never voted in an AFD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Davemeistermoab says he wants to work in areas such as dealing with images and AFD, but I have concerns about his lack of experience in those areas. He has only contributed to a total of 6 AFDs in the three years he's been around (although his AFD contributions themselves were unproblematic, he just doesn't have many of them). And I can't seem to find any edits of his to specifically image-related pages like WP:IFD. I apologise in advance if I've missed something here - Dave, feel free to correct me and point me to where you've had experience in this area. But as it is, I just don't feel confident enough in the user's experience in these areas to give him the admin tools. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose The editor says he wants to work with (among other things) images if he becomes an admin. Right now, he only has 2 edits to the file namespace. Normally when I come across an RFA like this I suggest on the editor's talk page that they get more experience with images before using the tools. I do not normally oppose for this reason though. This RFA is an exception. He only has 2 edits to the file namespace. Assuming his 41 deleted edits were also in the file namespace, he'd still have less than 1% of his edits there. I think that is too low.--Rockfang (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but he's also somewhat active at Commons, so his file namespace editcount here should be irrelevant. –Juliancolton |  23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose Per the above concerns regarding lack of experience in deletion areas. I'd prefer to see more edits in those areas before supporting.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Editing concerns and errors; I also find the lack of experience in the areas the nominee in interested. I usually ony care if the person is wise, mature and polite enough to do the job (and not just knowing the tech aspect), but these problems as presented in talk are deeply disconcerting. - Arcayne () 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. We're not electing moderators for a web forum, but people who will be the custodians of article space. We all understand that you sometimes have to use poor sources, but introducing sources which do not pertain to the subject at all shows, at the very best, a poor grasp of WP:RS. How many deletion discussions, PRODs or CSDs revolve around evaluating sources to verify an article? A great many. The nominee's grasp of WP:RS appears inadequate to judge consensus on these matters at present. If admin roles were separated into different areas and the tools accordingly limited, I'd probably support for non-mainspace adminship, but as such, not now. MLauba (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm concerned by the accusations by the opposers, although they don't necessarily relate to what the candidate wishes to do with the new powers. If people think that challenge can go unanswered, or indeed form a reason to support, I think they are wrong. I'd like to hear more on that issue - from both sides. - Jarry1250  17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Jarry, I think the best way I can respond is so say, "read the complaint and judge for yourself". It lists several grammar error I've made (guilty, I confess), and that I made the ghastly error of saying "4" in the article when the source says "2+2=?". However the complaint proceeds to accuse me of far more serious crimes, such as plagiarism, and ironically synthesis. The only one I feel the need to address are my supposed violations of OR. Highway articles are a little tricky, in that for many important details the only "official" source is a map and/or government logs in a spreadsheet format. As such, sometimes the line of OR does get fuzzy. However, what I've done has been discussed, ad nauseam, in multiple forums (including WT:OR and numerous FAC venues). So far, it has passed muster with people who have actually examined the situation. Hope this helps.Dave (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I suggest you answer your critics there. I'm yet to feel I know enough definitively to come down off the fence. Perhaps if your particular situation has been discussed before, you could point me in the right direction. I will also be taking how you answer this into account, as others I'm sure will, even if the allegations aren't enough to derail your RfA in themselves. - Jarry1250  17:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I will respond. I do request some time to allow things to calm down over there.Dave (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW I have advised Dave not to reply in detail to questions about his article writing. And so has another experienced editor. It's not actually the subject that should be under discussion. DGG (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   DGG, standard question 2 asks what a user feels is their best work. What they chose reflects them in their understanding of how they contribute around here. Dave has chosen article writing. There are many serious problems that deal with both policies and guidelines in those articles. If Dave does not respond to them, then he is saying that he has not contributed anything worth while. Question 2 is vital to a candidate at RfA and your recommendation would severely disable his ability to pass. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   (ec) DGG, I think you've misunderstood the comments by myself and I believe Ottava. My issue isn't with writing style (my own prose style is dull and over-technical), but with the apparent misunderstanding of the core policy of verifiability. – iridescent 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Seconded. DGG has completely misunderstood the issue. I agree that articles should not be oversourced. But when a source is provided, it should support the claim. Such bogus sourcing is worse - far worse - than no source at all. Peter Damian (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have concerns - not in the editor personally, nor enough to oppose. But I do think that adhereance to policy could be better. It's up to him whether he wants to try to alay my concerns - which is not difficult ("Sorry, yes, point learnt, will be more careful in future" would be enough). - Jarry1250  21:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   I have stated up front that I'm not a proficient writer. I have tried to improve my writing skills with my wikipedia efforts. I have made mistakes, made apologies where appropriate, and tried to learn from them. I have improved and will continue to do so. I honestly don't know what more I can say.Dave (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   So you want him to copy and paste your statement to buy your support? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not suggesting he did anything deliberately, I'd just like more acceptance of mistakes (and less "pitchfork brigade"). - Jarry1250  10:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2. The sheer number of problems pointed out in the talk page makes me worried that the candidate may not be able to enforce Misplaced Pages's content guidelines (not being able to write well or interested in writing well is one thing, but an admin should at least understand these things even if he doesn't plan on spending much time in the article namespace himself). While I don't know much about editing road articles and I'm not really qualified to comment on most of the content issues raised raised by Ottava Rima at the talk page; Ottava is known for being a very thorough quality controller and I think his points should be paid attention to, even if some might find them nitpicky. Staying neutral since I'm not really familiar with the candidate's contributions outside this area and I can't think very critically about the particular article in question, but leaning towards oppose because of the article-writing problems (like I said, even if an admin doesn't plan on spending most of his time article-writing, he should at least understand it well--just about everything else at Misplaced Pages is secondary to it). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacing comment that was removed

I'm replacing the comment that was recently removed as it is blindingly obvious that how it is connected with the debate above. People suich as User:Stifle are claiming that understanding content and style is unrelated to the responsibilities of an admin. This is not correct. See below. Peter Damian (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS

- - This ridiculous and stupid message placed on my talk page underscores exactly my complaint about the uninformed mob that hangs around this place. If people took trouble to read a bit more, then this place would perhaps resemble an enyclopedia. Sorry for the capital letters I am absolutely fed up. Peter Damian (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)