Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Daveswagon

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

Daveswagon

Final (1/6/2) Ended 05:35, 2006-08-06 (UTC)

Daveswagon (talk · contribs) – I've been using Wikipedia since June of 2005 and recent events such as the Colbert Report's "Wikiality" fiasco as well as my growing desire to improve and maintain Wikipedia more affectively have motivated me to apply for this admin position. I feel a strong pride for Wikipedia, as I'm sure most users do, and as I will soon be traveling to a country in Wikipedia is banned, I feel even stronger about this. Though I frankly doubt that, should I be granted this position, I will use my admin powers with great frequency, I still want to have these tools readily available when they are needed. I think my time spent on Wikipedia has greatly improved my "online maturity" and even in other web forums I feel I'm much more cool-headed and less vested in seeing a certain opinion win than I once was. I will, of course, let my editing history speak for itself. If the community feels I'm not ready, so be it. I'll just continue to add to my history until I am.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously accept my own nomination.--Daveswagon 00:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by candidate. DarthVad e r 12:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As I occasionally help with wikification and cleanup, I come across pages in need of deletion that I would be able to help with. Mostly, though, I intend to use rollbacks as needed in the course of my editing duties and page protects and blocks when my back is against the wall. As I read a lot of high-traffic sites like Fark.com religiously, it would be good to have some of these powers when such sites redirect high-volume traffic to Wikipedia. Most of the time another admin gets to it first, but surely the more eyes on this issue, the better.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I'm most pleased with tubing (recreation) which I've contributed heavily to and am trying to find sources on as well as Sartell, Minnesota. Most of the edits I make are minor cleanup and corrections, and while I'm proud of them on the whole, nothing more terribly specific comes to mind.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I tend to roam the less-popular articles on Wikipedia as they are the ones in greatest need of improvement for obvious reasons. Because of the lack of attention these articles get, I've never been in much of an edit war. I've had slight problems with link spam being re-added to pages and semi-persistant vandalism, but that's about the extent of it. As I said in my desciption, Wikipedia has made me very cool-headed, and I deal with these problems with a calm warming and simple fix. I've yet to become angry or overly-excited on account of Wikipedia.

Comments

See Daveswagon's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Username	daveswagon
Total edits	1164
Distinct pages edited	600
Average edits/page	1.940
First edit	19:28, 15 June 2005
	
(main)	974
Talk	89
User	30
User talk	18
Image	24
Wikipedia	29

Support

Moral Support keep it up, you'll get there! Stubbleboy 05:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose You look like a good user, but there's a few points for which I'm opposing... first of all, you say you wouldn't really use the tools that much, and from your answer to Q1, it seems like your main tasks don't really need them. (There's nothing wrong with that, you can still be a fine user without being an admin.) The other, more strong point (I probably wouldn't oppose just based on admitting to being an infrequent adminner) is your small edit count in the WP space. Admin work takes place mostly behind the scenes, and edits in the WP and WPtalk spaces show a familiarity with policy as well as such work in the past. I'd say keep on doing what you're doing, and if you really want to be an admin, getting more involved in those sorts of things will help in a future nomination. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would like to see more Wikipedia-space edits so I know you have at least some understanding of policy. Once you get that count up, I'd probably be happy to support. Also, as Goldom said, wikification and cleanup don't really require admin tools. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I checked your edit counts, I think that you need more contributions and experiences. I personally don't like to oppose him/her for admin. You need more works so that I could support. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You sound like a decent editor, but on looking through most of your WP space contribs, I didn't find much information either way about knowledge of policy. I echo the suggestion below to participate in AfD discussions, as they are a good way to learn (some) policies. You might also look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards and come back when you're more in line with some of the regular's standards. I'd also suggest withdrawing and perhaps trying again later.--Kchase T 02:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of wikipedia space edits. Viridae ^Talk 03:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of experience and both talk page and Wikipedia space edits. Michael 05:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Too new, strongly suggest candidate to withdraw and keep up the good work of editing until sufficient experience is gained.--Andeh 01:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Good editor, but not active enough to garner my support. Please take into account Goldom's comments above - consider involving yourself more in the Wikipedia process, through WP:RCP or WP:AFD. I'll happily support you in a few months' time, if you've involved yourself more in the project since then. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.