Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jdavidb

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Jdavidb[edit]

Final (23/0/3) ending 20:05 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Jdavidb (talk · contribs) – My first registered edit to Wikipedia was on 20 February 2004. I highly respect and agree with Wikipedia's policies of NPOV and consensus. Lately I've seen heavy involvement in keeping Wikipedia clean from spam, vandalism, and unneutralized points of view. I'd kind of like having the additional tools an admin has to fight vandalism, and I believe my history shows I could be trusted with these tools. Jdavidb 20:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Very strong support. A true Wikipedian who cares more about NPOV than about promoting his own views.[1] Ann Heneghan (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support—I dont know, I just have a good feeling about you. You still need to work on your edit count in the Wikipedia namespace though; please promise me you'll do that. Things you could do include voting here regularly, and voting in AFDs etc.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

    Actually, I don't think either of those are good indicators for adminship. Dmcdevit·t 23:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support KHM03 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support The Fascist Chicken 21:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - An infrequent admin is better than none at all. I trust you and you meet my standards. --Celestianpower hab 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. More people who want to fight linkspam are always welcome. He needn't ever touch the deletion process for all I care. --Michael Snow 23:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. I've seen plenty of evidence of good interaction and judgment. Also see User:Jdavidb/Linkspam. Dmcdevit·t 23:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Suppoert El_C 06:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I can trust you.--Jusjih 08:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Kirill Lokshin 09:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cool. JuntungWu 17:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Obviously a good editor, and one that is committed to the idea of wikipedia, and has a life outside of it. Who cares if you took a break?--Rogerd 21:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support good and committed. deserves it if anyone does.--Alhutch 06:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, you'll do. — JIP | Talk 18:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - classic example of outstanding editing behaviour hiding behind the edit count and edit pattern. If you go through all of this user's edits and diffs (as I have done) you will find that this user is thoroughly conscientious, courteous, and consistent. Many of his contributions are mature, well thought out, and extensive. There are hardly any spelling mistakes; I consider this indicative of one who acts with care, deliberation, and precision. Although there are currently concerns that this user has not contributed to a variety of namespaces, I don't think this should necessarily be a concern here. Based on his edit history, I am confident that none of the administrative functions will be used by this user unless it is essential to the task at hand - whatever that might be. This user also seems to be very well adapted to resolving chronic, subtle problems on Wikipedia - those which take an exceptional amount of time and effort to see through to completion. Perhaps his interests at the moment are different from what I think of as a stereotypical "front line administrator" (one who deals primarily with RC patrol on a daily basis, for example) but sometimes I think we require a diversity of administrative and interpersonal skills on Wikipedia, and so I feel he would be a good fit to the community in this regard. --HappyCamper 19:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Definitely support. +sj + 07:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - seems solid - Guettarda 04:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Michael Snow and HappyCamper. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. David Gerard 15:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Good edits, good community skills; will make good admin. Support. JFW | T@lk 16:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Kudos for starting a discussion on your page about link spam and what we need to do about it. Hopefully admin privileges will allow you to drive this more. --PhilipO 18:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. X factor.—encephalon 04:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Excellent editor. --Neutralitytalk 00:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral, I think you are a good contributor, but the lack of edits to the wikipedia namespace worries me. Non-admins can and should participate in AfD, RfA, and other community votes. Until someone changes my mind, I'm neutral. -GregAsche (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: I'm really struggling with this one. As the graph shows, with the exception of just a few days, there was a huge gap of absence from Wikipedia from September of 2004 to July of 2005. Why the huge gap? Bigger concern: less than 8% of edits are in outside of Article/User namespaces. That's rather low; I'm concerned about the experience level of the user in admin appropriate areas. Use of edit summaries is strong at 92%. Average # of edits per day over the period since returning is reasonable (8.6 all days, 12.09 for days when editing). I'd like to see this nominee spend more time in admin appropriate areas. If this is addressed, I'd very happily support candidacy at a later date. --Durin 20:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are two gaps, there. The second one started in April 2005. My wife gave birth to our first child and I discovered I was very busy! I'd also been having a bit of Wiki-stress, so I decided to stay away for awhile. The Wiki-pull was too strong, though, and I did quite a bit of anonymous editing: [2] There's more than that because that link shows things done from one of my company's proxy addresses, but there are also several edits done from our dynamic IP address at home. These look too difficult to track down, though, without simply remembering what I was doing at the time.
    The first gap happened because of a surge of activity at work. Had to get away from Wikipedia because of Real Life.
    It also might not be apparent to most people looking at the graph, but I immediately noticed that my edits per day dropped dramatically in March 2004, which was when I got married. :) Jdavidb 21:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind me asking, how did you compute his edit summary percentage? Did you do it manually, or is there some tool I don't know about? -GregAsche (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    <joking>I'm deeply offended at your asking! How dare you!</joking> :-) It's an easy step past the collation of data in support of the nominee charts that I do. I have a function that parses the contribution string to see if there is an edit summary and scores a "1" if there is one, and a "0" if there isn't. Sum all the 1s, divide by the total # of edits and voila...% usage of edit summaries. If I did it manually, I'd go nuts! :-) See User:Durin/Admin nominee charts for more information. --Durin 21:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm considerably distracted by your cool graphs and data crunching. :) Out of curiosity, does an edit summary which consists of only a section heading supplied automatically, with no text added from the user, count as a 0 or a 1? Jdavidb 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It counts as a 0. While a subsection heading that is supplied automatically is slightly helpful to inform a patroller as to where the edit is in the article, it does nothing to explain what the edit was meant to accomplish, etc. Thus, a 0. I hope the data crunching on the RfA and others is proving useful. I hope it helps cure some people of editcountitis and instead focus on experience, ability, etc. --Durin 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Ive never heard of this user. Type O Spud 03:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MY/OUR COMMENTS:Dear sir (or are you a mam?), with hardly 50 edits and rarely moving out of the pages for admin nomination, you will never hear about many users. Please get involved more in the basic task for which we all are here, that is, building the wikipedia. In my most humble opinion that would be the best way to hear about the users, instead of frequenting RfA page and your pathetic and poor sounding acceptance that “I have not heard about this user”. Be bold, and go and edit, you will learn about users and shall not feel like a timid boy or girl and crying repeatedly for days: I have not heard, I have not heard. In case, you feel inhibited to write, come on, select a topic – we shall create a nice article together. That is my promise. --MissingLinks 07:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Jdavidb-edits.gif. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 20:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. At the moment, warning, reverting, and blocking for vandalism. Eventually probably working AFD (I'm starting to nominate over there more and more often).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I started the My Little Pony article which went nuts. Way too nuts. Not sure I'm proud, but it gives me something to chuckle about. :) I am really pleased about the times I've been able to come to a consensus compromise with people who completely disagreed with me personally about something. I'm particularly happy with the way editing Wikipedia has made me prone to spot bias in all writing I see. I'm particularly happy with the chance to help eliminate my own point of view from an article when I see that someone else has added it.
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. Oh, well we all have that, of course. :) I steer clear of the three revert limit and will avoid using the admin revert ability when something other than vandalism is on the line. I handle things by trying to make sure issues get discussed on the talk page, and I am always willing to respect the consensus of other editors. Occasionally I've completely left an article that was stressing me out, and I can certainly do that in the future if necessary. Jdavidb 20:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jdavidb&oldid=1142575339"