Daveydweeb (talk · contribs) It's my birthday today -- in meatspace, not my Wikibirthday :) -- and since I'd like to request adminship at some point in the nearish future, I thought this would be as good a time as any to see how I'm going. I've previously gone through this process, but that was quite a while ago, so I'd appreciate some updated feedback from then.

Important links:

• My old editor review.
• My old RfA.
• My admin coaching page, although User:Yanksox doesn't appear to be around at the moment.

Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 02:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... I just realise now that this should technically have been at Wikipedia:Editor review/Daveydweeb 3, not 2, since this is my third editor review... whoops. No matter. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

• Argh. Just do something wrong, so I can call you out about it... vandalise, or troll, or launch a personal crusade against a WP organisation. No, seriously, you're doing excellent work. I think I'll steal Daniel's review style (AGAIN). It's dry, scientific, and ultimately better than a tl;dr litany of your contributions.

• Statistics

• Activity: Well-spread across most namespaces, no major declines. Consistent editing rate, so no complaints there.
• Mainspace: Good number, about a third of your total. And it's good to see some specific article focus with personal computer game, etc which is probably going to be my major knockback...
• Wikipedia: Good number, extensive participation in AfDs etc. Have you considered getting more involved in the AfD process? Take a look at WP:DELPRO#Non admins closing discussions. I've seen you go to AN/I once in a while, so you may want to hang around there more often, see if you can help people out. Also, since you're working on getting personal computer game up to FA-status, you might want to hang around WP:PR and WP:FAC, just to get more of an idea on what people look for in featured articles. At the end of the day, though, I think your participation in WWPC will be in your favour, because it shows that you've been able to discuss policies, processes and happenings in a calm, rational manner, and should be able to do that as an admin as well.
• User talk: Good number. Man, the two of us talk a lot to each other! :)

• Behaviour

• Civility: Yep, always civil, calm, and willing to answer questions in a helpful manner.
• Courtesy and kindness: This is good too - I've seen you being, well, nicer to new users these days :) Any concerns from your last RfA about biting should have passed by now.
• Participation in dispute resolution: As Daniel said on my editor review, it's a good thing to have on your Wikiresume - nobody wants an admin who can't hack it.
• Time period: Active for about 7 months - that should satisfy most RfA-goers.

• Final thoughts

• I think you'll make a pretty strong candidate in the very near future. I see no glaring mistakes here, and can't think of any reason why people might oppose. Good luck with it, I'll be happy to nom ya :) riana_dzasta 11:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoot review - I'm jealous! Need I say more? Sure, why not? Okay, as people up there have stated, you are a well rounded (edits, not anything else.... :)) wikipedian, who's always well thought & civil. I don't know why you aren't an admin already either. Everything's good. Would have no troubles supporting your RfA... Which I'm going to do right now... If you'll accept of course! Thanks, Spawn Man 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm busy right now, but I'm just making a note to come back later ^^ riana_dzasta 13:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No urgency, I'm barely on a computer for a while yet. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

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

   Yes, but I'm always looking to improve them. I have a good article in Personal computer game, although that article's recent peer review determined that there were a number of major changes still to be made in order to raise to FA-status. It's a lot of work, but I'm pleased with how it's going so far, and I'm looking forward to doing what I can when I have more time.

2. 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?

   Of course, who hasn't? Back in the early days at Wikipedia, I had what could be described as "a bit of a tiff" with User:Xino, regarding his use of copyvio material, "owning" of articles and the like, all of which ended with his indefinite blocking when the case was taken to ArbCom. From that, I gained a pretty good experience in distancing myself from arguments on Wikipedia, so these days I'm generally very easily going and difficult to annoy.

   More recently, I came across User:Nunh-huh, an admin, who I don't believe reacted well to my inappropriate tagging of an article with {{db-repost}} (only the conversation as I was directly involved is shown in that diff, but it continued for a bit afterwards). When User:Chacor took it to RfC, I responded as shown at that page and on the talk; while I believe my initial handling of the dispute was passable (not great), I'm unhappy that I became as worked up as I did when it was taken to RfC. That's probably the worst dispute I've had in the last six months or so.

3. Optional question from riana_dzasta, with no hint of payback or retribution If you did receive sysop privileges, which tools would you find the most useful?

   I'm fairly certain that I'd be relying most heavily on the deletion tool. My focus is on newpage patrol, really, and as an admin I would spend a fair amount of time working to keep the size of CAT:CSD down to reasonable size (it recently reached ~400 items, which is just insane). On top of that, making sure that ripe PROD articles are deleted appropriately would be a similar kind of thing, although I'd spend less time there than at CSD.

   The second tool which I would find most useful would be the ability to block troublesome users. Recent change patrol, which I spend time on whenever NPP doesn't really appeal, often turns up users that need a quick block to limit continuing harm. In this vein, I'd been keeping an eye on WP:AIV and working on RCP as time allows.

4. Optional question from riana_dzasta, not stolen from Moreschi Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?

   Established users become that way because they've proven capable of contributing to Wikipedia, so deciding to block them is an important decision to make. The tl;dr version of WP:BLOCK notes that users may be blocked "...to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm.", so I'd only consider blocking a user if it was clear they were harming Wikipedia or its users in a way that outweighed their contributions. Some specific examples off the top of my head would be legal threats (obviously), persistent and disruptive trolling, persistent personal attacks against other users, and potentially edit warring -- although only the first of these would initially receive a block of any more than a week or so.

5. Optional question from riana_dzasta, who's never seen this question before, and never talked to Moreschi Under what circumstances would you consider protecting a page?

   Page protection is not an area that interests me particularly, nor one where I would spend a particularly large chunk of my time. In all likelihood, I would refer cases that I suspect warrant protection to WP:RPP for another, more experienced administrator to look at. However, I would protect a page if it was clear that an ongoing edit war was causing significant harm to Wikipedia itself, and that the users involved needed time to calm down -- the idea here would be simply that protecting the page would ideally encourage the users to compromise.

   Semi-protection probably only be useful to me when an article was being bombarded by anonymous edits, as can happen when -- say -- an entire web forum makes a concerted effort to influence the direction of a specific target.

6. Optional question from riana_dzasta, not stolen from Terence Ong Hypothetical situation time. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   The first step would be to talk to the deleting admin, and expain to them the reason that I believe the article should not have been deleted. At this point, I would ask them simply to re-create it, rather than doing it myself. If they disagreed, and refused to recreate it, I'd consider taking it to deletion review to see if I could convince the community that it would be a worthwhile article to having. If that fails, I'd just step away and leave the article alone, to avoid breaching what -- by that point -- would be a clear consensus against the article.

   It might be helpful to recreate a version of this article as a subpage of my userpage, writing and sourcing it in a way that I believe satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. That would provide a more compelling case for re-creation, although it's failure at DRV would mean I'd immediately delete the subpage as well.