Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Roger Davies

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.


Roger Davies

[edit]

Final:(83/0/0); ended 15:10, 05 February 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (talk · contribs) -

  • Co-nomination from Woody (talk · contribs) - Well, Roger first came to my attention whilst I was going through the FAC pages and the Milhist pages some time ago now. I found Roger to be a very helpful, conscientious and knowledgable person around the Wiki. He is an assistant coordinator at Milhist which means he cleans up after the rest of us. Roger was the key architect and figure behind the successful Milhist tag and assess drive last year. Roger was always on hand to offer support to participants, and to answer any questions they may have. I think Roger has the required experience for an administrator and has demonstrated the policy knowledge neccessary to be a competent sysop. Woody (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nomination from SoLando (talk · contribs) - I first encountered Roger when I submitted Issy Smith for peer review at MILHIST. There is little that I can add that would not repeat the above. Roger is an exceptional editor, has demonstrated in his interactions with other users and contributions to the article namespace that he would be a capable and trusted adminstrator, conversant with policy and possessing the "correct temperament". He is endowed with the pre-requisites to be given the proverbial mop and broom. SoLando (Talk) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co nomination form Awadewit (talk · contribs) - I have worked with Roger Davies primarily in the area of article development. He worked patiently and carefully as part of the team that brought Hamlet to FA status - an impressive feat. He has provided detailed feedback to other editors, such as at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Dickinson/archive1. Such thoughtful reviews are rare and his insight enables other editors to improve their own contributions. Importantly, he was careful to couch his review in tactful terms and generously offered to help the editor after giving his review. Roger is a very responsible editor - he always follows up on his promises and (no small point) is very organized. I have no doubt that Roger would make a trustworthy administrator. Awadewit | talk 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank you very much for the nomination, which I accept. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: At first, the likeliest are WP:CSD, WP:AfD and WP:AIV as these areas in which I already participate as a non-admin user. Second, I would familiarise myself with the nitty-gritty of WP:RFP and WP:ANI with a view to participating. Then, I'd see what other areas are of interest and would benefit from an extra pair of hands. Admin work however is very unlikely to take over from the "day job" of content editing.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am primarily a content editor, with about 10,000 edits overall, and enjoy the related areas of WP:PR and WP:FAC. I am coming to the end of a six-month stint as an assistant coordinator at WP:MILHIST, which I have found immensely interesting and very satisfying. I do enjoy some Wiki-gnoming as well — I sometimes find it less demanding than, and a refreshing change from, article work — and have done all manner of things: reorganising categories, tagging and assessing milhist articles, New Page and Recent Changes patrol.
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: Of course, in a typed environment – without the benefit of body-language – a certain amount of friction, usually caused by misunderstanding, is inevitable. So far, fortunately, I've not been targetted by either trolls or vandals and I haven't had any particularly unpleasant experiences with other editors. This doesn't mean that I always see eye-to-eye but I do try to find a middle-course solution. On occasions when I find myself becoming too emotionally invested, I usually slow down my posting rate (by sleeping on the problem, or deliberately leaving a decent pause) before I react.

Questions from Avruch

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A ban is a community sanction applied to an editor, restricting or removing editing privileges. A block is a technical mechanism from preventing an editor or a site from disrupting Wikipedia or its editors. Blocks may be used to enforce bans.

5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A. It rather depends what the removed content was and, I suppose, whether the administrator was acting in an administrative capacity or as an editor. BLP policy is clear; every editor has a duty to remove material that is questionably sourced and/or unverifiable and/or original research. In this case, if it was a really obvious error - citing libel concerns about someone who has been dead for five hundred years - I'd probably revert it and leave a clear edit summary explaining why and inviting discussion. If it was less clear cut - reliability of sources, for example - I'd start a discussion on the talk page and seek consensus. Alternatively, I'd raise it at the BLP noticeboard.

6. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

A. Yes, I would add myself because I believe that administrators should be accountable and that recall builds confidence in individual administrators. I'd probably use a similar simple formula to Kirill Lokshin's, i.e. it would start as a request for comment and if the consensus there was that my behaviour was unbecoming, I'd resign. That said, I would certainly modify this for something more elaborate if the process was being abused.

7. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

A. The basic five pillars must be the ones that govern all Wikipedia activity. Additionally, for administrators it is particularly important to remain civil and endeavour to maintain a neutral point of view.

Question from NASCAR Fan24
8. You come across the following articles tagged for speedy deletion. Do you delete them? Please try not to look at WP:CSD unless you really don't know what a criterion is.

8.1: "Ramkumar Singh is a Writr from New Delhi. he is well know fore His book, "weather for idiots". (tagged as G1)
A: Decline (asserts notability) and copy-edit.
8.2: "Bob Roberts is a dithering idiot who currently resides at 1425 City Hall Road, Boise, Idaho, 83703. He holds the Guinness World Record for stuffing the most crayons up his nose (89)." (tagged as A7)
A: Delete as G10 (attack page)
8.3: A normal-looking page tagged as G9. You do not immediately see signs of libel or any other illegal material.
A: G9 is the Wikipedia Foundation bailiwick and editing/deletion would presumably be actioned by them rather than tagged by them. I'd probably remove the tag and refer it to the Wikipedia Foundation contacts.
8.4: "Tim Timothy is a stand-up comedian". (tagged as A1)
A: Decline A1 (it does provide context). Consider A7 instead (notability).
8.5: A category that was populated by a template; the template was deleted. (C3)
A: Delete.
8.6: Redirect: Thirty degrees, partly cloudy -> The weather in london (R3)
A: This is a weird one. Why should a generic weather statement (or possibly a song or film title, or the strength and opacity of a cocktail) redirect to London?
8.7: A screencap of a copyrighted map, and no assertion of fair use is made. (I9)
A: Delete if seven days has elapsed since tagging.
8.8: A spoiler template. (T2)
A: If it says "don't post spoilers", delete as misrepresentation of policy.
8.9: An article tagged as "listcruft" using a {{db}} template. (G6)
A: Decline speedy (inappropriate category anyway). Recommend AfD.

Questions from User:Lawrence Cohen

9. If an admin adds themselves as available for administrator recall, should this be binding on them? What if they stated during their RFA that they would join the category?
A: I think it's fine as a moral imperative but I don't see much point in sanctioning admins who shift their ground. There is, after all, considerable variation in recall procedures and little consensus over what is right or just or expedient. For example, it is easy to offer recall but then make the practicalities so byzantine that nobody bothers. I have, for instance, already said above that I would want simple and straightforward recall arrangements but would reserve the right to change them if my perception of the situation changes.
10. Do you feel that one admin should be able to reverse any one action by another admin once, if he believes in good faith that the reversal is the right decision to improve Wikipedia? If so, why? If not, why?
A: No. It would be chaotic and is unnecessary. I rarely revert (apart from from blatant vandalism and obvious mistakes) and prefer to discuss. Things usually work out well eventually.
What if a prolific but blocked user comes to you (because the blocking admin is not online), requests that you unblock him, and explains the circumstances of the block which looks like the admin may have been in error. What would you do? The Transhumanist 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. I know a couple of prolific users who can be troublesome if crossed, so prolific isn't always synonymous with saintly; I'm finding it hard to imagine a situation where an entirely innocent user is blocked (though I suppose it could happen); and the blocked user's version is likely to favour their position. As the new kid on the block (if you'll forgive the pun), I'd be very reluctant to overturn an admin's decision and would seek advice from more experienced sysops. Asking me the same question after a few months' hands on experience would probably get a different response. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(following the same theme) Would you re-delete immediately an article which was deleted by administrator X citing "WP:BLP concerns", and undeleted by administrator Y saying "take this to AfD first, I'm not 100% convinced" (where the latter administrator has been uncontactable for an hour despite requests)? Daniel (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend entirely on the precise nature of the BLPvio and the proportion of the article it occupied. All editors have a duty to follow WP:BLP to prevent harm to the individual and legal action bankrupting Wikipedia. This, I think would be my over-riding concern here. Assuming the article were long enough, best might be to delete it and replace it with a neutralised version. Funnily enough, I CSDed an article a few months which basically said "XXXXX is a drug baron and a member of the XXXX gang", without that there was no real content. The reference (a newspaper) merely said there was a warrant had been issued for alleged drug offences. In this case, if you take out (or neutralise) the exaggerated allegations what are you left with? An article with no real content about a person with no real notability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • Ah, in which case, the People's Front of Wikipedia formally object to the Wikipedians Peoples Fronts continued interrogation of Mr Davies. In reply to Nascar, your question triggered it I admit, but it was more of a general question. Roger has already had 3 times as many questions in 12 hours than I had in my whole RfA. I just don't think we should be interrogating him. If someone has questions over his judgement, then state it. Woody (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see where you're coming from. My first and only RfA had 21 questions. I think the sheer number of questions was my downfall there; I flubbed a response to an important BLP question due to brainfreeze from answering all those other questions. As for my specific questions, Mr Davies mentioned that he would like to continue speedy deletion tasks, so I am making sure that he knows WP:CSD front and back. NF24(radio me!) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats fair enough and I remember looking at your RfA Nascar, and being quite shocked at the number of questions. I suppose that is just the way the tide is turning. Now isn't the time nor the place to debate the meritsof RfA though! Woody (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I've totally lost my mind, let me state that I believe they were actually 10 questons. LOL. Thanks for the <</sneer>> Cheers, 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)
  • I'm sorry if my questions seemed excessive. I generally find that answers to questions are enlightening and often form the basis for support/oppose votes. The questions aren't unusual for more recent RfAs because I've been leaving them on many. It does seem like questions have proliferated over the last few months just in general. Avruchtalk 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, a couple of your questions would be good as standard RfA questions. I understand your intentions, and agree that can be helpful in forming an opinion. I suppose it is just my thought process. I prefer to judge a person on their long-term editing habits, as opposed to knee-jerk responses to questions. But that is my hatred for exams shining through. Woody (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbolic concurrence with Woody. Questions are certainly as integral to the RFA process as reviewing a nominee's contributions. But it must be stated that unless Roger is the most elaborate and convincing of "agents" dispatched by the unmentionables to infiltrate Wikipedia, further questions would be.....excessive ;-). Ahem. SoLando (Talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. You get this one for free. Woody (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Excellent candidate. Epbr123 (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pleased to support this nom - extraordinarily civil & level-headed, diligent, and committed to quality work. --Lquilter (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obviously support, per co-nom statement. Awadewit | talk 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Grrrr. Just five-minutes elapse and I still manage to be fifth :-( SoLando (Talk) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Over qualified (if you can be such a thing!). Contributions, logs, talk pages, user pages, edit summaries all is spot on. Great stuff. Pedro :  Chat  16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support A brilliant editor. Just remember you can't block me for not caring about ENGVAR ;) --JayHenry (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support as my interactions with this user have been amazing and they have always been good natured. ~ Dreamy § 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support - No one deserves it more. Good luck Roger. Sniperz11talk|edits 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support His article work is fabulous, he's thoroughly conversant with policy, and he's a top notch communicator. I can't think of a better all around candidate. Maralia (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Roger is one of the most enthusiastic, dedicated, and diligent editors I know; I have no doubt he'll make an excellent admin. Kirill 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Wandalstouring (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Roger is constantly doing a very good work as a coordinator on Military History Project. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. A WOW SUPPORT 3 Co-nom's, you've got my vote!! Dustihowe  Talk  18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support with extra dosage Great work coordinating MILHIST. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support: Great user, great candidate; good luck! - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: I'm the poor, helpless editor drowning in Dickinsonian nuances, as Awadewit cited above, and I can honestly say that from my interactions with him, I consider Roger to be kind, patient, experienced, and (what I think is most important) reliable. He'll do well in this role. María (habla conmigo) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - a fine editor, and I'm sure will be a fine administrator. Can be trusted. --BelovedFreak 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Excellent and dedicated contributor. Cla68 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support excellent contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Slam dunk.--Docg 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. per Doc to say meets my standards is an understatement. No evidence of incivility. Review of edits and talk pages raised no concerns. Dlohcierekim 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Of course. — DarkFalls talk 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support great contributor and who can resist a bandwagon. RMHED (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. A fine editor who will be an asset to Wikipedia as an admin also.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - about time for this to happen. You mentioned the end of the six-month term as assistant coordinator at MILHIST, are you running for re-election? -MBK004 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I certainly plan to run for re-election. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. EC Support A good editor that I've seen around. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support A superb editor who remains calm and centered even in disagreements over core principles. Devoted to Wikipedia and, I believe, utterly trustworthy. Willow (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Per Awadewit--Writer Listener 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Most definitely. BuddingJournalist 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Great, civil user who will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per assume good faith and adminship is not a big deal. - Triona (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - works for me. Though, I'd have preferred to see "contact the other administrator" when dealing with the BLP issue above. Remember that: in 90% of cases, just CONTACTING the other admin means you can find an amicable solution without reverts. - Philippe | Talk 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that. Thanks for the information, --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Get 'em the tools! Malinaccier Public (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Excellent editor. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. HELL YES - ...and there ain't no more to say ;) TomStar81 (Talk)
  38. Support - Per, like, everyone. Gromlakh (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Jmlk17 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Lawrence § t/e 06:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Thought-he-already-was-an-admin Support. Nuff said. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Very good editor...will use the tools well. SpencerT♦C 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support An excellent contributor, and will I am certain be an excellent admin. I did not feel it necessary to wait for his answers to the examination paper at the top of the page. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Avruchtalk 14:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support everything I've seen looks good. David Underdown (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Sure thing. :) GlassCobra 15:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support the editor, oppose NASCAR Fan24's useless exercise (how can well ever tell if anyone is or isn't looking at WP:CSD? What does this prove?) Neıl ☎ 16:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. The Transhumanist 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. NF24(radio me!) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Excellent contributor who works well with other editors. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Great contributor. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support An incredibly dedicated user who will make good use of the tools. --Sharkface217 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Automatic FA support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support A great editor who'll make good use of the tools. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Am surprised he is not an admin already. Trust 100% with the tools. - Shudde talk 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Excellently capable in areas which are personal to candidate, but also reflect the true identity of what is needed in an administrator. Rudget. 17:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. An experienced and organised editor; kept well on top of things during the military history drive I participated in.--Kateshortforbob 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support - one of the best candidates in weeks. Meets all of my standards. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Yes yes yes, solid candidate. --Coredesat 12:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Húsönd 15:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support -- @pple complain 16:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - user would be fine being an administrator. SexySeaShark 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Per answer to Q10 and Q10a). Looking forward to his answer to part b) :) Daniel (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Looks good. :) Good luck, Midorihana~iidesune? 08:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support. I worked with Roger for the last six months as a fellow assistant coordianator and I have found him to be a dedicated and hard working editor who will flourish as a admin. Kyriakos (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Never found a reason to oppose. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 19:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I know I don't see a whole lot of WP:AIV/WP:RFPP contribs/involvement, but has very good contributions overall, so he should be okay with the tools.--JForget 00:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - Great candidate. Neparis (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Super editor. No problems here - Alison ❤ 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Very strong support Hard-working, civil user, will make a great admin and definitly isn't power-hungry oranything like that.--Phoenix-wiki 11:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. It's time. Rudie M. (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support A very experienced and good editor. Polly (Parrot) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support as usual. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support you get in there good and mop up. Pumpmeup 05:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong support – Excellent editor with a good sense of balance and the spirit of Wikipedia! Askari Mark (Talk) 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Excellent editor, will make an excellent administrator. --Carioca (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Good user. Acalamari 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Congratulatory Support - Excellent WikiProject:Military history experience with this user. Can be trusted with new responsibility. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Roger_Davies&oldid=1140379636"