Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab

Davemeistermoab

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (69/30/4); 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 Wikipedia'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 | ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia 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: Before or after the trout slapping? =-) Yes. For example, if an admin is brought up at WP:RFC and there is little or no support for the admin's actions, that is a sign of trouble. A wider venue, such as RfA, would hopefully determine which occurred, an abuse of tools or wikidrama. With that said, I'm not sure if I prefer an RfC or talk page petition (as called for at WP:Recall) as the initial forum.Dave (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from ChildofMidnight

8. You've stated you plan to use the Admin tools in AfD and similar areas, but one of the opposes has pointed out that you've only participated in 6 AfDs. Is this accurate? Is there cause for concern over your experience?

A: I have not had much experience with the AfD and similar forums. I am becoming more involved as time goes by. My attitude has been to avoid the drama, unless I have something constructive to add. I do not fault anybody for voting oppose on these grounds. I freely admit I'm asking for a leap of faith. I would add, that I have made some contributions to these forums that do not show in my edit history. For example, I did some research to confirm the Utah Basketball League article was a hoax. However, I was a newbie at the time and didn't know what to do. By the time I learned about AfD, others had reported their findings and the outcome of the AfD was obvious.Dave (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from hmwith

9. Could you explain the canvassing allegations brought up at WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab‎?

A: I do not know what evidence is being referred to. I am aware that one of the oppose votes is bragging about it at wikipediareview.com. [1] However, I don't know if the two items are related.Dave (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not believe this post rises to the level of canvassing. I am only stating this is the only offwiki discussion that I am aware of.Dave (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In a recent case this RFA has been compared to it was the opposers who were canvasing, as one of them openly admitted after the RFA was closed. No reason to think this RFA is any different. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

10. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Yes, I do. For example, I am aware of some wikipedians that have posted critical information about an organization they are involved with. If someone were to post their identity, this could have serious consequences. While Wikipedia:Oversight involvement is required for permanent resolution, I would be willing to help with temporary measures. These may include page protection and/or blocks until an overseer can examine the situation. I do recognize that some feel that registration, with identity disclosure, should be required for editing privileges. That is a separate issue from "outing" someone without their permission.

Please advise if you require more details or examples.Dave (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Tony1

11. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical appraisal, possible pitfalls, please.)

A: I do agree wikipedia should have a process for someone to seek a review of an admin's actions. However, the process needs to be capable of handling someone who swears they have indisputable evidence, but in reality is refusing to take responsibility for their actions. I think an admin review process should have limits, especially if the outcome is binding. First, I'd like to see civility better enforced in this new venue. For example, I would prefer people not be allowed to post notes below people's !votes questioning their motives. In "punishing" an admin, I'd prefer that the outcomes of the reviews carry more weight than the number of accusations.

Thanks. Quick comment—it explicitly relies on participants' good-faith (see "Nutshell"), and has very strict rules about civility and evidentiary admissibility (unlike ... <clears throat> ... another process I won't name here). Tony (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

12. I see that you are interested in image compliance. What, in your view, are the most important two or three WP:NFC points for probing editors WRT their justification of NFC in an article? How would you go about approaching an editor who initially resists, when you know an image is not compliant?

A: I am a fan of moving images to commons. I most wish I had "the bit" to delete the duplicate that remains. I am most concerned the source of the image is properly identified. I have run across non-free images mislabeled with a free license. I have no doubt that 99% of the time it's done from ignorance, not deceptive intent. I usually ask, "Did you take this picture?", "How did you acquire this?", etc. Hopefully, that turns the discussion to the proper mindset. My favorite images to show proper labeling are File:Tianasquare.jpg and File:OldSR269viaduct.jpg. I know the latter isn't exactly up for picture of the year, and it's on commons, but it shows the OTRS system in action Dave (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

13. What is your view on encouraging an optional pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil as an alternative to blocking, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor, and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol)? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases? (Critical response, please!)

A: I think this is appropriate, when a user's history indicates they are normally civil. However, I would not directly suggest one apologize. Such a suggestion could cast doubt on the motives behind the apology (or lack of). I do believe in mediation; however, I think that should be the admin's discretion. I support a user who <s>strikes</s> their own comments. I normally do not advocate striking another persons comments. Dave (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from Ottawa4ever (talk)

14. This question relates to images. As a user it would be the type of question i would ask an admin. Consider this situation; An image has been posted on the talk page an article under the context of wether it should be included in the main article. The image is defined as being the own work of the creator taken in a public place. There is no indication whether those on the image have given their permission to be in the photo. The image features several people in embarassing revealing and inappropriate situations. Consensus on the talk page is that the image has no place in the article and is inappropriate. An individual contacts you and feels uncomfortable with leaving the image on the talk page and would like to remove it. Under what context would you remove the image, would you remove the image?, and if not why? Please cite any relevant policies that you think are necessary, If the question is unclear in any way please feel free to state any assumptions Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Good Question! Of all I've been asked so far, this is the toughest. I am going to assume that there is no reason to doubt the uploader took the picture. I would state that a picture must have encyclopedic value. As someone has expressed doubt about the picture's value, this is grounds for speedy deletion, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files. The burden of proof rests with those who want to keep, not those who want to delete (see related Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy). I would get a second opinion from another admin(using a fast means, such as a chat room). I would delete without going through the WP:IfD process assuming the following is met: the uploader has not met the burden of proof, has been given a reasonable time to do so, the uncomfortable person's reasons are valid (e.g. not WP:POINT), and the other admin concurs this is the right thing to do.

Thanks for the question, please advise if you have additional concerns.Dave (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

15a. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?

A. Essays provide a quick way of explaining a point of view. Citing an essay does not give more credibility to that point of view.Dave (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

15b. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?

A. Short answer, No. Wikiprojects should set standards that help articles with a common set of challenges meet wikipedia's goals. Wikiprojects do not have the right to override wikipedia policy. Each article must show how the subject is notable, regardless of what a project's guidelines say.Dave (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

15c. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block the user? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?

A. For the bots I'm aware of, the stop button is just a link to the block page. As such, unless the user has admin rights, they are just wearing out their mouse. If this were an admin, I would raise the matter to the bureaucrats and/or Arbcom.Dave (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

15d. Our ubiquitous template {{unref}} says that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"; to your mind, must the unsourced material be challenged (with a {{fact}}, say) first before removal and after removal is re-addition of the still unsourced material disruptive and hence blockable?

A. The tags such as fact, unref, etc. are a way to request help fixing the article. The policies still apply, regardless of weather the disputed statement has been previously tagged. This is especially true for articles where WP:BLP applies. If this is apparently a new user, with no other major issues, I would explain. I would warn, if a user should know better, but has a fairly clean record, and no violations of WP:3RR or WP:NPA. Blocking is appropriate when there are no mitigating circumstances.Dave (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and please advise if I did not fully answer the questions.Dave (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment: Given that there is some debate about what constitutes original research, and if concerns here are indeed significant problems, I respectfully ask future commenter to consider whether these issues are relevant to this RfA, or whether they should be included in a meta-type discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Obvious support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 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 ^(TALK) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{Wake me} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 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 / ^C)} 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 ^α _ß 13:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support iMatthew ^talk 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. Jamie^☆S93 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 ^(talk) 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 | ^Talk 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 Weak 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)

    Changed to Weak Support on the basis of his relative lack of experience -- I am going by my feeling that he will do things right. I would rather see it demonstrated, of course. DGG (talk) 18:06, 5 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)

    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)

    Understand content, sure. Write it, not necessarily.

    I would rather not drag back up conflicts from a year ago, but suffice it to say that I, like almost every other editor here, have made mistakes. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Striking; the sum of the concerns on the oppose side is worrying. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

30. Support - per ChildofMidnight. AdjustShift (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
31. 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)

32. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
33. 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)

34. 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 Wikipedia 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)

35. 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^Talk 22:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
36. 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)
37. Support, looks fine. --candle•wicke 01:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support- Looks great to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
39. 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)

40. 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)

41. Support per ChildofMidnight. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
42. 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)

43. Support. Does it really matter if his prose aren't brilliant? I can't see him stuffing anything up in admin areas. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    This is the kind of thing that uninformed administrators do. Peter Damian (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    And? What evidence do you have to suggest the candidate will be an "uninformed administrator", aside from the fact that he's not a professional writer? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    If that's the kind of thing uniformed administrators do then perhaps it is lucky he did it nearly a year ago and not this week? I have witnessed far worse... --candle•wicke 02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    Well lets agree to disagree on that one. :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

44. Support. I agree with ChildOfMidnight. I see nothing in the oppose section that suggests that you'd be a bad administrator. Your calm and civil responses here and on the talk page suggest the opposite. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Support I have only actively noticed this user around in recent weeks, and I have observed nothing but good contributions and balanced discussion. I feel he would use the tools well :) Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 17:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Support; mature, dependable, and appears to have a good understanding of policy, in addition to displaying admirable coolness under fire. Antandrus (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Tactical support, after some thought. I find some of the more vocal opposers' debating tactics dubious and in one case based on questionable motives, and I wish to partly counteract them for this reason.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support It looks to me like you are quite capable of doing this job...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Appears to be a worthwhile member of our wiki's team. Welcome aboard. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Support I'll take a risk on him, he doesn't look too dangerous. A few issues have been fairly raised, but personally I feel this User will move ahead slowly and with care as he gains experience in the fields where he might be a little lacking. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC))
51. Support based on answers. Problems raised below don't look like an overwhelming no-no. NVO (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - the ability to write and copy-edit FA quality articles is not a prerequisite to being a good administrator. This user has had his article contributions dissected to a level I don't often see here at RFA and has reacted in a calm and reasonable manner - the type of quality that I do look for in potential admins. Answers to the questions check out. I have no reason to suspect this user will not make a good administrator. Shereth 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I wasn't intending to !vote on this RfA but the drama does make for interesting reading (perhaps not for the candidate!). Anyway, I looked over the I-70 concerns section and, while I agree that the sourcing is of poor quality (tangential sources, unclear connection to the statement being referred to, and requiring a great deal of work on the part of the reader to verify cited statements, and I cannot see myself using the dinosaur source), I don't see evidence of 'forging references', 'manipulation of sources' and other examples of academic dishonesty. Perhaps these can be found in other examples but I don't have the time to look at everything and assume that the I-70 article is fairly representative of the concerns of the opposers. (I do agree with PeterDamian about the importance of 'writing quality' but don't see that as a killer.) For example, the first concern about Pavant ranges refers to two sentences with a citation at the end of the second sentence. The cited reference appears to agree with the content of the second sentence and there is no reason to believe that the author deliberately intended that the citation supports the facts in both sentences. The second concern about the brake check area and runaway truck ramps is improper, IMO. I do find the use of maps to support the third concern a bit odd but, if Juliancolton certifies that this is the normal practice in interstate route articles then that's good enough for me and I see no reason to penalize the candidate for doing something that is standard practice in a project. I couldn't get reference 2 (the San Rafael Swell thing) but reference 15 is quite clear that the roadway is included as an engineering marvel. The boring through and the dinosaur quarry are again separate sentences and I suggest tagging the first sentence since no reliable source has been provided but prefer to assume that the author did not intend the reference to be used to support the construction statement. I wouldn't use the quarry 'visitors' website as a citation and this, IMO, is the biggest transgression that I can see (and hardly worth getting worked up about). Personally, I can't see how one can write an FA quality article on a roadway because how the heck is one supposed to cite features that are obvious but not verifiable through a reliable source. But, there seem to be many FA quality roadway articles around and I'd be surprised if they didn't suffer from similar referencing issues. Given that, I think it unfair to dump on the candidate for working within the accepted norms of his chosen project. Add the support of at least two well known members of the project, and I have no qualms about offering my support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
54. Daniel (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    This vote was registered a minute after this edit summary attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

55. Support Good and original answers to all of the questions asked so far. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Opposes are weak in my opinion, and no evidence that user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC).
57. Support I really don't see what the fuss is all about. I really could not find the intestinal fortitude to go through all the discussions, but let's assume he became overenthusiastic and painted a rosier picture of a few highways than the citations warranted. Yawn. So what? That's why we have an open editing environment. In an open editing environment everything we do is minutely, relentlessly and eternally scrutinized. It would be naive to expect that any faulty use of references would never be discovered in such an environment and I don't think anyone is that naive. If anything happened it must have happened because of simple human error or, at worst, overenthusiasm. Both of these faults are utterly reversible and redeemable. Eventually other editors will step in and fix the contested edits. In the process the editor in question will learn and improve and I'm sure he will not repeat this mistake. Isn't there a place for redemption in the RfA system? No second chances? No learning from mistakes? Why so much mistrust? Why so little leeway for people to overcome their faults? Let's give this editor the benefit of a second chance. Dr.K. logos 04:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Everything that I've seen from Dave has been done right. I used to be a member of one of the US Highways WikiProjects. He's been a long-term asset to the project. I don't expect someone to have done a Featured Article before becoming an administrator. If someone had some FA experience but didn't do a good job with the sources, I'm going to assume in good faith that he wasn't deliberately doing something wrong. If these articles were constructed so poorly, how come they weren't caught by the eagle eyes at FAC? They found many issues were I didn't see any at my last FAC. Royalbroil 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. I agree with iridescent's retraction comments below, and I don't believe that Dave would abuse the tools. While I do think some in-depth review of policies and guidelines regarding proper citation and usage of sources needs to be done, I think that Dave will be making sure he is very familiar with all of them. I think that Dave receiving the bit would be a net positive for the site. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. I wanted to oppose per the cited "editing concerns" page below and lack of experience in areas where the candidate states he wishes to use the tools (question 1), but answers to q4 and q8 are fairly redeeming. Furthermore, the editor's implication that he can abstain from these areas until he is ready is believable enough, and I see a decent amount of dgaf in almost all 14 questions answered so far. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 07:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
61. Support per response to question 14, (and other questions)Two opinions are always better than one. Well thought out response. Clear to the point Im not confused as a user to follow how to respond. I think this editor is ready beyond any doubt. Good Luck! Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
62. Support I trust the candidate to responsibly use the tools. The concerns displayed in the Oppose section, while not trifles, do not necessarily weigh heavily on my opinion. Merely raising them is hopefuly enough. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
63. Support - looks good in the usual ways for me. I am slightly concerned about lack of well-roundedness, but am confident he will do no harm. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Looks like a good candidate. -download ׀ sign! 03:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Stinks like fresh drama down below. Seems you can take a beating, and your content work is good: that's the kind of experience needed. The force be with you, may it. wadester16 06:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
66. Support even tempermant and willingness to take on new duties. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I have thought long and hard on this, and the opposers have an interesting technical case, but seem to have overplayed their hand - see the various talk page blurbs where various accusations seem to have been retracted. On balance, I come down to the fundamental question: do I think that this editor will misuse the tools? And I see no opposition really explaining why they think he would and I don't think he will. So.. support. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
68. Weak support. I understand where the opposition's coming from, but I'll give the candidate a shot. Wizardman 23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
69. Support, editing concerns are overblown and I don't see any major problems, moreover I don't think it is at all reasonable to object to candidates based on quibbles about their grammar and syntax. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 8 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. "[2]. 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 ^{Wake me} 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 | ^Talk 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 / ^C)} 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)

   [3] - Opposing every new administrator running? Really? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   If someone wants to oppose every admin running, just say "Thank you for your vote" and move on. Any other response is a request for drama. Please do not request drama. This type of oppose vote is useful and good, because we get to see how the candidate reacts to that sort of thing. The b'crats who close these things are smart, and know how much weight to give to which votes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose - heavy use of original research in your FA shows an misunderstanding of policy and guidelines. Please see Wikipedia 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)

   I've added yet another analysis of another FA of his here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab#Interstate 70 concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:05, 5 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 ^(talk) 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 | ^Talk 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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? [4] --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)

   But don't you want us to vote on the RFA? We are the users who would know the most if Dave is not suitable for being an administrator - more than all the other users - because we have seen his Wikipedia actions the most. Speaking on my behalf, I also have been at Wikipedia as an administrator for about 3.5 years, which is above the average for today's Wikipedia administrators. I know what makes a good administrator and what does not.

   Rschen7754, because you know Davemeistermoab best, it'll just make you endorse his RFA, like the most of WP:USRD users out there. And they were right about Davemeistermoab's problematic referencing; do you know that half the references he has on U.S. Route 395 in California were just links to city websites and museums that lie along the highway? Mgillfr (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   USRD users do not always vote support for all the other USRD users - witness Mitchazenia's last RFA and ComputerGuy's last RFA for example. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

   RfA is not a vote, it is a consensus building process. Having all of your friends come out and vote for you is going against what this process is about. And the bias alone should be evidence that these individuals would lack the objectivity required to deal with any potential problems or flaws. You can see how many apologists there are for his problematic edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per above.--Caspian blue 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, due to Peter Damian's inexcusable lashing out rants, I've changed my mind to think that "adminship" is not a position to pick a skillful writer, but to "manage" articles in good shapes and assist editors to write neutral and stable articles based on reliable sources. However other issues are not ignorable, so I'm moving to Neutral section.--Caspian blue 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   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)

   I'm striking this. This whole thing is getting ridiculously out of control (as I write this the talkpage of this RFA is on 75kb). While I do think this is a genuine issue regarding the misunderstanding of policies on attribution and sourcing, Dave will sure as hell never forget the exact wording of WP:V and WP:RS after the last couple of days, and I've not seen any other glaring problems. The lack of experience in deletion coupled with an express desire to work in deletion prevents me from supporting, but to be honest there's no longer any issue worth opposing over. And to both the supporters and opposers: you're all starting to head into bald-men-fighting-over-a-comb territory. Do I think it would be a disaster if Dave was elected? No. Do I think it would be a disaster if he wasn't? No. All of you, on both sides, ask yourself the same question. There really is no need to reply to everything you disagree with. – iridescent 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

5. 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)

6. 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)

   A great user through but find the user taking part in only 6 AFD in over 3 years all involving roads/highways.Now to say he is going to take part in Deletions involving WP:CSD,WP:PROD,WP:IFD or WP:AFD when clearly no experience is something I cannot support.Further do not see even a single Welcome messages,vandalism revert ,WP:Warning,WP:AIV reports or WP:UAA reports from the user.Very Sorry really Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

7. 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)
8. 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 | ^Talk 23:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   He has an ok number of edits on Commons. But with regards to this RFA, I think they mean less there than they would if he had the same number here. He is applying for adminship here. Not on Commons. File policies are different here than on Commons.--Rockfang (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

9. 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)
10. Oppose per Wikipedia 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 (^{cast a spell}) 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
11. 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)

    Administrators are not custodians of the article space. In fact, we very rarely have to exercise our own judgment. Most of our actions are simply carrying out what consensus has already established. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    This statement boggles the mind. The sole reason you have all those shiny buttons is because of article space. If you're not here to protect and guard the encyclopedia by enforcing the policies and guidelines, why do you need the mop exactly? Why do you have a protect function, if not to safeguard content against edit warriors and vandals? Why do you have a block function if not to prevent harm to the encyclopedia's content? Why can you delete, if not to remove content deemed unwanted, or not in line with policy? To the point, a nominee who shows a lack of understanding of one of our core policies for content, WP:RS, cannot be trusted to weigh consensus in deletion debates. The oppose hounders are quick to focus on trivialities but that concrete issue which lies at the core of many opposes has not been addressed. MLauba (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed. Wikipedia is not Wikiversity. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    As a Wikiversity admin, I think you are misattributing how we manage things over there. Our deletions and the rest are done in the same manner as Wikipedia. Also, AfD require admin to understand policies and guidelines so they can adequately weigh consensus. Otherwise, it would just be a vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Interstate_70_concerns Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose (from neutral). See there for why was was there. I Q7 unclear, and Q8 worrying - clear lack of experience which is something the nominee could get and come back in a couple of months. That would also give time to improve understanding of the policy issues underlining the problems on the talk. Q6 is also lacking the clarity of argument which could have helped convince me. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Please clarify, Q9 hasn't been asked yet.Dave (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    My mistake. I meant 7 and 8, instead of 8 and 9 respectively. I've changed this in my original !vote. In any case basically I was neutral on the talk page issues, and now lack of experience has tipped me slightly into oppose. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying. Dave (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Ottava's and iridescent's concerns. Using sources badly is a problem that can be overcome, but I see a disturbing pattern, especially when it crosses into using sources to back up a claim that simply doesn't exist in the source. I'm willing to assume good faith, and my interactions with Dave have been positive, but at the least these concerns point to a lack of attention to detail. This can be a problem when working with admin tools. --Laser brain (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Davemeistermoab#Interstate_70_concerns--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose I have not had time to read through the long talk page arguments. I have, however, read through the oppose rationales and looked at the evidence. Frequent improper use of sources is a serious problem, and while I know there is some debate over it, I believe it would be best for you to read through and understand WP:V and especially WP:OR. I'm assuming good faith here and thinking you have the best interests of the project in mind, but the noted incidents don't give me much confidence in your knowledge of and ability to abide by core content policies. Correct your mistakes and show you've learned from them and I'll support another attempt in a few months. Timmeh 04:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong Oppose - the fact that 49 people would lend their support to someone not only of questionable article-writing talent, but who also forges references to those poorly-written articles, and who would do this (lend their support, that is) simply to spite some occasionally-incendiary personalities (cutting off their noses to spite their faces - how very mature), is very troubling. Almost as troubling as imagining Dave channel said writing skills when trying to explain, through writing, an administrative action. Sorry, but poor writing alone is recipe for drama on a text-based medium. Wouldn't hire a blind man to drive a bus, don't want an admin on an online encyclopedia who can't write. The ref forgery is the second layer of this putrid German scat cake - I'm guessing it was done mostly to herd articles through the DYK/GA/FA process to collect those precious stars - which incidentially highlights just how meaningless those processes are. I would consider it admirable dedication if this were a RPG, but this is, in theory at least, an encyclopedia. Regardless of intent, the bottom line is that this sort of trickery is perhaps even more damaging to an encyclopedia's reputation than if he were forging references to support wonky POV - wonky POV tends to be self-identifying, sourced or not, but it can be hard to figure out what is strange, but true information, and what is mere urban legend. Badger Drink (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    Aren't there lots of admins who don't do much in the way of article writing/ content building? The skill sets are not identical, though I think it's important for those with tools to block and to deal with content disputes to have experience and understanding of the perspectives and issues involved. But imperfect writing doesn't seem to me to be a major problem, and there's a rigorous discussion on the talk page of this RfA of whether the criticisms of the article content involed is here are even valid. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    So, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKETHEM, basically? The only serious questions I see on the talk page have to do with motivation and "seriousness" of the problem - I happen to believe that motivation is completely irrelevant and the seriousness is self-evident. But if you don't think phantom citations are particularly damaging to an encyclopedia, by all means, continue to play the WikiMMORPG. Badger Drink (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose - The mis-use of sources was enough to swing it for me. Skinny87 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose because the concerns noted above are downright scary. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose. While adminship is no big deal, IMO, I think a greater understanding of the applicable policies and guidelines is needed before receiving the mop. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC) After additional review of the discussions on the talk page as well as further review of recent contributions, changing to support. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    To the above few opposers, could you please clarify a bit? As noted on the talk page, there is some debate over whether these issues are indeed a result of misunderstandings of policy, or simply common practice within road articles. Please don't view this as badgering; I simply want the candidate to have a fair chance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

    So if it's common practice, that makes it okay? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Badger Drink (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    No, not at all. It just means this particular RfA isn't the place to change it, if that is indeed the case. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    I think though, that when articles are submitted for FA, that they need to meet community wide standards per WP policies, whatever goes on in the private little world of road articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    In fact, if Wikiproject roads is using different standards for applying core policies than the rest of the encyclopedia, I'd say that would rather be a strong incentive to be extremely wary of any candidates from said wikiproject. It makes me even more concerned about the nominee's ability to accurately interpret consensus on the strength of arguments in a deletion discussion. MLauba (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose. FlyingToaster part deux. HiDrNick! 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Per the above concerns, and the misuse of sources in articles. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose—The response to Q11 on AdminReview showed that the candidate did not absorb basic aspects of the process, such as are set out in the "Nutshell" at the top. The response to Q12 on non-free content did not answer the question and showed little acquaintance with how the experts probe editors about their (non-)compliance. Concern about skills in administrative writing. Tony (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Q.11. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose I like and trust Dave; he makes the Internet suck less. But as an editor who wants to avoid drama, I don't think he should get the mop. Stick to contributing good content. Ntsimp (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Before my explanation, I wish to say that the opposes based on sourcing and article work do not really bother me, and that my oppose has nothing to do with those. Your mainspace contributions are very good, but I do not see much experience in the areas you wish to go into. I can see from your answers to questions and from your edits that you are an intelligent editor, but I am afraid that this is not always enough for areas such as AfD. In this area, one must be familiar with the process front to back because article deletion is one of the "touchiest" areas on Wikipedia (perhaps behind CSD). If an editor's article is wrongly deleted because consensus is wrongly interpreted, it can be enough to drive that user away from the project altogether. For the average editor, AfD week can be as stressful as RfA week and can result in a "falling out" as I stated earlier. Also, one major aspect of AfD is interpretation of policies and guidelines, most specifically notability guidelines. If you do not have a high amount of experience with even the base application of these policies and guidelines, it will be nearly impossible to understand the more subtle aspects and finer points of the policy. Lastly, your comment "If an article is truly notable, it should be able to be defended as such to a reasonable audience," somewhat bothers me. A subject such as a notable event in a non-english speaking country would possibly not have a "reasonable audience" by english speaking editors. This sort of thinking makes me even more nervous to support your candidacy if you have plans to work at AfD. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose - No AfD participation at all. If you plan on doing AfD work (Q1), you should get more experience in AfD. I have nothing against the grammatical mistakes though, since nobody's perfect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    Just for the record, he's contributed to six AfDs. Your opinion still stands though - CL — 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    Hmm, weird. Maybe my Ctrl-F wasn't working that day. But six AfDs are still unfortunately too few. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

27. Oppose, with regret. I think that you may one day make a fine admin, but you need additional experience. It is concerning enough that you want to work with deletions yet have minimal experience in those project space areas. I'm also concerned that you didn't realize that this would prompt opposition, which speaks to an overall unreadiness for the sysop gig. With time and effort you'll gain experience and will have our confidence. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose Its been quite a while since the "cookie-cutter admin-coaching candidates" trope was an issue (viz. certain former prolific nommers) but I feel it coming on again. Pals of Julian's make me nervous. I get the impression that if one attends to Julian and his socialite sphere on IRC - or feeds his interests - he'll put you forward with the accumulated chorus of likeminded chatter chums to rack up the "Looks good to me!" (and good enough for closing bureaucrat!) supports and you'll be more happy admins together. Now Dave and Julian are guys after my heart in that I'm a tarmac maven too - but as a reader rather than writer when it comes to WP, prefering to let loose the lyricism elsewhere. Knowing when adding to what's already there would not be doing so within guidelines, would not be contributing constructively, would essentially be doing so for "Lookit me, I wrote here!" approval. The niggles and problems with Dave's content contributions (I ignored the PeterDamian circus about 10 lines in FWIW) do not inspire confidence when it comes to assessing his ability to communicate policy and decisions. But its mostly the huge gulf between experience and intended areas of engagement (viz. AFD). Seven months is no way long enough for any but the most improbably clued in and faultless. (Wrong RFA - see below). These require substantially more experience than he can offer. Reassurances of appreciating one's current limitations and proceeding cautiously mean nothing when any such understanding should have precluded accepting a nom in the first place. I expect RFA candidates to be ready to be admins and not inchoate 'gaining experience' echoes. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your vote. May I ask why you used delete, rather than strikethrough, to change your rationale? [5] Dave (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    Was crossed wires from doing another rfa - I decided to take it out as it was never meant for you and was < 10 mins old. On consideration, it should have been stayed struck, so apologies - it's back in. Though its not a change of rationale - experience concerns still stand. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks. It was a little confusing, but no big deal.Dave (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

    All thanks to you for not making deal big: you would have some justification. Reason(s) are incidental - I should not have done that. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

29. OpposeI'm sorry but looking at the comments above it is clear that you might not be ready for the areas that you want to work in as an administrator. However, become a bit more experienced and come back to RfA in a few months and maybe then you'll have my support.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose for the reason that Ottava Rima expressed. Chidel (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 17:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) (Move to weak oppose)- Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:26, 5 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 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 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)

Peter, & iridescent, please see the comment I just made on the talk page [6]. DGG (talk) 22:55, 5 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 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 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 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The sheer number of problems pointed out in the talk page makes me worried that the candidate may not be able to enforce Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia is secondary to it). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral moved from Oppose, my reason for landing here is stated on the section.--Caspian blue 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now. I have read through this and relevant points linked a couple of times now, and I just cannot bring myself down yet. Leaning towards support at the moment, pending more thought/discussion. Also, some of these opposes are ridiculous. --Taelus (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral from support. Wants to work in deletion, but has only ever participated in 6 AFDs. Wants to work with images, but has only two file contributions. Sourcing and OR are peripheral issues, but weighed together I am unable to support. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   As a note, I think Dave has many more contributions to the Commons than he does to images on Wikipedia, though everything you said is certainly valid. CL — 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)