Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidruben

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

[edit] Davidruben

Final (49/10/5) Ending 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Davidruben (talk • contribs) – In October I spotted David Ruben on my watchlist and I then took a quick look over his contributions and asked him about requesting adminship. I apologise for not having a close knowledge of David, but I think he could be a good admin. David has been here since September 2004 (!) and he contributes to projects like WikiProject Clinical medicine (see also his userpage). I believe he is an asset for Wikipedia. I asked him in October about running for adminship but he had to defer it until today because he was busy with real live. I'm pleased he indicated acceptance in an email I got from him today.

Dear Wikipedians, please take a close look at David, ask him questions and write what you think. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this RfA discussion and thanks to David for going through an RfA. Apologies for my bad English and I hope my lousy nom (eek, my first one...) does not hamper David's chances :-) Ligulem 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept - I'm truly flattered, especially as your first nom.David Ruben ^Talk 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too for the User:Mindspillage/admin link, this made good reading and a cautious approach I would wish to emulate. Though I’m not entirely sure about admins avoiding 3RR situations - I agree blocking is not a punishment but rather an opportunity for editors to reflect on the various relevant warning templates posted to them (offering advice and directing them to review the various policies). I tend to think once 3RR is reached that editors do need to be paused from further editing, at least for a short while, in order to get them to start discussing on talk pages and act in an encyclopaedic manner in trying to reach consensus (further failure to engage, edit warring and 3RR needs be dealt with firmly as this is so disruptive to the good work of other editors). So whilst if granted Admin rights I would still concentrate on article writing and improvement, rather than exclusively working on mop tasks, I would be happy enough (cf Mindspillage's approach) to ask editors to reflect on the lack of collaborative approach and to make initial blocks where reverting continues regardless, or AGF continues to be breached.

Ended 02

00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Davidruben (talk • contribs) – In October I spotted David Ruben on my watchlist and I then took a quick look over his contributions and asked him about requesting adminship. I apologise for not having a close knowledge of David, but I think he could be a good admin. David has been here since September 2004 (!) and he contributes to projects like WikiProject Clinical medicine (see also his userpage). I believe he is an asset for Wikipedia. I asked him in October about running for adminship but he had to defer it until today because he was busy with real live. I'm pleased he indicated acceptance in an email I got from him today.

Dear Wikipedians, please take a close look at David, ask him questions and write what you think. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to this RfA discussion and thanks to David for going through an RfA. Apologies for my bad English and I hope my lousy nom (eek, my first one...) does not hamper David's chances :-) Ligulem 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept - I'm truly flattered, especially as your first nom.David Ruben ^Talk 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks too for the User:Mindspillage/admin link, this made good reading and a cautious approach I would wish to emulate. Though I’m not entirely sure about admins avoiding 3RR situations - I agree blocking is not a punishment but rather an opportunity for editors to reflect on the various relevant warning templates posted to them (offering advice and directing them to review the various policies). I tend to think once 3RR is reached that editors do need to be paused from further editing, at least for a short while, in order to get them to start discussing on talk pages and act in an encyclopaedic manner in trying to reach consensus (further failure to engage, edit warring and 3RR needs be dealt with firmly as this is so disruptive to the good work of other editors). So whilst if granted Admin rights I would still concentrate on article writing and improvement, rather than exclusively working on mop tasks, I would be happy enough (cf Mindspillage's approach) to ask editors to reflect on the lack of collaborative approach and to make initial blocks where reverting continues regardless, or AGF continues to be breached.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Yes I think having mop functions would be useful. Some of these functions are page specific such as being able to edit and contribute to protected pages, so allowing consensus-agreed improvements to be directly enacted without having to seek out already over-stretched admins. Similarly semi-protection can be applied if it should become required. Finally the roll-back to reverse the actions of anon spammers who appear with a whole host of spam insertions into multiple pages would be useful (I'm aware there was a suggestion for this to be a separate privilege granted to some users without needing full Admin status, but this is not yet the case) and in particular I have previously needed to request this of admins on various medical, and in particular dermatology, topics that I tend to watch.

The more backroom sysop chores (and why such negative phrasing of the question vs "tasks" or "tidying up" ?) of WP:AN/I, AfD and 3RR are perhaps areas I will engage in less actively initially. I envisage perhaps starting with simpler cases: offering observations and then some opinions; all the while watching how other more experienced admins weigh-up issues and make final decissions & act (I've seen new admins jump into complex controversial cases and get their fingers burnt).

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

A: I've set out the more important (to me) articles I've created and had input in on my user page. I am proud of my work on Templates (Drugbox, Disease, BirthControl and Hospital) and the upgrading of the use of these templates on many articles. I also took part in the debate over WikiProject Drugs Template styling (see here) and with consensus reached, helped standardised the various templates (see WP:DRUGS). Other navigation templates I have worked with are Template:Diabetes (see edits) and Template:BirthControl.

The articles that gave me the greatest satisfaction were centred around moving and expanding the wrongly named London Dock Hospital to London Lock Hospital (first venereal disease clinic) which had been confused for the Albert Dock Seamen's Hospital (part of development of first hospital for tropical diseases) - the two had been confused across much of the web on checking via Google, in part because so many sites used wikipedia as their source (!) - seems websites, and some wikis, not always WP:Reliable sources indeed :-) All this led to researching and writing Seamen's Hospital Society article.

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

A: I previously acted as a mutually agreed unofficial mediator in the edit warring over Breast implant (see Talk:Breast_implant/Archive_1#Edit_war) between 2 very intense editors (one new to wikipedia styling and who posted huge number of small sequential edits in an unrestricted inclusionist legal approach, whilst the other, a specialist, initially reverted & edited without engaging in debate). Both editors considerably improved and started to reach consensus or at least constructive dialogue over some points. With relative few other editors joining in discussion over specific points, I eventually felt worn down by this single topic and felt I could be more productive focusing more of my time elsewhere in wikipedia. Subsequently one of the editors, despite my warnings, eventually sadly suffered wikiburnout and resigned from wikipedia, although has since rejoined. The article has continued to be disputed by several editors, several admins have been involved (giving rise to a consensus of editors & admins) as has the clinical medicine Wikiproject (see Talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Breast implants), the page protected and finally all parties seem to be engaging in useful constructive dialogue, consensus building and article progression. I highlight this as a case where the technical knowledge of the various editors is extremely high and despite the dispute over emphasis & NPOV, the article will eventually be a Good Article. I think my involvement in this process has been a good learning experience in how to try and calm down edit wars and engage with opposing editors (I think I'm still on reasonable terms with all the editors), and the effort of several admins who have been involved has been exemplary in their time & effort (the patience and reserve with admin tools in not jumping to simple blocks, but continuing discussion and consensus-building has been noteworthy).

Far more directly successful has been my involvement with User:Cindery who as a new user had much detailed information to contribute to contraception articles and a strong personal opinion on some of the risk/benefit profiles, with an initial heavy editing style. Constructive guidance/comments/edits/discussion by several editors has helped this user become highly proficient in wiki styling, citing and an admirable adherence to NPOV (even balancing out their earlier edits) - in short an editor whose contributions I now admire.

I tend to watch quite a lot of medical topics and revert tests, outright nonsense, or plain vandalism. Only serious attack I've personally had was with the banned User:General Tojo who, disagreeing with everyone else on Parkinson’s Disease, systematically created new sockpuppet accounts to revert any edits I made. This resulted in several admins having to watch over my user pages & edit history to block each account he created.

As for dealing with future conflicts and stress, I think it is important to remember that this is after all only an encyclopaedia (allbeit the best in my opinion and certainly the most dynamically exciting) and does not exist as a platform to argue out disagreements vs quiet reflective reporting (with citations) of real-world debates. So wikistress can be eased by involving other editors to discuss issues (rather than trying to act as a lone voice in the wilderness) and taking wikibreaks at least on reaching Wikistress - level 3, and certainly before Wikistress - became insane :-)

General comments

• See Davidruben's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

With some auspicious 42 number of editors kindly taking the time to post opinions here, perhaps I should say a little about my perception of my WikiProjects experience (this is meant neither to be an essay nor lecturing to my more experienced Wikipedians, but an indication of how my wikiskills and experience have developed so far, and will continue I hope to do so).

The term "projectspace" is being applied to the whole overall encyclopaedic project (with its non-Admin administrative & Administrator tasks), but within the totality of Wikipedia there are small subsets, namely Wiki Projects. These too give experience in the tasks of management, discussion, reaching & acting on consensus in the development of an encyclopaedic field. They too address problem articles/editors within their boundaries. Of course, Wiki Projects do not have formal distinct 3RR, vandalism, RfC etc areas, but their talk spaces seem, in an informal manner, to carry out minor aspects of these same tasks; although without as much intense observation and holding to account for following rigid procedures (something as an Admin I would obviously have to be even more careful to observe in projectspace). So yes I think moving from article-space to the additional work in Wiki Projects, helps one to further appreciate how to work in a collaborative manner with other editors with differing opinions, in working to consensus and then to diplomatically, politely and civilly act (both in one’s own actions and in guiding any dissenters). Work in Admin projectspace would be a further move in this direction.

For each of the AfD, 3RR, AN/I postings I have made, I have always on each occasion read all the associated policies, guidelines and instructions; even when I have felt sure I already knew the policy. I would hope to be as cautious and careful with each new Admin tool granted - surely it is more desirable for a less familiar presence on the Admin pages to indicate their need to use any additionally granted tools in a reserved manner initially, than a more familiar non-admin indicating that they will rush in to all threads wielding their new-found god-like powers as they personally see fit ?

I really hope I would never fixate on Admin projectspace tasks to the total exclusion of Wiki Project & Article work - I like developing specific topics and articles. Conversely, I do not wish to only concentrate on my own narrow field of professional expertise - how terribly dull for work & leisure time to always be the same thing :-). Hence I would like to have some of the additional admin tools for very practical help in the tasks I already do here in wikipedia, whilst other tools would allow me to also contribute more fully and in a wider manner with POV, AGF, revert and other disruption by bringing across some of my already developed wiki-skills and experience. David Ruben ^Talk 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Oh no, only 1 help talk edit! Seriously, why aren't you already an admin? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support 5000 mainspace edits. Thats good. But I am pretty sure this will come up in the oppose and the neutral votes. That you have contributed in only 6 AFD's. So during tis week, start discussing in AFD's and I think you should do good. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   This would be in order to see reasoning about and understanding of the deletion process, not merely to have some number of AfD votes, and should not be necessary if candidate is experienced in other areas. —Centrx→talk • 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   6 AfD votes doesn't necessarily imply a lack of knowledge of the AfD process, despite what some people will say in the Oppose section, but suggesting banging in a few AfD votes this week to (what I preceive to be an attempt to) strengthen an RfA is very wrong Ageo020. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Support absolutely. A strong contributor to medical articles and a voice of reason in dispute resolution -- Samir धर्म 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support without hesitation. Sarah Ewart 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support—very strong article contributions. Light on Wikispace edits, but excellent judgement. I'd trust Davidruben to handle the mop safely; heck I might even trust him to treat me medically. Williamborg (Bill) 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A very strong candidate. TSO1D 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Support {after edit conflict) Meets my standards in terms of time and edit count. Talk page indicates a civil user that helps others. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it is good to have admins with breadth and depth of knowledge. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Strong knowledgeable editor I've bumped into at WP:CLINMED. Should have been made an admin some time ago. Nephron  T|C 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support a good candidate, and as a contributor in a critical area that people will reference needing 100% correct information --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 08:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Of course. Lupo 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Strong support. I've followed David's edits (though not in a stalker way :) since I first got here, and have only good things to say. His template work has been vital for several projects, he has shown good conflict resolution skills, is a major vandalism and linkspam fighter in Medicine-related articles, and patient and civil to a fault. I won't even mention his actual "content" edits as they speak for themselves. As for his seemingly "narrow" focus on Medicine and such, I think dedication to an area which requires significant specialist input is nothing but positive. Mop him! Fvasconcellos 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Weak support. Less than 200 Wikipedia projectspace edits, also dodgy answer to Q1 concerning editing protected pages - if there's a consensus, then unprotect the page. However, plenty of article contributions and I don't honestly believe he would misuse the buttons. Addhoc 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    I've personally encountered protection mostly with the various citation templates (eg Template:Cite journal), which seem to be perminantly protected. Following talkpage consensus, any agreed changes are then enacted by admins, but the templates remain protected afterwards. But I agree if a page is protected due to edit warring or exceptional levels of vandalism (noting the policy not to protect main page articles) then it should be unprotected as soon as the situation permits.David Ruben ^Talk 05:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

13. Support. A great editor who applies his expert knowledge/judgement where it is much needed. Handles conflicts well and good with helping new users. I suspect that he'll use a subset of the admin tools, but use them wisely. The only negative I have is a worry that his admin duties would come at the expense of being a writer. Colin Harkness°^Talk 13:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Support. Not a lot of project space experience but seems to have done his homework. --Ars Scriptor 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
15. 30 cc of Suppizort, stat, and the drug pages could definitely use some admin watching, there's covert vandalism going on there....promise you'll look over Tramadol and maybe check the edit wars that sometimes flare up over the dependency issue? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Support A good editor who meets my personal guidelines, and although project space experience is highly preferred, I can live with an candidate who focused on article building. I'm also glad to see people remembered and is paying attention to Mindspillage's adminship essay.-- danntm ^T _C 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Weak Support - per nom, although crz's statement is worth noting --T-rex 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support A great editor, with good qualifications. Hello32020 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. I am confident that the canditate is qualified to handle the tools. Agent 86 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Support will not abuse the tools. feydey 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Support as there is little to no indication this user will abuse the extra tools of an admin. -- AuburnPilot^talk 00:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support WP will greatly benefit from more admins with specialist knowledge in critical areas like medicine, and this editor shows diligence, commitment, and strong contributions to this important subject. Even his initials spell Dr. Dryman 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    On this last point I must stress that my parents had no ulterior motive in their naming of me. In a number of clinical settings the local computer systems, whilst requesting that I login using my initials, would then apply error validation checks to reject "DR" as being a title or user-level (eg Dr, nurse etc) and refuse to let me log in ! David Ruben ^Talk 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

23. Support, per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 00:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support knowledgeable and careful contributor in an area that could use more admins. Opabinia regalis 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Support. David's been here for longer than I have (by a bit) and hasn't annoyed any of our productive contributors (I know I have). That speaks to a levelheadedness and reasonableness to be admired. I expect he will find the tools useful in working on Projects, as well as in dealing with the occasional vexatious or persistent vandal/edit warrior. I also expect that he will continue to grow in the role, and I don't expect that he will misuse the tools. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
26. Support per nom. Acs4b 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
27. Support Although you are a little green for an admin as far as policy and projectspace goes, Wikipedia always needs more meat for the grinder. Make us proud. Sharkface217 04:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Support. Davidruben shows good judgement, civility, patience, knowledge, responsiveness, tenure. Let's put away the arbitrary edit count requirements and evaluate the candidates themselves. AFD participation, specifically, is not that important. I'm sure Davidruben will be as careful closing non-consensual AFDs as his other contributions; his AFD "voting record" would only be needed for deletionist/inclusionist partisanship. In the past, admins have slipped through the AFD editcount filters and turned haywire once they got delete buttons. Some reasons for opposing admin candidates I've seen over time are just silly ("12 edits away from my personal minimum edit count", "not enough Template_talk: edits" - I won't embarass anyone with diffs), but these edit count requirements are just not that useful. Avoid turning Wikipedia into an RPG where anyone can game the system and "level up" by grinding! —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-07 08:27Z
29. Support Competent and experienced.--Holdenhurst 13:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Support per nomination statement. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Support. Even though he does not need the tools badly I will trust him with them. Rettetast 16:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Significant experience, no indication of problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
33. No hesitation support very competent, composed, civil, and communicative editor. I don't care what the edit count is in various areas as being more than sufficiently civil and productive is much better than racking up points. MLA 05:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Support: I don't see evidence that he'll misuse the tools. TimBentley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Support: David is a very reasoned editor who does take time to explain what he has done. No admin started out as perfect or totally experienced and as long as they build up their usage of the tools as they gain that experience, then I don't see how David couldn't be an admin. We are all newbies once. Regan123 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Support We certainly need more diligent wikipedians to take bigger roles. This guy can help. TonyTheTiger 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Support. Has been around the block a few times, and seems very level-headed. Would make a good admin. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
38. Support Yes. The Mirror of the Sea 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Support Good editor, can use the tools, no indication that he would abuse them. --Daniel Olsen 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Nominator Support. (I forgot to add my !vote as nominator, so a bit late. Apologies :-) --Ligulem 08:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. Good editor, will not abuse admin tools. Nishkid64 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
42. Support - devoted editors make good admins Alex Bakharev 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
43. Support - good editor. Sandy (Talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Support John254 03:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Everything checks out well. I don't agree with the opp, especially given his understanding of of policies as expressed in these AFDs. Besides, every statement he's made in this nomination indicates he will delve into the backlogs cautiously.--Kchase T 06:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Support Has made excellent contributions to some contentious articles. Andrew73 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Support, given his profession, I think we can assume that he will do no harm Bucketsofg 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
48. Support We know he's a good editor and won't abuse the tools. The question is, is he well-rounded enough? Maybe a group of well-rounded admins are needed, but there's nothing wrong with admins who specialise in certain parts of Wikipedia. In fact, they're needed, especially ones with technical know-how to go with the civil manner etc. Ruben is absolutely the type of person needed to be an admin. If he's unclear on the rules, he reads the fine manual (unlike some people who currently are admins, for truth!) and co-operates with both other editors and admins. It's like telling someone they shouldn't be a Congressman because he hasn't run a law office. Good Congressmen can read the rules, are smart enough to use them, and are civil enough to use them correctly. SUPPORT. Gaviidae 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Support per Quarl and Regan and inasmuch as I think it reasonable to conclude with a good degree of certainty that the candidate is possessed of judgment sufficiently fine that he should neither abuse nor misuse, even avolitionally (e.g., in view of his acting in areas of policy with which he is less-than-conversant), the tools, such that, consistent with my RfA guidelines, I heartily support. Joe 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seriously insufficient level of contribution at the projectspace (especially given your time on the project) implies insufficient familiarity with process. I am sure you're a terrific editor, but your answer to Q1 is unimpressive. All of your WP:talk edits appear to be wikiproject-related. I see zero policy discussion - which is a major strike against. I don't have enough evidence (but will be happy to review any such evidence I may have missed) on the basis of which to entrust you with either AfD or 3RR, and you're more than welcome to participate in ANI without a sysop flag. My apologies. Strong Oppose - crz crztalk 04:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Change to Strong Oppose in furry slippers per Williamborg. - crz crztalk 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   lol... Appreciate this. First time I've ever laughed while reading an RfA! MY arguments, I see, were compelling. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation - no apology needed :-) As I mentioned above, the page specific tools would be of most immediately of use to me. Re "projectspace", I've obviously been more active at WikiProject Clinical medicine and WikiProject Drugs than the wider Wikipedia administration areas you seek. Still that gives me some insight into developing policies for article and encyclopaedia development. I think I am familiar with much of the admin areas and policies (I re-read many of them before accepting this nom), but yes I agree I've not been as active there previously (hence my explict stating of the cautious approach I would take and I note the advice to new admins to take things slowly - ? from UninvitedCompany butI can't immediately find the link). I note User:Ageo020's suggestion to visit AfD in the course of this coming 7 days, which I shall do - as to whether that will provide "enough evidence" I leave as an open question. Yours David Ruben ^Talk 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ahhhh, Alexander, pleased to see you here & a consistently hard grader for prospective admins. But a strong oppose? I’d agree that Davidruben will not be an uber-administrator, living in admin space 24/7; he’s certainly a less-than-perfect admin candidate. But as I observed for another less-than-perfect admin candidate back in early October, he gives no indication that he will abuse the powers to block\unblock\delete\undelete. And a strong contributor deserves some respect, no? Perhaps just a gentle oppose might do? Skål/Hа Здоровье/Le'Chaim - Williamborg (Bill) 06:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2. I tentatively agree with Crz. (Radiant) 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Apologies for responding but: I wonder why "policy discussion" is a prerequisite for being an admin. Isn't it sufficient to be trusted with the tools? You once said, we either trust a user to hand them over the whole toolset or we don't. I wonder in which way you don't trust David. David is one of those rare Wikipedians that have some good knowledge of a field, have been here for quite some time, do understand the principles of how to apply consensus and working collaboratively on the encyclopedia and who are not afraid to mediate disputes in their field of knowledge. Isn't that sufficient? Not everyone needs a PhD in Wiki-policy. And I'm sure he knows the relevant policies well. And being able to rollback the daily influx of vandalism crap and blocking a vandal here and there in the area he has on his watchlist is certainly to the benefit of the project. --Ligulem 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Policy discussion is not a prerequisite for being an admin; indeed, most admins do not want, nor need, to be involved in that. However, since most admins are, or become, involved in adjudicating process, I believe a candidate should have some experience with process, to show he knows what he may or will be dealing with. It need not be any particular process, and the user need not at all be a regular, but I expect at least some familiarity or participation. And that is what I find lacking here. (Radiant) 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose, while you appear to be a great editor those reasons are not enough to earn admin tools. Your question to Q.1 was somewhat unimpressive and as of yet you have failed to show us why you would need admin tools. And of course per Crz. — Seadog 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
4. ½ Oppose: Someone will shout at me for a half an oppose, but you've participated in 6 AfDs (if the figure quoted somewhere above is correct) and out of that, 4 were today, with your last 2 edits being to AfDs. As it appears you've followed (what I perceive to be) Ageo020s advice of participating in more AfDs this week to pass this RfA, I don't think I can support as it looks to me like gaming the system. Sorry. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Does ½ an oppose result in a mere ½ wisper of a shout back ? :-) The edit numbers are precisely as you set out in these specific areas. I am certainly not trying to game the system (the 2nd support vote was quite clear in quantifying my prior edit numbers) nor, and probably even more important for Admins, be even remotely perceived to be. Yes I took note of Ageo020s suggestion (and if I ignored such advice would it be appropriate to critise my failure to listen to other editors ?) and crz's oppose posting indicated insufficient evidence to form a basis for their deciding to entrust me with AfD or 3RR. So seems only reasonable to provide a few more contributions to those areas suggested so that those deciding on their decissions in this RfA can judge my approach (granted it is merely indicative of, I hope, a good continuing and future approach to these areas). This I so openly stated in my comment to crz before I starting poping into Afd. If you think I should not be so responding and acting to suggestions placed on this Afd, then should I merely return to solely article-space edits during this week ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Looking through all the comments above, Heligoland has also disagreed with Ageo020's suggestion to contrribute to Afd during this week too - so I'll happily follow whatever wikiquette is appropriate now - if people contributing to this RfA would like to see me contributing to AfD during the next 6 days to help reassure on my style of likely contributions there then fine, but if it is felt to be unhelpful at this stage during a RfA then I wont :-) David Ruben ^Talk 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   When I commented above, I hadn't had a chance to look through your contributions and as I say, just because you've only got 6 or so AfD contributions doesn't necessarily mean that you don't know what your doing come AfD time. I'd suggest you just carry on as normal during this RfA. If you do (as in don't go chasing one particular type of edit) and if you then need one less Oppose and one more Support to reach a concensus, I'll swap. Again, likely to upset folk, but what the hell, as I've found out, being inconsistent and hypocritical is encouraged during RfA !voting. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   Heligoland, I would take back the accusation of gaming the system. If Davidruben were trying to game he would have had a high AFD edit count before the RFA started. In fact I'm sad that a good candidate may fail to be promoted because he hasn't gamed the system, otherwise a lot more people would be supporting (there are many ways; I won't name them here -- WP:BEANS -- but you can ask me privately). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-07 08:37Z

5. Oppose - David, I do not feel you have enough experience with dispute resolution to wield the mop yet. In the future when you have more experience, I'd be happy to support you, if you've done well. Until then, I can't. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 01:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose Crz said all that needs be said. Candidate should simply find some project-space area(s) to which he feels capable of contributing: not merely policy-formulation, but XfD, various noticeboards, even working a page like WP:NEG can show project-space experience, as one trims the lists. Xoloz 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Not enough experience in XfD. Dionyseus 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Reluctant oppose. I am opposing for the reasons stated by other above -- in short, not enough experience in tasks which the new buttons apply to. However, this oppose is reluctant, because this user contributions to mainspace look good, and with more experience will be an excellent candidate. Best of luck. --- Deville (Talk) 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Firm oppose - totally insufficient participation in XfD. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Weak oppose. Good record, but I have to oppose given lack of experience in policy-related areas. Try again once you've gotten some good experience there, and I imagine you'll do very well. --Coredesat 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. A splendid editor, by all accounts, and if we trust doctors with our lives, I guess we can trust them with admin tools. That said... based on your reply to question one, I just don't see much of a need for them in the course of your work on Wikipedia. Vandal rollbacks, for example, can also be performed with the popups tool. I'd not hesitate to support this nomination at a later time once you've engaged more actively in some administrative tasks, because we really need more people in everything listed here. Sandstein 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   As you are a newbie admin, wouldn't you say that the full admin rollback feature is a whole lot better than those ugly script rollback hacks which nearly need a programmer to install and which can't rollback a series of edits like the full featured perfect built-in rollback? We have consistenly asked to hand out rollback to more people but I was told by Radiant and others that this distinction is not needed as we either trust a user to hand him the whole toolset or not. Now we seem to have again this problem with people requesting the perfect admin in all areas in order to hand out the toolset. This contradiction is still not resolved on this project. --Ligulem 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   That is a good point, in that (in my opinion) some people on RFA have standards that are unreasonably high (e.g. "must have X edits to namespace Y", "must have worked process X for Y weeks at least", etc). Editcountitis is not a good criterion, and by extension neither is any other arbitrary cutoff point. (Radiant) 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   Is that me you're speaking of? - crz crztalk 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

   • No, just speaking in general. I concur with your assessment of this user. (Radiant) 09:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

   The featureset of the various rollbacks isn't really the point - of course, everyone's work would be easier with the admin tools. What I meant is that I'd like to see a certain (if minimal) commitment by an admin candidate to actively engage in administrative tasks beyond their usual sphere of article edits, such as in XfD, CSD, etc.pp.. We're metaphorizing the tools as a mop, after all, not as a bigger pen, or flashier edit button, or whatever. But I'm not opposing because I've no doubt that he won't abuse the tools. Sandstein 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Pretty good user, but crz's argument is very sensible. bibliomaniac15 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. A stellar contributor, but does he really need the tools? I'll take the bench on this one and let you guys answer that question. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral I strongly believe that he won't abuse the tools, however I'm not sure he won't misuse them. Misuse as in accidental misuse, not malicious-ness. The lack of project-edits is my reasoning. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral Great contributor, but simply not enough wikispace edits. –The Great Llama^moo? 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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