Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/dave souza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] dave souza

final (17/3/3) ending 22:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

dave souza (talk • contribs) - Dave has been providing good quality NPOV material to Wikipedia since July 2004. He has a good understanding of how the community works and a good steady character to back it up. I believe that he will make an excellent administrator. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

With some trepidation I accept Derek's nomination. My main interest has been in researching and adding new articles or correcting misinformation. Where appropriate I've helped to restructure muddled articles and have contributed occasionally to VfD or NPOV discussions, and am willing to do more of this....dave souza 20:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Derek Ross | Talk 23:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC) (Nominator)
2. Andre (talk) 23:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
3. Finlay McWalter. Dave is rational, reasonable, knowledgable, productive, and pleasant.
4. Low edit count, but plenty of article edits, and has been around long enough. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-5 23:39
5. Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. El_C 00:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
7. Support this is my kind of candidate Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
8. Support because dave souza has answered the questions. — JIP | Talk 03:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Support the wub "?/!" 07:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
10. Support. The low edit count in the Wikipedia namespace worries me slightly, though. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 08:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Darwinek supports Darwin-related articles editor. - Darwinek 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Support KHM03 11:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, believe he would not misuse admin powers. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
14. Support - it is good to see a nominee without an inflated edit-count for a change. Stewart Adcock 07:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
15. Support - 198.110.249.200 13:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    1. The above vote was mine - Ral315 13:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • SUUUUURE it was Template:Wink Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. I'm basically voting to counteract the oppose, below. Adminship is about wearing a hat. It is a fundamentally different activity from editing. One should support or oppose an admin not based on "does this potential admin hold opinions that differ from mine", but "will this admin abuse his extra buttons, or use them responsibly?" I see nothing to indicate that User:dave souza will abuse admin powers. If the test for becoming an admin morphs into a vote on editorial position, then we are shooting ourselves in the foot and losing a lot of potentially excellent admins. Nandesuka 11:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Ruairidi 02:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
18. Support - my standards like him. --Celestianpower ^hab 15:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose. I understand that David Souza was responsible for creating the Scottish national identity article. It is very far removed from the ideals of NPOV, and gives a very superficial, derivative and cliched account of the topic.

   Here is an appalling example of bias from Mr Souza: "As far as I'm concerned, Unionist in Scotland is another term for Tory, and is also a term used by Separatists to label those who don't take their position. The confusion in this article is that it doesn't state this clearly, and in trying to justify the label includes the Orange anti-Catholic position as well as misstating the aims of other organisations. An article is needed here to clarify this muddle, but care is needed to avoid Nationalist / Separatist propaganda and make it clear that many of the people and organisations mentioned have a solidly Scottish identity and believe in supporting Scottish interests within a British or UK framework without thinking themselves "Unionist" or, for that matter, being monarchist. Regarding the Scottish independence#Opposition to independence section, opposition to separatism might be a fairer statement of the position: I'll think about rewording that section." Talk:Unionists (Scotland)

   Not only is that entire statement riddled with factual inaccuracies, but, for the uninitiated, the terms "separatist" and "nationalist" when applied to supporters of Scottish independence are pejorative and offensive, and the calling-card of members of political party members opposed to Scottish self-government (Lab, LibDem or Tory). I think that you all know that the word "propaganda" should be used with extreme care, ESPECIALLY by candidates for Administrator. He is clearly not capable of being even-handed.

   In summary, David Souza is a man with a very large (British Unionist) axe to grind. If you make him an administrator he will cause havoc in the countless Scottish politics and UK constitution articles.--Mais oui! 19:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

   NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages (yes, that extract is from a talk page). It doesn't require editors on Wikipedia to have no views at all about anything, only that they don't edit articles to reflect their own personal views. He only mentions propaganda there as something to be avoided. Oh, and administrators do not have any special authority over the content of articles, so he won't be able to 'cause havoc' anyhow. - ulayiti (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

   Indeed? Then what do you make of this notable contribution by Mr Souza to the Talk:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina Talk Page? "Sadly, Silverback is right – these biased Liberals, more often called the neocons nowadays, are the ideological successors of the Malthusian Whigs whose Poor Law reforms aimed at making the poor become self reliant or die trying, or more humanely forced them to emigrate to the colonies – any connection to the invasion of Iraq?....dave souza 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)" This is clearly someone who has several axes to grind. He just does not strike me as being capable of NPOV if he publishes such diatribes on a wikipedia page.

   Thanks for an entertaining example of an editing conflict. I had understood that somewhat partisan comments were allowed on talk pages, but appreciate Mais oui!'s commitment to opposing bias as shown in his own comment on Talk:Unionists (Scotland) that "British nationalists/British unionists (Labourites, Cons, LabDems) are extremely proactive in attempting to destroy the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish identities and attempting to erect a pseudo "British" (sic) identity. If in doubt, check out the British nationalists/British unionists in-chief: the BBC." He's right that the Scottish national identity article is rubbish: it's a stub I rushed together when editing the visit of King George IV to Scotland and found a redirect to "Scottish independence" which didn't seem to be what that arch unionist Sir Walter Scott had in mind. Suitably chastened, I'll bring forward a rehash of the national identity article, setting aside work on some Robert Burns related pages...dave souza 22:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC) Revamped to fair standard for starters....dave souza 16:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

2. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose too few edits in article space for someone who's been here well over a year, and too few edits in Wikipedia space period. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Looks good, edit count is not really a worry. Awaiting answers to questions. the wub "?/!" 07:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Will support when user accepts nomination and answers to questions. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 17:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. A notable contributor, however, 61 user-talk edits shows little interaction; 24 Wikipedia names space edits shows a lack of edits on RFA, VDs, etc. I still consider changing my vote though.

   Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

2. Neutral Has been around enough and has the experience, but only has 35 wikipedia edits according to Kates tool. [1]Falphin 00:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral for now. Based on dave souza's edits over the past few months, and the responses below, I am not totally convinced as to why this user needs access to the admin tools at this time. As stated by the other neutral voters above, this user is not involved enough in janitorial tasks. Also, watching AfD and NPOV lists, or trying to mediate or act as an arbiter to achieve relevance and NPOV, does not require admin tools in my opinion. Nor does reverting vandalism, unless one is very active doing RC patrol and thus the rollback tool would be handy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Re the low edit count. Fair enough, if you look just at the edit count, it doesn't seem that high but you should also note that his edits tend to be major. This is not an editor whose editing experience consists of 5,000 spelling corrections. -- Derek Ross | Talk
• May I cite as a fairly large edit the Parliament of the United Kingdom which I came across when checking a link and found that it (a previous featured article) showed English history and not the other parliaments involved in the uniting: it was a diversion from other projects, but a quick revamp included putting most of the history into a new Parliament of England article, and another new article for the intermediate stage of the Parliament of Great Britain which had been a redirect to the article. Regarding lack of interaction, rightly or wrongly I've tended to keep chats on article talk pages unless it seems personal, and have often edited to show proposals rather than first trying to describe them on the talk page. Reaction has generally seemed favourable. With reference to Wikipedia namespace, my focus has been on creating or expanding articles using an ability to précis sources, but very much appreciate the importance of other work...dave souza 06:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I'd expect to put some time into watching AfD and NPOV lists, and try to mediate or act as an arbiter to achieve relevance and NPOV. I'd continue to revert vandalism which is a chore anyone can do.

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

A. At this time I'm pretty happy with my edits to Charles Darwin and related articles, particularly the eight biographical articles which I put together for those wanting more detail, and hope to have helped to clarify what was very muddled article and corrected common misunderstandings about the man. Doune Castle and visit of King George IV to Scotland worked pretty well in pulling together different interests, and more recently Radicalism (historical) and the Radical War (with spinoff articles) have related to both George IV and Darwin and have helped to clear up an apparent misunderstanding about the historical meanings of Radical.

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've rather gingerly prodded some contentious areas, notably Creationism as a spin off from Darwin, and have been pleasantly surprised at how little conflict ensued: Evolutionary creationism was an exercise in NPOV resolution. There was an abusive comeback when I added the theory that Scotch was a reasonable English rendition of the normal Scots language pronunciation of Scottish, but I had to accept that this was not backed by any outside research and was rightly removed, so contented myself with replacing the comment on my user talk page with "anonymous insults will get you nowhere".