Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David.Mestel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] David.Mestel

Final (23/15/17); Ended Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:09:39 UTC

David.Mestel (talk · contribs) – David Mestel is a fine Wikipedian: Been here since October 2005, with major activity beginning around March 2006, and about 3,500 edits. He's done a lot of vandal reversion and AIV work, some AFD and DR work, and, notably, he's reported on arbitration cases in progress for the Wikipedia Signpost for over five months (the most recent edition can be found here.) His close observation of arbitration cases clearly shows his grasp of policy, given the number of policies that are cited in any given arbitration case. He's even got some article writing in there as well. I've watched David over the last five months, and I feel he's worthy of adminship. Do you? Ral315 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With thanks, David Mestel(Talk) 15:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


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: Blocking persistant vandals rather than letting them continue until an admin looks at AIV. In a similar vein, helping deal with AIV requests. Reviewing speedy nominations, and deleting them if appropriate, and perhaps prodding or AfDing them if not. Closing AfDs after five days, probably sticking to relatively uncontroversial ones at first, but then perhaps branching out as my experience of closing grows. Also looking at AN/I, and giving sanity checks on others' actions, etc.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: My Arbitration Reports for the Signpost. I think it's important that the community is engaged with all levels of the dispute resolution process, and being able to read a one-paragraph case summary rather than having to trawl through pages of evidence certainly makes that easier. I also wrote an article on Roman litigation which I rather like.
I've also just written an article on the Consumer Credit Act 2006. David Mestel(Talk) 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
And one on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. David Mestel(Talk) 19:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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: Well, I've done some advocacy, which obviously involves conflict situations, but none particularly in my own name, as it were (just to be clear, I would never, never use the tools in a case in which I was involved, or in which I was advocating). I regard formal dispute resolution as the last step to be taken if negotiations break down irrepairably.

Question from ONUnicorn

4.I see that a lot of the opposes and neutrals decry your lack of involvement in the mainspace. In the midst of this RFA you changed your awnser to Q2 to say, "I've also just written an article on the Consumer Credit Act 2006. And one on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006." Looking at those two articles, they were written today. This may be an odd question; but did you write those articles today solely in response to your opposition here? Or would you have written them today anyway? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
A.Well...yes and no. I didn't write them because I wanted my RfA to succeed. But the comments did make me me think that I should try writing more articles. And I also came across the List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 2000-Present, and I thought that they could do with articles, and were fairly easily verifiable, so away I went. David Mestel(Talk) 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional Question(s) by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

5.Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?
A.No, no, no and yes. I have a dream that one day admin candidates will be judged not on the magnitude of their age, but on the content of their character. ;) David Mestel(Talk) 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

  • In regards to the points the opposers make about knowledge of policy: I see no reason to think he doesn't understand policy. Plus, it seem like it would be pretty hard to write upwards of a dozen arbitration report reports for the Signpost and not have an idea of what Wikipedia policy is like. Although I didn't mention it in my support, I certainly consider the arbitration report writing a plus. Picaroon 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the problem here is that there's little evidence showing David using a knowledge of policy in editing, rather, there's evidence that David has been exposed to policy through writing up reports for Arbitration. I know there's nothing more frustrating than having an excellent knowledge of policy but nobody will believe you unless you can put that knowledge into practice when editing. Sadly, this is the way RfA works. It's mainly based on a low number of edits to the Wikipedia namespace. Ironically, if you have a colossal number of edits to the Wikipedia namespace and no experience of policy, you'd be looking at 75% support around now. --Kind Regards - Heligoland (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. It appears I haven't added my name to the tally yet. To be clear, I nominated, and support, David. Ral315 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Let's go out on a limb. His contributions seem solid, and his arbitration reports show dedication to the encyclopedia's community aspect. His answers are short, but sweet. I find Ral315 to be one of our more "conservative" administrators, and if he feels this candidate is suitable for adminship, and after looking through the contributions, I am inclined to agree. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support Can't see any cons.--Húsönd 17:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to neutral.--Húsönd 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Support. I am satisfied that this candidate could use the tools and won't abuse them. I would have liked to have seen more in-depth reasoning for some of his XfD comments, but adminship is supposed to be no big deal and nothing I see persuades me to oppose. Agent 86 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Friendly, helpful and respectful to new users, seems to know his stuff per dispute resolution participation, good answers to questions, I thought every dif and discussion of his that I looked at was fine. Good user, there's no doubt in my mind that he will make a good admin. delldot | talk 17:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support He's been around a long time, he has a good grasp of policy, and while he has edited limited mainspace articles, those he has edited are good and valuable additions to Wikipedia. Look at the Roman Litigation article. Also, he has experience with dispute resolution and admin tools can be helpful in that aspect of things. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I do like his edits, and I think he could do well with a mop and bucket. FireSpike 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per ONUnicorn. м info 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support David is calm, thoughtful, humble, dedicated to the project, and always open to discussion. Whatever rough edges there may be in policy understanding, he has the ideal temperament to learn on the job (a compliment I don't normally give.) He's truly an exceptional Wikipedian. Xoloz 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support, after examining the conflict Guettarda describes, I remain confident he can use admin tools appropriately. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. Singopo 01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. I'm not all that familiar with David but I think not wasting his time in XfD is something to be commended, not punished for. It's perfectly possible to be a functioning admin without even caring about deletion. I'd like to see an end to opposing candidates on the basis of their not being all that familiar with our particular focus. Yeah, I know. Fat chance. But it would be nice. Grace Note 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think you understand why people oppose based on XfD. It's not because XfD is somehow necessary to be an admin (at least, I hope it isn't; it definitely isn't for some), it's because candidates need to show a good understanding of policy. If they've shown it another way, fine, but he has not. -Amarkov blahedits 06:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    I understand, Amarkov. I just think it's nonsense. Policy is intended to be a codification of how things work. That isn't demonstrated in my view by knowing the reasons some people have invented to destroy content. Au contraire, all that demonstrates is a knowledge of itself, which is on the whole useless in building the encyclopaedia. I'm perfectly happy to have people adminned who don't have the faintest idea why you don't want garage bands in Wikipedia or the guidelines editors such as you have invented to keep them out. If you were concerned that he wouldn't correctly rid us of them, I could understand it, but he's smart enough to read the guidelines before making that kind of decision. Grace Note 07:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per delldot. Addhoc 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. I endorse what Delldot and Xoloz said. David certainly looks decent to me. There's nothing to suggest he's likely to misuse the tools, and his Wikipedia space contribs are fine; although they don't show that much xfd particpation, they show enough to make me think he understands what he's doing. However, I do second the preview button thing - the amount of edits you've used to create Signpost reports and format this rfa are quite high. See also my reply to your reply to Radiant. Picaroon 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support--CJ King 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Suport-- Generally pretty sensible around the place. --BozMo talk 11:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support I have no reason to oppose. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support A sensible and level-headed editor who will be an asset as an admin.--Newport 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Would make a good administrator Mad Jack 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. David is dedicated towards bettering the encyclopaedia, and is bright enough to know what he's doing. All that is required. Proto::► 15:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I am very familiar with David's work and was seriously considering nominating him myself.--Runcorn 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - I agree with Proto's reasoning. NoSeptember 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support: Nothing really unpleasent has come to light - no chance of abusing the tools here and there's little real evidence the candidate will misuse the tools either. Now, the candidate has been exposed to policy, I know the candidate has been around policy and I'm happier supporting this candidate than many with thousands of Wikipedia namespace edits but which don't always show knowledge of policy. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  23. Strong Support Great guy that deserves the tools with pride. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 12:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I have gotten the impression that David isn't really familiar enough with policy, especially with regards to WP:NOR. Guettarda 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I advocated in a dispute with this editor a few months ago. David Mestel(Talk) 16:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    ...which is where I got the impression that you didn't understand policy, and didn't understand that you didn't understand policy. Guettarda 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I see little participation in process other than writing for the Signpost. Also, in that writing, it seems you should try to use the preview button a bit more often [1]. In short, I think you could use some more experience. >Radiant< 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm a little confused. Do you mean that I shouldn't have used as many seperate edits to write it? David Mestel(Talk) 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's what he means - I can tell because I was thinking the same thing. Using the preview button can help you cut them down and minimize the extent to which they crowd your contribs. Picaroon 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose good job on the ArbCom report for the Signpost. But articles written should be in the mainspace, I hope to see more activity in that and you need more participation in admin-related processes. Terence Ong 17:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose until more mainspace activity - I agree that too many admins do not participate in building the encyclopedia.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Terence Ong and Dmz5. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Assisting in the Signpost is good, but I'd prefer more work with policy on AfD comments and such. I have to agree with Terence Ong and Dmz5 on the lack of mainspace participation rather than just plain vandalism-reverting. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - significant contributions in only 3 areas (main, User, and Wikipedia -- which were by far mostly Signpost), most edits in User Talk (40%!), too liberal use of Save Page button per Radiant (20+ edits to many single Signpost issues), only 200 non-minor edits in Main space, and most of all, while the articles written today look good, they should not have been used as addendums to your answers to questions. Single Purpose Articles? -- Renesis (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Struck comment, since David has explained that he only means to show that he has taken concerns seriously and wants to improve, and articles were written in good faith. -- Renesis (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per a mix and match of the above regarding lack of variety and experience. Sorry, chief. Just H 21:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per lack of mainspace experience. Also, his question about and lack of use of the Preview button shows he needs more time. His apparent creation of 2 articles just for the RfA is questionable. May be a good admin in the future, though. Crum375 22:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Crum375. Michael 07:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. I'd like to support you, because Xoloz is right; we could really use admins like you. But you don't participate enough in XfD and stuff for me to see that you understand policy. Signpost writing is all fine and well, but it's not something relevant to adminship. I must regretfully oppose. -Amarkov blahedits 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Pretty much everyone in the Oppose and Neutral categories already covered it. You are a good Wikipedian, just currently not qualified for Adminship. If you come back in 6 months with solid credentials, I will gladly support you. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose a journalist doesn't need the admin tools --Steve (Slf67) talk 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose for the reasons outlined by several others above. I think more experience is needed in areas applicable to use of the admin bit (XfD, policy discussions, etc.) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Regrettably. I'm sorry, but this user has much too little mainspace edits. I would expect about 3000. You should also participate more in XFD, to understand more about policy and stuff like that. All other areas are superb. Good luck. --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. You seem like a good user who's very active in the wikispace part of it, but you need to improve the content aspect of your game, as you have relatively few mainspace edits.--Wizardman 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Not as many mainspace edits as user Talk edits - a little more assistance in building the encyclopedia would change this to a positive opinion. (aeropagitica) 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - Good user but needs more experience in encyclopedia building. I would recommend withdrawing this nomination and re-requesting at some latter date. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Swayed by issues brought up by those opposing.--Húsönd 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral You're a good editor, but I really don't see a need for admin tools. Above, you state your primary duties will be patrolling WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:AFD. However, I don't see any real participation in any of those areas - non-admins can still comment on WP:AIV and WP:ANI, and I'd recommend closing several unanimous-keep AfDs before stating those as your focus. Yuser31415 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    Not having a need for admin tools and not having a lot of edits in those areas are not the same thing. His first answer show a good enough need as any for tools. Picaroon 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral-The pros and cons seem pretty equal. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral per the comments by Yuser31415. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 23:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral hmm...I feel that this user is well on their way to becoming an admin but more experience is necessary in this case, also I would suggest that you start giving more reasons on XFDs than just "per nom". Arjun 00:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral You have a lot of contributions, and a lot of Wikipedia edits which are good. Your answer to the first question was good, but after that you kind of dwindle away. I wouldn't mind to see you with a mop, but at the same time I don't know if I can completely trust you with the tools.Ganfon 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, leaning towards support. Needs slightly more edits in the mainspace. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral Hmmmmmm... you're a good editor but you are missing some things that admins need to do such as mainspace and true interaction with other users (not a vandal warning). Good luck on that.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral suggest a bit more experience, a few more mainspace edits, but not far off. The Rambling Man 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Neutral I suggest you experience more of the encyclopedia.-- danntm T C 20:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Neutral per Yuser. --tennisman sign here! 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Neutral as above. Carpet9 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Neutral Ganfon and Yuser articulated my feelings fairly accurately. I would consider David.Mestal a very promising candidate in the not-too-distant future, after a little more experience and a little more vision. --Matthew 08:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Neutral I could go either way on this one. More mainspace work and you'd be there. I'm sure we'll see you with the mop someday soon.--Eva bd 14:18, 18 January 2007 (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.