Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Davidgothberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Davidgothberg

Final (73/1/2); ended 09:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Davidgothberg (talk · contribs)

Nomination from Happy-melon

I am delighted to be able to nominate User:Davidgothberg, the only non-admin to have edited {{ambox}}. How? Because he created ambox. Although he maintains that he "just" created the template, Davidgothberg has actually been heavily involved with the template namespace in general, and the template standardisation effort in particular. A conservative estimate is that templates he has personally created are used on over 350,000 Wikipedia pages. Along with ambox, Davidgothberg is responsible for {{•}} (which displays the dots between entries at Wikipedia:Featured articles), {{pp-meta}} (the protection template meta-template), and {{notice}}. Most recently, {{px}} was created in response to the ClickFix bug, as an elegant and effective means of quickly fixing image display problems across thousands of pages. In fact, Davidgothberg's templates are so successful that they are almost all fully protected as high-risk templates, leaving him unable to maintain the code he is largely responsible for creating.

I've worked with Davidgothberg mainly in satisfying his incessant {{editprotected}} requests to improve the fabric of the template namespace, where he has always been polite, resourceful and (despite not being a native speaker of English) communicative. I know he'll make a great admin, will use the tools he needs, and won't abuse the rest. And that aside, can you please give him the mop just to get him off my back?? :D Happy‑melon 17:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Davidruben

I guess many people have been obliquely aware of Davidgothberg's work for some time; funny how we tend to take for granted those who provide the tools we use daily. With recent ClickFix bug workaround of {{px}}, a solution was also provided to issues of null and empty width parameters in templates, and together with its 2 alternative values, has greatly improved the clarity of coding in templates (eg as here to Chembox new). Likewise {{Ifempty}} solves the longstanding problem of {{{a|b}}} returning "b" if parameter a is null, but nothing if the parameter is empty. Davidgothberg is polite in all his dealings, not least with the exasperation he must feel having to seek admins to carryout maintenance to templates he originally created but are now fully protected against him! It is ridiculous that such an important and valuable template editor is denied access his own work. He has shown great care in how he approaches changes to these protected templates by careful prior testing in his own user area, and I have therefore no concerns that allowing him direct access to such sensitive areas would be of any risk.

As he noted on my talk page, he "probably will not do much regular admin work" and indeed he has not been involved across the wide spectrum of administrative areas - but of course there is no requirement for any Admin to be active in all aspects, and as it is an all or nothing granting of the mop tools, the only issue should be that he has genuine need for at least one of the tools (editing protected templates) and has our trust not to abuse/misuse the others. The workload for the existing Admins is already excessive (just look at all the backlog of tasks) and we should be actively promoting diligent users who can help out on specific tasks, allowing perhaps the wider adminship to focus as they do on the broader range of admin-space/XfD areas. We clearly should be supporting Davidgothberg in his technical work of keeping the yarn threads attached to our mop handles ! David Ruben Talk 02:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Nihiltres

I've had experiences with David here and there, and each time, I find a user who genuinely wants to improve the project, and uses imagination and skill to achieve that through useful templates. I doubt that it can be argued that he does not have experience; his specialty extends even to MediaWiki space, where he has, in the talk space, nearly as many edits as myself. I must note, of course, that he is not merely a specialist; his edits in mainspace include contributions with the WikiProject Cryptography. I'm convinced that granting him the mop would be quite helpful - he is often on hand with template improvements, and I can certainly see him fulfilling roles updating templates and reducing backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests (indeed, the mere lack of need for him to make his own {{editprotected}}s will reduce backlog :p ). He has created and uploaded a number of images to help illustrate the cryptography articles; it is clear that he knows how to work with images, or even move them to Commons where desirable, a subcategory of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that is perennially backlogged where he could be of great assistance. I trust this user; I hope you will confirm that my trust is justified. Nihiltres{t.l} 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: He, after such a presentation? Then I guess I have to accept. --David Göthberg (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Updating and handling protected templates. And responding to edit requests for such templates and moving template documentation to /doc subpages and so on. I might also do some image handling. Such as moving images to Commons, which involves deleting the image at Wikipedia. I guess there are many more tasks that I will discover when I read up on the things that admins can do, although I think template land will continue to keep me way too busy. So yes, I will probably be a specialist and not a "well rounded admin". But personally I think we need specialists too. After all, specialists usually are or become experts at what they do, and their work means that other admins get more time to do other work. (And don't worry, I am a pedant so when I try a new task I usually read up carefully before I try it.)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although {{ambox}} is the most widely used of the templates I have made I don't consider it my best contribution. Instead it is the line wrap handling templates {{nowraplinks}}, {{nowrap begin}} and their helper templates and CSS class, and the how-to guide Wikipedia:Line break handling to go with that. I like that kit since it was a hard to solve problem and I think I solved it well. And I feel I got to finish the job and document it well too. Another smaller thing I feel is extra nice is the diagrams I made for public-key cryptography. Back when I was teaching computer security I was surprised of the lack of good diagrams in the literature explaining public-key cryptography, until I tried to make some myself. It took lots of experimenting until I had diagrams that my students understood the right way. (Note, I have not been involved in the text in that article...)
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. For instance the very first article I created (back in 2004 when I saw a red link to it) was Filmjölk. It immediately came under extensive attack so I gave up on it and I even left Wikipedia for a time. However it taught me one of the nice things with the wikiprocess: Over time other editors made it better and in the end the attackers gave up, and that brought me back to Wikipedia. Since then I have on several occasions on purpose employed that strategy. That is, instead of fighting alone, leave the article for some time and let other editors come in and voice their opinions. Although I am a very social and talkative person I am not good at handling the stress related to conflicts. That is one of the reasons why I mostly have spent time editing crypto articles, making diagrams and programming and documenting templates. In those areas we are mostly friendly geeks and thus conflicts are almost non-existent there. And those areas happen to fit well with what I am good at. I guess handling conflicts will not be one of the admin tasks I will work with.

Optional Questions from Vivio Testarossa

4. When should cool down blocks be implemented?
A: I assume this mainly means blocking a user that is involved in heated debate on a talk page? Well, my experience from "the real world" is that forcing one or several of the parties in an argument to shut up usually doesn't solve anything. It just provokes them even more, since it kind of is a way to censor them. It either makes them come back more angry, or makes them leave. Sure, they might seem to behave when they come back, but they will hold a grudge that might pop up on later occasions. And if they leave, well, scaring away editors is not what we should do. Besides, I am a strong believer in the right to freedom of speech.
Of course, since this seems tricky I also took a look at Wikipedia:Blocking policy and its talk page. But that doesn't clarify very well if "cool down" covers disruptive edits in articles or not. But I assume disruptive edits go under the other heading named "Disruption" and thus are another thing. Anyway, WP:BLOCK clearly states: "Brief blocks solely for the purpose of 'cooling down' an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation."
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Well, I had to look that up at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Seems "ban" means the decision/process to ban an editor. While "block" is the tool (technical means) usually used to enforce a ban. So it does not denote any difference in length of time. That is, if it is decided to ban an editor for 2 days, then that would technically be performed by blocking that user for 2 days.
--David Göthberg (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A: Well, I have seen that one before, and I think it is flawed for several reasons. The place to complain is administered by the admin himself (his talk page). And he has the right to set the rules and even move the discussion to a separate page. And the petition time is time limited. It basically is as flawed as the "official" procedure to complain about admin abuse. But it has at least one forgiving factor; it at least tries to be simpler to use than the official procedure. Regarding if I should add myself to it? No idea, I have to think about that for a while. Adding myself to a procedure I find flawed feels wrong, on the other hand if that is the least flawed procedure then that might be the least bad option.
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?
A: Yes, I find that it would be a conflict of interest if I myself blocked that user. Among other things I would probably no be able to fairly judge if the user should be blocked and for how long. And it would be a clearer message to the user if some other admin did the blocking. And since I probably won't be using the blocking tool since I am a specialist I would anyway consider myself too inexperienced to use it in such a situation.
But I should perhaps note that it would take a fair amount of vandalism to my user page before I would ask for a block. After all, it is so easy to revert. But I would warn that user and start to watch that user's other edits. A weird thing is that the few times so far that someone has "vandalised" my user space were done by admins.
--David Göthberg (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
8. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A: Well, you could be meaning the foundation issues or the five pillars. Those two sets overlap a lot. But the way you state the question it sounds like you mean policy pages and then its not easy to answer, since many or perhaps all of them are important and depending on situation different ones of them apply. But on the other hand you cold mean the one thing that we always have to keep in mind, admins are not "rulers" or "lords", we are just here "to serve". Then of course I have my own little policy: "Think and test before you act."
--David Göthberg (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The tough drill sergeant style. Not to be used by admins, since our editors are highly motivated volunteers.
The tough drill sergeant style. Not to be used by admins, since our editors are highly motivated volunteers.

Optional question from Keepscases

9. Approximately how many times have you been Rickrolled?
A: Well, I haven't been actually Rickrolled on the Internet. Although back when I was teaching a platoon of teenage boys and girls in the Swedish Army to march they thought I was so funny that after their first week they wrote a song about me. Then they called me down to the courtyard and sang the song while they marched in advanced patterns across the yard. Much more advanced than I had taught them. Everyone at the regiment was very impressed, including me. I think that goes to show that it is more efficient to handle people in a fun, encouraging, pedagogic way than to use the tough drill sergeant style. Perhaps no wonder I teach dancing as a hobby nowadays. --David Göthberg (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from MBisanz

10. Over here I have a list of some of the lesser known admin tools. Which, if any are you unfamiliar with on either a technical or policy basis?
A: Most of them I was aware of. But these are the tools I had not heard about before: Granting rollback, bulk rollback via &bot=1, similar account name creation (I didn't know there was an account name creation filter) and viewing Special:Unwatchedpages. And regarding policy for all those tools: I have not yet read much of the policies for using admin tools. Since up until yesterday I thought specialists didn't stand a chance here at RfA, so I wasn't planning on becoming an admin. So this nomination came kind of suddenly. But I have known for a long time that I would have daily use for some of the tools: mainly protection, unprotection and editing protected pages (templates in my case).
11. You come across a user vandalizing some articles through POV-pushing, 3RR, etc (Not page blanking or the like), you go to block them and see they have the ip-block-exempt flag (proposed). Does this impact your decision to block? What if they protest that their a trusted user who shouldn't be blocked?
A: Maybe I am missing something, but I fail to see why the ip-block-exempt flag should affect my decision to block or not block the user. As far as I understand it the ip-block-exempt flag is just a technical solution to allow a normal user who happens to be on the same IP range as some vandals to continue editing. And if he claims to be a "trusted user" I would probably respond that that should mean he is an "experienced user" and thus should know better than to misbehave. For me it is worse when experienced users misbehave than when beginners misbehave.
12. How do you feel about the Admin Coaching program? Would you be willing to coach interested users once you have some experience with the mop?
A: Well, in a way I am already coaching other users. That is, I help them to learn more about template programming and related tasks. I always like to share my knowledge. (Don't we all? This is Wikipedia after all.) And I will continue doing that. But doing general admin coaching will not be for me, since I am a specialist. But if you have any "students" that want some lessons in "template handling for admins", send them over to me. And I'll spend some hours (or much more if they like) on IRC with them sharing what I know. Now that was an idea, perhaps I should offer that service over at WP:ADMINCOACH?

Question from User:Wizardman

13. Do you plan to handle updating WP:DYK as an admin? If so how should the update be done?
A: Oh, I love the "Did you know" section on the main page, it is very addictive. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I do not have the main page as my start page when I enter Wikipedia. Since then I tend to spend way too much time reading articles pointed to from the main page. And partly for the same reason I am not likely to spend time working with WP:DYK. But I took a quick look at the instructions over at WP:DYK and they seem clear. Although they involve many steps and protecting the image etc, so it seems one must be very careful when doing the update. (And anything related to the main page should be done with extra care anyway, since it has such high visibility.) (And yes, I know how cascading protection works, I've experienced it several times when fresh admins have protected templates and then by accident used cascading and thus protected the transcluded /doc page for the template too.)

[edit] General comments

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


[edit] Discussion

  • I will go on record now and say that the three opposes (at time of entry), by three editors I have an enormous amount of time and respect for (Dusti, Cameron and Tiptoey) are, well, poor. The candidate clearly stated in Q1 that he will be specialised and has a specific need for the tools. I'd be darn certain he'll probably never delete an article or block a vandal to be honest. Opposing due to a lack of experience at WP:AIV, C:CSD or similar in this particular case is simply creating a narrow perspective of what admin tools are about and perpetuates the big deal mythology. The guy needs the tool set for, IMHO, purely technical reasons and ain't going to harm the encyclopedia in using them. Net Positive Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    A huge ditto to that Pedro. Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand RfA, the question we ought to be answering is, do we trust the candidate not to abuse the tools? The opposes have not been based on any such principle. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can be sure that he'll never delete an article or block a vandal. There is likely to be a time when he becomes bored with template work (possibly very many months away) and decides to explore other areas. I'm sure he will still use the tools wisely then, but a lack of admin-related experience isn't a factor that should be ignored. Epbr123 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, of course, Epbr. We can't be sure he'll never block a vandal. Or delete an article. I suppose we'll have to trust him to make sure he's doing it right if/when he does. Isn't that what RfA really is? Do we trust User:X to use the tools appropriately? I do. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well said Pedro, hmm....okay, I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and this is one of those times. Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I admit the nominee has a vast amout of experience in the areas in which he would like to use the tools. However, the nominee will, should this nomination be successful, have access to all the tools. In my opinion nominees should thus have at least a small amount of experience in all areas. Yes, even in the areas they do no intend to use! Below four edits in AIV, really is (again, IMO) too lower count for me to support with a good conscience. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we can't give out just part of the tool set, and your argument is totally valid and strong because of that. I just personally feel that in this particular case there is enough evidence that although the candidate only needs one bit of the tools, we can assume from their contributions that if they were to venture into other areas they would tread slowly. In a broader sense, I wonder if we (by which I mean all RFA commentators, including myself) are starting to become obsessed with having a "well rounded" contributor rather than an understanding that the tools are merely technical and at times we must remember that RFA candidates only require them for technical reasons - which is what I see here. However I also respect the understanding that the tools come in one box, and this candidate cannot truly demonstrate current W:AIV (as an example) knowledge through contributions and your oppose is fully justified. Pedro :  Chat  21:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm coming in late, and I'm threading this improperly, as it's not directed at Pedro, but I'm a little flustered over any reasoning for opposition on this one. I wonder why nobody has addressed the nominee's concern, which he has stated at least once: why aren't admin candidates drilled this harshly about protected templates, since that falls into admin privileges as well? This is all that the nominee wants to do. Unless the MediaWiki software allows some other method, or the Foundation changes their policies, he pretty much hit a brick wall. Right now, any work he would like to do requires a double work-load. Yngvarr (c) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I thought the question about protected templates was rhetorical: we trust that admins won't get involved in high-risk template programming unless they know what the hell they're doing. By extension, the same could apply to any admin tool. Generally in RfAs we care about the commonly used tools, but the larger point is that we need to pick trustworthy people to be admin, not just people with only one specific skill set. Darkspots (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Since this is drawing to an end: Thanks everyone who commented and voted. It has been a weird experience. Oh, and I did get a bunch of good laughs from your voting comments! So hugs to all and see you out in template land or wherever we bump into each other.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. Support Davidgothberg's excellent work with the recent Wikipedia:ClickFix problem, in which he quickly produced the {{px}} template fix, demostrates why he should be an Admin. He was unable to add it to several templates because they were editprotected, and he is now unable to directly maintain it because the template itself is now editprotected! I had this page on my watchlist so I would not miss this RfA if it ever came up (Is this too early to support? This is the 1st one of these I have supported!). GameKeeper (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Co-nom Support - I initially was thinking of nominating David myself; I may yet add a co-nom (done, second co-nom). His work in templates is really great; I'm currently working with him on {{pp-meta}} and have done a bunch of {{editprotected}}s for him, and he has my confidence through that. Yes, he'll be a specialist, but the need is justified and the trust, I think, is there. Nihiltres{t.l} 01:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - As per my co-nom (sorry Nihiltres, I had previously so offered this, but you're welcome to be a 2nd co-nom !). Has a need, the considered care in what he would do with a mop tool, the courtesy that we expect of those granted additional powers and certainly my trust not to misuse the other implements in the broom cupboard. David Ruben Talk 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Nom support - One of the most resourceful template coders I've met on Wikipedia. Certainly he deserves never to see MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext again. Happy‑melon 09:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    (unless he is editing it). Jon513 (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 09:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I have to say some of the headings on your talk page made me a little worried. I've investigated, quite thoroughly, and there is in fact no concerns. None at all. Specialised reasons for needing the bit, but no concerns at all on accidental misuse - you are clearly a supremly competent coder, and your work here has been incredibly beneficial to WP. Pedro :  Chat  09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. An experienced and trustworthy user with very clear reasons to be an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support My reason for supporting is encoded in the following message: "V fgebatyl fhccbeg gur rkvfgrapr bs fcrpvnyvfg nqzvaf naq jubyyl erwrpg gur arrq sbe jryy ebhaqrqarff". Jon513 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Haha, thanks! Since most who read this page probably are not crypto geeks like you and I: That sentence was encrypted using ROT13 and says: "I strongly support the existence of specialist admins and wholly reject the need for well roundedness" --David Göthberg (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. Looks like a good future admin to me. Best of luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. weak support and the primary reason why this is weak support is because I'm too lazy right now to do my homework right now... I like what I see, but before giving full support I'd have to review you closer.Balloonman (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support I've followed up at least some of what Pedro is referring to above, and see no problems either. And obviously giving you access to edit protected templates is a huge net positive. Good luck as an admin! Darkspots (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Absolutely. Without question or hesitation. Specialists welcome! backs away slowly in awe of your work and dedication... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Strong technical user. Definite benefits of letting him have his own mop and not having to bother others for theirs. Gwguffey (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - Looks good. VegaDark (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support A trustworthy and knowledgeable user. As Wikipedia becomes ever larger and labyrinthine, then Admin specialization will become a necessity. Polly (Parrot) 17:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - I used to view the absence of admin related areas as an absolute detriment to the candidate, however, after considerable mulling and understanding where and how the user wishes to use the tools (along with trust), I feel there shouldn't be a problem. I still would have liked to at least seen WP:AIV, but I'm going with my gut here. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Absolutely The candidate's answers to questions show him to be thoughtful, honest, and trustworthy. Based on his template work I'd say he's less likely to abuse the tools than he is to improve them. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. Agree all little admins need not do all admin tasks. Little David do templates, 'Zilla do rest! bishzilla ROARR!! 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
  21. -- Naerii 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Will not block good-faith contributors without prior discussion, and will not protect pages just becuase he doesn't think they should be edited: good enough for me! ➪HiDrNick! 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support - While there are areas that need improvement (such as WP:AIV, which he has a litt under 4 edits to) I think that he can be trusted with the tools, and will ask when he is unsure whether to use them or not. (Changed from oppose) Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support don't see any cause for concern in the users conduct or in the opposes listed below. Guest9999 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - is civil, can be trusted with the tools & will be a valuable administrator in chosen area (CAT:EP). --BelovedFreak 23:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - I believe adminship is for all trustworthy and proved editors. The fact that he doesn't have much administrative activity record should not be held against the candidate. Pundit|utter 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support Gee, sounds like you can't go wrong here. A very qualified editor, working in a specialized area who needs admin access to continue working. Even the self-assessment of probably not being a well-rounded admin is reassuring, as it only reinforces the impression that this candidate knows what he is doing, and wants to contribute at a higher level than what normal registered users have. Yngvarr (c) 23:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Provided the Q1 answer is honest, and I have no reason to believe it isn't. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support as above by the guy from whom I took the code for my signature-> Pewwer42  Talk  01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Will make good use of the tools. --Sharkface217 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support - excellent reasons for having the tools. I trust this user to know his limits and to test the waters carefully when trying admin functions. Risker (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support, solid candidate, obvious need for the tools (well, one of them, anyway), and no reason to believe that he's abuse the tools if they were given to him. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC).
  33. Support, asset to the 'pedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support Certainly needs some of the tools, and will use them right for what he wants to do. I furthermore have confidence based on his general experience that he he wants to try working elsewhere, he will do so carefully and be an asset to us there also. DGG (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support User will make good use of tools. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 05:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  36. Needs a little bit of work, but has the basics for an administrator hopeful. David seems well acquainted with the responsibility of the tools and may use this RFA as a learning curve for future, potential work. Rudget (review) 10:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support valuable and committed contributor. Shyamal (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Solid. Trustworthy. Careful. Honest. So what if his use of admin tools will be narrow initially... κaτaʟavenoTC 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support. I've found David's work on Wikipedia:Line break handling particularly helpful and have recently become aware of his ambox contribution. I suspect I have but a limited appreciation of his work thus far and I'm wondering where next I'll find some constructive presentation-enhancing work in which he's played a significant if not seminal role. I've no doubt that whatever administrative privileges he finds himself using -- regardless of whether they're many or few -- will be used well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support Has been around since Sept 2004.No concerns as per misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  41. Weak Support In this users long "career" here he has shown no signs that he will abuse the tools. That is my main reason for supporting him. I do see the fact that he is not experienced in admin areas as a concern, but when a user has not other problems then it is not enough for me not to support him. Good luck!--SJP (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support excellent user. SpencerT♦C 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - I don't see anything to say that he will abuse the tools. The lack of experience in the usual admin areas would normally be a concern, but his trustworthiness and stellar work in the template space show a clear need for the tools. I trust, also, that he will not get in over his head, and that he will ease into use of the tools in other areas slowly; he does have good judgment. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Completely agree with Pedro in the discussion section. This is a specialized candidate who can only benefit from gaining the tools; his work thus far has been more than exceptional. I feel confident with his overall knowledge, and suspect that he will not take any actions that he feels are out of his range without asking for help. GlassCobra 02:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support User seems worthy of community trust -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support His need for the tools is obvious, and it seems clear that he has no intention of participating in the areas he doesn't fully understand without taking the time to learn about them first.--Dycedarg ж 03:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  47. Strong support For a coding specialist those are some really well thought out answers! MBisanz talk 07:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support He is trustworthy. Good luck. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support. Good luck and great work. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support, like the answer to my question. Wizardman 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support. Normally I'd like to see a few more edits, but after reading the answers to the questions and Davidgothberg's talk page, I have no worries about the mop. I'd love to see more admins who are so committed to reading instructions before acting! :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support, I can't see any reason to oppose. MrPrada (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support. An extraordinarily capable Wikipedian who will put the tools to judicious use. Not the slightest risk in this case.–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 09:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support: Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  55. Weak Support pending users keeps his/her word and will not participate in unfamiliar areas without requesting help from an expierenced admin. Good luck Davidgothberg. Dustitalk to me 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support Of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support Absolutely no concerns here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support for a good person. SilkTork *YES! 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support due to no memorable negative experiences with candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  60. —Dark talk 09:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support He's done great work on templates and will be a trustworthy admin. --CapitalR (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support - great work on English wikipedia. I can't vouch for his personal web page. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support - looks ok to me. I can see that this candidate has a real need for the sysop bit in dealing with high-risk templates which have been fully protected, etc. IMO, there's nothing wrong with highly specialised admins and AIV work is absolutely not a prerequisite to adminship. S/he will be just fine ;) - Alison ❤ 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support. Excellent example of a 'non-standard' Admin candidate. Spinach Dip 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  65. Seen him around, good user. John Reaves 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support - no-matter which area Davidgothberg specialises in, I'm sure he will be a good admin. Lradrama 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support I've seem him around. iMatthew 2008 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support Will be an asset as an admin. Davewild (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support In short, somewhat mixed. I can see the argument in favour of giving greater reign in the area of updating and handling protected templates. David is someone you want on a technical project, someone you can trust in his own spear, a productive work horse and likable person. Take him out of his comfort zone, give him something new especially none techy and my impression is that he would struggle. Still you require a whole mixture of people in an admin team and without knowing what is really required in the mix of admins(someone send me info please) then I support this request for admin. SunCreator (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  70. All signs point towards a great admin in the making! I'm glad to support. TheProf - T / C 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  71. Of course. Acalamari 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  72. Heck Yeah Support Krashlandon (e) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  73. Shell-Shocked Support This guy created ambox??!!! Also, he's a great editor. ;) Thingg⊕⊗ 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Strong oppose I do not have anything against this user, he/she has made substantial contributions to wikipedia. However, I fail to see this users need for the admin tools. S/he has virtually no edits in admin-related tasks (AIV!!!). Surely someone wanting to become an admin should test the tools from a non-admin perspective first? --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    The candidate has extensive and compelling need for exactly one of the tools (editprotected), and in an area in which there is no possibility for admin participation (CAT:EP). There is no requirement for admin candidates to participate in all or even some of the 'mainstream' admin-related tasks. We have hundreds of admins who participate in AIV, but I would guess that less than a dozen regularly work CAT:EP. The only consideration that I can see is whether the candidate can be trusted not to misuse or abuse the tools with which he is unfamiliar, and I have complete faith that he will not do so. Happy‑melon 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, over the years I have reported vandals at WP:AIV, pages at WP:AFD, images at WP:IFD, categories at WP:CFD and more or less all of them got blocked, deleted or moved etc. I have also successfully defended images at WP:IFD (or perhaps that was on Commons?). Of course, I have followed procedure and first tried to talk to the vandals and put several warning notes on their talk pages. And I have moved images to Commons. And I have worked CAT:EP from both sides, that is admins have come to me and asked me to help them fix protected templates they don't understand. Then they temporarily lower the protection level to semi-protected so I can fix it and then they raise the level when I am finished. And I have always spent time answering questions from new users. And I have been involved over at WP:MOS and its sub pages. And I have done code, documentation and support work at MediaWiki talk:Common.css, MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css and the other skins and related pages. And I worked around the clock for some weeks last summer to achieve consensus and then took part in writing the guideline WP:AMBOX. And I wrote the how-to guide WP:NOWRAP. And I have done work in the "Help:" namespace. (But that is not visible since the help pages are from Meta so I edit them there or edit the "Wikipedia specific help" which shows up as edits in template space.)
    But the last year I have mostly been too busy with coding, documenting and answering questions about templates (support work) that I had not had much time to patrol articles. Nowadays I have to prioritise since I am in the situation where I have to choose between handling a vandal, or answering a question / fixing a problem with some template that is visible on anything from 3,000 - 330,000 pages.
    That I currently have to edit most of those templates by "remote control" is time consuming both for me and for the admins who have to respond to my {{editprotected}} requests. And it means that bugs in such templates can sometimes be visible for days on thousands of pages while I wait for the {{editprotected}} request to be handled. Bugs often inserted by a drive by edit by some admin who did not test the code in a sandbox before adding it. By the way, since admins get to edit protected high-risk intricate templates, why aren't questions about their skills in template programming asked here at RfA?
    --David Göthberg (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    tl;dr! Seriously though, brevity is a virtue that I imagine you will find very useful as an admin. Summarising the above for someone like me would be great practice! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah I know, I was rambling there. Unfortunately brevity has never been one of my skills. But I aim to get good at it at around my 50th birthday.
    --David Göthberg (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose I have to agree with Camaron on this one. The user has little or no admin related activity, and also admits numerous times above, that before he could answer a question, he had to look at the policy, showing he has no knowledge of the criteria or policy (which seems to be pretty important). I think if Davidgothberg wants to be an Admin, he should get his feet wet in some/most admin areas and learn more about Wiki policy. Dustitalk to me 18:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I will relent on this, per the discussion below. Since the user has in fact said that he/she will not participate in unfamiliar areas, I feel better about giving him/her the tools. Moving !vote from oppose to weak support. Dustitalk to me 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Or, to put it another way, he's competent enough to realise when his knowledge is lacking, clever enough to find the appropriate policy information, and honest enough to tell us that he had to so do. I don't see how this translates into "bad admin". Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose - Per above, not quite enough admin related experience here and to be honest the answers to the questions show it. Tiptoety talk 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to support, reason for !vote was, (like Pedro put very well) poor. Tiptoety talk 22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    The issue in the matter is that he isn't familiar with policy and has to look policy up. Most (hopefully all) admins are familiar with Wiki policy and should be. He needs to familiarize himself with policy before becoming an admin. Dustitalk to me 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Cameron, isn't the need for one important tool enough? He certainly does know how to use the tool he proposes to use, and his general quality of editing is reassuring about everything else. Would you consider making this unanimous? DGG (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Probably trustworthy, but I'm afraid I can't support candidates without admin related experience. Epbr123 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Without the massive weight of the nominators, I would probably oppose. Clearly the user is skilled, has been around the Wikiblock, and is trustworthy. However, with the attention we give to policy knowledge on other RfAs, I'm not sure why people are overlooking it on this one. Having to look up the ban/block question? Sigh. I just think that a few days of policy study prior to this RfA would have made a prime candidate. That said, the answer to Q3 was spot-on. Tan | 39 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    He did say, above, that if/when he ever decides to venture away from his specialized (and much appreciated) contributions, that he would follow his "pedant"-ness, meaning read first, ask first, then do. Whilst I normally agree that "well-roundedness" is more appropo and more commonly supported, his reassurances sold me. And answering an unfamiliar question with "I had to look this up" is proof that he won't wander willy-nilly into tools he's unfamiliar with. I'd much rather a candidate "look up" an answer to an unknown question than just jump into an answer. In fact, when someone "just answers quickly" without looking it up first, he/she is generally opposed for that more readily. I can find nothing in this particular editor's prolific history to suggest that he would even misuse, let alone abuse, the tools. (and I'm positive you're not suggesting that either). Just my thoughts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think the answer to Q8 supports my neutrality, so to speak. Admins should not have to "look up" basic policy during their RfA - policy knowledge is de rigueur for other candidates, this should be no exception. Tan | 39 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    I assume you actually mean Q5, but that's a minor detail. Certainly administrators should on no account make use of tools which are controlled by policies with which they are unfamiliar. I'm not particularly well versed in WP:BLOCK myself. But as you can see, I've never been to Special:Blockip in my life, except to have a look around when I was exploring all my shiny new cleaning tools. A candidate who intends to use a tool, but is unfamiliar with its associated policy, is cause for serious concern. A candidate who is unfamiliar with a policy, but has no intention of ever enforcing it, is (IMHO) of far less concern. A candidate who is unfamiliar with policy, but doesn't intend to use the associated tool, and reads up on the relevant policy anyway, is of no concern to me whatsoever. If you trust the candidate to use the admin tools only where he is familiar, or prepared to become familiar, with the relevant policy, then I don't see any reason why an incomplete knowledge of Wikipedia's rulebook is a problem. Happy‑melon 17:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't have a reply to this, but for the record, I did indeed mean Question 8. Tan | 39 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have no problem with an admin candidate having to look up a policy. IMO, nobody can know all of the rules/policies, the important thing to me isn't that they know everything, but that they know enough to find what they need.Balloonman (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    So are you saying that we should let someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki policy because they are telling us they will look up a policy before making a decision? We don't have time for that here, as sometimes an Admin needs to make a split second decision. By letting someone through who has to go look up a policy before answering a question is a poor decision in my view. Granted, most admins don't know everything about all of the policy's, however, they are familiar enough with them to answer a question without looking them up. Dustitalk to me 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    On the contrary, the candidate is indicating that, since their knowledge of certain admin-task policies is incomplete, he will not participate in those areas unless and until he is familiar with the relevant policy. In the areas where he intends to operate, Davidgothberg's knowledge of policy and process is already extensive; in the areas where his knowledge is lacking, he has little or no interest. So there will never come a time when he has to "make a split second decision" (and I incidentally disagree that any admin should or does ever have to make a "split second" decision) based on incomplete policy knowledge. Happy‑melon 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Dusti, I have yet to make a "split second decision" as an editor, let alone an admin. WP:TIND. And to quantify this particular editor as someone who doesn't know anything about Wiki policy, is quite frankly wrong and rather harsh. You are entitled to your opinion, though, even when it's wrong. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    I will admit that maybe the above comment was harsh, and I apologize if it comes across as such. My only worry with this RFA is that other users have been criticized because of incompetence in some admin related areas, and that caused the RFA to fail. Are we making an exception here? Dustitalk to me 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    The exception appears to come from the fact that the candidate has made it clear he doesn'really want to participate in those areas for which he is being criticized in lacking knowledge (and made it clear even at the beginning of the RFA). There are admins who don't participate in AIV or RPP, should they be called to task as well? Yngvarr (c) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Agree, Yngvarr. That's the difference to me as well. I have yet to make a single post to AIV that I recall, or block anyone based on an AIV report, I would hope that doesn't lead to my desysopping. If I ever did decide that's what I wanted to do, I would like to think that I would read up first....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    This may be the first time and last time I ever say this :), but maybe my concerns were wrongs. (*sigh*) My main concerns were that the user seemed inexperienced. I apologize for being mistaken on this user. I have spend some time now looking through user contribs and this user seems like he would use the tools fantastically. I wish him good luck and hope that maybe one day, I will be able to follow in his footsteps with a successful RFA. Good luck and keep your head up!!! Dustitalk to me 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Being able to admit to mistakes is a very noble attribute, so I salute you for it :D. Happy‑melon 20:37, 7 April 2008 (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.