Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dravecky

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dravecky

Final (66/0/1); Originally scheduled to end 22:20, 1 December, 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky (talk · contribs) – Since joining Wikipedia in June of 2007, Dravecky has been a prolific editor. In his first 3 weeks he made over 500 edits to over 20 articles and images. Since becoming an editor he has made well over 30,000 edits scattered over more than 23,000 pages, ranking in the top 400 human editors by edit count. While the vast majority of his edits are in the main article space, he has over over 3700 in article-talk, almost 2000 in template, and almost 1000 each in user-talk, wikipedia, and image. In other words, he gets around. He's also created over 700 new pages and uploaded over 400 images, mostly radio-related but he covers some other topics as well. His contributions are appreciated by other editors, he's racked up over a dozen awards during his tenure, mostly for radio station work and general cleanup work.

Before opening this nomination, I asked him two questions, both of which he answered "yes" to:

  • Would having administrator tools help you improve Wikipedia/If you were an administrator would your contribution to Wikipedia be better than it is now?
  • Do you want to be an administrator?

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Pedro.

Well, this is an interesting one! I'm nominating becasue User:Davidwr came to my talk a few days ago with a question regarding co-noms. David was concerned about having an administrator as a nominator as well. Having reviewed the candidate I'm suprised that no-one has noticed his need for the sysop bit before.

David has called out the key elements above, so I'll be briefer than normal - however some headlines;

  • Numerous requests for moves - Dravecky could really use the ability to move over redirects
  • Lots of image work - again an area where the tools can really help
  • Expansive and significant article creation
  • I noted some deleted edits that indicate sound knowledge of C:CSD both on when to delete and when to decline
  • All the housekeeping seems in check - clean block log, sensible signature and user page, use of edit summary, civil manner, no silly user boxes etc.

All, we've got a massively dedicated Wikipedian who could use the bit whilst creating content. Let's not worry about sufficent vandal fighting, AFD input or clerking at WP:RM here - this guy needs the tools to speed up his editing and make it more effective - they very reason adminship is not a big deal. A net positive for the project awaits us here and I hope the community are in agreement with this. Pedro :  Chat  20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly and gratefully accept the nominations from Davidwr and Pedro. - Dravecky (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I plan to work in the glamorous field of uncontroversial page moves, articles for speedy deletion, and some of the other areas of wiki-plumbing work that I see getting backed up. I have no grand ambitions to specialize in one specific area of the project, preferring to help out wherever I am needed most at that time.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My primary article creation and improvement focus has been in Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations where I have created quite a large number of new articles and improved and expanded many more. I've also enjoyed performing article rescue and expansion on not just radio articles but other diverse subjects (Century Mall, Brian Plante, Heart of Huntsville Mall, Valley View Center). I've also done a lot of work properly categorizing and adding correct stub tags to articles across the range of subjects, helped create and maintain portions of the radio branches of categories and stubs, and generally sought to harmonize naming in all areas of the encyclopedia.
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: I have brushed up against other editors on rare occasion over the last 18 months (most recently User:Lightmouse) but I've largely avoided escalating conflicts by keeping personality out of things and trying to stick to policy and precedent. I've found that on Wikipedia, as in real life, calmly discussing your actions and intentions almost always leads to resolution and progress. One user I've interacted with recently, JoeCool950, recently came in bold and wild but after we talked and I was able to explain why certain edits were made the way they were, he has become a productive and useful contributor to the encyclopedia. (I think my most recent talk page archive tells that tale effectively.)
Additional "question" from Davidwr [ talk ]
4. Related to question 1 and the question I asked before nominating you, how would granting you the tools improve your contribution to Wikipedia? Would having access to the tools distract you from editing? Would your time be better spent doing administrative or non-administrative work?
A: Having the administrator tools would allow me to complete uncontroversial moves and other simple tasks without having to pile more on the already overloaded plates of the admins currently doing this sort of plumbing work. In addition, it would allow me to take on some of the plumbing work myself. I don't foresee admin tasks cutting too much into my article work as I'm already doing a lot of the non-admin plumbing stuff like stub sorting, speedy deletion review, and such so I've already learned how to achieve a balance. If I find myself swamped, I know there are people and resources I can turn to for help and guidance as well.
Additional question from DDStretch (talk)
5. If there was one thing you could change about wikipedia (a new policy, or a new guideline, or something else entirely, for instance), what would it be, and why?
A: If I could wave a magic wand, I'd eliminate the petty vandals that drop in to delete chunks out of articles or replace well-referenced prose with "B00bz!" On a more practical level, I would encourage more active editors to thoughtfully participate in AfD, CfD, and similar discussions. Most editors are either unaware of this work or they avoid it like jury duty. I'm not calling for mandatory participation as that would only lead to a rash of token "per nom" votes where discussion and consideration are what's desired. Maybe an occasional (semi-annual?) note on the watchlist encouraging editors to learn more about AfD et alia and their role in maintaining the encyclopedia. - Dravecky (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Jon513 (talk)
6. Are there any situations when reviewing a page for speedy deletion that you would neither remove the speedy tag or delete the article?
A: If a {{hangon}} tag has been placed on the article, except in a few extreme cases where the natural assumption of good faith has been strongly violated by the editor. If the article was one I had created or made substantial edits to, in which case I would place my own {{hangon}} tag on the article and attempt rescue. If the article was very recently created and the speedy criteria is A7, in which case I would make sure the creating editor had been notified and review the article again after some short period of time had elapsed to see if the content or referencing had been improved to the point where removing the tag is warranted. I've seen more than a few easily salvageable stub articles get tagged A7 mere seconds after they were created but if the article can be salvaged and is properly tagged then there's virtually no harm and much potential for gain if the article is allowed a bit of time for improvement. (Not every editor is familiar with the {{underconstruction}} template and, as the saying goes, "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow.") - Dravecky (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Declaring conflict of interest: As the original nominator it would be both redundant and stacking the deck to declare support. So let's just say I agree with User:Pedro. I trust my !vote won't be needed, if I thought it would be that close I would not have nominated him. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • David - it's not a conflict to add your support below - however the closing 'crat will note it of course. Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that was the intent - to get my support noticed by the 'crat without it affecting the "running totals." Other nominators do this by waiting until the last day to "cast their !vote." It's the same principle. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the hell, the discussion's almost over, I better pile on while I can. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to 500 edits I do believe Useight is right, it actually took me just over 7 weeks to crack the 500 edit mark. - Dravecky (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the 18th Support I had to retract part of the nomination - due to an error on my part I mistakenly thought Dravecky had 500 edits in his first 3 weeks. He had more like 100 or so edits in his first 33 or so days. Editors who supported him before this correction was made are encouraged to revisit their support. Although, from the tone of things this slipup on my part won't cause him to lose much if any support. I take full responsibility for this error. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Beat the nom support - Yes, yes, yes! (2nd BTN in a row)! ;) iMatthew 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But: are you actually looking at the candidates? Garden. 22:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, of course! I've seen Dravecky around before. Is just happy getting two in a row! iMatthew 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support - I strongly support this great user and hope he'll be an admin. Jouke Bersma Contributions 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. Garden. 22:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support before the nom's, go me. Seems an excellent editor. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Per high quality nominations by Davidwr and Pedro :) Pedro :  Chat  22:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SELFREF. :P GlassCobra 11:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, Pedro basically got it all. This guy knows what he's doing and definitely appears to have the project's best interests in mind here. No concerns. ~ mazca t|c 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support In my browsing around wikipedia, I have read many of this candidate's messages and contributions even though I have never interacted with him. I think Dravecky would make an excellent and mature administrator. This is because his extensive quality content contributions means that a firm foundation in the work which is our main reason for being here will almost certainly be maintained. Thus, I trust him with the tools.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Almost the perfect candidate IMO. No time wasted in the sloughs of despond, obviously dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Good user. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Great image work. That's certainly an area where we need more admins. —Ceran☼ (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom. macy 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support – Will do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Good user, good image work, good (future, hopefully) admin. Xclamation point 01:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support good pick for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - User clearly has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I would rightfully deserve to be burnt like a witch if I didn't. — Realist2 02:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. The candidate has a great track record in content-building and communicates well with others. He's mature and informed. I see no problem with him having the buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Toolage for this candidate is both appropriate and overdue. — Athaenara ✉ 04:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. This editor does excellent work and knows his stuff. He'd make a fine admin. Although I'm a bit miffed by the statement in the nomination that he had over 500 edits in his first three weeks. Unless I'm missing something, it appears he had under 100 in the three weeks following his first edit. Useight (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize, this has been corrected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, thanks. Useight (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Supprot Sure. J.delanoygabsadds 05:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support good plan on how to start your admin career. Leujohn (talk)
  22. Support - Why the hell not? — neuro(talk) 08:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. It's difficult to think of something new to say when you're this far down the list, so I'll just say per above. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Hey look, a great editor with an awesome track record who says they want to help with backlogs. I think I'll oppose! FlyingToaster 09:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Wow, even Malleus likes this one! No way I can do anything but support then. GlassCobra 11:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support abf /talk to me/ 14:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Weak support. I would oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timetales and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Stargate, i.e. use of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC style of non-argument, but support per reasonable arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Botany Bay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Hills Middle School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizal National Science High School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luminara Unduli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (5th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kashyyyk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kady Malloy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Kajzer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronauts of Antiquity, as well as the candidate has never been blocked, i.e. positives trump negatives by a good degree. --A NobodyMy talk 16:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support As per Pedro and track is good .See no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per noms. LittleMountain5 17:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Never heard of candidate, but glowing comments in nom, and in supports suggest this is a great candidate. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - Only two edits to the portal talk space. I'll let the 350+ edits to the category talk space make up for it. ;) Support - We need more admins with a focus on content and not politics. Clearly this user's focus is on the articles, although with so many edits, I'd like to see some featured content, or at least Good Articles. Nice to see him dipping a toe in DYK, though. In looking over his user page, I can tell he's got a sense of humor, which I think I'm going to start requiring of all admin candidates. Clueful and qualified, I ask two questions of myself: 1/ Can he be trusted not to abuse the tools? And 2/ Does he have the edit history needed to determine 1? And to both I answer "Yes." لennavecia 18:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Because of my limited free time, I rarely offer support here, but after reviewing this editor's contributions, there's no way I can ignore this RfA. This user deservedly has my support. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good editor. No doubt as to Dravecky's ability!! America69 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good content and reasonable AfD participation. Pcap ping 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Builds the encyclopedia. I hope to emulate their example. --StaniStani 23:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Trustworthy candidate who will benefit from the tools. No grand plans for the mop, but that's okay: every little helps. No other obvious problems. Support. AGK 23:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - So many mainspace edits! --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Strong candidate, obvious need for the tools. No reasons to suspect any misuse of the tools. Good luck! Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Another great candidate? ANOTHER? Wow we're on a roll lately. Support for a great candidate who is trustful and will not abuse the tools :) RockManQ (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Excellent, thoughtful editor. AdjustShift (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Only hear good things from this candidate --Flewis(talk) 11:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  44. Hi, I'm Puff the Magic Dragon and I need to speak with an attorney -- I am being harassed by the DEA because they think I have a stash of you-know-what in my cave (it's just a name, it's not a lifestyle)...oh, wrong queue. But while I'm here: Support for a candidate who clearly lights up the project. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, yes, some wonderful candidates this week. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, without reservation. I bumped into Dravecky regularly over the last several months while working on disambiguating call signs. Solid grasp of policy and guidelines, well-spoken, and doesn't hesitate to dig into the mucky stuff. Combined with the focus on article creation, this one's easy. Mlaffs (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oh, hell yes. "Get the red out", hahahahahaha I love it. — CharlotteWebb 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Great contributions, good article work, everything I like to see in an admin and trustworthy. --Banime (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Fine contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Per Brad. MBisanz talk 03:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support No issues, fine work. SpencerT♦C 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Yanksox (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Has a ton of experience, and definitely knows what he's doing. If Dravecky has the mop, it'll be nothing but a benefit to Wikipedia. Chamal talk 07:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Of course; admins with a serious focus on content are an enormous asset to the project. //roux   editor review10:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Sure. DiverseMentality 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support large amount of contributions, 100%/100% major/minor edit summary usage, no blocks, excellent candidate; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: Strong contributor and no block history. Some added buttons for you can do only good for Wikipedia. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 07:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Well I guess it is true the old saw: "Better late than never..." Anyway, pleased to Support. JodyB talk 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, no reason to oppose. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Very strong candidate. —BradV 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, meets my standards, no major issues. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Nice work on category talk and wikiproject talk pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Pile-on counter-update redundant Support. As nominator, I can freely say "per nom." I think this may be a record for the number of people who "beat the nom." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Update: At the risk of being premature, let me be the negative-Nth to say "congratulations." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Well qualified and giving Dravecky additional tools could only help the project. -- Suntag ☼ 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
  1. I don't get it, candidates get opposed for not having patrolled enough pages, then candidate who has patrolled no pages gets unanimous support -- Gurch (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Dravecky&oldid=1148853963"