User:Balloonman/RFA-Davidwr

Davidwr

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Davidwr (talk · contribs) – I've been watching David participate in a number of areas over the past 2 or 3 months and had an overall positive view of his contributions. So I decided to take a closer look at his edits. David has a solid understanding of Speedy Deletions, he is active at WT:CSD discussing policies and procedures and does CSD patrol already. One of the things I was impressed with was that he will often remove a CSD tag from articles and place the article up for AFD or PROD it. He is very active in an unusual area of XFD. While people who work at AFD are a dime a dozen, people who participate at MFD/IFD are rarities. He does so with more than just a per X rationale. He also participates at AFD, where he again provides rationale for his !votes. He is active in a number of different areas where he discusses policies and procedures.

As for building the encyclopedia, David isn't the most prolific content writer, but he has started several articles and numerous lists. Most of his contributions come about through his other activities. For example, here he saw an article at AFD that needed help, and before !voting he worked on it in an effort to salvage the article. A review of his contributions will show this not uncommon for him to do. He will often be performing wikignome type work, when he'll put aside his gnome work to rewrite an article. He does this often while patrolling new pages or reviewing CSD's/ By helping with the random articles, David helps improve articles that might not otherwise be deleted. Helping random articles meet WP's minimum standards can be just as beneficial as pushing articles to GA status. I say this because it is the opposite to the corolary that "CSD'ers can do more harm to the project than the vandals they fight" by chasing off excellent writers. If a user randomly helps a new user get his/her article up to code, that assistance may (in the long term) help get new content writers to stay at the project.

David does have a black mark against him. In May of 2007, he was indef blocked by Arbcom. That was over 18 months ago and he has had a clean record since then. I am a firm believer that I would rather give an editor the chance to redeem themselves under their original account (this way the community can monitor past problem accounts) rather than have them hide their identity and start a new account. If we deny Davidwr the bit based upon an issue from over 18 months ago, then we are sending the message that forgiveness is not possible on WP and that a person is better to hide their transgressions by starting a new account than to work harder to redeem themselves in the eyes of the community. I firmly believe that his clean record for 18+ months, is proof enough that the past is behind him and this block should not count against him.

David asked me the other day for a review, I did so here ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I let Balloonman (talk · contribs) know I was declining awhile back, let's make this official. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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:

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:

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:

General comments

• Links for Davidwr: Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I'll be reviewing some "essentials" in RfA's that I consider. I'll be voting once this goes live. Good luck, David. :-) --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Will this ever go live?--Giants27 ^T/C 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why decline? Just curious ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_160#Straw_poll_about_RFAs_from_people_with_things_to_hide_in_their_past. SoWhy 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)