View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottDavis

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

ScottDavis

[edit]

Final (49/0/1) ended 19:29 3rd November, 2005 (UTC)

ScottDavis (talk · contribs) – ScottDavis is a committed contributor who has done much good work over his 10 months at Wikipedia. With over 5,300 edits in every namespace, users can be assured of his dedication and extensive interaction. Scott's work on Australia-related articles has been invaluable, and he has taken the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight under his wing -- in fact, he revived it. He is frequently seen combating vandalism, so extending admin capabilities to Scott would be very worthwhile in that regard. I can attest to his integrity; in his time here, I have never seen him be anything other than polite and constructive. This clearly is a case of he should have been one months ago. Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I Accept the nomination. --Scott Davis Talk 13:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong Support as nominator.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support as seconder(!)--User:SatuSuro 10:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per nomination. JPD (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Martin 14:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --JAranda | watz sup 14:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support because there's a mini-blizzard. CambridgeBayWeather 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mop-itize this guy. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. oh, and Merovingian, where are the colors? I miss them :) Oran e (t) (c) (@) 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support About time we had another southern-hemisphere interested admin--Xiphon 18:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, as per nomination. Carioca 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support- Astrotrain 20:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as per sitting in my chair and seeing that this person should be an admin. Private Butcher 20:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support -- a very worthy consideration for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Geoff/Gsl 21:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support User:Hesperian 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks good. Dlyons493 Talk 22:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support a level headed editor, should make a good admin.--nixie 23:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. Ambi 01:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support.--cjllw | TALK 01:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support -- Nickj (t) 04:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. El_C 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. More than happy to Support. He has been an active contributor to Australian articles. --Roisterer 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support -- Ian ≡ talk 07:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I think Scott Davis would be a fair and objective administrator (if he wants to take on the role). - Diceman 19:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support from across the Tasman. another goody. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - shameless piling on! :-D  BD2412 talk 00:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support fellow vandal buster! Give him the keys to the janitor's cupboard. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good man. Cheers, - >>michaelg | talk 12:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Of course! Sango123 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support sounds good to me. Gryffindor 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support as per CyberJ's nomination. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support as per nomination. Silensor 06:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've seen nothing but good works. --Dalziel 86 14:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Fine candidate, will make a good admin. Alf melmac 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. See no reason for concern here. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I've witnessed ScottDavis' rise to glory over the past year or so and his contribution to Australia related content is awesome. He displays leadership characteristics in his discussions, which evolves Wikipedia postively by inspiring those around him. An inspirational candidate. --Commander Keane 18:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Dedicated and responsible. Donama 01:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I've found him to be a very level-headed editor. Also the more Aussie Admins the better! – Axman (☏) 04:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, not so much a case of "thought he was one" as "want to know why on Earth he isn't one, are you people asleep at the wheel?" --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. What he said. Jonathunder 21:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. -- DS1953 talk 23:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support +sj + 03:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Edit conflict and timeouts Support. Grr. Alphax τ
  47. supportAdelaideRandel 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC) εχ 02:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. The Minister of War(Peace) 08:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. After reviewing his contribution log and reading his answers to the questions I can support without any reservations. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The thing about watchlist-reverters is that they tend to miss the more obscure instances of vandalism. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
As far as I can see from other RFAs, the worst possible thing I can do during an RFA is to actually respond to comments, but here goes: I expect my interests in Wikipedia will continue to move over time, indeed I've only recently found interest in more actively watching New Pages. It is possible that I will find enjoyment in RC patrol for a while in the future, admin or not. I would guess it's easy as an RC-patroller to recognise that writing "Penis" or "old fart" all over a page is vandalism, and yet I reverted an edit like that from my watchlist, nearly an hour after it happened. An RC patroller is much less likely to recognise notes from disgruntled teens. I believe both kinds of monitoring are important to the overall quality of the encyclopaedia (as well as weekend scans of my favourite categories). I also recognise it is important to followup other recent contributions from an author who earned a revert for one article, as they may have done a series of related edits.
I also expect that once given admin tools (should this RFA remain successful), I am more likely to show an increased interest in areas where the tools are useful. --Scott Davis Talk 01:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that vandalism-reversion is a general task and not specific to admins, right?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Certainly combatting vandalism. While I rarely monitor Recent Changes, I do keep a wide range of articles on my watchlist (every page I edit gets at least a few days on my watchlist, most get quite a bit longer), and frequently find vandalism on less well-known articles as well as the high-profile articles. I will help other users with whatever problems they have, particularly where moving articles to better names is blocked by non-null histories in a redirect at the proper name. I expect I will also become involved in Categories for deletion/renaming, as I consider accurately categorising all articles to be important.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
  • Murray River crossings is an article I researched and created from scratch. I also wrote most of Rail transport in South Australia. I ensured that all Governors of South Australia have articles, and intend to do the same for Premiers of South Australia.
  • As my nominator said, I've revived the Australian Collaboration, mostly as I was sick of seeing the same article stated as collaboration of the fortnight for several months! I'm pleased to see that editors are responding to the collaboration changing regularly.
  • In general, I tend to make sure articles meet some minimal standard for naming and basic information, particularly for country towns in Australia. This is because I enjoy travelling around the country and visiting the places I have read or written about.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I don't stress easily, and tend to back off rather than let myself feel stressed. One conflict I have been involved with started from a new contributor adding anti-immigration bias in the Australia article. He/she found strong opposition, and was encouraged to leave it out of the main article (which was on the point of becoming featured at the time), and consider contributing to Immigration to Australia instead. This immediately reduced the level of the conflict between that editor and other more experienced editors. The next stage was that I tended to act as mediator and rather than revert each contribution, I tried to find something valuable, and massage it to a more NPOV perspective. By interacting with the user, I encouraged him/her to provide references for their claims. I believe the outcome is reasonably neutral, but still allows the other contributor to present their main point that immigration may increase the cost of housing. The article could still do with a better writer than me going through it and tidying up the prose though. I have also been in other lower-level conflicts and found that assisting contributors to find the right article to add a particular view to may be the difference between a revert war and all parties being satisfied.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.