Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Savidan

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

Savidan

[edit]

Final (83/2/0); Ended Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:14:23 (UTC)

Savidan (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination. I've been on Wikipedia since December 2005, I have more than 13,000 edits, and I've done just about every job there is to do here. Please feel free to look through my contributions, or the executive summary. I'd like to be able to use the admin tools to contribute even more to the project, and hope that other's are ready to trust me with them. savid@n 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Of course. savid@n 02:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7

I first encounted Savidan through a disagreement we had at WP:AFD. Savidan was incredibly civil and, although we had disagreements on just how WP:Notability was defined, I was most glad to have had the conversation with him (documented here). Savidan is more than qualified for the position of sysop and it is my pleasure to nominate him in the hope that he gets the position. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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: There really isn't any one thing; it's more like a lot of little things. In the past two months especially I've run into a lot of jobs that needed doing, and would have done if I'd had the tools. Most notably, I'd be interesting in helping update WP:DYK, correcting main page errors, and completing requested moves. These past few weeks I've had the time for some original contributions that have been on my to do list for a while, but normally I like to spend a lot of time reverting vandalism and I'd like to be able to do that more efficiently with rollback and be able to block repeat vandals without having to go through the somewhat inefficient WP:AIV process. WP:RFPP is another place I'd monitor. I'm less interested in AfD or speedy deletion for the foreseeable future—I'm a bit of a deletionist, so I'd prefer to get a second set of eyes on all but the most uncontroversial deletions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm happiest with my work on early Christianity and the Roman Catholic hierarchy. My magnum opus has been Pope Pius XII which I got featured (this is what it looked like when I found it). To a lesser extent, I am pleased with Assata Shakur and Burr-Hamilton duel, which I hope to one day get featured.
You can see a full list of my original contributions here. However, I am increasingly also trying to focus on articles where I am not the main contributor. I read Wikipedia compulsively, and often can't resist fixing things ;).
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've been in my share of disputes. After learning from some faux pas in my early months, I've tried to keep my disputes on the talk pages rather than the revert histories. I know that a lot of editors try to avoid the stigma of becoming involving in any disputes; to some extent I've started seek them out by monitoring most of the WP:RFC notice boards. I learned very early on with Pope Pius XII that it is important to focus on specific points of article content and not to make sweeping statements about articles, article subjects, or editors.
I think that the informal methods of dispute resolution are the most important asset Wikipedia has. I've been an advocate for a few months now (mostly offering advice by email), and found that just giving people good editing advice (e.g. how to cite sources properly) does wonders for many disputes.

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A:WP:IAR is perhaps the most misunderstood policy as I often see people quoting it as if contradicting policy were a desirable end in and of itself, or a link to it were sufficient to counter a policy dispute. I think it means that the spirit of the policy is more important than the letter of the policy, and that the goals of improving and maintaining the encylopedia should shape policy rather than the other way around. I basically agree with the suggestions essay, especially the parts directed at admins.
I'd leave it to others to invoke the snowball clause in nearly all instances. I think there needs to be a compelling reason to circumvent policy —other than the mere prediction that a process is likely to result in same outcome.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No, only preventative.
6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I'd first check to see whether the appropriate sources existed to write an article that would ever be anything more than a backup of the company's website and press releases. If the article is just an obvious ad, I'd have no qualms with deleting it; however, if it made a claim to notablity that a reasonable person would consider plausable I'd sent it to Afd instead (after possibly removing the offending content).
7. What experience have you had with evaluating reliable sources outside of Wikipedia?
A: I'm a policy debater and I never cease to be amazed with the blogs and random, unqualified websites which people will bring up in a debate round. In high school debates that I judge, those might as well be toilet paper.
8. What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
A: I'm an undergraduate at Dartmouth College. I graduated from St. John's School.

Optional Question from Gnangarra

9. Your statement I like to spend a lot of time reverting vandalism and I'd like to be able to do that more efficiently with rollback and be able to block repeat vandals without having to go through the somewhat inefficient WP:AIV process. What are your thoughts on making WP:AIV efficient.
A: I don't have any suggestions; that process is about as good as it can be. Just anecdotally, I can remember times when I've listed an IP and it has continued to vandalize (and recieve more "final" warnings) before getting blocked, or when its been blocked by an admin who came across it independently by the time I got the IP address copy and pasted and an explanation typed out.
I can tell this is an important issue for you (based on some of your other rfa votes), and I assure you that I'll try to do a better job or issuing warnings, regardless of whether my candidacy is sucessful. Usually I use AmiDaniel's tool, which does the warning for me; when I don't give a warning it's usually been when I find "stale" IP vandalism from my watchlist, but—as per Quarl's comment below—I'll make sure to fix that as well.

Optional Question from Aminz

10. Sorry for taking your time. I have a question regarding WP:RS and "WP:Beware of False Authority". How do you think one should concretely evaluate the reliability of a source which is written by person X and published by Press Y? I mean, what is the algorithm (e.g. 1. searching in google for X 2. etc etc) Sorry if the question looks silly.
A: I think this is an area where there's pretty broad editor discretion and common sense is at a premium. Preferably, all sources could be from both credible authors and credible sources. However, A qualified author—even when publishing from blog—is probably OK. The NYT—even when written by Joe Idiot—is probably OK also.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support I've looked through some of your contributions and talk page history and can't really see anything indicated that you wouldn't make a good admin. In fact, I'm finding a lot of recent praise on your talk page. Whatever the result of this RfA, keep up the great work! alphachimp. 02:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Looks good. Well spread edits. Asteriontalk 02:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Savidan and I have disagreed recently on a series of AfDs, but I have come out of it respecting his level head and respect for Wiki policies, and I am pretty sure that he'll use the admin tools responsibly. I would encourage Savidan, a self-admitted deletionist, to be willing to hear second opinions and reconsider articles he may speedy delete (as all admins should be willing to do), but so long as he keeps that in mind, he'll be a solid admin. JDoorjam Talk 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Seems to be a solid candidate + support from someone who disagreed with him is good to see Bwithh 03:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Habemus Administratoram. - crz crztalk 05:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - No reason to oppose. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yup. I've seen good work here. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support I thought he was already an admin. Dionyseus 07:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Terence Ong 07:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, with no reservations. --Kukini 08:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 09:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per nom. Acs4b 09:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Looks like a good candidate for adminship. (aeropagitica) 12:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Lots of good edits, no reason not to promote to admin. Coemgenus 13:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 13:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I see no problems with mopifying this user, but after looking over the contribs I would appreciate it if Savidan diversified beyond just doing AFD work. >Radiant< 14:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom. sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 π 14:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I trust all of the voters. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're certainly entitled to your !vote, this seems like kind of an odd criterion to base it on, and will look even odder if Savidan starts to pick up a bunch of "Oppose" votes. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the note GeeJo. Maybe you are right but it is just another way to say per above/per nom. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support definatly, one of the best candidates I have seen in a while. — Arjun 15:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Candidate definitely meets admin criteria. –The Great Llamasign here 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Candidate meets all my RfA criteria. Nishkid64 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Great work so far, I offer my support without any reservations. TSO1D 18:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Fixes up, looks sharp! -- Kicking222 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support this is usually frowned upon sometimes controversial, but it is outweighed by all of your good qualifications as enumerated above. Dar-Ape 18:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it be more accurate to say it's controversial (though I don't really know why, and if someone would drop a note at this RFA's talk or my talk explaining, I'd appreciate it).--Kchase T 19:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why I said this. Dar-Ape 19:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, Savidan explained his reasoning to me and I don't mind. Dar-Ape 20:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I'm really impressed by that response. You're going to make an excellent sysop. alphachimp. 08:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming/advertising widely is definitely frowned upon, but posting a single notice on one's own user/talk page is smiled upon (at least by some); there is even a template {{rfa-notice}} for this purpose. Usually it's not necessary since someone else will have messaged the candidate to nominate them, but for self-nominations it would be the only notice on the user's page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 01:18Z
  26. Support - highly qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, a great editor.--Aldux 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Absolutely no problems at all.--Anthony.bradbury 20:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - due to wealth of experience in the image namespace [1] --T-rex 20:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support, what isn't there to like about this user? // I c e d K o l a 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support an all-around great candidate. RHaworth uses the interesting approach of a self-imposed moratorium on speedy deleting most articles that haven't been tagged by someone else, thereby giving each article at least two sets of eyes before getting deleted. This may be worthwhile if you ever start patrolling new pages or handling CSD. I think advertising the RFA on your userpage is perfectly appropriate for the same reasons Savidan stated. Thanks for that follow-up.--Kchase T 21:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Has good qualifications to become an administrator. Hello32020 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support This is a great candidate for adminship. His answers are great and is very confident. Nice. ← ANAS Talk? 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good editor. Yuser31415 23:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support- You'll be a fine admin--SUIT 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support nice answers to the questions, sounds pretty good to me. James086Talk | Contribs 02:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, yes. Proto::► 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support looks alright.-- danntm T C 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, indeed I am quite surprised that Savidan was not already an administrator... ! Based on my indirect encounters with him (be it in the course of vandal-fighting, discussion, or other issues) I see no reason that the Wikimop won't be in good hands with him. --Kinu t/c 07:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, a fantastic editor who would benefit greatly from adminship. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 15:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Seems great, featured articles are a plus, not at all bothered by not issuing a warning to a vandal once.. people take that stuff far too seriously. --W.marsh 15:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, excellent answers to the questions, well-rounded edits, and a reasonable guy. Yes, indeed. --Mhking 16:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I know him from the FARC of Pope Pius XII. My conclusion is that his is a fine editor, and can be a fine sysop.--Yannismarou 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, everything looks fine. Just don't always seek out a controversy to jump into. -Amarkov blahedits 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, seems highly unlikely to abuse the tools or other editors. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Can't find any notable faults, looks great.Ganfon 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Great work, will no doubt use tools wisely. --Bezking Talk • Contribs 00:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 01:10Z
  49. Support Great Job. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 01:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Will make a good admin. Gimmetrow 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Per above. IronDuke 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I have observed Savidan's editing and participation on a controversial BLP article and I am confident in his abilities. IMO he will make a good, fair and considerate admin. Ekantik talk 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support You participate in AFD, very civil lots of Wikipedia and naimspace edits. You filled in your edit summaries and you participate in GA/FA candidates (extra points in my book). You observe the policy carefully and excellent answers to your question. You don't seem to revert vandalism, but at least you warn the vandal, but all the other contributions cover that flaw. I support.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support John254 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support A Wikipedian who is more than qualified for the mop. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Overqualified? <cliche here>. --teh tennisman 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Tizio 15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Deserved this a long time ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs)
  60. Support - As long as Savidan keeps on issuing vandalism warnings when reverting vandalism, then I have no concerns supporting this editor. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - This user, Savidan, deserves the administration title. He shows courage and leadership throughout what he does at Wikipedia. --Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Haven't seen any issues. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Bucketsofg 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support, respected, helpful, solid editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Zaxem 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support without prejudice, a very strong candidate who I trust with the admin tools. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support--Húsönd 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I am excited to support this candidate per the multitude of reasons above. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Sure, the 1 oppose makes a very good point, and your edits seem a bit concentrated, but there's no way you shouldn't be an admin. --Wizardman 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. LD support I got into a conflict with him a few months ago, and he handled it admirably. Savidan will make a fine administrator (even though he does do policy) ;).
  72. Support Sir Cyrus 22:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this is users first and only edit --TeckWizTalkContribs@ 22:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support to jump on the bandwagon. Just H 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per all of the above. JorcogaYell! 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. --2007 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    — Happy New Year 2007! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  76. Support an experienced user. Shyam (T/C) 05:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support qualified candidate, TewfikTalk 18:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Good editor. --Carioca 20:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support A good candidate, will make an excellent admin. Canadian-Bacon 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Aminz 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per nom SUBWAYguy 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support --WinHunter (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Looks like a great candidate for the mop. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. NeutralOppose your state this "I like to spend a lot of time reverting vandalism and I'd like to be able to do that more efficiently with rollback and be able to block repeat vandals without having to go through the somewhat inefficient WP:AIV" while its an admirable statement WP:AIV is only effective when the full range of warnings are issued to vandals, a recent revert of vandalism by User talk:129.198.241.62 a user previously blocked for vandalism, to the article Burr-Hamilton duel you didnt issue a warning. Gnangarra 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained the edit in question on Gnangarra's talk page. savid@n 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    response from my talk page about this comment
    Hi. Regarding this revert, it was probably an oversight on my part not to issue a vandalism warning. Part of the reason is that I wasn't in "vandal fighting mode," having come to the change more than two hours after the fact (because the article was on my watchlist), and because the edit in question wasn't that egregous. In my experience, the efficacy of warning an ip for vandalism decreases exponentially the longer the delay between the vandalism and the warning. For many service providers, the message might be recieved by an innocent third party, instead of the intended vandal. savid@n 03:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    all your recent rv are the same no warnings are being issued; User talk:82.58.49.69 to Goshavank at 04:48, 18 December 2006 no warning; User talk:204.184.199.1 to List of notable policy debaters on the 14th and 12th december no warnings. While WP:AIV may not be 100% effect you cant critise it as being ineffective when you arent follow the instructions, to me this indicates a lack of understand of WP policy and lack of willingness to follow policy, hence my change of vote to oppose. Gnangarra 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: User:82.58.49.69 was a hit-and-run vandal - the edit of the Goshavank article was the first and only edit by that user. In my experience, posting a warning on the user's talk page in such cases is a waste of time - it's only worth doing so if there is an indication that the IP address is persistent rather than a dial-up or one-time edit session. (On the other hand, User:204.184.199.1 seems to be a repeat vandal.) John Broughton | Talk 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In support of warning vandals, I will say that even after the fact it is helpful because it documents what happened and sets the tone for the next warning. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 01:28Z
  2. Probably completely irrelevant but mild oppose solely on the basis of response to Q#5. Tomertalk 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.