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

David Levy (formerly Lifeisunfair)

final (35/2/1) ending 00:42 December 28, 2005 (UTC)

David Levy (talk · contribs) – Lifeisunfair has been a useful contributor to Wikipedia since February 2005 (well, he's been a contributor since then; he started editing in earnest in April). He's kept a watchful eye over the templates for some time, and I believe that he can be fully trusted with sysop responsibilites. (And, though editcountitis is fatal, he does have over 2000 of them.) Not only that, but I can personally vouch for his courtesy and professionalism (and overall nice-ness). I came across him when I performed an ill-advised modification to Template:Exploding animals (since moved) quite a while back. You can view the talk page for the details, but basically, he reverted my change (with a note on the edit summary). I reverted and put a note on the talk page. He proceeded to NOT re-revert my change, but instead responded on the talk page, and used... (gasp!) logic, reasoning, and calm discussion to try and prove why the change I made was a bad idea. After a couple back-and-forths, he convinced me that he was right and I self-reverted the page. I think Wikipedia would be a lot better off with him wielding a mop. Matt Yeager 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm honored to accept Matt's nomination. —David Levy 02:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, looks good to me. —Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure, why not? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nominator. The times I've seen him around, logical and professional. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support--MONGO 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Belated Nominator Support. Naturally. Matt Yeager 04:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. King of All the Franks 05:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "With a name like [Lifeisunfair], it has to be good!" (r). In all seriousness, I love the downer comments on talk pages followed by that upbeat sig :). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Make life fairer suppport! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Lectonar 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unequivocal Support. Tomertalk 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support certainly deserves the mop and bucket.Gator (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support more reasonable than I... possibly. :"D RoyBoy 800 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Wikipedia is fairer than life. BD2412 T 01:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Name-changing sellout! — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:18, Dec. 25, 2005
    Support. Fight the good fight. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:32, Dec. 22, 2005
  20. Support per reasonable explanation below. Radiant_>|< 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, per fsf's comment below Sceptre (Talk) 15:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Responses to Radiant's comments show level-headedness and an excellent grasp of policy. howcheng {chat} 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support good editor --rogerd 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per above... -- Jbamb 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Gladly. Sango123 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -Terence Ong |Talk 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. s --Doc ask? 10:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support addressed my concern; give full support. freestylefrappe 23:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Good-natured fellow, who even changed his username to make others happy. A consensus-builder makes a good admin. Xoloz 12:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Life should be fair. jnothman talk 12:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. have had many interactions with Lifeisunfair, almopst all positive. i am suprise he wasn't already an admin. I think objections based on his former usernae are absurd, and i support him under either name, or both. DES (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. -- DS1953 talk 06:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Not to be confused with David Levy. El_C 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few well-known David Levys, and people tend to mention the astronomer. —David Levy 01:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I know a few, personally. Former Foreign Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister on 13 separate occasions, that's quite a portfolio. El_C 02:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - I even awarded him the illustrious Barnstar Barnstar. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose - was one of the most active supporters of ignoring the devs on the meta-templates issue. Phil Sandifer 05:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely never advocated ignoring the developers. I explicitly stated that I intend to follow their recommendations, and merely want to make sure that we properly understand their wishes. I haven't used a conditional template since learning of the problem, and I told you that "I don't intend to ever use such template syntax again, until a developer explicitly states that it's okay to do so." I reinstated ((cleanup-date)), purely to allow the removal of ((qif)) from ((cleanup)). I voted to delete ((if)). I even awarded a barnstar to Netoholic for bringing this issue to everyone's attention. I respectfully urge you to reexamine my involvement in this situation. Thank you. —David Levy 06:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - David has made improvements in his social skills, but I still think that he's got the wrong idea about certain policies, is still too quick to revert changes without investigating or following-up enough, and uses edit summaries to converse/argue. Sorry, but maybe a couple more months may help me change my mind. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Support. For his courage to speak like he did on WP:AUM. See also comments. – Adrian | Talk 19:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to Neutral due to the recent awarding of a barnstar to Netoholic and especially the comment about the "misguided masses". – Adrian | Talk 13:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I never thought that awarding a barnstar would be perceived as a negative act. In case it wasn't clear, I included myself in the "misguided masses" (by which, I was facetiously referring to people who were unaware of the problems caused by meta-templates). Netoholic and I have not gotten along very well in the past, and I felt that it was necessary to extend a token of good will and appreciation for all of the hard work that he's doing. I'm sorry that this offended you, which certainly wasn't my intention. :( —David Levy 13:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What I strongly dislike is Netoholic's manner. Which is one of the key points of this whole desaster. If somebody constantly mocks itself about the work of others [1], thereby implying bad faith, he can be as right as he will, people just will not listen. And if that problem is as paramount as it is said, I do not understand why there couldn't stand up a more moderate person which is able to explain the situation and inform us for example on template book reference personally. If Jamesday or Raul654 would have come by and said who they are and told us what the problem really is, we wouldn't have that mess we now have. Netoholic is just a bad ambassador and his manner aggravates the problem much more as some might think. It's not just a technical problem. We are not a dumb horde or a mob. [2] [3]. I'm sorry that this now infiltrates your RFA. – Adrian | Talk 16:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, diplomacy is not Netoholic's strong suit, but he's working very hard to solve a very real problem. He and I have had our share of disagreements, but I don't hold grudges, and I don't like making enemies. With all of the times that I've complained to Netoholic about one thing or another, I felt compelled to let him know that I sincerely appreciate his efforts to aid the community. —David Levy 18:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • (not a vote) I was wondering about that too. If Jamesday says "please don't do this, it makes baby Wikipedia database cry" then that means don't bloody do it and those saying "goshdarnit I won't do what you tell me" are not only wrong but clueless - David Gerard 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, as I perceive it, is that Jamesday has not issued any statements as definitive as the ones above (at least, not that I've seen). Even when the correct actions are being taken (as I believe is occurring in this case), it's inappropriate for an admin to respond to users' concerns by declaring that there's no need for discussion. The community is entitled to a thorough, first-hand explanation, not merely the word of an admin (even if his/her interpretation is 100% right, and even if he/she possesses knowledge to which other Wikipedians are not privy). This isn't about disputing the validity or importance of the developers' wishes; it's about verifying that we fully understand what those wishes are. —David Levy 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that neutral view on that matter which speaks for itself. To David: It would be helpful to carefully analyse who wrote exactly what and exactly when. But most people do not. Since I have been informed by Netoholic about WP:AUM, I have not made a single edit that violates it. Before that, it was a guideline. What I did was express my opinion on the talk of WP:AUM and I changed WP:AUM from policy to guideline as an offer between the extremes which were "no guideline" and "policy". I did this because my knowledege at that point in time was that David Gerard had announced to block WP:AUM into "guideline" and Ambi reverted into "guideline". My failure was that I reverted Raul654. This was my only revert at WP:AUM. So this was not an edit war. However, I now know after Jamesday's posts that he made after that, that this was misguided, for which I do apologize. But I never acted along the line "goshdarnit I won't do what you tell me". The problem with WP:AUM is that it is not clearly written. Still not today. "Avoid using meta templates" is not correct if you mean "Don't create or use any template that calls another template." And if newbies like me tramp into template:book reference how should they know they shall not add that to articles due to WP:AUM? I found not a single indication there. My second error was that I made a sarcastic statement after template:if had been crunched without having first removed uses (circa 20'000 articles depended on it). The person who did this claimed that the damage would be fixed by dinner, thereby overlooking that I had been working several days to convert uses of template:if to template:qif, which I had nearly completed (I had even announced that on WP:AUM and got no opposition). I knew that template:qif is also not optimal, but at least it has one less call level as it does not call an additional template like template:if. As a somewhat bitter sarcasm I then asked to consider switching off template:qif immediately. This was my second failure. I was then accused to publicly endorse DOS attacks. Sorry for that long statement. But I think this was now overdue. David, if you want to knock me down, then ok. But keep off Lifeisunfair from this. Besides that, assuming that I am clueless is assuming bad faith and is completely wrong. I was also accused to try to vote away server load. This is also wrong. If I write on a talk page what I think, this does not mean that I put up a fight or try to change physical laws by vote. If you deduce this from what I wrote, then you are completely wrong. Thanks. – Adrian | Talk 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May I note that Radiant, David Gerard and Lifeisunfair all were involved in the discussion at WP:AUM. Radiant and David are both strong opponents to central points of what I proposed at WP:AUM. I think nobody opposes the standpoint of Jamesday, but opinions vary on the concrete measures to take. I might also say that the discussion was quite heated on all sides and it is a difficult to solve problem. So I find it adequate to refer to the rules in such a situation. Lifeisunfair acted somewhat as a mediator, which I find he did well. – Adrian | Talk 00:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LIU seems to believe that a 3RR must be followed up with a 24-hour block [1]
No, that isn't my stance. You seem to have misunderstood the nature of the situation. The user in question was blocked for 24 hours, but successfully evaded the block via a sock puppet account and anonymous IP addresses (as Kelly Martin confirmed). During this period, he repeatedly engaged in exactly the same revert warring that resulted in the block. An admin wanted to reinstate the block, but decided to wait for a more experienced sysop to do it. Unfortunately, that never occurred. (Here's a link to the discussion.) Do you think that it was unreasonable for me to suggest that the user's recent transgressions be considered when determining the duration of the new block (for the same offense)?
Incidentally, the user in question was blocked again six minutes before I posted the message to which you linked (which I didn't realize at the time). He then proceeded to evade that block, as well.
LIU supports forbidding further AFDs on GNAA (which is not a bad idea in principle, but officially forbidding it is kind of instruction creepish) [2]
If you want to discuss bureaucracy, I would suggest that permitting the same article to be nominated for deletion ad infinitum (despite an obvious outcome), because there technically isn't a rule against this, is rather bureaucratic.
Seems to juxtapose policies and guidelines when in fact the distinction isn't always that clear [3]
I don't understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate?
Finds it important to repeatedly bring up a seemingly-improper protection (reminiscent of WP:LAME and m:The wrong version), which is less productive than actually discussing the issue [4] (although admittedly he also did the latter)
I didn't complain about a page that was randomly protected in a state with which I disapproved; I criticized an admin who ended a dispute in which he was involved by deliberately protecting a page as his preferred version (which happened to also be my preferred version), referred to opponents' actions as "foolish," and claimed that good faith edits with which he disagreed qualified as "simple vandalism."
I don't know what you mean by "repeatedly," as I raised the issue once. (Are you counting my subsequent replies individually?) —David Levy 02:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) apparently I misunderstood that, thanks for explaining. (2) agreed; my point is not that GNAA should be AFD'ed again ad nauseam; my point is that a single instance does not warrant a policy of its own. (3) I was referring to your phrase "the page's sudden shift from "guideline" to "policy" is a change, even if it was intended to be a policy all along"; the difference between guideline and policy isn't all that strict (e.g. the status of WP:POINT). (4) what I meant by repeatedly is making the point three times in the same section, on something that really isn't that big a deal.
  • At any rate thanks for explaining, and q.v. vote above. Radiant_>|< 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(1) apparently I misunderstood that, thanks for explaining.
No problem. :-)
(2) agreed; my point is not that GNAA should be AFD'ed again ad nauseam; my point is that a single instance does not warrant a policy of its own.
I agree. I don't believe that any formal rule should be created specifically to address this case. I endorse the decisions by Zscout370 and Ta bu shi da yu to cancel the seventh and eighth AfD debates, and I intend to support all such acts in the future. In my opinion, this is a valid application of WP:IAR, the very purpose of which is to reduce bureaucracy.
(3) I was referring to your phrase "the page's sudden shift from "guideline" to "policy" is a change, even if it was intended to be a policy all along"; the difference between guideline and policy isn't all that strict (e.g. the status of WP:POINT).
Please note the beginning of that sentence ("From the users' perspective") and my placement of the terms "guideline" and "policy" within quotation marks. I realize that there often is little practical distinction. To a casual user, however, this might not be clear. Therefore, it's understandable that the sudden label change would result in confusion and concern.
(4) what I meant by repeatedly is making the point three times in the same section, on something that really isn't that big a deal.
Well, my second and third references were replies to David and to you. (I didn't actually "bring up" the issue more than once.) As for whether or not it's a "big deal," that's a matter of interpretation. I agree that the page protection itself isn't a big deal, but the larger issue of administrative conduct is. The use of sysop powers to gain an advantage in a good faith dispute simply isn't appropriate. Though undoubtedly not David's intention, he basically conveyed the message: "I don't have to explain myself or discuss anything with you, because I'm an admin."
At any rate thanks for explaining, and q.v. vote above.
Thanks, Radiant! You probably aren't aware of this, but you were one of the first admins with whom I interacted on Wikipedia, and I actually learned many of the site's ins and outs from you. Your support means a great deal to me. —David Levy 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I understand your vote correctly? You oppose my candidacy because of my username (a song/sitcom reference)? —David Levy 02:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is one of the worst reasons i've ever heard for an rfa vote. I might give weak support just from that vote. karmafist 02:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • David's username states a proven fact. If life was fair, we'd all be incarcerated. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:32, Dec. 22, 2005
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SoothingR, here too, except this time it was his full reason... Redwolf24 (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he thinks all self-noms should be opposed, he's entitled to that opinion. I'm just saying that one must be truly privileged to think "Lifeisunfair" is a bogus adage. Some of Freestylefrappe's oppose votes are, on the other hand, well-reasoned. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:59, Dec. 22, 2005
  • As he is entitled to oppose all users with names which may be perceived as Negative Nancy ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, his vote serves as a perfect example of how life is unfair. ;-) As I explain on my user page, however, "my username is not representative of a plaintive lad's tragically pessimistic outlook. It's a reference to Boss of Me, the Grammy-winning Malcolm in the Middle theme song by They Might Be Giants." (I happen to be a fan of both the TV series and the musical group.) From 2000–2002, I ran a fan website called "Life is Unfair," and I got into the habit of registering similar usernames. A Google search for the phrase "life is unfair" still yields my defunct site (now a redirect to Fox's official MitM site) as the top result. —David Levy 12:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reversing your vote, Freestylefrappe. I'm glad that I was able to address your concern. —David Levy 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Sceptre:

Hi, Will! Did you intend to cast a "support" vote, or are you supporting Freestylefrappe's "oppose" vote (actually located above yours)? —David Levy 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because of fsf's remark Sceptre (Talk) 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I wasn't sure, because you added your vote to the "oppose" section. (I've moved it accordingly.) Thanks for your support! —David Levy 17:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would like to close deletion debates. I feel that I'm very good at gauging consensus, and also very fair. (I don't allow my personal opinions to cloud my judgement). As a mergist, I'm biased toward neither inclusion nor deletion, so my standards of what constitutes "consensus" are similarly balanced. (I'm not, of course, implying that inclusionsists and deletionists are incapable of rendering fair decisions.)
Also, I'll state up front that I firmly support fairly strict enforcement of the three-revert rule. If someone has been warned, a 3RR violation usually should result in a block (with the duration determined by the specific circumstances and the number of previous violations). I deplore any and all attempts to game the system, and I don't believe that such excuses as "I thought that was my third revert," "I thought that I'd waited 24 hours" and "it wasn't a violation because I'm right and the other editor is wrong" should be accepted.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've done some template work with which I'm very pleased. The most notable example probably is the "purple box"/"red & blue arrows" design, which I contributed to the merger/split tags. At the time, there was an edit war between proponents of plain text and proponents of large boxes. I created a middle-of-the-road alternative, which eventually prevailed in a poll. Since then, it's been adopted to varying extents by other languages' Wikipedias, as well as non-Wikimedia wikis.
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. As a matter of fact, I engaged in a stressful revert war with Netoholic over the aforementioned merger/split templates. It was a valuable experience, as I learned that it's far more productive to discuss such issues (and solicit outside feedback, if necessary). While the polls were underway, I requested that the ((split)) template be protected as Netoholic's preferred version. I've found that this type of courtesy and patience goes a long way on Wikipedia.
Netoholic is not a bad guy, he's just sometimes not at all good at arguing his points. Though he's been asking for help on this as a habit of late - David Gerard 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Netoholic, and I've been very impressed by his template work. When he focuses his energy on constructive tasks, he's a tremendous asset to the community. —David Levy 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category