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

Mac Davis[edit]

Final: 6/22/6 ended 15:22:23 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mac Davis (talk · contribs) – Mac Davis is an active, fantastic contributor. He has over 4,000 edits (nearly 2000 main and a lot for the Reference Desks. He's had no history of wrongdoing (and even helped correct mine). I don't see why Mac shouldn't be an administrator. -- Chris chat edits essays 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)

15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an honor to be nominated for adminship! I have always wanted to be an administrator after watching in awe how quickly and efficiently they work. :) As for the "no history of wrongdoing," I must confess I had two copyright vios in my first 20 edits (edit: I checked, it was one). Sorry.

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, if any, would 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: I will do anything that needs doing or is not currently being done on Wikipedia. I anticipate that, if I am inducted, my daily editing will greaten to include sysop chores, and more vandal fighting. Rollback, WP:AIW, CAT:ABL, and WP:BACK will end up being my primary functions.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: (I'm sorry, fair use image removed)The Reference Desk! It has been almost a year there, and I love helping people out there. I ask photographers I know if they could donate their image to Wikipedia often, and sometimes they say yes. I also bring a lot of public domain images in from the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, and Navy. I have never really focused on one article, but do a lot of cleanups, reference adding, wikification, NPOV, and tone working.
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: The most stress I have ever gotten from Wikipedia is when I got Vandal Fighter, and found out some jerks actually spend part of their life vandalizing Wikipedia. Conflicts and/or stress concering Wikipedia is never going to happen for me—editing is just too much fun for that! If there is ever a conflict and opposing parties do not intend on compromising at all, I would just have to give in.

Closing message from the candidate:

To be granted the powers of an administrator is to wield the mop and bucket, and is for only the ones that will only be able to do more good. I have proved my experience and knowledge here through the years and edits, I am civil, promote the general welfare, and have even given monetary donations to the Wikipedia that I know and love. I love Wikipedia, and yearn to become a more efficient editor. If it takes jumping through the hoops of AFD and RFA then I will for a year, even though the backlog, fulfilling requests there, and counter vandalism will be what I expect to be doing post-adminship.
Saying that the tasks I foresee doing do not require adminship is like denying a fully-trained, dedicated, civilian the right to become a police officer because the civilian can always take care of any crime problems himself. I do not believe that I should be denied being able to do work that I have not been able to experience yet. I can only read about the admin tasks, and mentally extrapolate them from what I know as a normal, signed-in user. A soldier really has no idea what he is getting into when he joins the Army, but he has an idea of the multitude of tasks he can choose to do, or be forced to do, and knows that he wants to do it to serve his country, no matter what it takes. I only want the greater efficiency and ability in helping Wikipedia. Does it look like I will do harm or become corrupt?
I only want to be able to help wikipedia more than I can now. I have been unbiased and honest in totality, and I hope you will make the decision you feel is fit. Respectfully, — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Optional question from (aeropagitica): Can you provide ten-or-so recent diffs for comments on AfD, MfD, etc and user Talk vandal warnings, please?
A: I have not participated in AfD or MfD, but because it is recommended I will now. Ten talk-namespace vandal warnings within the last month chosen at random:
-
User talk:130.63.96.21
User_talk:70.36.22.190
User_talk:151.202.191.93
User_talk:204.210.185.79
User_talk:204.210.185.79
User_talk:69.234.212.29
User_talk:68.80.95.5
User_talk:80.138.120.31
User_talk:212.32.98.18
User_talk:66.100.35.85
  1. Question from McGinnly: Regarding your answer to question 2 above - could you point us to specific examples of your best cleanups, reference adding, wikification, NPOV, and tone working. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I can't give you a list of "my best," but I can think of a few off the top of my head.
Article Diff
Fog [1]
Endoplasmic reticulum [2]
Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends [3]
Nine courtiers of King Akbar [4]
  1. Question from McGinnly: Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?--Mcginnly | Natter 23:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I would consider blocking an established user iff there was no controversy about the action, and that he or she repeatedly gives personal attacks, persistent copyright infringement, repeated vandalism, excessive reverts (3RR), has a inappropriate, inflammatory, and deliberately confusing user names, is a sockpuppet, or after the death of a user—all as in accordance with |Wikipedia's blocking policy.
General comments

Mac Davis's edit summary details as of 21:22, September 18 2006

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Seems like an honest person who will learn from his earlier mistakes. One doesn't have to be in AfD a lot to be a good admin. Grand Slam 7 23:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I have not "voted" in this RFA as I have not yet taken the time to fully research this candidate. It may be that this candidate is not ready to be an admin due to lack of AFD experience and may not have expressed why he needs the admin buttons.

However, I would like to make a general comment since age has been raised more than once in the discussion below. I'm not sure how many admins we have under the age of 18. I can name two, one of whom is a bureaucrat. What I would like to know is... can anyone name an admin under the age of 18 who has been desysopped? We know that a number of admins have been desysopped. I have read through the ArbCom proceedings for some of those decisions. I never saw age mentioned in any of those proceedings. When we talk about maturity and responsibility, are we sure that age is a determinant of the qualities we are looking for?

Object to this candidate based upon other issues if you must but please don't let age dominate your decision process. And, BTW, I'm more than 3x this candidate's age so don't please don't assume that this is one youth backing up another youth.

--Richard 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong support per comments above. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oh yeah -- Szvest 16:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Hopefully he learns more Doctor BrunoTalk 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Meets my standards, although editor should be careful about copyright and participate in xfD.-- danntm T C 15:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I was actually under the impression he already was an admin (cliche but true) and his edit summary usage, while not stellar is sufficient not to oppose. Also, I dislike the notion that every admin should drop in the *fD snake pit. I prefer admins who are experienced in a particular field and if they promise not to step out of bounds before catching up with their knowledge, I see no reason not to support them. Heck, I rarely protect articles yet I still have the power to do so. Same should go for any of the other tools. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Trustworthy and dedicated. I'm sure he'll learn from the mistakes pointed out in the oppose comments.--ragesoss 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per the copyvios, and pretty weak answers and I dont like that your sig does weird things to my cursor, i also see no AFD, RFA activity et cetera and also less then 99% use of summarys. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't like my signature? Was that supposed to be funny? Changed it for you anyway. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)
    I agree with MatthewFenton a sig like that is annoying. I don't think he was intending to be funny. --Alex (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh the irony. - Bobet 18:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to me or MatthewFenton there? :) --Alex (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How did you know about my recent iron deficiency!? — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)22:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't believe you have a real need for admin tools. Also, I see no recent AfD work. Sorry. --Alex (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Changing to Strong Oppose per this edit. Editor adds copyrighted (fair use) image to this RfA. Oppose. Weak answer to questions suggest the editor is not aware of the admin tasks. Most of the work he suggests diong does not require admin powers. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I don't get the feeling you understand what adminship is at this point in time -- Tawker 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Per above concerns. Additionally, perhaps I'm being ageist, but I don't feel that even a highly mature and articulate 15 year old is likely to have amassed the experience yet to deal with the conflicts that are part of admin duties. Espresso Addict 19:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are being an ageist. I'm not arguing in favor of this candidate as I suspect you are right wrt to him. However, I would like to point out that User:Nataliansmpf is a 16-year old admin who was granted adminship when she was 15. I suspect that there are other young admins but she is the only one that I know of. Please don't use age as the sole criterion for adminship. Thanx. --Richard 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I'm not using it as my sole grounds, but it was a point that I felt was of concern that hadn't been raised by earlier participants. I feel that a 15 or 16 year old would need to clearly demonstrate exceptional maturity & previous relevant experience at dealing with conflicting opinions, in addition to all my other criteria, in order to be a suitable candidate for adminship. Espresso Addict 23:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not much in article writing Jaranda wat's sup 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per lack of experience. Michael 02:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, inexperience. Come back 6 months later and I'll reconsider. - Mailer Diablo 05:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose -- premature nomination. Editor needs a little more overall experience with Wikipedia as a whole. Also, the image/RfA thing bothers me somewhat. -- Longhair 06:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, addition of fair use image (without a usage rationale, even for the article it is currently used in!) shows a lack of understanding of our fair use policy. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sorry, but *fD is an important part of Wikipedia and every admin must be experienced enough in that area. MaxSem 09:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Attitude to blocking - to say he would only block "iff there was no controversy about the action" - Well the controversy is likely to begin after the block, not before. I'm afraid this user isn't up to handling these situations effectively. Also insufficient erudition, eloquence or article writing.--Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I think this user could prove a valuable admin in the future, but currently is hazy about the nature of the role and seems a little callow. Mac - don't be put off from the project if this Rfa fails. You seem like one of the good guys. Just not ready yet. --Dweller 11:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Very brief nomination. Gives no idea what the person is like or what the user works on. Also very weak answers --Ageo020 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per no AFD experience and WP:SIG. Stubbleboy 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per this edit to Phaedriel's talk page. Mac followed up with this response, but that doesn't change what I see as poor judgement shown in posting the video. --Allen 03:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Changed to oppose per concerns above. - Mike 21:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose as per above really. Sorry. Яabi∂ςa√in 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, lacks of experience, answers are weak, try again later. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: age, time in WP and number of edits show us little of an User's value, but I think your use of the edit summary is far too little, and can't see why would you need the sysop abilities to be a better contributor.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose I'm sorry, your age is why I vote oppose. I don't care how mature or smart you are (and you do appear to be as such), I cannot justify giving you admin powers at 15 over people twice your age with academic credentials or published papers etc. TruthCrusader 08:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel disgusted that we have age discrimination on wikipedia. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You make it sound like an election, TruthCrusader. As far as I know, we wouldn't be giving him powers over anyone else... We could always use more experienced admins. Grandmasterka 13:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite wrong to characterise this oppose vote as age discrimination. I agree we could always use some more quality admins, but admins do have the power to block said academics if they think it's the right thing to do - I don't think this should be a "no one can be an admin until they're 18", but candidates should be able to demonstrate a certain degree of maturity - it's a responsible position and abuse (or good faith mistakes) can be very damaging. "Professor Gimble, please stop refering in your structural engineering talk page to the bottom flange of the I-Beam, it's in violation of WP:CIVIL and will offend young readers!" (That's an attempt to make a point with satire and no reflection on your good self at all Mr Davis) :-) --Mcginnly | Natter 17:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mcginnly, you seem to suggest that TruthCrusader is really interested in maturity. But TruthCrusader said explicitly that he didn't care about maturity or intelligence, only age and credentials. --Allen 17:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite right - I fully retract the above, Truthcrusader! what a peculiar position you're taking - would you stop Mozart performing at the Court of the Elector of Bavaria when he was 6 because he was 6. That said Mozart hadn't the power to insist on preventing the court entering the room or to look up the queens skirt on demand (I think that bit came later) --Mcginnly | Natter 18:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to point out that a REAL ENCYCLOPEDIA (which, you know, the fanatics here like to scream Wiki actually is) would NEVER have a 15 year old editor no matter how smart or mature he/she was. Performing music at 6 in front of an audience is quite a different matter than reviewing and having the power to delete content being added by published academics. To use the Mozart parallel is laughable. TruthCrusader 08:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, age shouldn't be a factor. We are not a paper encyclopedia, nor Nupedia, and as a wiki we have plenty of people editing of all ages and numbers of perceived credentials. Grand Slam 7 11:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TruthCrusader, you voted support on Nishkid64's RFA, and they're 16. I respect that if you're going to have a line, you have to draw it somewhere, but your 15/16 line seems awfully bright. If a 16-year-old can be a good admin, and an editor of a real encyclopedia, surely it's at least conceivable that a 15-year-old could as well. --Allen 13:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments above were intended as being rather tongue in cheek - I'll be serious about this now. I have reservations about this candidate as stated above. I have serious reservations about Nishkids maturity, it seems to me completey inconsistant that you would support one and not the other (or vice versa) - If anything, nishkid seems even less mature than this candidate, I'd urge you to reconsider your votes in this light. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral You are a good editor with really good contributions to the Help desk and Reference desks and it is also good that you warn vandals too. The lack of participation in xfD discussions is the clincher for me. I would be happy to support a future RfA with your current level of work and reasoned contributions to xfD discussions, where you can demonstrate a grasp of policy and process. (aeropagitica) 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm with aeropagitica – you're close, but you need broader experience. In 4-6 months and more xfD experience, I'll likely support. As Dweller says above, don't be discouraged or hurt – this is just a process, and I agree that you're one of the good guys who could be valuable to the project. You're just not quite there yet. BaseballBaby 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, don't worry. I was actually planning on nominating myself in spring after I got some xfD experience in, but somebody else nominated me. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I like the fact that you take the time to write relevant warnings instead of using impersonal templates. However, I don't think you have enough experience yet with the more complex and contentious parts of Wikipedia. You should spend some time with AfD, which would help, and look at some of the controversies that take place. Your response about conflicts, "Conflicts and/or stress concering Wikipedia is never going to happen for me—editing is just too much fun for that! If there is ever a conflict and opposing parties do not intend on compromising at all, I would just have to give in.", shows that you are quite ignorant about the level of conflicts that go on on Wikipedia, and that especially affect admins, and especially those interested in physics. You post information on who you are on your user page. Would you be comfortable with crackpots harassing your school because you deleted an article on their fringe theory? Would you be willing to deal with users who insist that quantum mechanics/relativity/conservation of energy is wrong, and that their theory should be included as a legitimate theory? Crackpots in physics fields hardly ever comprimise. Also, as another note, you should read WP:SOCK, since you state that you would block an experienced user for sock puppetry. A sock puppet, per WP:SOCK, is any alternate account of a user (terminology which I disagree with), so you stance would lead to you blocking Dannyisme and Danny, me, all bots and bot owners, and so on. --Philosophus T 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I Like the nominee's contributions, think he has potential and will be a good admin one day. However, just doesn't have the project wide experience just yet. Rockpocket 07:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Great contributions, just needs more experience. Themindset 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Well on the way. I'm sure it's quite hard to decline a nomination from another user when you're relatively new... And why not? And don't we have a 14-year-old BUREAUCRAT on Wikipedia? The ageism just isn't always warranted here. Grandmasterka 04:10, 23 September 2006 (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.
Category