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

Olaf Davis[edit]

Final: (108/5/6). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Olaf Davis (talk · contribs) – I'd like to present Olaf Davis to the community for consideration to become a sysop. I've had numerous interactions with this editor throughout the various regions of Wikipedia, and without I doubt I feel he's ready to wield the mop. I've been his admin coach for several months, and after countless practices and quizzes there I became thoroughly impressed with his knowledge and understanding of the wiki, its policies, and its culture.

The candidate first joined the project in 2006, and became active in April 2008. He quickly learned the ropes, and within a couple months he was already participating in deletion discussions with well-considered and in-depth rationales. Since then, he has continued to become a fairly prolific commenter at various forums, including AfD, and never fails to present strong, policy-based arguments. Largely a wikignome, as far as I'm aware, he doesn't have any major recognized content, but on the whole I think this user has more than enough common sense and experience to prove as effective an admin as he has been an editor. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with sincere thanks to Julian for his kind words and his work with me. I'd also like to say thanks in advance for the large number of editor-hours which I know !voters invest in RfAs; whatever the outcome I'm grateful for your time. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: Mainly closing AfDs for now - as Julian says I've participated in quite a few. I also have the occasional habit of opening Category:candidates for speedy deletion and checking for mis-tagged articles, so if given the bit I would delete the obviously-CSD-worthy ones instead of leaving them for an admin as at present.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In article space the two pages I'm proudest of are Flatness problem which I rewrote from scratch (old version), and Leo Goldberg which I de-redlinked. I've also done a couple of GA reviews (Mercury-Atlas 8 and Bogdanov Affair).
In project space I've contributed to quite a lot of AfD debates (here's a list), and I'd like to think that my arguments have improved since the early example Julian quotes! I've also done some CSD work, though perhaps as many de-taggings as taggings; Lynching of Ed Johnson is an example of a page I found while looking through Category:candidates for speedy deletion and decided to improve.
Finally, I used to do a lot of work on the WP:DYK pages, vetting suggestions and so on, although it's been some months since I was active there. That too led to bits of article work, such as panemone which I cleaned up after it was submitted to DYK as a copyvio.
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: To answer the second question first: I have three rules of thumb when in involved in disputes. The first is to be about 120% as polite as could be reasonably expected, since even justified anger is rarely productive. The second is to be very careful in explaining the exact reasoning behind my positions, and to ask others about theirs when unclear; otherwise it's all to easy to get bogged down arguing in circles without addressing the central points of disagreement. And finally, I try remember that it's probably not all that important. Thankfully I'm not someone who's inclined to get stressed out at setbacks, but if I were I could find much better things to get upset about than an argument on Wikipedia. I have had a couple of disputes where it's become clear I'm not going to convince anyone and at that point I usually step away: it's better to see one article end up in the Wrong Version (TM) than waste time I (and other editors) could have spent improving a half-dozen others.
I've been in a few disputes over content before, and always tried to apply the above rules; I'm glad to say I have never said anything in the heat of the moment which I later came to regret. Through some combination of luck and diplomacy they've all been resolved without the need to seek any sort of 'official' intervention.
Here's a short selection of 'disputes' I've been in, selected somewhat arbitrarily from memory: 1 2 3 4
Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve
4. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:
a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A. A3, no content, covers pages which contain nothing except 'formatting' (categories, external links, images, etc.) and attemps to communicate or receive information: crucially, an A3 candidate has no content intended as a description of the article's subject. An A1 candidate, on the other hand, does have an attempt at such a description but fails to give even the most basic of details another editor would need to expand on the article. "Foobar is a county in England" contains 'context' in the A1 sense while "Foobar has a population of 50,000" does not, but neither qualifies for A3 because both contain some attempt to describe their subjects.
b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?
A. One reason would be that the article's subject isn't in one of the allowed groups (people/animals, organisations, web content): a lot of A7s get put on fictional characters or non-web software, for instance.
The other, more common reason is that the article contains a halfway-plausible claim of importance. That's not necessarily evidence of notability - indeed it need not be backed up with sources at all - but anything which makes me think "well, that could be true and if so it's the kind of thing that might make it notable" would suggest A7 is inappropriate.
5. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which sections of which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A. Following WP:BRD I would take the matter to talk. First off I'd separate my changes into the "layout, etc." and the actual content additions. I'd draw attention to the former on the talk page and say something to the effect of "from your edit summary I take it you have no problem with these layout changes; if you do please correct me". Assuming they raised no complaint I'd then reinstate the minor changes and concentrate on the content.
For the substantive changes I'd explain why I thought they were appropriate - since I've added them I presumably either have a source or think they're the kind of 'common knowledge' that doesn't need one. I'd try to establish early on whether editor-123's problem is with the reliability of the sources, my summary of them in the article or something else; from there we can try to hash out a consensus. During the course of this I'd probably cite, at least implicitly, some combination of WP:V, WP:RS, and possibly other more specific guidelines or policies. If discussion between the two of us failed to make progress I'd suggest turning to WP:3O or maybe WP:RfC.
On the question of admin powers, it would of course be inappropriate for me to use any such measures in a dispute I'm a party to (see e.g. the lede of WP:ADMIN). Also your initial description of the situation doesn't show any need for admin intervention at all. If the debate did turn nasty further down the line and diplomacy failed I'd let uninvolved admins bring up the question of blocks as they saw fit.
I hope that's detailed enough - if you want more about "which sections of ... policies" I'd use let me know and I'll try to comply.
6. In your own words, could you explain what the difference between a block and a ban is?
A. A ban is a statement that an editor may not make certain edits, while a block is a technical measure which means they cannot make edits. Therefore it's possible to violate a ban but not a block (without use of sockpuppets). This also means that bans can be more flexible in prohibiting edits to a certain type of article, say, while blocking an editor prevents them from making any edit at all outside their own talk page.
Practically, blocks are much more common and much easier to implement. A block can be given (or lifted) by any admin and are used as a preventative measure in the case of relatively minor infractions like 3RR violations and vandalism. By contract a ban requires the action of either a consensus of many editors (usually determined at ANI) or else a decree by the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the Foundation; bans are used only in cases of prolonged and serious disruption.

Additional question from Keepscases

7. Do you believe you will ever travel outside the Earth's atmosphere during your lifetime? If you turn out to be the first Wikipedia user in space, how might you use this to Wikipedia's advantage?
A: Sadly, I expect I will not. As my userpage indicates I am a theoretical astrophysicist; that means that while my observer office-mates are off visiting various amazing and exotic locations, I'm generally stuck on more prosaic pursuits. No doubt it'll be the same story when space travel becomes affordable enough.
However, one of the lessons of astrophysics (and indeed life) is that predictions about future decades are usually wrong, so there's hope yet. In the event that I am Wikipedia's first user in space I could perhaps use the opportunity to garner positive publicity for the project. There are many beautiful and intriguing phenomena in the universe (I would remind people), and Wikipedia is one of many projects which help those who study them every day to spread their knowledge to the world.

Additional question from Hobit

8. Essay question: consider notability as defined by WP:N and by a dictionary. How are the definitions different? Why are they different and should we be changing ours to match the dictionary definition?
A: The main difference could be summarised as dictionary-notability meaning that a topic is remarkable, while wiki-notability means that it's been remarked upon. In a sense, therefore, d-notability is an inherent property of the subject while w-notability is a property of the canon of reliable sources; if I found a snowflake which had naturally formed into the shape of the sentence "Hello from God" that would certainly be d-notable immediately, but not w-notable until I'd rushed it to the nearest reporter or book publisher.
A second consequence of this distinction - which in a way seems paradoxically opposed to the first - is that w-notability is more objective than d-notability. You may argue that my snowflake is mere pareidolia rather than a divine salutation and that's your opinion against mine; but if a dozen major newspapers run stories on it then it's indisputably w-notable whatever our personal opinions. Of course w-notability has elements of subjectivity too - what constitutes 'significant' or 'reliable' - but at least it's subjectivity in our attempt to quantify the media coverage, whose own existence is objective. By contrast determining whether a topic is "worthy of note or notice" or "characterized by excellence or distinction" (to quote from your link) is inherently subjective and will not be helped by any amount of guidelines.
Moving on: why, if at all, do we want the the definitions to be different? I'll begin by saying that there's no inherent reason w-notable and d-notable should mean the same thing: we chose the word 'notable' for our concept but it's become a technical meaning of the term distinct from its everyday meaning. We could have chosen a different word instead or made up a new one: it may have been less helpful in some respects but then again would have saved countless new editors from being confused over the distinction.
That said, there are elements of d-notability which it would be nice to include in w-notability. If WP:N said "worthy of note or notice" then my God snowflake would clearly be notable without a wait, and there are (less ridiculous) real-life examples where that would be nice: I've seen articles at AfD and thought "this really deserves a Wikipedia article; what a shame no journalist or author has got around to making us a reference yet!" This is particularly noticeable in subjects that get the short end of our systemic bias.
But the inherentness of d-notability comes at a price, which is its subjectivity. Moving our definition closer to the dictionary's might free us from the whim of journalists but would leave us at the mercy of individual editors' opinions, quickly making the whole enterprise unworkable. At the end of the day, restricting ourselves to topics which 'reliable publishers' have deemed noteworthy is a useful bottleneck which saves us from intractable disputes over whether someone's garage band is "worthy of note" for their output. The current definition of notability is, I believe, by far the best we can get.
(The "excellence or distinction" part of d-notability is totally undesirable since the encyclopaedia has no place making value judgements, of course).
9. A BLP is up for debate at AfD. The person has seen very significant coverage for one event and enough to meet WP:N for another, independent, event years earlier (say 3 articles each 400 words solely about the topic in reliable, but minor sources). Only after the latest flurry of coverage has an article been created. In the AfD 6 !voters argue for deletion by BLP1E as the first event was minor (and the article was only created due to the second event anyways). 4 argue that that there is more than one event and WP:N is easily met by the two events together (plus was probably met by the first event). How would you close such an AfD and why?
A: The keep rationale here seems fairly straightforward: the person meets WP:N. On the delete side we have a bit of a mix of possibly: (a) coverage of the first event is minor; (b) the first event itself is minor; (c) the article was only created after the second event. Now, (a) is a perfectly reasonable argument which addresses the keep side. (b) is a bit trickier: on the one hand, 'the event is minor' sounds a bit like IDONTLIKEIT - if reliable sources choose to give significant coverage to something ultimately trivial, who are we to judge? On the other hand 'minor events' are singled out by WP:1E, but just in the context of the 1E being minor and not a second event. So on the whole I feel that this argument is likely not to have a hugely strongly policy basis, but I could be convinced if the comments in this individual case were persuasive... Finally, (c) is not a policy-based argument: with the exception of obvious bad-faith creations, AfD should be blind to the timing and motivation of an article's genesis.
So, my close would depend on the relative reliance on these three arguments by the delete camp. If there's a strong presence of (a) (though from your description perhaps there's none), or !votes persuade me that in this case there's a good local consensus for (b) being applicable, then I'd probably close as no consensus. If on the other hand they put a high stock in (c) and their argument of (b) sounds LIKE like (er, I mean like LIKE), then keep.
Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
10. What's your opinion on "cool down blocks"?
A: I agree with policy, namely that they should not be used. Blocking someone solely because they're angry offers to open a whole can of worms about how well we can gauge emotional state over the internet, quite apart from making them angrier still. Blocking someone who's angry and disruptive for the disruption makes sense because disruptive edits are easier to recognise and, at the end of the day, are the thing we want to disinsentivise. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10 1/2 What is a "disruptive edit"?
A Heh, I suppose my answer was asking for that follow-up. When I used it above I meant an edit which causes damage to either the encyclopaedia or its maintenance and the community behind it, and is made either maliciously or with severe carelessness. Of course there's usually no such thing as a disruptive edit, but rather a disruptive series of edits: 3RR violations and other edit warring are an obvious example, and persistent incivility is similar - even vandalism is not a serious block-worthy problem unless it's prolonged. That's also particularly the case where the edits are made through carelessness rather than malice: a single honest mistake is not 'disruption' or justifies a block, but continuing to make mistakes with no heed to warnings or attempt to improve can be.
This need to take context into account makes identifying 'disruption' far from objective, but it's more so than identifying emotional state which is what I was getting at above.
A few from smithers

You said you would be working a bit with WP:CSD. Hopefully you can answer these.

11. A user creates a page about an music album from a band nobody has ever heard of that just got deleted by CSD A7 moments ago. What CSD criterion, if any, works with an article like this?
A. Assuming the article contains no claims of importance for the album, A9 would apply since the band's article no longer exists.
12. Describe CSD criterion G1.
A. G1 covers pages which are completely incomprehensible: to qualify, they (and their histories) need to contain zero material that can be deciphered as an attempt at meaningful human communication of any sort. "FJOI@*(ch9ewf" qualifies as a totally 'random' string of characters, but even poorly-formed or misspelled sentence fragments in any language are not G1-worthy.
13. A user creates an article about an elementary school. What CSD criterion, if any, works with an article like this?
A. No criteria apply specifically to schools, so assuming it's not a copyvio, obvious hoax or the like it's not speedyable (although elementary schools are usually non-notable, that's a separate question from CSD).

Additional optional question from User:Fences and windows

14. As you plan to close AfDs, when would you leave a closing rationale and why? What are your views on deletion closing policy?
A. I'd err on the side of leaving too many rationales rather than too few, since typing one out shouldn't take long compared to making the decision itself. I'd almost certainly give a rationale in any case where I out-and-out discounted a large proportion of !votes (due to their being non-policy driven, POINTy, SPAs, etc.); any where a pure vote-counting decision would go heavily against my judgement; and any judgement which I had difficulty reaching. Basically, if I thought there were a likelihood of someone looking at my close and saying "what on earth was he thinking?" I would save time by telling them what I was thinking!
I believe the current closing policy is pretty sound. Its core is to follow consensus but give more weight to policy-based arguments since those represent the broader consensus of the community, which is of course sensible. I also agree that defaulting to keep in uncertain situations is good since keeping a 'bad' borderline article will usually do less harm (to the encyclopedia's fitness and even more so to editors' good will) than deleting a 'good' one; it also attracts improvements over time more than a redlink, and many potential improvements can be missed in a week-long discussion.
The other major element is to take care with BLPs (as should be done everywhere in the encyclopaedia for both legal and moral reasons) - again, this is sound. I know some people have strong opinions on whether all 'no consensus' closes on BLPs should default to delete. I suppose I tend to agree with the current consensus that they shouldn't, but don't feel terribly strongly one way or the other. I may just be supporting the status quo out of cognitive bias.
15. How would you close the following debates: (i) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Babad (HTC); (ii) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting FM; (iii) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrismahanukwanzakah (3rd nomination); (iv) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry d'Agier; (v) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participatory Media? (feel free to !vote in them if you wish).
A. Hope you don't mind if I answer these one-by-one as I get time:
(i) At the time of the penultimate edit to the AfD ([1]) I'd have closed as Delete. The only keep rationales are (a) that a dean (or "dean of thousands of students") is inherently notable, which is specifically contradicted by the notes in WP:PROF and (b) that he may have been a notable scholar, which the editor admits is a "presumption on the lack of other evidence". Neither of these arguments is supported by policy and both have been convincingly addressed by the opposers. On the other hand, several delete !voters have argued that no significant coverage can be found and had not at that stage been disputed. However, Just-An-Average-Guy's last edit says he added sources - and looking at the article the changes include a claim that he was principal of some institution. Since the difference between principal and dean was central to some of the AfD rationales I'd now go for a second relist, leaving a short statement of my reasoning to encourage other editors to see whether this new source addresses their concerns or not.
(ii)(I'm working with this version of the AfD). Similarly to the last one, this was heading for delete before Cexycy's last edit. While the delete !voters were backed by policy, the keepers' arguments were largely irrelevant; to borrow my nonce words from above they confused w-notability with d-notability. However, Cexycy claims to have added sources conferring notability to the article. It's now been quite a while and no-one's responded to say whether the sources are good or not, so a delete closure is not really justified (having looked at them I happen to think they're not, but that's neither here nor there).
Now, in real life I'd probably just !vote in the AfD myself, and let the next admin along close it as they saw fit. But since that's rather cheating by evading half your question, here's an alternative: What I'd be tempted to do is relist the debate a second time while dropping a talk page message to the other participants asking them if they have any thoughts on the sources - I'm not aware of admins who make a habit of that but I see no real reason not to, as long as the messages are neutral. If no-one else does come and comment on the new sources then close as no consensus.
(iv) (I'm looking at this version.) I believe this warrants a delete close. My reading of WP:POLITICIAN is that mayors are likely to be notable but not guaranteed: therefore arguments in either direction are within policy. The consensus in this individual case appears to be that d'Agier is not notable under WP:POLITICIAN, even leaving aside the question of his not being a mayor at all. As for the GNG, several editors have argued that the available sourcing is not significant enough and I don't believe the keep !voters have brought enough against this argument to avoid a conclusion of delete.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
16. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. Current policy has BLPs defaulting to keep (if the subject has made no statement regarding the matter). I know there's been quite a bit of debate about this, with a large number people arguing that it should be changed and that 'default to keep' is in fact what admins normally do anyway. I don't know myself if the latter is true - I simply haven't looked into the whole issue in anything like as much detail as some have and don't feel qualified to judge. However, there has not yet been any consensus to change the policy and so, until there is, I would close as default to keep.
17. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. I'm not sure I have any very exciting opinion, but here goes. The current BLP policy seems pretty sensible to me and I don't recall ever disagreeing with part of it. A large proportion of it essentially stems from common sense combined with the statement that "we must get the article right": things like dodgy sources and weasel words are bad everywhere, but in BLP we should practice zero-tolerance. The rule that unsourced material should be removed without waiting, and the suspension of the 3RR in such cases, is a particularly wise precaution: it's better to miss some information out from the article while debate goes on than risk having something damaging stay, even for a bit.
My own experience working with BLPs has been very slim. I've worked on Enoch Adeboye and done a GA review of Bogdanov Affair, though not really edited the latter significantly. That's all I can think of.

Additional question from User:MWOAP

18A. I see that you said that you would be involved in CSD's. Vandalism is a big thing in Wikipedia, and many editors are dedicated to keeping that clean. I do not see any reverts/undos regarding vandalism. Do you think that Vandalsim cleanup is not for you?
A. I have done some vandalism reversion, when I've happened to come across it on a page on in my watchlist. I don't tend to go looking for it at Recent Changes though - and that's simply because it's not the area that interests me most. I have great respect and gratitude for people who spend their time fighting vandalism, and agree with you that they're vital to the project, but I personally enjoy concentrating on other things.
18B. In regards to the question above, could you explain CSD G3? (please answer spefically to both Vandalism & Blatant Hoaxes)
A. Briefly: to qualify for vandalism, a page (and all its revisions) must consist of material introduced deliberately to harm or compromise Wikipedia. For hoaxes, G3 applies only to the most blatant examples because of the risk of incorrectly identifying real topics as hoaxes. Appropriate examples of G3 taggings would be a credulous article on DHMO, or a biography which has clearly been copied from a famous person's and had the names replaced.
Because of the loaded content of the word vandal and the difficulty with hoax detection by one or two errors, G3 should be avoided for any even vaguely borderline case.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

As Caspian_blue remarks below, I was involved in the now quite controversial WP:NEWT project. I feel I should say a few words about it - much more can be found on the project's talk page. The project's inspiration was a challenge issued by a journalist, who predicted that an article created about a notable subject would not survive 7 days if it lacked the markup and formatting that experienced editors would know how to add but newbies might not. The intent of NEWT was to test this, by making articles about notable subjects but which looked as though they'd been written by new editors and seeing how they (and their authors) were treated at NPP. I created two articles under the account User:LestWeBeScattered. You can read about them here, and discussion with editors who interacted with me here, here and here.

The project came under criticism from a large number of editors. Many felt betrayed by the deception involved, and some characterised it as assuming bad faith, being POINTy or as a breaching experiment; when the magnitude of people's objections became clear the project was discontinued.

I personally believe that the motives of the vast majority of participants, including myself, were entirely in good faith and not intended as POINT-making: at the time I certainly thought I was doing something which could be helpful, and not something which would be criticised and divisive. However, because our actions were not malicious does not mean they were wise: having now seen how many people felt betrayed by the deception involved in the project I wonder why I didn't predict that from the start. If I had thought about this, and some of the other objections people raised, at the time then I would never have participated in it. And I don't mean that in an "I'm sorry you were offended" way: I genuinely regret embarking on the project without thinking more about how it might be perceived, and I believe it was a wise move to close it when people's concerns did surface.

This issue has come up a lot at SoWhy's current RfB. Among the people who opposed over it there, several have !voted here: besides Caspian_blue they are Ironholds, JayHenry, Wisdom98 and TreasuryTag. I'm about to draw their attention to this statement in case my involvement leads them to reconsider their positions: I wouldn't feel completely honest accepting their support without doing so.

I have never edited Wikipedia from an account other than this one and LestWeBeScattered. I have made minor edits from just two IPs as far as I recall: 163.1.174.65 and 163.1.174.65 another I can't remember at the moment. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I hate it when an RfX becomes a referendum on something almost entirely unrelated. Was NEWT probably a mistake? Sure. Does it mean we have to oppose everyone who was involved with it to send a strong message? No, of course not. One of the most discouraging things for me about Wikipedia is how incapable most editors are of avoiding the cognitive bias of anchoring. What I said on SoWhy's RFB is that I could overlook newt but am not that impressed with his judgment otherwise. In your case, I am impressed with your judgment otherwise. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, it shows integrity and the right sort of chutzpah. My strong support remains; perhaps a tad stronger even. --JayHenry (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yes, having looked again I suppose saying that you opposed 'per' NEWT was rather inaccurate. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Olaf, that was a very thoughtful and sincere post. Kudos. Also, it was extremely brave for you to bring such a controversial issue to the forefront of your own RfA and to notify those who !voted (myself included). I appreciate the forthrightness. With that said, yes I feel that NEWT was a rather terrible idea. I hope you understand why I will choose to remain in the oppose column. However, I will not modify my weak qualifier. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Beat-the-nom support. Err, wait... –Juliancolton | Talk 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support upstateNYer 19:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This looks like a fine editor to me. –BuickCenturyDriver 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support per nom.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Great edits, good experience, no cause for concern. Tan | 39 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The name rings well in my head. No reason to believe he wouldn't wield the mop well. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I don't personally like the idea admin coaching much, but this candidate is qualified anyhow.  fetchcomms☛ 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I'm seeing good content work overall. The candidate seems thorough - take a look at the concerns raised during his October 2009 GA review of Mercury-Atlas 8 (found here). Don't know how typical that is for GA reviews, but it tells me that the candidate took time to do it properly, and followed up later on to put a little green on it. Participation at AFD looks good, edit volume and pattern look good, and I see quite a bit of reasonableness overall from the candidate. In short, I see nothing that indicates that the candidate's adminship will be anything other than a Net Positive to the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support You seem safe. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. In my experience, he has been a great help at DYK; I trust Olaf with the tools. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mature, sensible, gets the site, participates enough in the administrative areas to give me an idea of what to expect. I do think that lack of participation in AN or AN/I is a reason to support more—administrative work does not need more drama - Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- A thoughtful even-keeled editor. A look at Olaf's edits at Afd and talk pages shows an editor who is willing to discuss and collaborate. — CactusWriter | needles 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Nothing in your edit history sends me running away, but the fact that you've only edited the AN/I back-biting drama fest 12 times in almost two years of editing is a very strong positive indicatory that you know where to stay away from. Good job, and I wish you luck. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good points what the nominator said. I 100% admire Olaf Davis to go for it. Minimac94 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I am happy with the answers given to my questions, and can see no obvious problems which would cause me to oppose the candidate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support longterm user with a clean blocklog and meaningful edit summaries. I've encountered the candidate a couple of times and been very impressed, and checking through his deleted contributions I saw nothing I was concerned about. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seen some good stuff. I think he'll be just fine with the bit. ceranthor 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, looks like an excellent editor. AfD work shows a collaborative attitude, which is what is needed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support(ish) Not a major contributor but no obvious problems, clearly intelligent, has clue, has served time at NPP (log). If we need more admins (do we?) I've no objection. - Pointillist (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support intelligent, reasonable, moderately experienced. Will be an asset over at AFD. Icewedge (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Valuable editor who seems to have their head on straight when it comes to professed areas of interest (by which I mean XFD). A credit to the project. Steven Walling 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support our interaction at DYK has proven to me that Olaf is ready for the mop. I hope that Olaf can help there a little too. Royalbroil 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, per nominator statement, and answers to questions. It seems to me that the user will be a positive to the project, and has enough experience to know what they are doing. Not convinced by opposes which seem to be requiring an arbitary number to prove experience. --Taelus (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per WTF is DM and is it anything to do with QM and eigenstates? Did you collapse the wave that doomed Schrödinger's cat? Garibaldi Baconfat 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Experienced user with a proven track record of keeping his cool. I have encountered the user before and have been impressed, that and I trust Julian's endorsement. RP459 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support. A simply fantastic editor who I remember as an extremely helpful presence at DYK. Experience in what matters and clearly has the ability to learn the rest. --JayHenry (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Very Strong SupportThis is an editor I would gladly support.Abce2|Free lemonadeonly 25 cents! 03:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: Very impressed with answers related to CSD. I'm loving the spread of contributions in different namespaces and at least some established track record in a lengthy list of locations. Uses details explanations for opinions given and seems to have fine policy knowledge. I only slightly wonder about a lack of time on dreaded incident boards, but since preferred areas listed are more drama-free this is still far from a concern, since by no means should all admins be expected to be experts in absolutely every Wikipedia discipline. Some can take more abuse, others not. This candidate should be flagged as an example that mild-mannered yet confident editors still exist and just maybe thousands of different preferred objective requirement essays can hopefully be someday moot-- Proof that edit counts or more time spent in certain areas are completely meaningless when finding a good possible admin. Quality of contributions over quantity, and the ability to recognize strengths versus weaknesses being far more important. Best of luck to you! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support seems okay.--Caspian blue 04:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support solid answers. None of the opposers' concerns concern me. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 04:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support. Mostly per his answer to question #3. Exactly the kind of attitude and temperment I look for, and admire, in any Wikipedia editor, not just admins. I wish you all the best. -- Ϫ 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Seems good to me. Opposes didn't seem convincing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. No particular concerns. Impressed with talk page contributions to controversial articles. decltype (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I was unacquainted with this editor before User:Juliancolton's nom. I cherry picked their contribs and only found good ones. I particularly liked the distinction between ban and block. Good luck Tiderolls 07:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I looked at Olaf's coaching page and when I saw Deletion Today I thought it was some sort of newsletter written by deletionists. Olaf's been around and I see no problems and a positive use for the tools. Valley2city‽ 08:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Seems very level headed, great answers to the CSD questions, steers clear of ANI which is a plus. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no reason to oppose. GedUK  12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Whilst agreeing that there could be more experience in certain areas, the quality of edits so far indicates to me that the candidate will be more than capable of using a few extra tools constructively and without issue. Pedro :  Chat  15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, Olaf has proven himself a trustworthy, helpful editor. I believe his attitude and quality of contribs sufficiently deflects any experience concerns. JamieS93 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Good user, seen him around and don't recall any problems. Good balance of edits to lots of namespaces. I don't see any issue with experience; Olaf has been around longer than I have. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support A random sampling of the candidates contribs suggests they are unusually diligent, clueful and helpful. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. His work at AFD is first-rate, his answers to the CSD questions are good, and he seems to keep a level head when the discussion gets heated, which is probably the most important aspect that I look for in a good administrator. Scog (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Great AfD work, good general experience and a nice, mature attitude. Several of the opposes seem quite exquisitely nit-picky; and I really do not find anything to concern me. ~ mazca talk 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Olaf Davis has been around long enough, and made enough edits to show adequate experience to me. I see enough AfD work to trust the editor with the tools in that area, and a random sample of AfD participation shows a civil attitude, good reasoning skills and policy knowledge. -- Atama頭 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support the answers give me confidence. Sole Soul (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good user contribs, elegant mind, seems to have a stable personality --StaniStani  22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Solid contribs, seems a pretty stable addition to the corps. Dayewalker (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per clueful answers to questions, experience of candidate, and low-drama persona. — ækTalk 02:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - User has a clue. Questions are well-answered. smithers - talk - sign! 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Glad to. RayTalk 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Satisfied with question answers. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support In addition to being very good at what you do, you have also demonstrated a level head, very little interest in Wikipolitics, and a lack of drama. Best of luck to you. Trusilver 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I think you get "it". Good luck. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support—decent answers, though some more experience/ambition as regards non-deletion-related-admin-activity would be good. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 09:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Moving to "Neutral" – ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Good answers, good contribs, good experience. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Intelligent, rational, adult. Moreschi (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. The contributions and the answers leave a very good impression.  Sandstein  18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - have only seen good things from this editor, and he seems to have the correct temperament for the job. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support This editor is clearly experienced, and has the correct attitude to do well as an Admin. Keytar Shredder (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. I have seen some intelligent comments with specific policy references from this editor in AfD discussions and I believe he will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Seems to get everything and answers above questions knowledgeably. Pepper·piggle 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support I'm very pleased to see that Olaf Davis is seeking adminship. I've seen him at AfD in the past, and I've been consistently impressed with his well-thought out rationales in those discussions. It's nice to see a candidate for adminship who consistently maintains his cool and stays civil during disputes. Moreover, Olaf's lack of edits to the drama-packed WP:ANI is something I applaud; admins should focus on using the tools to protect and improve the encyclopedia, and I foresee Olaf doing just that. In fact, given his impressive answers to the questions (particularly 15-17), I think he will do an excellent job of closing AfDs. I'm also glad to see his willingness to provide closing rationales. (Oh, and 200 edits in AfDs is plenty.) Good luck and keep up the good work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. NW (Talk) 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support —Terrence and Phillip 06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Candidate has my support after seeing his answers to the questions. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 08:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Looks good. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Feel the project will gain by the user having tools and do not see any scope for misuse of tools .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Thought he already was one, to be honest. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Olaf Davis appears well prepared to handle AfD closures. Well-thought out reasoning to the questions above. Pcap ping 14:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Seems a thoughtful and reasonable candidate; I appreciate the willingness to give rationales and follow policy in AfD's. --Cyclopiatalk 14:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support: More or less exemplary responses on CSD questions above make me confident you'll do well in the areas where you've said you want to work. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Strong support Experience shows that experience is not a significant factor when it comes to adminship; the problematic administrators are those who are stubborn, conniving or otherwise unwilling to be held accountable for their actions. I have no such concerns here; Olaf definitely has the clue and character for the job. The only thing that would give me pause is the almost too by-the-book answers here which would normal give rise to sock suspicion, but given his commendable openness concerning real-life identity, that is not an issue. I look forward to working with you.  Skomorokh  17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Demonstrates competence and trustworthiness, and, while I was not a part of, nor am I excessively familiar with, the controversy of the WP:NEWT "issue", the candidate's demonstrated ability to clearly discuss the matter shows a strong presence of the very necessary ability of an admin to communicate clearly and effectively. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - to negate Caspain Blue's oppose. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Well-qualified, can't find anything to lead me to oppose. ThemFromSpace 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support My small experience with AfD has given me a healthy respect for those with skills in that area. This candidate is someone I want to see get the mop. It's been made clear to me in the last 6 months that article contribution is not an absolute requirement for a good admin, and given the lopsided vote in favor, it is an absolute pleasure to pile on. The few opposers fail to present creditable arguments, in my view. Jusdafax 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Excellent responses to the questions. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support – He appears thoughtful and careful, and I'm especially impressed with his comments in the discussion section, above. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. - I was impressed with the quality of Olaf's contributions to DYK when he was a regular participant there early last year, and by his friendly and helpful attitude. I'm not overly concerned with the NEWT involvement as everyone is entitled to the occasional mistake and I'm sure he's learned from it. Gatoclass (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Evidence of being thoughtful, considerate, and non-confrontational. Good answers to (way too many) questions. SilkTork *YES! 23:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. After reviewing the candidate's contributions, I see only a level-headed net asset to the community. His work at AFD also is a plus. Rasputin72 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support. This user has been a very good help to wikipedia and definetaly is usefull. Mr. Anon515 00:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - no issues here. I am particularly impressed with your response to question 7, as it is of fundamental importance. :) Cocytus [»talk«] 02:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Crafty (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Having worked with Olaf, I've found him to have a remarkable attention to detail and a helpful, thoughtful and friendly manner. Definitely a credit to the system, and an excellent candidate. Shimgray | talk | 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of interest, do you have any particular reason? Because this isn't a simple poll. Thanks in advance! ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 14:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Of the examinations with which Englishmen are at all acquainted there is probably not one that can surpass even if it can equal the mathematical tripos at Cambridge" — Isaac Todhunter. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To Mr. Warden: "'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." — Abraham Lincoln (?). Aditya Ex Machina 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the war room! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support: Absolutely. South Bay (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support per calm and sensible conduct in areas of dispute, and the fact that I feel that the NEWT thing is being way overblown in many places. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that candidate is an article creator and improver according to User:Olaf_Davis#Articles_I.27ve_created_or_significantly_improved, candidate has never been blocked, and per reasonable attitude at deletion discussions. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm), the candidate kept an open mind, noted improvements and efforts by colleagues, and returned to the discussion accordingly. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ (Family Guy), candidate understood that outright redlinking is an extreme last resort and again made an argument in line with the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Thus, the candidate is recognized as a nice Wikipedian! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, nothing unusual to be seen here. --candle•wicke 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, should be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support I think this editor will make good use of the tools granted to him. He appears to be thoughtful and willing to accept criticism--important qualities in an Admin. I especially appreciate his sincere posting on the NEWT business. Moogwrench (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support reaffirmed support vote per Coffee, to help negate Caspian's oppose. Using the same rationale to support an RfB and oppose an RfA doesn't make sense. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 04:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Caspian did describe it as a "moral support to encourage him not to repeat the error again" given that the RfB will almost certainly not pass. I don't think that's too inconsistent with his !vote here. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if you agree with his vote (and since you're the candidate), then there's not much I can say to that. I'm neutral pending further review of your edits. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 22:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That'll teach me to badger the supporters :) I wouldn't say I agree with it - just that there's nothing inherently inconsistent about his !votes on the two RfXs. Anyway, feel free to take your time reviewing. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewed edits, see no reason to oppose. Regards, Aditya Ex Machina 18:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - great editor, great contributions, great answers to questions. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 04:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Considering the community is still quite divided about NEWT, I wouldn't oppose a candidate based upon it. Outside of this, the candidate seems extremely clueful, honest, and thoughtful. I'm especially impressed with the Flatness problem article, and interactions with other users I've seen. Jujutacular T · C 08:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Good deletion work, but more importantly knows when not to delete; recognising what is salvagable is just as important as recognizing what is junk. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. From reading Olaf's answers to the questions above, I get the impression of a thoughtful editor who is able to see and explain why we have the policies we have. I am sure someone who is able to do so will not screw up in another part of Wikipedia he may venture in, and therefore I disagree with the opposes by Wisdom89, MisterWiki, and Off2riorob as well as the neutrals by HJMitchell and Fastily. Happenstance's neutral is similar, but more specific; he is setting the bar for adminship higher than I, and I think also the community, find desirable.

    The oppose by Caspian blue and the neutrals by TreasuryTag and Nsk92 are over Olaf's involvement in WP:NEWT. The concern is valid, as Olaf himself admits (above) he was wrong there, but it does not diminish my support; rather, I take this as an opportunity to reaffirm the principle that when someone does something wrong, realizes that he did something wrong, and is sorry for it, it shouldn't make him a bad admin.

    Collect's neutral rests on vague concerns about Olaf's answers to questions, which I do not share from my reading of his answers, and on his stance on paid editing. I do not feel comfortable with opposing over that, or over any subject in Wikipedia policy where the candidate's opinion may be different from my own. Whether or not Olaf is an admin will (or, perhaps, should) have no bearing on how much weight his opinion on paid editing has, and there is no indication that he will use his admin tools to act contrary to community consensus here (which would to me be a compelling reason to oppose).

    In summary, I see evidence that Olaf will be a good admin and none of the oppose and neutral votes provide persuasive rationales; thus, I support. Ucucha 13:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  100. Boom! WP:100 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support doesn't have as wide of experience as I'd like, but answers to all questions are very good indeed. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom and due to Olaf's involvement in the highly responsible and appropriate WP:NEWT initiative, which has provided a useful metric by which to evaluate Wikipedia's treatment of new editors, who are essential to the survival of the project. Jennifer500 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid any future misinterpretation of my comment, I'm going to add the following: after reviewing the manner in which WP:NEWT was operated, I disagree with the public airing of the names of editors responsible for incorrect CSD tagging. While evaluation was a legitimate function of the project, disparagement was not. Jennifer500 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock !vote indented. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - a good editor by the look of things, and someone I'd trust with the tools. Good luck! Wikiwoohoo (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Seems trustworthy. Theleftorium 22:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support, don't see any good reason why not. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Support - I think you deserve a chance.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting !vote of blocked user -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support — I thought I already voted. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Weak support. Clearly thoughtful and will probably do fine (WP:NEWT is a side-show), but I'm a bit surprised that you've still not managed to give closing arguments for two of the example AfDs. If you find closing AfDs this arduous they'll all be closed by the time you've finished deliberating! Fences&Windows 19:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, yes, sorry about that. To be honest I ran out of steam a little after all that Q&A. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Olaf Davis. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Although I wasn't around for the WP:NEWT saga, by reading through the pages kept for historical purposes, I can see that joining the project was a bad choice. However, we all make mistakes, and we shouldn't let this get in the way of a brilliant editor's promotion to adminship. JulieSpaulding (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Oppose I don't feel comfortable with your level of experience in deletion at this point. You have roughly 200 edits in AfD's, and 200 deleted edits. I also don't see any participation in the drama-fest which is ANI, and I see only 12 edits in RfA. With that low number of edits in these areas I cannot really judge how good you would be with the tools. Perhaps if you gained some more experience in these areas in the next few months I would be more comfortable with your level of expertise. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Switching to support as candidate has assuaged my concerns following answers to questions. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only 200 AfDs? That seems like quite a lot to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To clarify - I did not say 200 AfD's - I said 200 EDITS to AfD's...I count about 65 AfD discussions total. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count something like 160 (see here, which may have a few false positives but I think not many). Of course I realise that your opinion doesn't depend on the exact number so I'm not trying to 'prove your !vote wrong'; just commenting. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As for AfDs, 200 well-thought out votes is not an insignificant number. ANI is, as you say, mostly a dramafest. Don't we want candidates who avoid that? And what does "experience" in RfA have to do with how the candidate will be as an administrator? I would rather look at the strength of the candidate's contributions in the areas where he has participated rather than the number of edits he has made in those areas. NW (Talk) 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. upstateNYer 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain to me why 65 deletion discussions is not enough? Good lord, is there an arbitrary number of AfDs you need to pass RfA nowadays? I wouldn't ask if there was 5 or 10 of them, but 65? —Dark 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When a candidate declares interest in a particular function of adminship while making their request, they are often given greater scrutiny about that particular subject, in terms of their demonstrated experience on the subject and whether or not they've "screwed up" in that area. (For example, someone saying they want to help with speedy deletions is going to be grilled if 10% of their speedy deletion requests are incorrect.) This helps determine if the editor is going to take the tools and immediately start making a mess. Another administrator candidate who shows no interest in closing AfD discussions (at least initially) isn't given this level of scrutiny, so don't take this criticism as some bar to adminship that everyone must clear. Having said all this, I think that 65 AfD discussions is a pretty good number, and if the participation in those AfDs goes beyond "Delete, fails WP:N" then I wouldn't consider the editor inexperienced. -- Atama頭 02:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what is an appropriate number of edits/afds required for an admin candidate on average. I figured quality was better than quantity. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None, unless they've declared that they want the tools expressly to be able to close AfDs, in which case there should be something demonstrating enough familiarity in the area that they won't be making bad AfD closures. -- Atama頭 03:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Atama, so in the end, familiarity rather than edit count is the key there you're saying. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly what I would look for, and hopefully what others would look for in evaluating a candidate. -- Atama頭 18:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Weak Oppose - Regardless of whether the candidate states that they wish to focus on deletion, I don't see much experience elsewhere. Also, I'm a little uncomfortable with what appears to be RfA "grooming" in the form of coaching. At one point I was a supporter of admin coaching, but now (and given the reference to quizzes and such above) I feel that it's nothing but a how to pass and RfA course. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) My oppose has now been downgraded to "weak" based on the fact that my earlier assessment was inaccurate. While I am still not wild about admin coaching these days, Julian made sure to simply "test" the clue or the knowledge of the candidate. With that said, I am still slightly concerned by a lack of project space experience. This should come as no surprise. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a few opposes similar to this at my RfA, namely references to coaching being a means to an end. Which, of course, it is, the same way standardized testing is a way to gauge skill level in any student. While it's not the best way to do it, it's a universal way to do it. The standardized test debate will never end nor will the debate on admin coaching, but what can be said for admin coaching is that there is statistical, written, and consolidated proof that a user has made an effort to become familiar with policy, etc. No offense meant, of course, Wisdom, I just think that raising concers about being coached is a bit backwards; how else would one prepare themselves fully? upstateNYer 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments are duly noted. To answer your question, there is no need to "standardize" preparation for RfA or adminship. I don't really see the analogy as being all that apt. Applicants should garner the "skills" through the natural course of editing, not through some kind of artificial training. I'm just becoming more and more uncomfortable with the idea of "testing and preparing" candidates for adminship. Regardless, I'm more concerned by the lack of experience, which is the principle source of my opposition. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I could have worded it better: to know a student is qualified to graduate, we give them tests. Yes, teaching to the test is against all that teachers stand for, but how do we know what the student has learned if we have not tested them? That is how coaching is analogous. A nominator claims the user is ready, and here is the coaching page (test) to prove that the user has indeed answered most of the questions correctly. Regardless, I see your point, I just wanted to make mine clearer. upstateNYer 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. I'm glad that you and I recognize one another's points. A distinction needs to be made between "assessment" for readiness and teaching the nuances of how to pass. Upon close inspection of the coaching page it appears to be more of the former. I am going to revisit my oppose a bit later. I just wish there was more practical experience to go on. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)It never ceases to amaze me that only on Wikipedia do we penalize people for trying to seek help to improve themselves. Where is the wisdom in that?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Balloonman, I'm a bit put off if your use of the term "wisdom" was an intentional pun. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it wasn't intentional as I wrote it... but I would be lying if I denied noticing the "pun" before posting. It was not intended to be offensive, but I really do think it is unwise to penalize people for seeking guidance/help from others. Not everybody learns the same way---some people need (or want) the guidance. They'd rather have an open environment wherein they can grow and ask questions where it really doesn't matter. Only on wikipedia do we punish people for seeking help/guidance.
    Good coaching is more than just asking a series of quizes---it is an ongoing editor review. Going through coaching should not be a free pass. I have opposed and supported people who have received coaching in the past---and I've opposed people explicitly because of the specifics of what I've seen in their coaching, but I think it is a crock that we have people who have a default position of oppose due to coaching. The candidate should be reviewed for his/her own merits, and the coaching should be reviewed as well.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so we are clear, I am not personally defaulting to an oppose due to the candidate's coaching. I underwent "coaching" from Pedro a while back and saw the merit in it, at least at the time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. --MW talk contribs 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be a bit more specific? There are at least two different reasons above: which one(s) are you "per"ing? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with "I don't see much experience elsewhere" by Wisdom89. --MW talk contribs 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: MisterWiki was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And is currently unblocked, hence the de-indentation of his !vote. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Appears to lack all round experience which imo is needed as an admin, dispute resolution for example. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose switched from support per the candidate's involvement in the WP:POINTy WP:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion. My vote may look inconsistent to the candidate given that I relegated my vote to "weakest possible support" at SoWhy's RFB unlike this one. However, the latter is already admin and his chance to become a b'crat is not high. Besides, I only saw your contribution a couple of times in DYK areas except the page. I'm regretful to say that I can not support your RFA due to my concern over your judgment. --Caspian blue 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very honored by Coffee (talk · contribs)'s highly smart vote in reference with me.[2] :-D --Caspian blue 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose For lack of article writing. I don't require featured article writing, if the candidate has created a large number of shorter articles instead. Olaf Davis has only created 4 non-redirect articles, and not very impressive ones. Especially deletion work as an admin requires experience with creating new articles. He has also only uploaded one image. I do have some understanding that it is hard to find new topics for articles in maths and physics, and he seems like a good editor, but I still expect an administrator to have more varied experience. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Not that it matters much, but he's uploaded a couple files at Commons as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Oh dear, the first neutral. Sorry, but I would like to see a bit more time spent in the project space (maybe a few more AfDs, keep an eye on ANI and maybe comment where you feel able) to "support", but hey, I don't by any means think that would make you a "bad admin" which immediately draws me away from the "oppose" section. If your RfA passes, I'd advise caution when making potentially controversial actions, but I think you have enough common sense to do so anyway. HJMitchell You rang? 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Good work, but concerns with experience. You have done some great work for the project and I encourage you to keep it up. However, I don't feel you have adequate experience on the project. Since this RfA looks like it's going to pass at this point, just make sure that you are extra careful with the tools and ask questions when unsure about how to act. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, moved from O​p​p​o​s​e. I'm sorry but I see no compelling reason to provide my support. The biggest draw for the support votes seems to be that you're a good new editor, which for me is still quite a bit away from an admin. What you do is the norm, I have yet to see you going above and beyond. Given your unexceptional editing record, I simply can't tell whether you're really that neutral and wise an editor, as seems to be implied, or whether you've yet to show your colours. Giving you the wizbit is the ultimate expression of community trust, and I would like to see a bit more experience before you receive said trust. However at this point my opposition is symbolic at best, so like Fastily I wish you good luck with the tools, and I hope you use them wisely. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This oppose seems very shallow to be frank. Regardless of whether or not he goes "above and beyond", his years of nearly flawless editing demonstrate that he can be trusted to push a handful of extra buttons, surely? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What you term flawless I'd term colourless. I have two very simple criteria, either a prospective admin distinguishes himself by broad experience, which I don't feel has been demonstrated by the candidate at all, or by exceptional above the run of the mill editing. All support votes seem to be variations on "well, he hasn't screwed up yet, has he?". Whilst admirable, I really don't think that's sufficient grounds for giving someone the admin bit. Call me a traditionalist, but what you characterise as a few buttons I see as a position of community trust and leadership, and one I prefer to give to users who have earned it. I would prefer the user familiarises himself with more aspects of what being an admin entails: things like dispute resolution as mentioned below, and even the dreaded administrator's noticeboard, and come back better demonstrating why he should be entrusted with the tools. —what a crazy random happenstance 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck my oppose. Whilst I still don't feel able to support, my oppose made it seem as though I was discouraging the style of editing Olaf Davis has demonstrated. On the contrary, I applaud it. Olaf Davis' commendable history and mindset is one that sets an editor firmly on the path towards administratorship. I just wish Olaf Davies had been a little bit further on this path when he was nominated. There are just a bit too many 'seems OK' votes in the Support section, and I would hate for a precedent to be set that users who 'seem OK' be made admins. We've been through far too much drama on this encyclopaedia not to be able to imagine the damage that handing out the mop from a PEZ dispenser could cause. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral—moved from "Support" due to Olaf's involvement in the highly irresponsible and inapropriate WP:NEWT initiative, which I hadn't realised when I commented earlier. The candidate's truly outstanding honesty in dropping me a note on my talkpage to let me know of his connection with the project does him great credit, however, which is why I can't quite bring myself to oppose. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral NEWT is fully irrelevant, and actually increaes my urge to support. I am, moreover, concerned about the wording of his answers about deletion, and more concerned about his support for "paid editing." Collect (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment Collect. Do you have a link to my words about paid editing? I ask not out of a desire for evidence behind your position but genuine forgetfulness about what I said on the topic! Olaf Davis (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On the RfC for Paid Editing you agreed with the statement by Rootology, and with Iridescent, both of whom espoused "paid editing." In addition your question to LHvanU seems to argue that if there were "paid editing" that it would not be worth the drama to require paid editors to disclose the fact on their userpage [3]. I respectfully disagree that "paid editing" ought ever be accepted practice, and, in particular, feel that any paid editors should be strictly held accountable to make their mercenarianism known. Collect (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I do recall that - thanks for the reminder. On the whole I think LHvanU's answer to my question - that we should go just short of imposing sanctions in discouraging undisclosed paid editing - is perhaps the best tack. I can certainly respect the POV that we should impose zero-tolerance though. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Moved from support, in light of the WP:NEWT involvement. Deliberately creating malformed articles to prove a point is disruptive. It wastes other people's time and resources and is not a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Experienced users, particularly admins, should know better. Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2010 (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