Meta:Requests for adminship/David Gerard

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Vote closed; not promoted, promotion criteria (75% support) doesn't met. (Result; 24 Support[70.5%], 9 Oppose, 1 Neutral; total 34) --Aphaia 10:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

I joined en: Wikipedia in late 2003 as en:User:David Gerard, I've been an admin on en: since mid-2004, I was an arbitrator on en: in 2005, I'm on the board of directors of Wikimedia UK and I have a pile of other jobs around Wikimedia listed on my en: user page (about fifteen total). This job found me when Linuxbeak suggested the "make Meta actually useful" project and I enthusiastically concurred. (My view of the project probably involves preserving more stuff than others might for historical reasons, fwiw; it'll be very useful being able to go through deletia to spot errors in deletion. Which will happen, because there's so much complete rubbish.) I have several hundred edits on Meta, I stopped counting after 300. This edit confirms my account on en: is my account here - David Gerard 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

• Violently-strong support. Get sysop'd and start working already, dammit. Linuxbeak 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support --M/ 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Support (削除ここまで) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Definate reconsider after reading the foundation list.... Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Support (削除ここまで) - Amgine / ^{talk meta} 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

  I feel the need to withdraw my support from this candidate. I now Abstain. - Amgine / ^{talk meta} 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support by default. Esteffect 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Joined meta on the 28th of march
• (削除) Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (削除ここまで) (struck 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC))[reply ]
• Against. First time this gentleman sent me an email was to be discourteous. Nobody can have serious talks without courtesy, especially here because of multilingualism: lack of understanding happens. villy ♦✎ 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This assertion would go better with evidence, which I presume will be fit to be revealed in a few days, as I thought your email that triggered it, and your response, were also quite quoteworthy. I should also note this was in a contentious discussion on a Foundation list (not a personal message as Villy implies) - yeah, it's Foundation politics - so can only be quoted by agreement when the matter in question is public; I'm OK with that and assume Villy will be, since he has asserted its relevance - David Gerard 22:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
    • If I remember well these emails weren't on Foundation-L but on wmfcc-l. You quoted an email of mine and answered it. Hence I deduced I was at least the recipient of your mail too. I find that relevant enough to express this vote, which is the thing I am supposed to do in such a poll. Now, if you want to copy and paste those emails, I don't mind. I felt you didn't assume my good faith in this contentious matter and this is what I think is both unfair to me and not that much courteous. I'm not telling you won't be a good admin here. Just telling that I don't feel that much working with you here. Now, your election here on meta isn't really at risk, it's therefore pointless to dissert for hours about it. villy ♦✎ 23:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
      • Your expressed opinions of en: Wikipedia - and, I note, blanking your en: user page a few days ago - show your own cross-project opinions notably - David Gerard 11:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
        • I answered on Foundation-l here. This is just a blatant and appaling insinuation. villy ♦✎ 11:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
          • That would describe your continued assertion that relevant criticism of your actions constitutes a "personal attack" - David Gerard 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oh yes. Support. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support --Cspurrier 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support --GraemeL 22:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Zscout370 23:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Not personally. But most of his edits on meta looks concerning only to ENWP related matters or IRC quotes. Only from those facts, it is dubious if he understands our policy and multilingualism principal. For further discussion, I expect his involvement to other projects than ENWP. --Aphaia 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support This should be a slam-dunk. --Doc glasgow 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (please discount my opinion, as with few edits to meta, I'm apparently not allowed to comment - but as an admin on en.wiki with 10k+ edits, I offer a character reference for this applicant). --Doc glasgow 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. I know David from mailing lists as very constructive and reasonable community member. --Millosh 15:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support Jon Harald Søby 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. Korg + ⁺ 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Extreme Cabal Support. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Brian ^{Wikinews / Talk} 09:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Support Romihaitza 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Anthere 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose. Darkoneko 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. Good, helpful and intelligent user. But take it easy, David -- Villy's a good guy, too. Make love, not war, etc. ;-)--Eloquence 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Neutral. Good, longtime user on other projects; but inactive in the community here. Only 1 edit to a user talk page. Recent comments suggest he feels there are no current community norms on meta, which is not the case. Admins should wield their mops to respect and implement existing community standards, not to [re]write them. Sj 18:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
  • So go to Babel, where I asked just what this community was. If that isn't the page where discussion is conducted, why does it claim to be? That sort of thing is the problem with meta - David Gerard 08:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Feydey 23:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support It too long since I was last able to vote in support of this guy.Geni 00:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support Duh. Common sense is rare :) [this might be my first edit on meta? my account by the same name on en has 2000 edits though, and I read the wikien-l and wikipedia-l mailing lists. Stevage 09:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• oppose. oscar 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support UninvitedCompany 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support quite thoroughly. — Dan | Talk 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• oppose --Walter 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose --Marbot 19:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Phe 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support. Andrevan 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC) [reply ]