Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab

Editing stats for Davemeistermoab at 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC):

General user info
Username: Davemeistermoab
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Jan 16, 2006 01:24:58
Unique articles edited: 721
Average edits per page: 6.97
Total edits (including deleted): 5,024
Deleted edits: 41
Live edits: 4,983
Namespace totals
Article	2693	54.04%
Talk	660	13.25%
User	159	3.19%
User talk	427	8.57%
Wikipedia	595	11.94%
Wikipedia talk	280	5.62%
File	2	0.04%
Template	29	0.58%
Template talk	21	0.42%
Category	10	0.20%
Portal	106	2.13%
Portal talk	1	0.02%
Graph
Month counts
2006/01	8	
2006/02	1	
2006/03	7	
2006/04	8	
2006/05	9	
2006/06	53	
2006/07	6	
2006/08	9	
2006/09	11	
2006/10	14	
2006/11	21	
2006/12	28	
2007/01	64	
2007/02	4	
2007/03	40	
2007/04	47	
2007/05	89	
2007/06	3	
2007/07	92	
2007/08	136	
2007/09	107	
2007/10	138	
2007/11	112	
2007/12	116	
2008/01	285	
2008/02	373	
2008/03	359	
2008/04	287	
2008/05	260	
2008/06	242	
2008/07	89	
2008/08	251	
2008/09	111	
2008/10	154	
2008/11	130	
2008/12	151	
2009/01	327	
2009/02	154	
2009/03	186	
2009/04	184	
2009/05	107	
2009/06	176	
2009/07	34	
Logs
Files uploaded: 7
Top edited articles
Article

    * 257 - U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada
    * 208 - Interstate_70_in_Utah
    * 150 - U.S._Route_491
    * 146 - Utah_State_Route_128
    * 143 - Interstate_70_in_Colorado
    * 77 - Mountain_Meadows_massacre
    * 68 - Four_Corners_Monument
    * 60 - U.S._Route_395_in_California
    * 54 - Interstate_80_in_Nevada
    * 53 - Sierra_Highway


Talk

    * 112 - Mountain_Meadows_massacre
    * 29 - Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007/GA1
    * 22 - List_of_state_highways_in_Utah
    * 21 - Interstate_70_in_Utah
    * 18 - Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
    * 18 - U.S._Route_50_in_Nevada
    * 17 - U.S._Route_163
    * 16 - Flexible-fuel_vehicle/GA1
    * 14 - Mangalorean_Catholics/GA2
    * 12 - U.S._Route_491


User

    * 78 - Davemeistermoab
    * 72 - Davemeistermoab/maps
    * 3 - Davemeistermoab/sandbox
    * 3 - Davemeistermoab/monobook.js
    * 1 - Mr._Matté
    * 1 - Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup
    * 1 - Davemeistermoab/U.S._Route_491_-_main_page_blurb


User talk

    * 51 - Davemeistermoab/Archive02
    * 40 - Davemeistermoab/Archive03
    * 31 - ErgoSum88
    * 28 - CL/Archive_1
    * 14 - Ljthefro
    * 13 - Imzadi1979
    * 12 - Mgillfr
    * 11 - NE2/Archive_11
    * 10 - Lpangelrob
    * 10 - CL


Wikipedia

    * 45 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Blog
    * 37 - Good_article_nominations
    * 22 - Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_491
    * 22 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/I...
    * 20 - Featured_article_candidates/Interstate_70_in_Utah
    * 18 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/I...
    * 18 - Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_50_in_Nevad...
    * 17 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Maps_task_force/Requests
    * 16 - Today's_featured_article/requests
    * 15 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Assessment/A-Class_review/U...


Wikipedia talk

    * 170 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads
    * 18 - Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)
    * 16 - WikiProject_California_State_Highways
    * 13 - WikiProject_U.S._Highways
    * 11 - WikiProject_Utah_State_Highways
    * 8 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Blog
    * 7 - No_original_research
    * 5 - April_Fool's_Main_Page/Featured_Article/Archive_20...
    * 4 - Lead_section
    * 4 - Today's_featured_article/requests


File

    * 1 - Dmitry_Ustinov_defense_minister.jpg
    * 1 - Duel_poster.jpg


Template

    * 3 - U.S._Routes
    * 3 - Infobox_road/doc
    * 2 - Infobox_road/UT_law
    * 2 - Scenic_Byways
    * 2 - US_91
    * 2 - Colorado_River_system
    * 2 - USRD_Announcements
    * 1 - Grand_County,_Utah
    * 1 - Million_Dollar_Highway
    * 1 - Highway_renumbering_series


Template talk

    * 15 - Did_you_know
    * 3 - Colorado_River_system
    * 2 - Infobox_road
    * 1 - U.S._Routes


Category

    * 2 - Utah_Scenic_Byways
    * 2 - GA-Class_Nevada_road_transport_articles
    * 2 - A-Class_Nevada_road_transport_articles
    * 1 - GA-Class_Utah_road_transport_articles
    * 1 - A-Class_Utah_road_transport_articles
    * 1 - FA-Class_Nevada_road_transport_articles
    * 1 - FA-Class_Utah_road_transport_articles


Portal

    * 40 - U.S._Roads/Did_you_know/Recommend
    * 28 - U.S._Roads/Selected_picture/Recommend
    * 14 - U.S._Roads/Selected_article/Recommend
    * 11 - U.S._Roads/U.S._Roads_news
    * 4 - U.S._Roads/Did_you_know
    * 2 - U.S._Roads/Selected_article/February_2009
    * 2 - U.S._Roads/Did_you_know/Recommend/2008
    * 1 - U.S._Roads/Selected_article
    * 1 - U.S._Roads/Selected_picture
    * 1 - U.S._Roads/Selected_picture/February_2009


Portal talk

    * 1 - Trains

Editing concerns and errors

U.S. Route 50 in Nevada - Examples: "4 Google. Google Maps, Fallon to Delta [map]. Cartography by TeleAtlas. Retrieved on 2009-01-26." combined with two other googlemaps to claim "In the stretch of highway between Fallon and Delta, Utah, a span of 409 miles (658 km), there are three small towns, Austin, Eureka and Ely.[4] This span is roughly the same distance as Boston, Massachusetts to Baltimore, Maryland[5] or Paris, France to Zürich, Switzerland.[6]". This would be the equivalent of measuring a baseball player's height and then saying it is comparable to other baseball player's heights. This is 100% original and not encyclopedic.

Furthermore, Rout 50 is stated to cross the country, yet a Nevada only reference is used to claim: "Traffic along US 50 varies greatly. The average annual daily traffic in 2007 ranged from 52,000 vehicles per day in Carson City, to 530 vehicles per day near the Duckwater turnoff.[7]" This is a manipulation of the reference to attribute to the whole ("along US 50") via the tiny, tiny part. Route 50 in Nevada, maybe, but not the whole as the language says.

Then there are things that are factually wrong according to the sources: "request a state issued novelty passport with a stamp representing that location." This is referenced to this, which states: ""you'll receive an official Highway 50 Survivor certificate and a souvenire to commemorate your successful journey" on page 5.

Inappropriate characterization: "The word survived is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Life article" is sourced to this, which does not recommend such a characterization.

Obvious peacock terms - "This increase in popularity has caused some to dispute that US 50 still deserves the title of The Loneliest Road in America." The "some" is attributed to one individual in this source.

Then, there is original research that is plain wrong: "In the 20 years" between the original article in 1986 and an opinion piece in 2004. Then, that source is used to verify "or less traveled alternative to Interstate 80 across Nevada", which Interstate 80 is mentioned in the source only once: "Take Interstate 80 east to Sacramento, where you hook up with Highway 50 through South Lake Tahoe. Or remain on Interstate 80 past Reno, then take Highway 50A to Fallon, connecting there with Highway 50." Thus, the source is not saying what is claimed. There are many, many other similar problems in this and his other articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More - "After Carson City, US 50 follows the Carson River towards the Lahontan Valley. This portion is also mostly four lane, serving the commuter towns of Dayton and Silver Springs as well as passing by Fort Churchill State Historic Park and Lahontan State Recreation Area. In addition to the trails of the Pony Express and Lincoln Highway, this portion parallels the Carson River branch of the California Trail. The Carson River, and indirectly US 50, form the southern edge of the Forty Mile Desert. This desert, located between the termini of the Carson and Humboldt Rivers, was the most dreaded part of the California Trail, where travelers had to endure 40 miles (64 km) of desert heat with no usable water." This is attributed to this and this, which don't mention route 50 in any manner in the body of the text and only says that the Route is nearby without any direct connection to what is claimed above. This is pure original research. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention frequent neglect of the hyphen, e.g. "four lane" for "four-lane". Peter Damian (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this is original research. The source DOES state the reasons why this area is called the 40 mile desert, which is what the source is being used for. This claim is also sourced to Benchmark maps. This source does also show the 40 mile desert extending to the Carson River, and shows US 50 following the Carson River. Dave (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You provided two sources. The sources did not say that Route 50 follows the Carson River. The sources also didn't explain anything about Route 50 except in saying where the location is, with one saying that it was at a crossroad of Route 50 and the other a mile away from Route 50. The "area" is not good enough to attribute it to Route 50. That would be original research. For all we know, the area could stop 1 foot away from Route 50 because the sources just don't provide this information. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the subject well enough to know whether that information about Route 50 is controversial, but before accusing one of our writers of Original Research it is important to ask them what their source was for that information; Remembering of course that it may not have been one of the sources provided so far. ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The page was placed up for FAC. That means that every line was cited. As such, each citation implies that a source verifies the content. The one example with two websites linked as talking about Route 50 but clearly not talking about route 50 is direct proof that there was original research. As you can notice from my user page, I have an extensive background in this. If you wish, I can ask Raul, Sandy, and Karanacs to testify on FAC standards and what people know in regards to putting things up for FAC and what citations imply. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This recent thread from WT:FAC sums up the issue here (not regarding the candidate in particular). Basically, we take it on trust at FAC that the sources confirm what they're used to cite, due to the difficulties in complete verification. – iridescent 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The article also uses a 92 page printed atlas for sourcing relative locations. I know this is controversial, but it was discussed openly ([1] among many others). I understand there are reasons for disagreeing with using maps in this way, but I don't see the need to make accusations of dishonestly.Dave (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why it is academically dishonest to not include traffic counts for states other than Nevada when the article has a hatnote clearly explaining the scope of the article is Nevada only.Dave (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The above is extremely hard to read; please consider reformatting it or nobody will read it, with cries of "tl;dr". --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

More

• "The route was constructed over a historic corridor" is poor English ("along" would be better than 'over', and 'historic' does not apply well to 'corridor').
• "The now two-lane US 50 crosses remote terrain, including many instances of the geographical Basin and Range construct. " - 'The now two-lane" is clumsy. The use of the continuous present 'crosses' is not enyclopedic (OK for a guide book). The word 'instance' properly applies to abstract concepts and not physical or geographic features. The word 'construct' is inappropriate for such a feature (we are talking about the landscape, not the use or significance of a linguistic item).
• "Frequent patrons of the bar at Middlegate ..." - not encyclopedic, and aren't all patrons frequent?
• Saying that Eureka 'bills itself', or that the 'centerpiece' of downtown is so and so, is more guidebook writing, not encyclopedic.
• "diverse route" - the term 'diverse' applies to pluralities or collections of thing, things that are numerically different or different in kind. Applied to a route, it sounds strange. How can a route or a road be different in kind?
• The article is littered with other grammatical and logical errors. Peter Damian (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re frequent Patrons, personally I'm uncomfortable with patron as synonym for customer. But I'd have to admit that I see it used that way often enough that I'm not sure I'd treat it as an error in English, let alone the American English that the article was written in. The Pub I was in a couple of nights ago had a sign up saying "To respect our neighbours, patrons are requested to leave quietly". I'm sure that was using patrons as a polite way to address all customers not just the regulars. ϢereSpielChequers 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster "A customer, especially a regular customer". The bar you were in was being polite by implying that everyone was a regular customer obviously. Peter Damian (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But those aren't a reflection of a poor understanding of policy. :) Peter, since it is an RfA and not a FAR, could you search for original research, plagiarism, poor use of references, and similar problems? Otherwise, poor writing skills would confuse inappropriate actions that could result in blocks or other reprimands (such as plagiarism and heavy missattribution of sources). There are other FAs to his credit and they equally have problems. Check the sources verse what is stated and see if anything is taken from the source or completely wrong when compared to the source. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall have a look but I have a concern over someone who is coming to RfA with claims about content contribution. The nomination says "spends his time working on content", " He has contributed (nearly single-handedly) to four featured articles and seven good articles, as well as a handful of DYKs. In response, he has received a Triple Crown and numerous barnstars. " "My most recent FA is U.S. Route 50 in Nevada, which passed a lot quicker, and with half the number of copyeditors, than my first:" Someone who has such a poor grasp of English (i.e. grossly imperfect as opposed to 'not perfect') should not be involved in the administration of a reference work. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned with the amount of grammatical problems too. However, that reflects more on the people that supposedly passed the grammar. No one bothered to check the references, which is the more deeper problem. Encyclopedia standards are based on integrity. We must be honest first, then be grammatical second. Missattributing references, plagiarism, and the rest, are aspects that are highly important and are ignored at FAC apparently. Normally, where there is one integrity problem the others can be found. It just takes a more thorough search. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Peter Damian (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all just snarky. In my opinion the only thing you two are accomplishing is to make yourselves look silly. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that anyone who has not graduated high school cannot be an administrator? Most high school students do not have the grammatical abilities to write a coherent FA. (For the record, I became an administrator at the age of 15 as a freshman in high school, and never in my nearly 4 years as an administrator has my writing style affected my administrative actions). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, by now this AFD is already mushed, but pray tell the world: how does Dave's "clumsy" grammar (grammar alone!) affect adminship ? What's next, torpedo for a typo? NVO (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Q for Ottava and Peter. I've gone through the examples in the oppose section and I'd appreciate clarification of a couple of things about your opposes. Firstly how do you establish that stuff is Original Research as opposed to unverified, secondly what frequency of error are you attributing to this candidate, and lastly you have use the word plagiarism a couple of times, am I correct that that is something you are checking for rather than something you are accusing this candidate of? ϢereSpielChequers 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a range of errors. I dislike the grammatical and especially the logical ones as poor logic suggests poor thinking, and poor thinking suggests poor judgment, whereas we look for judgment in an administrator. Next, there are the cases of overblown and unencyclopedic prose and the use of 'colour', as in the reference to the 'centerpiece' of some downtown area. That violates WP:NPOV. Then there are the other cases spotted by Ottava and Iridescent, where the source does not support the claim, as with the Onion creek example uncovered by Iridescent. "Onion Creek receives its name from naturally occurring minerals that produce a strong odor in the stream" has this as the sole source, which again says nothing of the kind (the only mention of odor of any kind is "Stinking Spring itself […] smells strongly of sulfur gas", with no mention of onions). Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where I state the creek smells like onions? I said the stream has an odor caused by minerals, which is in agreement with the sentence you cite.Dave (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't state it explicitly, although it's implied by "Onion Creek receives its name from…" – it's not called Sulfur Creek, after all. You're missing the point, though; your source doesn't say the creek has a smell of any sort (the only mention of odor at any point is explicitly in relation to the spring, not the creek). – iridescent 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, if this is OR, it's not a big leap. The source is clear that the spring smells due to sulfur. The source is equally clear the spring is the primary contributor to the creek, and both the spring and creek have issues from an abnormal pH and "total dissolved solids" that make the creek a concern to the state. As such I don't think it's a big leap to say that the minerals present in the spring that cause an odor are also present in the creek. As for the "receives its name".... yeah ok, that's iffy. But I don't think that merits the pitchfork brigade that I'm seeing here of multiple editors scouring my edit history to find where I didn't dot an i or cross a t.Dave (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should be throwing insults. Policy is quite clear that sources must back up exactly what you're trying to say. If this is recent, it doesn't help your RfA if evidence is found that you don't fully appreciate key policies. Perhaps if you came back when you were fully aware of policy, and I know you are aware of the general principals, your application would be watertight. We do, however, need admins that know the key policies. This is not crossing t's or dotting i's. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I started this thread with a request for amongst other things, justification of the Original Research accusation. In my experience if a fact is challenged under wp:verifiability then as the policy says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If material that a writer thought unlikely to be challenged is challenged then unless there are BLP concerns it is usually appropriate to give them time to furnish a source. So far I don't see any information so controversial that the candidate displayed poor judgement by not providing a source, however that could be my bias - I rarely if ever read or edit road articles. Unless someone digs up an example either of the candidate committing plagiarism or including an unverified fact that a reasonable person would challenge, then I am liable to move to the support column. ϢereSpielChequers 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is no more an example of synthesis that 2^3=8. If there were something controversial that hinged on it, there might need to be better sourcing. Most FAs are over-sourced down to minute details, thus harming the readability. Good writing uses the appropriate number of sources, not every source possible. That would be pedantry, not encyclopedic writing. DGG (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well why is it sourced then? There is no mention of 'Onions' anywhere in the source. 2^3 = 8 is a mathematical and indeed logical truth. The claim that 'onion creek' is named after its smell is not a mathematical or logical truth. And why link to a source if the source does not contain the information? You are confusing two separate things. Peter Damian (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent. My apologies for not replying sooner. I've been busy.=-) Do you have any issues with changing, "receives its name" to "which is sourced from springs with"? I would like to resolve the legitimate "iffies". Unfortunately, I think we need to find a new forum, to avoid further mixups between who is saying what.Dave (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The accusation is made above that I am guilty of plagiarism. Can someone please clarify what they feel I have done that would merit such a serious charge?Dave (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen no evidence of plagiarism; I think Ottava is mentioning it in the sense of "I look for plagiarism and other things, and I've found the other things". – iridescent 18:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As Iridescent states it. Plagiarism is a strange term. It mostly means anything that sources do not match statements, be they in existence or not. The idea is that all information must be cited to other sources and must reflect other references. We should not take what they say, but we should make sure that we are not attributing to them what they don't say. It is all part of one editing whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is very difficult when one has driven along a highway many times to erase all personal knowledge of it from one's mind. I'm not saying that accurate sourcing isn't important, but that it would be foregivable if a little bit of personal observation has accidentally crept into the article. (This has nothing to do with plagiarism, however, which should never have been mentioned.) Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Missattributing things to sources goes hand in hand with taking things directly from sources - both show a misunderstanding of how to summarize a source correctly. Two halves of a same whole. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Plagiarism is about copying others peoples work and passing it off as your own. wp:verifiability is about information being verifiable, as the policy says "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". It would be a major policy change for us to move from that to, as you put it "all information must be cited to other sources". If you are going to discuss Plagiarism in general without accusing this candidate of it please don't do it in the context of a particular RFA - may I suggest a thread such as Wikipedia talk:RFA#How to spot plagiarism ϢereSpielChequers 19:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, please read above. I mentioned that plagiarism was something Peter should look for along with original research and the like instead of focusing on grammar. That is the context. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But it should be obvious that raising the possible issue of plagiarism here when one is unable to actually prove it is highly prejudicial. DGG (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone that an investigation into plagiarism is a better way to spend one's time is not prejudicial, especially when an equal problem of falsifying content and attributing to a source that does not verify that content is done. It is the same problem in two different ways, and they do tend to go hand in hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I know writers that would throw down on the spot for being accused of plagiarism. Original research is one thing, it can be unintentional inference or whatnot; plagiarism is seen as purposely stealing and taking care to not get caught. Just being accused of it is - to my reckoning - highly uncivil. It would be akin to me titling a section "Ottava's Desk full of Kiddie Porn"; it may not be there, but the damage is done nevertheless. Best to leave it out unless we have solid proof of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding

I will attempt to respond to these. I do ask for patience, it's three against one, as such I can't move as fast.Dave (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think you should get sucked into article issues here. Everybody who is up on the issues knows that this is just a stratagem in Ottava and Peter's campaign to make Wikipedia more elitist; it's best to ignore them as much as possible. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? And which part of "Ottava and Peter's campaign" would I be, then? – iridescent 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should know better than to use phrases like "everybody who is up on the issues", I should have read through it once more before hitting "save". Looie496 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I also advise you not to respond to this. It is not necessary, and will just prolong this inappropriate discussion. DGG (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Replacing comment that was removed

I'm replacing the comment that was recently removed as it is blindingly obvious that how it is connected with the debate above. People such as User:Stifle are claiming that understanding content and style is unrelated to the responsibilities of an admin. This is not correct. See below. Peter Damian (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS

- - This ridiculous and stupid message placed on my talk page underscores exactly my complaint about the uninformed mob that hangs around this place. If people took trouble to read a bit more, then this place would perhaps resemble an enyclopedia. Sorry for the capital letters I am absolutely fed up. Peter Damian (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How is this relevant to Davemeistermoab's RfA? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is WWGB (talk · contribs) an admin? Anyway, the PROD tagging to the article in the middle of expanding is a silly attempt to discredit Peter Damain's argument on content policies, but Peter should've not done that.[2][3][4] (reminded of 3RR).--Caspian blue 15:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is 'WWGB' an administrator. I don't care. Stifle is, and it is his comment that I am really replying to. Obviously these events must be connected in order to discredit me. I really am exploding with anger about this. Peter Damian (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very relevant to this discussion. Stifle is commenting that the ability to write is unconnected with ability to use the 'tools' i.e. to administer an encyclopedia. It happens that the appropriately named 'Stifle' put up an article of mine Epistemic theory of miracles up for deletion only 6 minutes after I had created it and was still working on it. EXACTLY the same happened to another article, Philotheus Boehner just now. So I am hopping mad and I AM jolly well seeing a connection here. If 'Dave' who clearly cannot write, and whose knowledge is limited to some stretch of road in Nevada is to be an administrator, I am very worried. I have already moved the article on Boehner elsewhere. Peter Damian (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Stifle's PROD-tagging to your article [5] was almost a year ago. I don't see any connection with each other.--Caspian blue 15:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stifle is supporting this RfA. He is giving arguments in support of administrators being uninformed. This candidate clearly has no knowledge of writing English and no apparent knowledge of the world beyond the limits of US50, in the 21st century. Make the connection yourself. Peter Damian (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the parties here are unable to see this connection with the RfA is highly disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And who has tagged the article with the stuff about Germany? Boehner moved to Canada, then America, and was the founder of St Bonaventura University. Why the 'Germany' stuff. More arguments for informed administrators. Look: you are writing an encyclopedia. Get someone who knows what they are talking about. This whole process is about teenagers electing each other in chatrooms. Peter Damian (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Teenagers in chatrooms? Considering that Dave is an adult editor, I'm not sure what you're talking about. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am basing the 'teenager' comment on this essay by one of the contributors to the roads project. Where he claims that 80% of the contributors to this project are under 18 or 21 or whatever Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with several things that Peter Damian says, but I would be most disturbed with any interference with his right to express his opinion. I don't feel that content-writing is directly relevant to a user's adminship candidacy; Peter Damian does. He's entitled to have that opinion, and I am entitled to question it, as much as he is entitled to question mine. Please let's try not to cause unnecessary conflict. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Peter Damian (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If I might comment here. Davemeistermoab's contributions aren't limited to one road in Nevada as Peter Damian is claiming. His contributions as listed at the top of this page also show that he's edited and written articles on other roads in Nevada, Utah, Colorado and California. He has helped with articles on subjects in Michigan, New York, Washington, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio and that's just off the top of my head. He's reworked and revised the article on the Four Corners Monument to address erroneous news reports that the monument is 2.5 miles away from the correct location. He's worked on articles related to Wester ghost towns. To boil his contributions down to one article that he shepherded through the FAC process is oversimplified at best and very misleading at worst. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course - including this very strange article. Peter Damian (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you looking at a revision that's over a year old? Especially when there were 36 revisions made to the article after that one before it was promoted to FA? [6] shows the difference. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That was when 'Dave' completed nearly all of his work. Peter Damian (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You really need to calm down. There is no grouping of teenagers from Dave's home project active on an Internet chatroom trying to elect him. I count around three supporters of Dave's RfA that are from USRD and are below the age of 18. Any personal vendetta you have against Stifle is completely irrelevant here - I fail to see the connection. I'll be expecting some snarky response, but all I'm trying to say is some of your arguments against Dave veer on the side of unreasonableness. Please, enlighten me on what I may be missing here - CL — 17:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read my complaint, it was that the tagging is symptomatic of the kind of uninformed opinion that hangs around here. Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

FTR, I am over the age of 18. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 70 concerns

As for US 50, Interstate 70 in Utah is another article by the user above that has problems:

• From the article: "The eastern descent from the Pavant range features bridges high above Clear Creek and its side canyons. The longest of these bridges is the Fish Creek bridge at 1,180 feet (360 m) long.[5] "
  • The reference is this, just a generic pool of data. The "alternative" link can give you a reference that says that of all of the route 70 bridges, it is the longest. However, there is nothing about the "pavant range" or any other routes that could be included within the range. Furthermore, that link calls it "Feature Intersected: FISH CREEK" and not "Clear Creek". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "The descent into Clear Creek features a brake check area and runaway truck ramp to aid truckers down the steep slope.[6]"
  • Not only is this trivia, the reference (a pdf that needs to be downloaded) does not contain information that suggests the above. There is nothing about "brake check area and runaway truck ramp" listed on that sheet. At mile marker 16, 141, and 143 there are "Runaway truck lane"s, but they are not near the "Clear Creek". "Clear Creek" is mentioned only from mile 19 to mile 22, which is quite a distance away. There is also no mention of a steep slope or anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "I-70 serves as the main thoroughfare of the valley, the only area of significant population served by the freeway in Utah. Richfield is the largest city along I-70 in the state.[7]"
  • The reference is to this, a collection of maps. The use of the terms "significant" and other things are clearly not found on the map. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The only concern I see here is what "significant" is and what Dave determines it to be for the purposes of the article. Would a map ever use "significant"? Of course not. However, one can tell what the largest populated areas are from the map easily. Should Dave have used better phrasing such as "the only area to have over XX people in the region" or "the area containing the largest # of people in the region"? Probably. Is this a gross distortion of the source? No. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree - living in the Baltimore/Washington metro area, there are many large population areas that wouldn't be visible on maps simply because they are not cities. Maps would display either city boundaries or satalite visuals of buildings. If they are of buildings, it would be impossible to determine approximately numbers of population or the rest. The term significant also means nothing. An appropriate source would be some kind of census data. I am sure these locations would have something available on population amounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • But the BWI area is not comparable to rural Colorado. The end. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "Between Fremont Junction and the junction of SR-24 near Green River, Interstate 70 crosses a geographic feature called the San Rafael Swell. The construction of the freeway through the swell is considered "one of the most significant highway construction feats of its time" and is listed as one of the engineering marvels of the Interstate Highway System.[2][15] "
  • The reference makes it clear that the quote is from "engineer Archie Hamilton was one of the featured speakers. He was one of only three remaining UDOT engineers who had worked on I-70 from start to finish." Instead of quoting the individual, the article implies that it is agreed upon by experts, which is not the true. This is a fringe view passed off as mainstream. Now, route 70 or this part is clearly not one of the "Engineering marvels". As the source says: "In February 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) designated the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways as one of the "Seven Wonders of the United States."" This makes it clear that all of the Interstate Highways together are part of the recognition and it is inappropriate to single out this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "The construction of I-70 through the swell required boring through many solid rock canyons, cliffs, and mountains. The swell is noted for its sheer canyons and rock formations and is home to a large amount of exposed dinosaur remains. This includes the largest known collection of Jurassic era dinosaur remains at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry at the north end of the swell.[16]"
  • From the reference, there is no mention of Route 70 or even a Swell. There is no way to place the Quarry with any of the information claimed about the highway. This is information that isn't even loosely connected to make the highway seem more important. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Nice distortion of the article to make it seem like stuff is being claimed to a source when it is not. What you should have said was: From the article: "The construction of I-70 through the swell required boring through many solid rock canyons, cliffs, and mountains. The swell is noted for its sheer canyons and rock formations and is home to a large amount of exposed dinosaur remains. This includes the largest known collection of Jurassic era dinosaur remains at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry at the north end of the swell.[16]" In a research paper you would say "According to BLM, this includes the largest... of the swell.[16]" However, this is not a research paper so you can't exactly do that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it is odd for you to claim that the article is distorted when I quoted the whole section. It is obvious from the above that he starts by talking about I 70 then coatracks to talk about dinosaurs that are not directly connected to the highway in any form according to the source. This was an inappropriate emphasis to add "interest" to an article. We don't create new things to make things less boring. That isn't encyclopedic. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Please don't twist my words - I said your statement was distorting the article, not that the article was distorted. Dave is talking about something very close to the highway, which is very relevant and is a common practice in road articles. ... and now it appears that your issue with this portion of the article is no longer related to improper sourcing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
          • It is clear from my previous statement that "odd for you to claim that the article is distorted" that I was referring to my quoting of the article. You claimed I was distorting it. I stated that it is impossible to distort something when I quote as a whole. Your inability to comprehend what I said above is probably of the same problem that keeps you from comprehending the major error. And very close to the highway? According to what? Not the source. And things "close" to a highway are not what the article is about. Please see WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
            • "Oh, you don't believe that I'm right because you just don't get it." Mmhmm. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "The highway ascends the western edge of the swell on a steady slope loosely following the north rim of Devils Canyon. At the top of the grade is a view area with a view of Devils Canyon and an overlook of the country west of the swell.[12"
  • The reference is a map without the ability to determine a "view area" or what a "view area" would even be. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "Although the trail serves a different route than I-70, they were both intended to connect southern California with points further east. I-70 generally parallels the route of the Old Spanish Trail west of Crescent Junction. I-15 south of the junction with I-70 also generally parallels the trail.[23]"
  • The article even admits that this is original research. There is no way to determine "intention" from the reference, which is a map. The map also does not show that I 70 paralleled anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the article: "The second proposal was a "southern route" that would continue due west from Green River and head towards Los Angeles, similar to the route of modern I-70. This was a more ambitious proposal as it would require extending the railroad farther west, to what would become the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad.[26]"
  • This has the same problem as above. This is original research to try and make the article seem more interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just a tiny bit. There are plenty more. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. As ChildofMidnight noted, it's a wiki; if you feel an article can be improved, improve it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would understand if this were about an editor - but I feel this is starting to suggest that the nominee is failing to understand key policy areas about referencing properly, understanding which statements require sources and how to avoid using sources in a misleading way. I'd like admins to have those skills, regardless of where they want to work. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree - if we carry the 'nobody's perfect argument to its logical conclusion, there would be no point to an RfA. Everyone would pass, because 'nobody's perfect. Understanding policy - which reflects after all a policy designed to encourage producing a reliable reference work - is key to this. Peter Damian (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

AGF would suggest that the above is a mistake. About 8 months worth of constant mistakes. Adminship requires trust. No amount of good faith can override 8 months worth of failure in terms of policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But most of what you've listed above is perfectly fine. According to WP:V, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source", so much of that info doesn't even need a source to begin with. For example, bullets #3, #4, and #5 are a matter of common sense (you can tell what a significant city is by looking at a map). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of it is common sense but even there, one should leave the footnote out, rather than misleadingly supply one (you seriously and worryingly misunderstand this point - see my comment on DGG's talk page). The other ones that I have looked at are attempts at colouring pieces with OR when only black-and-white information (metaphorically speaking) is available). Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I fully understand your point, and it is a fair one—I just disagree with it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you fully understand my point and think it is a fair one, how can you disagree with it? Please explain. Peter Damian (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point, as far as I can tell, is that consistent errors in the article space indicates a potential lack of understanding of policy. And, as I said, it is a fair point, but I disagree with that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Flying Toaster redux, apparently. MLauba (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm refering to the fundamental disconnect between those who believe a demonstrated lack of understanding of core content policies makes one unfit for adminship, and those who see it as no big deal. For my part, if you misapply or misunderstand core content policies, you shouldn't be given the delete or block buttons for article space. Dave wants to work on deletion. Let me see evidence that he understands WP:DELETE, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR through his edit history and he has my vote. This is currently not the case. MLauba (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No Julian, my point is that consistent misunderstandings of policy in the article space indicate a potential lack of understanding of policy. Do concentrate. Bloody hell. Peter Damian (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I said, give or take. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of understanding for Core Policies? – dont make me laff!

Im not sure why FlyingToaster's being brought into this but lets deal with that first. FT was criticised for plagiarism , even Ottava was adamant her recent article work didn't violate copyright. And there was no credible case that she'd committed plagiarism it in a moral sense , as she always attributed her source – there was merely some technical concern that some of her sentences weren't sufficiently paraphrased. The essay on plagiarism wasn't even a guideline at that point, let alone policy . In fact the NOR policy as then written and discussed on various article talk pages would have encouraged some editors to stick as closely to the source as possible, which is what FT did. Her only mistake was to be naive about how her actions could be viewed , being young and of a most sunny disposition she was blind to certain dark possibilities others would see.

Getting back to Dave , I fear its the oppose camp who need a lesson on our policies. No where do they state that a reference has to cover ever clause in the sentence(s) it follows. Lets pick out one of Ottava's examples:

The construction of I-70 through the swell required boring through many solid rock canyons, cliffs, and mountains. The swell is noted for its sheer canyons and rock formations and is home to a large amount of exposed dinosaur remains. This includes the largest known collection of Jurassic era dinosaur remains at the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry at the north end of the swell.

Fair enough its reference only talks about the dinosaurs, a but thats precisely what the average reader is likely to be interested The reference tells them where they can stop off to see those dinosaur remainsif they happen to be planning a trip on the I-70. Both in Wikipedia and elsewhere references are often used to expand particular points , in fact I dont remember reading a single book where they're consistently used only to verify. There might be a case if Dave was using partial coverage references for controversial points in high profile articles about religion, politics or science. But we're talking about minor details in road articles! This attempt to imply a quality editor such as Dave is non compliant with policy is strained at best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read my oppose? It has nothing to do with uncited statements; it is about falsified statements – i.e., statements are "sourced" to sources that do not actually say what they're claimed to say. A completely different matter. – iridescent 21:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I was mainly trying to address points made by Mlauda or Ottava. I didnt say anything about uncited statements . I was saying claims the act of placing a reference that doesnt cover all the clauses of the preceeding sentences counts as falsifying looks strained. More formerly, a sentence or pair of sentences like Ottava's example can make several truth statements at once. (Truth statements loosely corresponding to clauses) e.g.

A) The I-70 passes through a Swell

B) Said swell required boring of solid rock canyons

C) The swell is home to dinosaur remains

D) Dinosaur remains have been collected at Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry.Etc...

Again – no where in policy does it say that a reference has to verify every single truth statement in the preceding sentence(s). So its strained to accuse someone of falsifying for failing to do so. In the above case its a good reference as it gives the reader the information thats most likely to be useful.

Re-reading your oppose, you seem to have picked out a fragment, though you havent linked to the article. Id guess the reference may well shed light on another point, maybe even a point from the same sentence. Even if thats not the case, I note the article does indeed refer to a "River Road" - so the reference is relevant even if it doesn't fully support the point made in the article. Again if we were talking about a serious topic one might prefer references that fully support whats said, but its just a road article! Time for me to say goodnight, so wont be able to reply further, I hope this is clearer. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is no "laffing" matter. Explain iridescent's find, in particular this diff. Dave is working on bringing the article to A class, and replaces a reference which did pertain to the sentence it was attached to (http://www.mountainproject.com/v/utah/moab_area/105716711) with one (http://www.utah.com/schmerker/2000/moab.htm) which doesn't pertain to it. It isn't just a poor source, it's a completely inadequate one in this context. While I don't intend to dig into the A class review discussion, I'm just going to suspect that someone pointed out that the previous source was self-published and hence not a valid WP:RS. The problem, though, is that the new source doesn't connect the dots, it doesn't even mention the route 128 at all. As Juliancolton explains further above, you don't actually have to strenuously source every single word in an article. However, in this case, the statement should have remained unsourced or removed altogether for failing WP:V.

The FT analogy is tied to the drama which errupted after the plagiarism was found out, which divided the community between those who felt that it was no big deal and those who felt that this kind of fundamental misunderstandings of copyright policy was, at that time, an issue of sufficent importance to preclude an admin position, no matter how well intentionned FT was. MLauba (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The source youre saying doesnt pertain ( (http://www.utah.com/schmerker/2000/moab.htm) ) actually includes the word "River Road" which was in Irridescents quote fragment. Please check a bit more carefully before questioning another editors competence! FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And where does it mention Road 128? Please take your own advice. MLauba (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second - I argued that it did violate copyright, but we don't go after someone who has attempted to cite the materially and just failed to cite it properly with quotation marks. Instead, we correct them, have them clean it up, and not block them. Was it right for her to give up her adminship? Probably. However, attempting to cite things is better than miss citing them or just taking and not citing in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the examples I've checked arent actually mis cites, unless one applies a very strict criteria thats no in our policy, and isnt even a conventional elsewhere. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The above analysis were to see improprieties of multiple kinds. The specific example was loading in off topic items into an article and performing original research to make a loose connection not present within the sources. It is an inappropriate action. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

who is falsifying

Some of the eds. above thought my support for Dave unjustified, and asked me to check. The first item I checked was the one I though possibly the grossest error; I quote:

From the article: "Between Fremont Junction and the junction of SR-24 near Green River, Interstate 70 crosses a geographic feature called the San Rafael Swell. The construction of the freeway through the swell is considered "one of the most significant highway construction feats of its time" and is listed as one of the engineering marvels of the Interstate Highway System.[2][15] "

The reference makes it clear that the quote is from "engineer Archie Hamilton was one of the featured speakers. He was one of only three remaining UDOT engineers who had worked on I-70 from start to finish." Instead of quoting the individual, the article implies that it is agreed upon by experts, which is not the true. This is a fringe view passed off as mainstream. Now, route 70 or this part is clearly not one of the "Engineering marvels". As the source says: "In February 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) designated the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways as one of the "Seven Wonders of the United States."" This makes it clear that all of the Interstate Highways together are part of the recognition and it is inappropriate to single out this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking, I however find the complaint against Dave is not correct. The item cited by OR --and also cited by the article--is indeed headed: "Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways Engineering Marvels" Its lead section goes on to say "... the story of the interstate system is really the story of its individual segments, many of which were engineering wonders in themselves. The following list discusses just a few of these segments:" (and among the sections listed is this very one). I consider that a proper reference supporting the text of the article. It is in fact listed as one of the engineering marvels "in its own right" by the US DOT. Reliable reference, properly used.

Having seen this, I see no point in checking further. Although it is would have been wrong to use material in an article that the ref. does not support, it is much more wrong to make accusations against an individual based upon a citation that is incomplete and misleading, and that the actual material cited does not support. Look for yourself as I did. Judge according to your own lights and decide yourself what to call this. DGG (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The "marvels" are the whole interstate system as a whole and that title is derived from one website article that is summarizing someone else who did not use the term marvels. That should have been clear from reading it. Did the ASCE list those items? No, whoever made that article did and do they have the authority to be cited as mainstream? Notable? Common opinion? Or any other determiner? No. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

by "whomever made the article" you mean Richard Weingroff, the historian for the U.S. Department of Transportation. It's all in the article.Dave (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, there we go. Is he part of the ASCE? His article was about the ASCE declaration of the seven wonders title. He then points out various parts that he feels are marvels. The wiki article implied that this was some sort of mainstream title, not what one individual states. It is also not an official declaration by any group like the seven wonders title would have been. Thus, you take a source and make it out to be larger than what it was. This is similar to saying that you know I 70 is close to the dinosaur area so you add that information to a source discussing dinosaurs to spice up the article. Original research and playing with sources in order to make something less boring is not appropriate. Yes, sometimes articles have to be small, boring, or limited because there aren't sources out there. We are a tertiary source, not a primary or secondary source. We must summarize and summarize appropriately. Otherwise, there would be some much larger articles on literature filling in a lot of gaps that Wiki currently wont allow. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Richard F. Weingroff is an information liaison specialist with FHWA's Office of Infrastructure." In other words, he is speaking officially for the FHWA ion their web site. This sort of quibbling over the acceptability of references is why i have learned to avoid FA discussions. I would be very glad indeed if all our references came up to this standard. To me Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not an exercise in pedantry. I thought that was the only problem with your accusations--that they required a standard few of us live up to. I did not expect to find the accusations justified by incomplete and misleading quotations. I was about to come here and modify what I said under the assumption you had perhaps merely committed the common fault of not reading to the end of the article, but went by the headline; but you are justifying yourself instead of apologizing indicates something more than that. Straining after evidence to write an article is not good; straining after evidence to accuse a colleague is something else entirely. DGG (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DGG - quibbling, sure. If so, please explain what a location about dinosaurs not directly connected to I 70 is doing in the article and adding in statements that it is "near" I 70 without it being in the article sourcing information about the dinosaurs. The addition is intermixed with cited information from a website. If you have all information "A" sourced and all information "B" new, you cannot say ABABA in one sentence and expect it to be acceptable. As pointed out above, this happens multiple times in that one article. See the concern about this one ""Although the trail serves a different route than I-70, they were both intended to connect southern California with points further east.". How do you rationalize that? It even makes it clear in the original research that there was no direct connection and the source clearly doesn't have any. This is an admittance of making things up that are not encyclopedic. DGG, if this happened once or twice, it wouldn't be a problem. However, I only mentioned this because I found it in the first 15 articles he worked on that I checked and I only discussed his most recent FA, as that was expected to be of high quality. It wasn't. This is a constant trend. We are an encyclopedia that summarizes works. We do not just make things up because we want to and put a source that doesn't say it behind that new creation. That is academically unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

that this region is near dinosaur territory is pretty much common knowledge--but what I would done is given a milage figure & I consider maps a good source for that. That a road through the mountain states connects California with points to the East is common knowledge also, or even just common sense; if I saw something like that in an article on a road in an area I did not know, I'd look at a map and add it, as I worked on some Chinese ones once, which were very incomplete, and added the relationships to major cities based on the map. I did not consider it necessary to cite, because anyone could and would do the same. There is a difference between material the article depends on, and surrounding prose. There is making things up--which is wrong, there is summarizing literally, which is right but does not make readable articles, and there's making reasonable s discussions and connective paragraphs, which is what makes good writing. You do it yourself, and very well. I sampled about 10 FAs just now and they all do it too, though to varying degrees, so it seems to be well accepted here. I'm not sure this article is FA quality, but that's not one of the things admins are needed to decide on. It's still an appropriate Wikipedia article. I think I have clarified my views well enough, and I don't want to be tempted to go further into personalities. DGG (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I and many others do not have the time to check the all the contributions and comments against the sources. But I think it is clear that in the I-70 San Rafael Swell example given above, Dave's contribution summarizes his sources better than Ottava's description summarizes Dave's work there.John Z (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how he attributed one individual's opinion as a mass view on the location, Dave's contribution is nothing less than a lie about what the source actually says. If you think that such things are appropriate then that is really concerning. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I really can't believe you. Seriously, you think that someone can coatrack with original research a discussion about dinosaurs simply because they are a few miles away? If that is so, I want an article on my house because I am a few miles away from some Civil War battlegrounds! That is not encyclopedic in any regards. We don't fake sources and make articles more interesting with our own knowledge. We don't add stuff that has nothing to deal with the topic! I don't do anything close to what this user does and I am offended that you would even claim any connection between him and I. I use sources and I stayed true to them. I don't try to spice up my articles. If I don't have information, I don't make it up because I think I know it! Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some actual quotes from policy and guidelines will help clarify things. We've already discussed that there's no support for the above accusations unless one makes unjustified assumptions. There is however explicit support for the way Dave's been using references: Wikipedia:Common_knowledge an essay linked to from the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources , includes the following as acceptable examples of common knowledge not requiring verification:

• "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property "
• "Geographic pieces of information easily verified by a nonspecialized map "

Which clearly applies to much of the contents of these road articles. Wikipedia:Citing_sources states one of the purposes of references is:

• "To help users find additional information on the topic."

So Dave's well within his rights to use references to provide additional information of interest even when the reference doesnt verify all the points made in the sentence(s) preceding it. Again this is common practice. Lastly Ottava , I respectfully suggest you read what DGG's wrote a bit more carefully, I find theres a lot to learn from him. DGG studied under the legendary Gunther Stent at Berkley, he doesnt need lessons in whats academically acceptable from anyone here! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The oppose section on the RfA makes it clear that there is more support for what I say of the above being policy violations, guideline violations, and other problems than not. Dave is not within his rights cite evidence to a source which does not have a direct connection to that source. We are a tertiary source. These are FAs. There is an expectation that everything is referenced and referenced to the citation. If anything, he was under this expectation going in, so you cannot make the claims that you did. And DGG could have studied from whatever legendary person he wants, but DGG knows what legendary people I studied under. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have never claimed any expertise pother than as an observer. And perhaps an observer from the special position of a librarian, who knows the way the literature works in different fields. But Wikipedia does not really go by expertise, nor by who one's doctoral advisor is. I therefore do not pontificate about it, and I certainly do not on my own authority call someone a violator of the academic norms. I do not think any one here is in a position to do that and have his word accepted on the basis of status--just if it makes sense to other reasonable people. The person who is truly expert will be in a position to make the best argument. DGG (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Closure

I have closed this RFA as successful - it was, of course, quite a close call, so I think a brief closing statement is in order. Many of those opposing referred to Ottava Rima's comments about Dave's citation practices. As is well known, article-writing is not a part of the 'job' of an administrator. Naturally, article-writing issues may still be relevant in RFA inasmuch as they suggest general habits of the editor under consideration that seem likely to carry over into administrative work. But the consensus that seems to have formed among those opposing for article-related reasons is not that Dave is untrustworthy in general, but that he has not been interpreting certain article-related policies rigorously enough - an error which easily can, and presumably will, be corrected. So these concerns, even if they be valid, do not seem to be primarily about suitability for adminship as such. Also, Dave's own response to his critics was level-headed and praised as such, even by several of his critics themselves. Accordingly, I am confident in my decision to promote Dave. I will be glad to answer any further questions. — Dan | talk 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making the hard call! Would it be fair, then, to interpret this (loosely) as a quasi-response to the larger discussion raised on Wikipedia talk:RFA#Let.27s do the time warp again? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is Rdsmith4 and what is hit relation to "Dan"? Is it important for usernames to match with signatures? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A commendable decision given the tough circumstances. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)