Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SheffieldSteel

SheffieldSteel

Voice your opinion (talk page) (58/0/5); Scheduled to end 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs) - I have been a Wikipedian for a couple of years now, and have accumulated a little over 4,800 edits. In addition to some article work - nothing spectacular - I have contributed to various admin-like areas including WP:ANI, WP:AFD and WP:EAR. To a lesser extent I work to counter vandalism and accordingly I have posted at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP on occasion.

I am now of the opinion that, on balance, having the extra tools is worth the trouble of going through an RfA to get them. I invite the community to consider my contributions and answer the question of whether you trust me not to abuse the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I am planning to continue to watch WP:EAR and WP:AFD, as well as the more common noticeboards, and help out however I can. I will continue to counter vandalism wherever I see it, of course. Note that I do not plan on blocking users, and certainly not unblocking them, until I've had more time to become more familiar with the tools. I can see myself getting more involved in dispute resolution with the ability to un/protect pages and avoid having to make {{editprotected}} requests, and contributions to WP:AFD will be considerably easier given the ability to view deleted contribs (and delete articles).

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: They are everywhere. I have made many small changes to many many articles, most of which I have reached following requests for help or attention on the various noticeboards. I've given helpful (I hope!) information to newbies and midbies alike, and I've added sources, corrected typos, tried to help resolve disputes - wherever the call has led me. If I had to point at something I'd probably say that (at the time of writing) the first sentence of WP:NPOV was still as I left it.

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: Have I ever! Early on, I was involved in some really nasty disputes in a couple of areas that since ended up at arbitration (Scientology and Paranormal). My experiences there left me unwilling to contribute for a while, although I gradually drifted back. I've been involved in other, smaller-scale disputes since then (see Talk:Hogenakkal Falls and Talk:Atlanta Braves for quite recent examples) but I'd like to think I have coped better. I am coming to the opinion that the "Random Article" button is a great friend in times of Wikistress: the ability to zoom off somewhere unexpected and make random small improvements is very therapeutic.

Optional questions from Winger84

4. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A: Yes, I believe that a user who's been blocked can become a trustworthy and valued contributor. I also believe that, in general, a user who's been blocked is worth watching more carefully. I don't think there are any "hard and fast" rules that can be applied here. It very much depends on the user in question, what they did to get them blocked, and what they've done since.

5. If your RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

A: This is a difficult question. I don't want to be seen as supporting what I see as a pretty broken and abusable process; on the other hand, the alternative mechanism has its own problems right now. On balance I think I would answer yes and hope that the conditions I specified wouldn't leave an open door for someone with an axe to grind. Luckily, there are some good examples out there to choose from.

Question from Fleetflame

6. What is your opinion of WP:DGAF?

A: There's a lot to be said for it - not caring too much, that is. The people who care the most tend to be the least easy to talk to and to reason with, in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

7. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. My first instinct would be to challenge them on their contributions record, pointing out the "Hubuttman teseckseth" edit (not the incivil unblock request that was redacted), asking why if they were "done vandalising", they still made such a non-productive edit, and then weigh their reply. I have to say, I'd be very unlikely to unblock this user, since their only productive edit was apparently in response to a final warning. The question strongly implies that this is the editor's entire contribution record, so I have assumed that there were no other constructive contribs (which I would otherwise take into account). I'd probably respond, ultimately, by declining the unblock request, reminding them that they are free to contribute constructively after the block expires, and I'd probably not point out that administrators do not need "permission" to block or ban disruptive editors.

Optional questions from Nsk92

8. Could you comment in a little more detail on your article/mainspace work? Your user-page lists only one article that you created. Are there others? Or other articles that you made substantial contributions to? Or gnome work/random article button work?

A: I'm a bit tall for a gnome, but if the hat fits :-)

I've not been a prolific writer, although I am generally good at grammar and spelling. I would like to create more articles but I have a horrible feeling that the best articles are already taken, leaving the willing contributor skirting the edges of notability, looking for an opportunity. I was kind of surprised to learn that there wasn't an article on SFTT, which is why I created it - and good sources were a lot harder to find than I was expecting! So... I try to improve incrementally, rather than starting from scratch, and I add material from sources that other people are unlikely to have access to. That is why I've contributed to Religious Society of Friends and C++ recently (although no source is going to justify an edit like this - sometimes you need to know the subject). I'm afraid that a good few of my edits have been minor fixes, attempts to hold things together during edit wars, making sure grammar, spelling and references don't suffer too badly. Hope this helps, and I'm sorry if there's nothing very impressive out there.

Optional question from  Asenine 

9. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page. His edit contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy?

A:

General comments

• See SheffieldSteel's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for SheffieldSteel: SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - I view opposing RfAs on the view self-noms are prima facie evidence of power hunger res ispa loquitur evidence of not knowing Latin. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Sceptre, please can you get over your hatred of Kurt? It's getting tiresome now and a lot of your comments are looking extremely pointy. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Aww, come on, this is just a little bit of fun. We know Kurt is going to oppose this with his boilerplate reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   and we all know that you've got serious things against Kurt, and calling his probable oppose idiotic is extremely dissapointing. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, changed the word. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Echo Ryan... this is a little ridiculous and childlike.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   A latin phrase for Sceptre the Great: sunt pueri pueri pueri puerella tracant. LFOD (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   stu quiers pipue eorui funzx qiuiuy. He accuses people that he doesn't know of being power-hungry so I don't think we should run to his defense when someone insults him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   I really appreciate the support, but please, let's not make this about Kurt. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   "ispa"? Perhaps you should brush up on your own Latin. ne sutor ultra crepidam the wub "?!" 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Yup, a good guy. He works in numerous areas and his edits show he has a lot of clue. Certainly has the experience required to make a good admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I've seen you around Wikipedia, and after poking around your userspace I've decided to support. Your work here is good, and I can see that you actually need the tools for something more than a trophy. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, definitely worthy of the tools. Wizardman 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, happy to. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I trust this user wholeheartedly. He's been involved in some nasty disputes on controversial subjects and has always shown maturity, knowledge, and a cool head with arguments that invoke policy and hit it right on the button. He's respectful and to-the-point, which is good combination for an admin. I normally wait until some of the common questions are asked, but I have enough experience dealing with this user and confidence in his knowledge and attitude that I am comfortable supporting now. I'm sure he'd take it slow and do some studying at WP:NAS to compensate for any experience he lacks in certain areas. Good candidate. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Note to candidate Per Q7 — I hope you don't make a habit of declining the unblock requests of users you blocked. You should always let another admin look over them except in cases of abusing the unblock template. Also, when in doubt of a user's intentions, use the 2nd chance template; It can never hurt. Just keep that in mind. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support By all means, rational and common sensical. RxS (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support- good article work demonstrates the candidate knows what an encyclopedia is about, sound reasoning at XfD and elsewhere demonstrates a level head and firm knowledge of policy. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen him around a lot. He's experienced, knows policy, and civil. He has my trust with the tools. Useight (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Because user is a wikignome and because user needs the tools.--LAAFan 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. I view SheffieldSteel's work as prima facie evidence of needing admin tools. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Strikes such a solid balance mingled with thoughtful comments and a civil nature. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support—Looks good. Maxim (☎) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support RMHED (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support: Seems honest and trustworthy enough. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Oh, hell yes!!!!. I actually tried vehemently to get SheffieldSteel to accept my nomination for adminship months ago! I would be his nominator, and should be his nominator, except I don't do that anymore, for personal reasons. I'm so very glad to see SheffieldSteel boldly taking a step towards improving Wikipedia with the extra tools! The tools are meaningless, really, and they should be the default setting and removed for abuse. That's merely my opinion. SS has proven that he knows how to write articles, but also that he knows how to diffuse contentious situations, and he knows what Wikipedia is and what it isnt'. I'm proud to be a supporter of his request, regardless of the outcome. Supprort, without hesitation! Keeper ǀ 76 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Great user, see him around a lot. No reason not to support. LittleMountain5 ^{Sign here} _review! 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. Levelheaded and reasonable editor. Plus he likes fishapods. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I've been giving this candidate the once over because of his involvement with controversial subjects such as ID, 911, abortion, and creationism. While I don't always agree with him, I can't help be impressed by his demeanor and desire to get to an accurate NPOV articles. To quote pigman, Why would anyone be interested in your opinion? Because you seem generally balanced and considered of word. Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter; your statement was a careful presentation of the good/bad faith perspectives. My bad for attempting to interpret your earlier words into a specific position. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I have seen this editor around and have been impressed with their demeanor and attention to quality content. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support Editor with a fair mind and a commitment to policy. His participation at AfD is well-reasoned (as always, I would prefer radical inclusionism, but "well-reasoned" will do in a pinch!), his closures are always consistent with consensus, and his work at EA is marked by a strong knowledge of policy and an ability to work with difficult editors. I would cite, for just one example, this EA diff, where, wading into an intractable and frankly idiotic dispute involving an editor with an idée fixe about the Atlanta Braves (and are there any idées more fixes than those regarding sports?), he takes the time to clearly and politely explain the available options. It's a good example of trying to talk a troublesome editor down from the ledge with the force and wisdom of policy behind you. As regards SS's past with difficult areas of the project, it's clear that he's been there and back and learned from it. Good administrator material. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Support should be ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Quality candidate, acceptable answers to my questions, no reason to believe the candidate would misuse the tools. --Winger84 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. Several times in the past few months I've thought that SheffieldSteel was good admin material. I'm glad to see the nom and happy to support it. — Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong support: An excellent candidate, and I would happily have nominated him myself if his power hunger had not gotten the better of him. :) SheffieldSteel possesses a surfeit of cluefulness and maturity - the most important qualities for adminship - and he'll do good work with the tools. Absolutely support. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. Looking through the editors interactions with other wikipedia users, I am comfortable that SheffieldSteel will demonstrate the maturity and patience needed to use the mop-and-flamethrower™ properly and not abuse them, and overall, I believe this editor's judgment worthy of being extended the community's trust. -- Avi (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Support in spite of obvious prima facie power hunger. --John (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Based on answers to questions, particularly #3, and on difs provided by Le Grand Roi. Dlohcierekim 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I have seen him around and have no reasons to believe that the tools will be misused.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - I do not see any possibility of abuse. Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I view self-noms as...NO! BAD PARAGON! Anyway, good gnome-work and I see no problem with giving you the bit. You could use a little article work, but I have absolutely no room to talk there. Paragon¹²³²¹ 05:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support This editor has a great track record (as pointed out above) and there is not a single reason to believe (as far as I saw it) that he would abuse his newfound mob and hit people over the head with it. Being a WikiGnome should be the first criteria for adminship imho (not just because I am one too) because those editors find "joy" in doing all the little sweeping up, the housework and the cleaning and that's what the admin tools are - cleanup tools to keep Wikipedia clean. And if the user is furthermore civil and cool-headed and (like the candidate) trying to do his best to adhere to all policies, then that's a definite reason to make him an admin. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. Perfect admin material. Will be just great. nancy ^talk 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Someething rings a bell about positive previous interaction, but I couldn't find it in archives. Anyway, a net positive with the extra tools. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - Shown a need for the tools, no history of misuse, and all round polite person. --MattWT_{added on} 08:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - Appears to be a long-time, positive contributor. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - No problems here.  Asenine  09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
43. naerii 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
44. To quote the candidate: "I invite the community to consider my contributions and answer the question of whether you trust me not to abuse the tools" - My answer is Yes, I trust you not to abuse the tools. John Sloan (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Excellant admin material. While I would like to see a bit more article work, the ability to help newbies is a very useful qualification, I think. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 11:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Support In my (admittedly few) times coming across this editor, I have been impressed. Contrributions show a pretty high degree of WP:CLUE is present. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Guarded support. Have some concerns about the comparitive lack of contributions to the main space though. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Sure. MBisanz ^talk 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Seems like a sensible, thoughtful candidate who puts policy before personal interest. Nandesuka (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Support I've seen Sheffield around, and I've seen nothing but good and constructive contributions. A pleasure to support. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Adminship should either be automatically granted on request without going through RfA, or automatically granted after 6 months of editing, but until either of those happens I will automatically vote Support on all self-noms. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Looks trustworthy to me. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Support, no problems. --Kbdank71 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - looks good; meets my standards; very interesting user page; this essay. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Tan ǀ 39 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. the wub "?!" 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. - Dureo (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. Overall, Sheffield Steel will be a good admin. Although I'm disappointed by the fence-sitting with question 5. Axl (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
59. Support for several mature and rational discussions in support of NPOV and the encyclopedia in general. Clearly makes frequent trips to the clue depot. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Oppose per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and[6], but support per [7], [8], and [9]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Don't see enough article building, won't oppose however. — Realist² 01:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral This vote is based on my sole encounter with the candidate, who made a bizarre attempt to convince me that I was not being insulted when someone called my opinions "ignorant" in an AfD debate. Yeah, right -- I still cannot fathom the logic behind that effort. Having not experienced the positive encounters that the Support crowd enjoyed, and seeing no clear reason to Oppose, I guess I have to sit down here and bum cigarettes off Realist2 and Le Grand Roi. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   I quit 12 months ago. — Realist² 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Good for you. I should follow your lead. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning support Steel seems like he wouldn't be a bad admin. I'm a little concerned about the answer to Q7, but doesn't give me enough reason to say oppose by far. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)