Wikipedia:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
- Адыгэбзэ
- Адыгабзэ
- ak:Wikipedia:Administrators
- Ænglisc
- Аԥсшәа
- العربية
- Aragonés
- অসমীয়া
- Авар
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- བོད་ཡིག
- Bosanski
- Буряад
- Català
- Cebuano
- Čeština
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- डोटेली
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Emiliàn e rumagnòl
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Eʋegbe
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺
- 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî
- 한국어
- Hawaiʻi
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- Igbo
- বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী
- Bahasa Indonesia
- IsiXhosa
- IsiZulu
- Italiano
- עברית
- Jawa
- Kabɩyɛ
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- कॉशुर / کٲشُر
- Қазақша
- Kurdî
- Ladino
- Лакку
- ລາວ
- Latina
- Latviešu
- Lëtzebuergesch
- Lietuvių
- Ligure
- Lombard
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- Māori
- मराठी
- მარგალური
- مصرى
- ဘာသာမန်
- Bahasa Melayu
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Dorerin Naoero
- Nederlands
- Nedersaksies
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Occitan
- ଓଡ଼ିଆ
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
- Pälzisch
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Перем коми
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Ripoarisch
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Runa Simi
- Русиньскый
- Русский
- Sakizaya
- संस्कृतम्
- Sängö
- ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ
- Sardu
- Scots
- Seediq
- Sesotho
- Shqip
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Ślůnski
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- Tayal
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- ትግርኛ
- Тоҷикӣ
- ತುಳು
- Türkçe
- Türkmençe
- Twi
- Тыва дыл
- Удмурт
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Winaray
- 吴语
- ייִדיש
- Yorùbá
- 粵語
- Žemaitėška
- 中文
- Betawi
Withdrawing Bugalugs13 per user request |
m Fix so the bot will see the first RfA |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. --> |
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. --> |
||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JGHowes}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JGHowes}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 15:02, 15 August 2008
↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship |
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives (search) | |
---|---|
Administrators | |
RfA analysis |
|
Bureaucrats |
|
Useful pages | |
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
![]() | Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JGHowes | 82 | 3 | 1 | 96 | Successful | 17:33, 19 August 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
SheffieldSteel | 115 | 5 | 6 | 96 | Successful | 22:37, 11 August 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Paul Erik | 83 | 1 | 1 | 99 | Successful | 18:09, 16 August 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JGHowes | 82 | 3 | 1 | 96 | Successful | 17:33, 19 August 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
SheffieldSteel | 115 | 5 | 6 | 96 | Successful | 22:37, 11 August 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Paul Erik | 83 | 1 | 1 | 99 | Successful | 18:09, 16 August 2008 | 0 hours | no | report |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Current nominations for adminship
Current time is 08:45:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations have not updated. |
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
JGHowes
Final: (82/3/1); ended 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
JGHowes (talk · contribs) - I have worked with User:JGHowes for 20 months. He is a good article writer, understands policy well, and always maintains a civil demeanor. He has 6 FAs, 6 GAs, and 12 DYKs to his credit. These articles are primarily in the railroading, Scouting, and religious areas, but include other areas as well. He is active in many areas, very helpful, and always helps build the encyclopedia in a postive manner. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination by Wizardman: I like how Rlevse is a nominator in this RfA, not just because the two have worked together a lot, but because I see a lot of Rlevse's abilities in JGHowes. The guy is, as Rlevse says, primarily an article writer, so he definitely understands the meaning of why we're here. I read the Royal Blue (B&O train), one of his FAs, and it is certainly a great read, along with his other FAs and GAs. He understands our fair use policy very well, as evident in Image:Scout Jamboree 1937.jpg and other images. Plus, everytime I see him on a talk page, I see a constructive comment that benefits our encyclopedia. His edits are strewn about all over the namespaces, in areas that would show he's greatly qualified to be an administrator. Even when looking at his first edit, I see a great editor who would clearly be a great benefit to the encyclopedia with the extra tools. Wizardman 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I humbly accept. JGHowes talk - 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy editing on Wikipedia and would be happy to help with the mop. As my contribs and past interactions will show, I like the collaborative nature of the project and am not one to seek a lot of drama. It is really amazing, when you think about it, that here we are — largely known only by our screen names — yet working together as a community to develop the world's first and best online encyclopedia, so if I can contribute to the project's betterment with the additional admin tools, I'll gladly do so.
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've participated some at AFD, IFD, CV, and a fair amount at AIV, and would likely help out there.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I enjoy creating and writing articles about little-known historical events and esoteric subjects, in particular, and would say that the two FA's I created, Royal Blue (B&O train) and Baltimore Steam Packet Company, would be my best contributions to date. I have many more articles in mind on my "to-do" list for the future! Going through the FAC process, I find, is very beneficial in becoming proficient at the details of reference formatting, image licensing, layout, template usage, etc., as well as writing a comprehensive, balanced article, of course. But I also consider my gnome-like minor corrections of stub articles on sundry topics to be of value, too.
- 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: My ideal is to be the kind of editor described in npov, "the rare editor who goes out of his way to present views opposite to his own". I studiously avoid ad hominem-type arguments and OR, trying to steer the discussion back to reliable sources and wikipedia guidelines. I've had no major conflicts, and where differences of opinion have arisen, a mutually acceptable compromise was worked out. As an example, I informally mediated a dispute between two camps regarding the Lassie controversy and both sides were pleased with the outcome.
Optional question from xenocidic
- 4. 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:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
- A: Well, having experienced life in a college dorm and in the military, I think I've heard it all anyway! Parenthetically, I have a theory that those unfamiliar with Wikipedia may think of it as a kind of blog, where such language and opinions are commonplace, and so newbies may not realize how beyond the pale such actions are viewed here. Having said all that, I cannot envision a scenario where I, as a neophyte admin, would unblock or undo another admin's actions without first consulting with that admin to make sure he or she was in complete agreement. In the example presented, I think both the original block and second block were about right, and would let the second, 1-week block stand. Given the blockee's assurance that he has learned his lesson, I would reply welcoming him to make constructive edits to Wikipedia after the block expiration, and in the meantime read up on the Wikipedia policies/guidelines enumerated at {{anon}}
Optional question from Asenine
- 5. 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: This is a tough question, because essentially it requires balancing two competing guidelines, i.e., consensus vs. WP:RS. The first step would be for all editors involved to discuss it on the article's talk page. Consensus can change, after all. Although the one party is citing reliable sources, it could still be problematic as regards WP:UNDUE, for instance. On the other hand, WP:V is a core policy that should not be overruled. Because this example involves multiple editors (not just two), if the two sides involving multiple editors cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, an article RFC could be used to get wider community involvement to resolve.
- Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
- 6. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
- A: Definitely not. WP:COOLDOWN states unequivocally such a block should never be used.
- Follow-up Do you agree with the policy you have linked to? Why or why not? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the policy because the purpose of a block is to protect Wikipedia from damage or disruption, not to punish. If an editor violates 3RR, to cite an obvious example, he is blocked because his actions are disruptive, not to "cool down" per se. Although, I see some discussion has taken place regarding the precise wording of WP:COOLDOWN and its application at WT:BP.
- A: Definitely not. WP:COOLDOWN states unequivocally such a block should never be used.
Optional question from Keepscases
- 7. Do you intend on editing Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane?
- A: As a pilot? Absolutely not, that would be out of the question from a safety standpoint. All my online editing is done on the ground, although I get teased for using my BlackBerry to edit and check my watchlist, as symptomatic of a true wikiholic. :o)
Optional (CSD related) questions from Icewedge:
- 8. In terms of CSD G3, what constitutes an obvious hoax? Where does the line between hoaxes that should be SD and hoaxes that should be sent to AFD lie?
- A: As I understand WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes, generally speaking a suspected hoax should not be speedy deleted, but instead tagged {{hoax}} and taken to AfD where a wider discussion can take place. A CSD G3 would be appropriate only in the case of really blatant vandalism.
- 9. Under what criteria, or was this more of an IAR SD?[1]
- A: More of an IAR-type conclusion that it was certain to be deleted, but only after the consensus made that apparent at AfD.
Optional questions from Presumptive:
- 10. Would you be willing to accept a term of 12 months? Some say that this will keep admins editing and not to become wikipedia military police. Others say that a fixed term would increase responsible administration. Or do you want to be appointed Administrator For Life?
- A: I will answer by saying that, to my mind, an admin is simply an editor who's entrusted with some additional tools because of his or her experience and demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia practices. Admins and b'crats I know continue creating/editing articles (I certainly intend to do so). As long as the admin uses the buttons appropriately, there's no reason to take them away after some arbitrary period.
Optional questions from Winger84
- 11. 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: I believe strongly that people can and do reform, and that most if not all persons have said or done things they later regretted. We learn from our mistakes, after all, and the slate should be "wiped clean", so to speak, allowing for a fresh start with full trust earned by demonstrated contribs.
- 12. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?
A: I feel that if an admin loses the confidence of the community, he should step down. And, of course, any admin can be desysopped. So I will add myself to AOR if successful.
General comments
- See JGHowes's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for JGHowes: JGHowes (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/JGHowes before commenting.
Discussion
- I don't know if you've been pointed at it yet, but there's a WP:RFACHEATsheet. It won't help with any questions you've got so far, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a point to question 7? Okiefromokla questions? 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some editors do not like the questions posed by Keepscases, but I find that they do, indeed, apply to Wikipedia (sometimes by a stretch of the imagination). In this particular case, if one is editing from an airplane, they could potentially lose their wireless connection and/or be told to turn it off by a flight attendant. If so, the editor could be interrupted and unable to complete a task in which they were in the middle of doing, possibly ruining formatting in a table for example, or leaving some task half-done and difficult for another editor to pick up from that point. That's what I get out of the question. Perhaps Keepscases had a different purpose, but that's what I thought upon reading the question. Useight (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if it relates to Wikipedia or not, it matters wether it serves to provide an answer that can help people gauge one's potential effectiveness as an administrator or not. I would remove it, but me being a lowly auto-confirmed user, I don't have the authority.--KojiDude (C) 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought of that too, Useeight — until I realized the question is "Would you use Wikipedia while flying an airplane" and not flying in an airplane. Unless it was a typo, the question is a bit obnoxious. And if not, I agree with Koji. Okiefromokla questions? 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It reminds me of Green Eggs and Ham. If it is a typo, and it is flying *in* an airplane, then perhaps it is to gauge one's dedication to Wikipedia, airplane internet fees being so exorbitant. –xeno (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That must be it. Okiefromokla questions? 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It reminds me of Green Eggs and Ham. If it is a typo, and it is flying *in* an airplane, then perhaps it is to gauge one's dedication to Wikipedia, airplane internet fees being so exorbitant. –xeno (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some editors do not like the questions posed by Keepscases, but I find that they do, indeed, apply to Wikipedia (sometimes by a stretch of the imagination). In this particular case, if one is editing from an airplane, they could potentially lose their wireless connection and/or be told to turn it off by a flight attendant. If so, the editor could be interrupted and unable to complete a task in which they were in the middle of doing, possibly ruining formatting in a table for example, or leaving some task half-done and difficult for another editor to pick up from that point. That's what I get out of the question. Perhaps Keepscases had a different purpose, but that's what I thought upon reading the question. Useight (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I think his question refers to the pic on his userpage. Wizardman 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent sleuthing! Clearly not a typo then. I suppose with some manner of autopilot, he could conceivably edit Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane... if his Cessna is Internet-enabled, that is. –xeno (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Well, the question at least makes sense then :) Okiefromokla questions? 01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, ha! It's not flying in an airplane, I totally misread the question. When I'm editing at work I only have time for a quick check-in here and there, which is where I was when I saw this RFA be transcluded. Still haven't had time to go over his contribs (I've been studying for a Final Exam since I got off work, so I'll chime in later. For now, consider me a de facto support. Or is it de jure? I don't know my Latin very well. Useight (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's de jure, as you are, officially and on the record, supporting the candidate. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, ha! It's not flying in an airplane, I totally misread the question. When I'm editing at work I only have time for a quick check-in here and there, which is where I was when I saw this RFA be transcluded. Still haven't had time to go over his contribs (I've been studying for a Final Exam since I got off work, so I'll chime in later. For now, consider me a de facto support. Or is it de jure? I don't know my Latin very well. Useight (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion about question 10 (moved from question for candidate;[2] while in my experience discussion has been allowed to take place in that area, this looks like it might be turning into a rather lengthy debate, what with the accusations of Wikistalking and such. It seems unfair to overrun what should be the candidate's place to shine with Wikidrama. - Icewedge (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- I urge the candidate not to answer this question. It is phrased in such a way that poisons the well and it contains a rather large assumption of bad faith. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't stalk me, Ice Cold Beer. The proposed admin can answer anyway he wants. He can say he wants a fixed term or he can say he wants to be administrator until he dies. Neither is a crime. Presumptive (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or he can exercise his right to not answer your question - not a crime either. As you say, he can answer in anyway he wants - even if that's with no answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refusal to answer a question on a RFA is a bad sign of things to come. An admin should be goodwill ambassadors of Wikipedia, not rude people who refuse to answer a question. Presumptive (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, that's for questions that deserve an answer - questions asked in order to further presumptions is something that could qualify as trolling, and fortunately, the community as a whole is not presumptive in expecting answers for such questions. Candidates are not expected to make up their mind on such matters, particularly in the absence of being an administrator for any length of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to the candidate for bringing an outside dispute into this RfA. It was never my intention to do so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question does say 'Optional questions from Presumptive', which suggests to me that not answering is a valid option. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refusal to answer a question on a RFA is a bad sign of things to come. An admin should be goodwill ambassadors of Wikipedia, not rude people who refuse to answer a question. Presumptive (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or he can exercise his right to not answer your question - not a crime either. As you say, he can answer in anyway he wants - even if that's with no answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't stalk me, Ice Cold Beer. The proposed admin can answer anyway he wants. He can say he wants a fixed term or he can say he wants to be administrator until he dies. Neither is a crime. Presumptive (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge the candidate not to answer this question. It is phrased in such a way that poisons the well and it contains a rather large assumption of bad faith. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The practice of asking candidates whether they are open to recall or not, especially if it carries any connotation of support dependent on the answer, ought to be discouraged, and candidates should feel free to refuse to answer if they so wish. We need fewer situations where passing is dependent on placing ones self in some category or another. Either the candidate is fit for adminship, or the candidate is unfit for adminship. Advance conditionals are a bad idea, as they are practically impossible to enforce. Clearly, my previous practice of asking this was wrong. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support as co-nom. Wizardman 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Excellent candidate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wow. Great article work, very trustworthy, mature editor, see no reason he would abuse the tools. LittleMountain5 review! 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support - I feel disappointed seeing 'Requests for' in the header. Asenine 16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added 'weak' per response to Q6. Asenine 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, excellent article contribs, low on the drama scale as well. I am just a little creeped out by the three similar signatures (candidate and both nominators). Weirdness. ;) Keeper ǀ 76 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - basically meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wow, excellent article contributions -- much congratulations for that work! Everything seems excellent and I wish you continued success. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Co-nom by a b'crat? More article work in a day than what I've done in my life? Mediation? Gnome work? There's nothing not to like! Paragon12321 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Spent about fifteen minutes going over your contributions, and while nothing jumps out at me as amazing, I didn't find anything I'd consider a major issue. I'm confident in your ability to communicate with other editors, and I trust you won't do anything too stupid as an admin. Since you don't have terribly many edits (from what I saw) to the areas you want to work in, I suggest easing into them. If you ever need any advice, I'm happy to help or point you at someone who can (or be entirely clueless). lifebaka++ 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems sound to me. -- Mentisock 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - What I'm looking for. — Realist2 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - A reliable candidate. AVandtalkcontribs 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As noted, JGHowes is a good candidate, and I am impressed with the mainspace work I'm seeing. I concur that it'd be a good idea to tread lightly in the admin areas you're unfamiliar with, but I trust this candidate to exercise the appropriate caution. No worries. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Almost "weak" because of a technicality on Q4, but I just couldn't do it. The candidate is experienced, knowledgeable, and an excellent content contributor. I see a plethora of good things in his contribs, and nothing too questionable. Just take note that you shouldn't decline the unblock request of a user you blocked, although I'm not sure you understood that you were supposed to be the blocking admin in that scenario. In any case, now you know. Don't be too unwilling to use the 2nd chance template either. Okiefromokla questions? 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support there were some areas where I wish you had a little more experience, but not enough so that I would oppose or even go weak. Solid contributions and respect of the community.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I went through some stuff, but nothing but positive things stick out. I think nothing bad will come of this SoWhy review me! 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have seen this editor around doing good work, and trust him with the tools. --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Per: MBisanz talk 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support most definitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have seen some great work at the Scouting WikiProject, and was unaware until now of the great depth of contributions JGHowes has done. Great demeanor and attitude. Willing to upgrade to Super Strong Support in exchange for a really good Blue Comet article that isn't about the Sopranos. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per Wizardman (talk · contribs)/Rlevse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A broad track record of creating and improving articles, accompanied by broad-minded participation at XfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Naturally. — Jojo • Talk • 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tiptoety talk 22:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to constructive contributions indicated on candidate's userpage. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Indeed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see nothing wrong here. Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Candidate looks good to me. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support great user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A good editor, who knows the issues and will react calmly to problems. He will make a good admin. --Bduke (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. JGHowes will be a competent and effective administrator, and can be trusted. Good luck, Anthøny 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Seems to be a fine candidate. I see no reason to fear any tool misuse, which should be the most pressing concern (+sysop is no big deal, afterall). Parsecboy (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fine. GlassCobra 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--LAAFan 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent editor, will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Top-flight nominee. — Athaenara ✉ 06:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Yes. nancy talk 07:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although i dont really feel safe in your small Cessna 310 - care to upgrade to say a 747 or an A380;)? Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Strong nomination statements, good answers, good contribs, good luck. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason not to. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikipedia should not be edited while flying an airplane. Keepscases (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Julian. Sceptre (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like what I see. Lradrama 16:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reason for concern. Well-rounded editor and above average content writer, the project would only benefit from candidate's access to extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. JGHowes has all the right qualities. Axl (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Answer his questions perfectly even the hard ones! My Account (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Doesn't look like someone who would misuse the rights. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A little late chiming in on this one, but he's a solid contributor, plenty of mainspace work. Good experience in the project space as well. Looks good. Useight (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Wikipedia could always use more admins who are article-writers at heart. Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-- Article writers are always a bonus. : ) --Cameron* 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like he'll be a good admin, and per the odd opposes below. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per NYB. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dlohcierekim 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NYB? Huh? Anyway, great candidate, thumbs up. --Meldshal42? 11:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant this NYB. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - why not? --T-rex 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Have not found anything in the candidate's history that would make me believe that it would be a mistake to give them the tools. Good luck! --Winger84 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support Six FA's, 6 GA's, 12 DYK's? Of course! Also per follow-up to Q6 and WP:WTHN. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Normally when there's no opposition and plenty of support before I arrive, I don't bother to comment. However, in this case, I make an exception. JGHowes has the makings of my favorite type of administrator: the writing admin. Of course, there's the usual reasoning as well, with which JGH perfectly aligns, so this is an easy support. S.D.Jameson 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per the answer given to #6, and per his good contributions to the encyclopedia. macy (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Answers to questions are fantastic. My fence sitting ended when your userboxes (particularly the 2nd and 3rd column) came and pushed me off.--KojiDude (C) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support fine 'pedia builder., and minimal drama Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support John254 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Bottom line: I trust this guy with the admin tools. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the candidate has done good content work. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support per nom and Q4. Q7 made me smile, though. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Loved answer to Q7. Good luck. America69 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Kurt Weber. Steven Walling (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support JGHowes has 6 FAs, 6 GAs, 12 DYKs, and more than 5,000 mainspace edits. I really appreciate his contributions. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - everything looks good here. :) jj137 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not really necessary to pile on at this point, but I've been particularly impressed with JGHowes thoughtful and reasoned approach to dealing with Wikipedia. Shell babelfish 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support due to constructive contributions indicated on candidate's history. --Kaaveh (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The fact he's written 6 GAs, 6 FAs, and 12 DYKs is enough for me to support. how do you turn this on 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good answers to the questions. I don't think candiate will abuse the mop. Whispering 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. See no issues here, and it's good to have a few more article creators as admins. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support. Intelligent, level-headed contributor. An asset to the community. jeremycec 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good user. Acalamari 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see no problems here, you have my support. Steve Crossin Contact/24 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose per answer to #6...individual clearly puts so-called "policy" (which is in fact totally non-prescriptive and non-binding) ahead of his own best judgment. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a good thing? I mean, if it weren't for policies preventing it, you'd probably have been indef blocked a long time ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We accept support votes without any comment, no matter how little thought or justification is offered. While I disagree with the explanation offered for opposing here, the reason seems no less logical than many of the supports. The response offered here, which seems unlikely to change Kmweber's mind, seems inappropriate if not questionably uncivil in its second sentence. I can assure you that this RfA will pass, even with the one negative vote; why can't we try to accept the fact that there are people who disagree with us, even when we are sure they're wrong. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been away from Wikipedia for a little while recently, and I come back and I find people are still getting worked-up over this heavily outdated subject matter? Lradrama 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not worked up about anything. Simply making a comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We accept support votes without any comment, no matter how little thought or justification is offered. While I disagree with the explanation offered for opposing here, the reason seems no less logical than many of the supports. The response offered here, which seems unlikely to change Kmweber's mind, seems inappropriate if not questionably uncivil in its second sentence. I can assure you that this RfA will pass, even with the one negative vote; why can't we try to accept the fact that there are people who disagree with us, even when we are sure they're wrong. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn, please keep in mind that RfA's are meant to be discussions. If you have a problem with the reasoning of a support, you should question it just as others have questioned this oppose. - auburnpilot's sock 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what may be meant, but that's not what happens in practice. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because in the nomination statement, the supporters already have a ready-made rationale as to why this candidate is suitable. It's perfectly fine to simply mark one's agreement with the nomination by simply signing in the support section. In short: The default is to support. If on the other hand you disagree with the nomination, you should explain your reasons and how they outweigh the positive aspects highlighted in the nomination to the point that you feel compelled to oppose. Questioning opposes more regularly than supports also is fine for the simple reason that at a minimum ratio to succeed of ~75% supports, the individual oppose weighs considerably more than the individual support. user:Everyme 10:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. You can bet that if negative votes in real elections were worth 3 affirmatives, there would be far more scrutiny of the detractors' reasoning. —Animum (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Real elections where the results are 62-1 and those in the minority voting oppose are still getting what is frequently negative -- if not uncivil -- scrutiny is hardly the mark of a democratic system, real or otherwise. Albania was hardly any better. Cuba has a system that too often has a tendency to treat any difference of opinion as dissent that needs to be suppressed, not exactly a model of consensus-based community building. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, catching me in the fine print, eh? ;-) Pragmatic examples aside, I'm saying that opposes are worth a not-inconsiderable amount more than supports are, so they inherently lend themselves to more scrutiny, but opposes on sure-to-pass RfAs don't need to be challenged as they don't matter. That's not to say, however, that opposers cannot challenge the supporters, for that defeats the purpose of discussion, something at which AuburnPilot hinted above. —Animum (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the Vatican has eliminated the position of Devil's advocate from the beatification process as part of its recent downsizing, perhaps we can create an equivalent position here on Wikipedia. For each nomination, with its gushingly over-the-top description of why the candidate should receive the position in question, there should be an equal and opposite response as to why the individual in question is undeserving. This would allow those unsatisfied to simply vote "Oppose, per anti-nom". Though in this case, I still support the nomination. Alansohn (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We could also give every candidate 50 or so phantom !votes at a ratio of, say, 37-13 (=74% support), to reduce the weight of each actual !vote. But that's talking about RfA reform, and it's never going to happen. Because the process is working perfectly fine... user:Everyme 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the Vatican has eliminated the position of Devil's advocate from the beatification process as part of its recent downsizing, perhaps we can create an equivalent position here on Wikipedia. For each nomination, with its gushingly over-the-top description of why the candidate should receive the position in question, there should be an equal and opposite response as to why the individual in question is undeserving. This would allow those unsatisfied to simply vote "Oppose, per anti-nom". Though in this case, I still support the nomination. Alansohn (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye, catching me in the fine print, eh? ;-) Pragmatic examples aside, I'm saying that opposes are worth a not-inconsiderable amount more than supports are, so they inherently lend themselves to more scrutiny, but opposes on sure-to-pass RfAs don't need to be challenged as they don't matter. That's not to say, however, that opposers cannot challenge the supporters, for that defeats the purpose of discussion, something at which AuburnPilot hinted above. —Animum (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Real elections where the results are 62-1 and those in the minority voting oppose are still getting what is frequently negative -- if not uncivil -- scrutiny is hardly the mark of a democratic system, real or otherwise. Albania was hardly any better. Cuba has a system that too often has a tendency to treat any difference of opinion as dissent that needs to be suppressed, not exactly a model of consensus-based community building. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. You can bet that if negative votes in real elections were worth 3 affirmatives, there would be far more scrutiny of the detractors' reasoning. —Animum (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's because in the nomination statement, the supporters already have a ready-made rationale as to why this candidate is suitable. It's perfectly fine to simply mark one's agreement with the nomination by simply signing in the support section. In short: The default is to support. If on the other hand you disagree with the nomination, you should explain your reasons and how they outweigh the positive aspects highlighted in the nomination to the point that you feel compelled to oppose. Questioning opposes more regularly than supports also is fine for the simple reason that at a minimum ratio to succeed of ~75% supports, the individual oppose weighs considerably more than the individual support. user:Everyme 10:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what may be meant, but that's not what happens in practice. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a good thing? I mean, if it weren't for policies preventing it, you'd probably have been indef blocked a long time ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Seems another WP policy drone, so I oppose. DollyD (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well why don't you get to know the candidate and then decide whether to turn the "Seems" into an "is"? ScarianCall me Pat! 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid getting flamed for breaching the santicity of WP:NPA, probably. Badger Drink (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well why don't you get to know the candidate and then decide whether to turn the "Seems" into an "is"? ScarianCall me Pat! 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose - I take issue with an administrator using their real-life name or a clear derivative thereof as a username. Badger Drink (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've ever heard that one before. Thank you could explain your rationale? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be brief (or attempt to be, at least) - administrators have a higher possibility of becoming targets by stalkers, or ending up immersed in drama which may reflect poorly upon them in a Google search. A lot of worry has been had over this, with some wanting to automatically <noindex> RfAs. Problem with that is that the MediaWiki search engine is, to put it mildly, less-than-stellar, and oftentimes a Google search is a much better way of finding an RfA for a candidate whose username you're unsure of, but the details of which you remember. Drama-issues aside, to use one's real name on a website of Wikipedia's visibility shows a rather startling amount of good-faith for the general online population - an amount which might even be considered veering into naivety. As an aside, I'd also like to mention that beyond this issue, this candidate seems a fine potential admin - I guess I'd liken it to a candidate with 5 FAs, 10 GAs, a whole host of sterling AN/I, AIV, and AfD work, but whose understanding of free-image criteria leaves a little to be desired. Or something. So much for "brief" - I hope this sheds some light, somewhere or other. Badger Drink (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Off the top of my head, User:Daniel Case and more recently User:Steven Fruitsmaak are both wonderful admins whose usernames have not impaired their ability to do what admins do. User:WJBscribe is a crat and chair of MedCom and is open about his real name, User:Daniel is acting as chair in his absence. There are countless others as well (don't kill me if I left you off). I don't see why that would warrant an oppose from you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How desperate are you to find a reason to oppose? Honestly, this is probably the single worst rationale I've ever seen at RfA in my life.--KojiDude (C) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How desperate are you to live in a world where everybody thinks just like you? Yours was probably the bitchiest oppose-badgerer I've seen in months. Badger Drink (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bananna Hammoc.--KojiDude (C) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fatality. =( Badger Drink (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I concur. This oppose is by far one of the worst I've seen. Pure unadulterated fishing-for-a-reason-to-oppose. What exactly is the point of opposing what is obviously going to be a successful RfA with an extremely hair-splitting rationale? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I checked, there was a big link at the top of these things that said, "voice your opinion". I voiced mine. If you want to change it to "voice your opinion, unless it's obviously going to be a successful / unsucccessful RfA", be my guest. Unless you're too busy casting strong support on RfA's like this. Badger Drink (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All - I think we're edging a little close to incivility, folks... can we have a cup of coffee and agree to disagree? Badger Drink's oppose is a valid one, though I note that the argument might be more with policy than with this particular candidate. Be that as it may, I'd recommend that we take any further discussion to the talk page - it's getting a bit heated up in here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I think Wisdom and I already made a telepathic pact to stop posting here for that very reason.--KojiDude (C) 03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All - I think we're edging a little close to incivility, folks... can we have a cup of coffee and agree to disagree? Badger Drink's oppose is a valid one, though I note that the argument might be more with policy than with this particular candidate. Be that as it may, I'd recommend that we take any further discussion to the talk page - it's getting a bit heated up in here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I checked, there was a big link at the top of these things that said, "voice your opinion". I voiced mine. If you want to change it to "voice your opinion, unless it's obviously going to be a successful / unsucccessful RfA", be my guest. Unless you're too busy casting strong support on RfA's like this. Badger Drink (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bananna Hammoc.--KojiDude (C) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How desperate are you to live in a world where everybody thinks just like you? Yours was probably the bitchiest oppose-badgerer I've seen in months. Badger Drink (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How desperate are you to find a reason to oppose? Honestly, this is probably the single worst rationale I've ever seen at RfA in my life.--KojiDude (C) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I've ever heard that one before. Thank you could explain your rationale? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
I take issue with one point in A4 - I cannot envision a scenario where I...would unblock or undo another admin's actions without first consulting with that admin to make sure he or she was in complete agreement. This defeats the purpose of unblock templates and getting another admin to review and decide for themselves. Occasionally, clarification from that admin may be needed, or more community input might be needed, but the substantive issue outweighs this formality - I cannot support when the candidate misses that priority. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Please note, I did qualify that as a neophyte admin, that is to say, newly handed the mop, I would tread lightly before going around unblocking, etc., and defer to more experienced admins. As more experience is acquired, I would certainly do my best to carefully evaluate unblock requests. JGHowes talk - 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted - apologies, as I should've clarified that first before voting. There's no issue if it's just for that orientation period, as I call it. If your last sentence (in effect) means that after that period, you'll look at the merits of the unblock request and make the call for yourself, rather than waiting for the blocking admin to agree completely, then I have no issues. (Of course, this does not preclude those occasions where (1) you'd let the blocking admin know of your decision or (2) need clarification on their initial block or (3) need more input from the community.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely, thanks for letting me clarify that. JGHowes talk - 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted - apologies, as I should've clarified that first before voting. There's no issue if it's just for that orientation period, as I call it. If your last sentence (in effect) means that after that period, you'll look at the merits of the unblock request and make the call for yourself, rather than waiting for the blocking admin to agree completely, then I have no issues. (Of course, this does not preclude those occasions where (1) you'd let the blocking admin know of your decision or (2) need clarification on their initial block or (3) need more input from the community.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, I did qualify that as a neophyte admin, that is to say, newly handed the mop, I would tread lightly before going around unblocking, etc., and defer to more experienced admins. As more experience is acquired, I would certainly do my best to carefully evaluate unblock requests. JGHowes talk - 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per Q4. I would advise the candidate to consider offering a {{2nd chance}} template to IP/users who claim they want to contribute constructively and unblock if they respond well to it. Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap...constructive contributors are golden. –xeno (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought he answered the question really well... am I missing something? Wizardman 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to the candidate's credit, he may have misunderstood the scenario (part of the reason I went neutral instead of oppose). You are actually supposed to put yourself in the shoes of the blocking admin, his question seems to address the actions of a neophyte admin reviewing the unblock template. Nevertheless, he said he would let the 1-week block stand. I would like to see a willingness to engage the blocked user in discourse, offering a 2nd chance either verbally or in template form and unblocking if they respond well to it. No need to let the 1 week block stand if they want to constructively contribute right away - that would be unnecessarily punitive. Also, if they return to vandalism, reblocking takes but a minute. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Well, I guess you'd oppose me if I were to run for RfA again then, heh. Wizardman 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to the candidate's credit, he may have misunderstood the scenario (part of the reason I went neutral instead of oppose). You are actually supposed to put yourself in the shoes of the blocking admin, his question seems to address the actions of a neophyte admin reviewing the unblock template. Nevertheless, he said he would let the 1-week block stand. I would like to see a willingness to engage the blocked user in discourse, offering a 2nd chance either verbally or in template form and unblocking if they respond well to it. No need to let the 1 week block stand if they want to constructively contribute right away - that would be unnecessarily punitive. Also, if they return to vandalism, reblocking takes but a minute. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought he answered the question really well... am I missing something? Wizardman 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
SheffieldSteel
Final (115/5/6); Closed by Rlevse at 22:27, 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
- edited to add It's been brought to my attention that admins should not normally decline unblock requests for blocks that they themselves have made. In the light of this information, I would like to revise one aspect of my answer. I would not decline the unblock request. Instead, I would wait to see if an uninvolved admin, after seeing the unblock request and reviewing the block, asked me for my opinion, in which case I would provide it.
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: The newbie is doing the right thing, since a local consensus can't trump core policies like WP:V or WP:NPOV. The key is discussion. If I can make sure everyone is willing to assume good faith and discuss the matter civilly, I don't have to solve the problem. They should be able to do that between themselves. So, I would make a post on the article Talk page explaining that the newbie is trying to improve the article by providing sourced material, and asking the established editors to find common ground, to discuss and consider allowing the change to stand. After all, everyone wants to improve that article, right? I might cite WP:BURDEN to reinforce the point that their preferred version cannot remain without sources of its own. I would also send a message to the newbie's User Talk page, make sure they had been welcomed and knew how to contact me, and give them some encouragement (since mass rejection can be rather chilling). Then I would "play it by ear".
Optional question from 129.1.31.164
- 10. Since anonymous editors don't get to !vote, I hope you'll let me ask a relevant question. Since you've spent time at WP:AIV, what criteria will you use as an administrator when you're considering a block request where the offending editor has only received a single 4im warning? As a corollary, at what point do you think 4im warnings run foul of WP:BITE?
- A: I'd block the editor if I was sure that the 4im was appropriate and if they were continuing to disrupt Wikipedia - a block is justified if disruption is ongoing. However, if there was any good faith interpretation for their contribs (and some people are better at seeing these than others) a 4im should not have been used. In that case, I would either check on WP:ANI or contact another admin directly for advice. I certainly wouldn't issue any other warning template, but depending on the circumstances I might write a User Talk message explaining the problem with the user's actions. This has the benefit that good faith users can be steered in the right direction, and bad faith users will not be able to plead ignorance. I think that covers the BITE question too.
Questions from Presumptive
- 11. Would you be willing to accept a term of 12-18 months? Some say that this will keep admins editing and not to become wikipedia military police. Others say that a fixed term would increase responsible administration. Or do you want to be appointed Administrator For Life? Presumptive (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My goodness, but you are aptly named. MastCell Talk 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly can't argue with that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I urge the candidate not to answer this question. The question is formed in such a way that poisons the well, and it includes a massive assumption of bad faith. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ice Cold Beer, please do not be nasty to me as you have been. Presumptive (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take it outside, boys. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ice Cold Beer, please do not be nasty to me as you have been. Presumptive (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Apologies for the delay. I've been sleeping (I had a wisdom tooth removed earlier today). I have some sympathy for what I assume is Presumptive's base position, i.e. that admins need to be more accountable and/or there needs to be a way of removing the bit which is neither on a voluntary/adhoc basis (AOR), nor involving high drama (ArbCom). Having said that, I don't think fixed term limits for administrators are the solution.
- To answer the question: I'd accept a term limit if that became policy.
- My goodness, but you are aptly named. MastCell Talk 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question: Thank you for your answer. Given your analysis of the problem, what is the solution if term limits are not the solution? Presumptive (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 12. If a user complained to you that they were being followed around by another user and you confirmed that this is true, would you do anything? Or would you simply advise the user to make a complaint to ArbCom? Presumptive (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: First of all, I'd refresh my memory of relevant policy and guidelines (WP:HARASS comes to mind). Then I'd figure out what to do - with advice from more experienced admins as necessary - and I'd do it. Assuming no prior mention of this was in either editor's Talk page history, I'd issue a warning. Sorry if this seems rather simplistic, but in this hypothetical world I'm a great admin and it's like all the editors are moving in slow motion. Possibly, however, it is the painkillers.
Question from Lankiveil
- 13. A newbie user comes to you complaining that they have been the victim of a personal attack by an experienced user. Upon reviewing the situation, the experienced user has described an edit of the newbie as "idiotic and puerile", but has not commented on the newbie themself. What do you do? Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- A: I'd contact the established user and ask nicely if they'd consider withdrawing their remarks in the interests of harmonious editing. I'd explain that it's very easy to interpret "what you did was stupid" as meaning "you are stupid" and suggest an apology of the form "I'm sorry if you felt that [diff] was a personal attack, as that was not my intent."
Question from Allthedamnnamesaretaken
- 14. I am unsatisfied with your answer to Presumptive's question about term limits (Question 11, see my reason in the Discussion section). Do you think there needs to be an established policy/procedure to de-sysop administrators other than going through ArbCom or voluntary recall? If so, what are your thoughts on how the procedure could be designed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: I'm sorry to hear that you're dissatisfied with my answer. I'll happily discuss this when I have a bit less on my to-do list, if that's okay with you. Nice userbox collection btw.
Question from MastCell
- 15. Do you view the human situation as essentially comic or tragic? If, not why? MastCell Talk 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Absolutely. I'm glad you didn't ask me to try to choose.
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
- I'd like to see a more thorough answer to Q11 (term limits). The answer of "I'd accept a term limit if that became policy" is fluff. All editors (and especially administrators, since they should act as role models) are expected to follow policy. Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's fairly obvious that I am in favor of administrators having "terms", towards the end the admin would be required to go through a simple vote of confidence. If he passes, he'd go on for another term (with no limits on the # of terms). If failed, he'd be required to go through RfA again to be a sysop again. In any event, I posted Q14 to see if and how the nom would like to have a policy to de-sysop admins without going through ArbCom/recall.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if my answer looked like a vacuous statement about policy; that was not my intent. I meant to communicate the exact circumstances in which I would accept a term limit. I hope this clears up the matter. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's fairly obvious that I am in favor of administrators having "terms", towards the end the admin would be required to go through a simple vote of confidence. If he passes, he'd go on for another term (with no limits on the # of terms). If failed, he'd be required to go through RfA again to be a sysop again. In any event, I posted Q14 to see if and how the nom would like to have a policy to de-sysop admins without going through ArbCom/recall.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The practice of asking candidates whether they are open to recall or not, especially if it carries any connotation of support dependent on the answer, ought to be discouraged, and candidates should feel free to refuse to answer if they so wish. We need fewer situations where passing is dependent on placing ones self in some category or another. Either the candidate is fit for adminship, or the candidate is unfit for adminship. Advance conditionals are a bad idea, as they are practically impossible to enforce. Clearly, my previous practice of asking this was wrong. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- 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)[reply]
- Extended discussion regarding this support moved to WT:Requests for adminship/SheffieldSteel –xeno (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support. bibliomaniac15 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, definitely worthy of the tools. Wizardman 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, happy to. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support By all means, rational and common sensical. RxS (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support Because user is a wikignome and because user needs the tools.--LAAFan 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support - Strikes such a solid balance mingled with thoughtful comments and a civil nature. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Looks good. Maxim (☎) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support RMHED (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Seems honest and trustworthy enough. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support Great user, see him around a lot. No reason not to support. LittleMountain5 Sign here review! 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Levelheaded and reasonable editor. Plus he likes fishapods. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support should be ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support in spite of obvious prima facie power hunger. --John (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on answers to questions, particularly #3, and on difs provided by Le Grand Roi. Dlohcierekim 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support - I do not see any possibility of abuse. Tiptoety talk 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support. Perfect admin material. Will be just great. nancy talk 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Shown a need for the tools, no history of misuse, and all round polite person. --MattWTadded on 08:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Appears to be a long-time, positive contributor. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No problems here. Asenine 09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- naerii 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Guarded support. Have some concerns about the comparitive lack of contributions to the main space though. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure. MBisanz talk 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems like a sensible, thoughtful candidate who puts policy before personal interest. Nandesuka (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support Looks trustworthy to me. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no problems. --Kbdank71 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good; meets my standards; very interesting user page; this essay. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tan ǀ 39 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. the wub "?!" 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - Dureo (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Support - surprised he isn't already an admin. Support per excellent answer to Q3, very reasonable Q5, equally reasonable Q7, and the AfD diffs provided by Le Grand Roi (#1 in neutral, below) Badger Drink (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - We need more admins from Sheffield. (also having seen him around here and there have not seen any reason to oppose)--Jac16888 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Enthusiastically support In short, SS gets it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Addendum Answer to Q.9 makes it game, set and match. Outstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because the north of England rocks, and there aren't enough admins from up here. Plus all this stuff. I shall be expecting some thankspam. - Toon05 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I thought I added my support this morning but I can't see it. Someone please smack me with a WP:TROUT if I'm just going crosseyed and am voting twice. Shereth 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you used a different username, you should be alright :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; A good candidate with sufficient clue to be a good admin. I'm encouraged by his answer to question 5; Quite honestly, that's the kind of response that could result in opposes, but he posted it anyway. I'll take an honest admin over a popular one anyday. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, only ever had
goodgreat interactions with Steel, would be a great addition to the admin ranks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Strong support-Great editor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor, not afraid to wade into policy stuff. Will be one of the good ones.King Pickle (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reservations about this candidate.--MONGO 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like his style, attitude, and to-the-pointness. Fine editor.
SISTER00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - KillerChihuahua?!? 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Has the right amount of clue. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Risker (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh hells yeah. Already thought he was one for some time now. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This user is experienced and will not misuse the bit. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good chap. What MastCell said. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good contributions, I can trust in SheffieldSteel as an admin. doña macy 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Posting vandals at AIV doesn't uniquely qualify someone to handle the buttons. Everything seems in order here. Also, lay off Sceptre unless you're willing to explain why it is bad for him to be disruptive but OK for Kurt to be disruptive. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, btw. user:Everyme 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very good quality candidate. Has been here more than long enough to fully understand what he's doing round here. Lradrama 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have full confidence that SheffieldSteel will be a good admin. --Aude (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems like a great editor, no problems. --Meldshal42? 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Strong Support - I think it took some guts to nominate himself the guts an administrator needs to work with other user, we wouldn't want some timid person to be and admin who just doddles around Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by My Account (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If I had been between on the fence, the answers do it for me. --Cameron* 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "Wikipedia is not a crazy den of pigs", indeed. Sheffo will help clean out the sty. --Rodhullandemu 22:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I would like to see a little more article work, but basically SheffieldSteel is a helpful, competent and civil editor and I can see no reasons in contributions, talkpage, answers above or opposes below to think that he/she can not be trusted with admin tools. --BelovedFreak 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The opposers' rationales are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This guy's a top-notch professional—clean and clear. -- Veggy (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seen him around quite often, great editor. Midorihana みどりはな 06:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Q13. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support No reason to oppose. Good luck. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I agree with Ferrylodge's oppose, but do not see that as a big enough deal to not support --T-rex 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support So I wouldn't agree with taking that sourced RR quote out of Abortion debate but that's a content dispute in a widely argued topic often misunderstood by either side. This may be the first self-nom I've ever supported. The pith is, I trust SheffieldSteel and would say he's shown his overall grasp of Wikipedia's policies is strong. Please go slowly at first, read up and don't be shy about asking questions, since it's true you haven't been doing lots of adminly tasks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept. Tharnton345 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – in my experience SheffieldSteel has shown wisdom and so should make a good admin. Gwen's opinion and advice is sound. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting again, even though it's a foregone conclusion. I have seen SS around, and have liked what I've seen. Meets all of my criteria for supporting with ease, so here I am. S.D.Jameson 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The first self-nom I've ever supported as well, but well worth the precedent. See Gwen's advice above - it's right on the money. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - per {{User:SheffieldSteel/Pigs}}, follow-up to Q7 and a lulzworthy handling of Q15. Come on MastCell, this is an RFA, not a philosophy term paper. –xeno (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I'll put you down for "essentially comic". :) Just having some fun. MastCell Talk 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per SS’s contributions to admin-related areas of the project and the calm reasoning displayed; also per the answers to the above questions. —Travistalk 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - this looks like a no-brainer to me. Don't let Gwen fool you, though; she supported me first :-) Frank | talk 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support based on my own interactions and answer to question 9 Beeblbrox (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support or oppose per question 15. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support America69 (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Supremely trustworthy, will most definitely wield the mop well. Steven Walling (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in my experience SheffieldSteel is well endowed with clue. Shell babelfish 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. See no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I known he wanted to go for RfA, I would have nominated SheffieldSteel myself. Great user. Acalamari 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - after further review (including previous interactions I've had with you), I think this is appropriate. But, I trust you will keep what I said (below) in mind for the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - SheffieldSteel seems utterly level headed and sane. Who could ask for more? maxsch (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Absolutely no concerns, even though I waited for a while for any to be brought up due to my lack of interaction with the candidate. Looks like a level-headed, thoughtful and well-intentioned user who could use the tools well. ~ mazca t | c 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not outstanding article work, not outstanding article works. Two edits to ANI in last 500 edits, 1 to AIV, both areas he says he wants to work in or has done work. Answer to Q7 gives a little to be desired, and fence-sitting response to Q5. I'd be open to supporting after a little more edits to AIV/ANI, etc. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Switch to Neutral[reply]
- Oppose I have crossed out my "neutral" comment below, and regretfully am moving to oppose. Until I noticed this RfA, I had not encountered or observed SheffieldSteel's editing in a very long time. And I still have not tried to comprehensively study this nominee's editing. However, in view of the comment that I crossed out below, I have now taken a very brief look at a few of SheffieldSteel's recent edits. In particular, I'm concerned about recent edits at Abortion debate (I have never been involved with that article as far as I recall, but have been involved with related articles, as indicated unfortunately in my block log). Anyway, on 7 August 2008, SheffieldSteel made this edit followed by this talk page comment. If people are interested, they can take a look. The idea that an article on that subject should exclude relevant comments by a leading political figure is troublesome enough, but referring to that figure as "Ronald Reagan, of all people" confirms my concern that this nominee has a tendency to needlessly make certain contentious articles more contentious.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing wrong with either diff. In fact, I would have done the same thing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same. What is the problem? Asenine 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. His reasoning is quite correct on this one. His comment about Ronald Reagan is just to indicate that Mr. Reagan, as is well known, has a strong POV and while that's nothing bad, cannot be the sole source for a section making such claims. SoWhy review me! 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Piling on. I don't get what FL is trying to say about the edits. They look fair, civil, and well-reasoned. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To suggest that what Ronald Reagan has said in the abortion debate should be excluded from that article because he's not scholarly enough struck me as snooty, to say the least. The comment "Ronald Reagan of all people" was especially uncalled for. Obviously, the editor who wanted to quote Reagan had some problems with formatting and other fixable problems. But you don't bite the newbies. A simple Google search would have shown that the Reagan quote in question is a well-known part of the abortion debate.[3][4] As another editor put it today,[5] "I don't see a problem with using Reagan as a source: the abortion debate is largely a political and social one, rather than an academic one, so using arguments put forward by politicians seems reasonable." The issue here is not about a simple disagreement, but rather with the contentious language ("Ronald Reagan of all people") used, and it conforms with my previous experience (see struck through comment below). I really have a lot of other stuff on my plate right now, I've had my say, and therefore I don't plan on getting into a debate here about it. Others can make of it what they will. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable on your part. Maybe you should bring your opinions on this matter to the discussion page of the article. Still, SheffieldSteel's comments were civil and reasoned, I just don't think you agree with his logic. I think many of us who clicked on your link expected something else (along the lines of my more classic edit summaries). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do have some classics. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable on your part. Maybe you should bring your opinions on this matter to the discussion page of the article. Still, SheffieldSteel's comments were civil and reasoned, I just don't think you agree with his logic. I think many of us who clicked on your link expected something else (along the lines of my more classic edit summaries). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yah, I think the answer was pretty good. More a reason to support than oppose. Dlohcierekim 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To suggest that what Ronald Reagan has said in the abortion debate should be excluded from that article because he's not scholarly enough struck me as snooty, to say the least. The comment "Ronald Reagan of all people" was especially uncalled for. Obviously, the editor who wanted to quote Reagan had some problems with formatting and other fixable problems. But you don't bite the newbies. A simple Google search would have shown that the Reagan quote in question is a well-known part of the abortion debate.[3][4] As another editor put it today,[5] "I don't see a problem with using Reagan as a source: the abortion debate is largely a political and social one, rather than an academic one, so using arguments put forward by politicians seems reasonable." The issue here is not about a simple disagreement, but rather with the contentious language ("Ronald Reagan of all people") used, and it conforms with my previous experience (see struck through comment below). I really have a lot of other stuff on my plate right now, I've had my say, and therefore I don't plan on getting into a debate here about it. Others can make of it what they will. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I'm still opposing, I'd have to say that I would have done the same thing and I think that the edits actually demonstrate a knowledge of WP:NPOV. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same. What is the problem? Asenine 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing wrong with either diff. In fact, I would have done the same thing. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. Not much article work. Dismissiveness on something he really should know better. I was also confused by his comment here. Not sure if I'm happy to have him around AfD yet. —Giggy 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I find your comment in that AfD far more worrying. Consider that this is the article revision for which you actually argued that it contains "multiple independent reliable sources" — which is clearly not the case. To summarise: SheffieldSteel was spot-on, you were dead wrong. user:Everyme 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as above. PlusDrawn (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I feel very uncomfortable with a non-admin closing AfD discussions as delete. If he can't follow the basic non-admin closure guidelines, he probably won't make a good admin. Sorry! « Diligent Terrier [talk] 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that I've seen where he closed them as "delete" were for articles that were already deleted via some other means, usually speedy. In essence, he's just doing housekeeping, closing out debates with a foregone conclusion. Are there any that you've found (they could exist, I simply haven't found any) where SS closes something as "delete" prior to them actually being deleted, and not vice versa? Keeper ǀ 76 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC). My apologizes, DT, I think I'm thinking of a different editor, not this candidate, therefore I spoke too soon. Upon further reasearch, I can't really find any evidence of any delete closes, outside of this one, which more closely matches the concern that you're describing. It was a "no-brainer" delete, hardly controversial, but I see your point about the sensitivity that is NAC. Keeper ǀ 76 18:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- (e/c) I have actually performed two non-admin closes as Delete which should in retrospect have been left to an administrator. Both times, I was helping with a backlog at AfD and saw a clear consensus to delete. The first time, an admin speedied the article before I could write out a {{db-g6}} template. The second time, an admin responded to my CSD template by posting to my Talk page telling me not to do non-admin closes as Delete. My response was perhaps rather oddly worded (see giggy's oppose above) largely because I was surprised at being wrong in an area I thought I was familiar with. Looking back, my mistake was thinking that, having determined consensus at AfD, the actual deletion of the article would be a non-controversial housekeeping task (i.e. a G6 candidate). This was an attempt to find a new way for non-admins to help at AfD, and I regret that it was misguided. Fortunately, I was fairly cautious and any disruption I caused was minimal. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- Neutral. Oppose per [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and[11], but support per [12], [13], and [14]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those delete !votes you cite as oppose reasons seem all very fine and in line with policy and guidelines. What exactly is wrong with them? user:Everyme 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering the same thing.
SISTER00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Le Grand Roi is essentially a radical inclusionist and tends to base his RfA opinions on that. It's okay. Everyone brings their own considerations. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see enough article building, won't oppose however. — Realist2 01:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I quit 12 months ago. — Realist2 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good for you. I should follow your lead. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better approaches exist to Q7. I'm also under the impression, from the Q&A that his approach is too aggressive to an extent - I'd support if that's been addressed and there's an improvement. - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I quit 12 months ago. — Realist2 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 meMy work 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I felt that the nominee unwisely imported extraneous contentious factors (race, gender, marital status) into a discussion that already involved a contentious subject (fetal development). But it was well over a year ago, it only happened once, and it was done in the course of making otherwise legitimate arguments.[15]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- (switched to support) As he created {{User:SheffieldSteel/Pigs}}, I'd like to support, but neutral per answer to Q7. Admins should typically not decline unblock requests for blocks they placed, and I'd like to see a willingness to give people a {{2nd chance}} (in template form or otherwise) when there might be some small chance that a vandalizing user will turn themself around. Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap...constructive contributors are golden. Reading the answer again, he does seem like he will at least engage the IP/user in further discussion, which is a positive sign. –xeno (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral from Oppose- I still carry my concerns from my previous oppose, but the candidate's general all-around personality and answers to questions force me to Neutral. Best of luck, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards Support — I really would like to support, I already thought you were an administrator. However, the relative lack of article contributions concerns me. I'm further worried by the somewhat fear you seem to have expressed of creating new articles in Q8. Other than that, I have no concerns with this candidate and wish you the best of luck. —CyclonenimT@lk? 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Paul Erik
FINAL (83/1/1); closed 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC) by EVula
Paul Erik (talk · contribs) - This editor has been around since January 2007, during this time he has amassed over 12 thousand edits spread through many areas of Wikipedia. A dedicated content builder he has created dozens of article some of which are quite sizable. Civility is no weak point either and he is well able to handle himself calmly in a dispute.
His best work (outside of the article space of course) is at AFD where he has contributed too what must be hundreds of deletion debates and performed many correct non-admin closures. He puts a great deal of thought into his votes and has not in a long time used any of the arguments at WP:AADD. Something that I found quite impressive about his work at AFD is that he consistently works to save articles from deletion (a list of article that he believes he has saved by cleaning them up and adding sources can be found here) and when he votes keep in an AFD, he actually works on the article afterwords. He also has a strong background in anti-vandalism work although he seems to have slowed down recently (of his 71 AIV reports the last one was two months ago). He does not a prolific amount of experience in other areas but of what I looked at he seems to know what he is doing; as far as I could tell every single one of his RFPP and UAA reports were actioned upon and I have yet to find a CSD tag of his that was declined.
If Paul become an admin I would expect he will continue to work quietly and unobtrusively in the background steadily helping to chip away at the admin backlogs. He has shown consistent good judgment and more than enough clue. No problems here. - Icewedge (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I thank Icewedge very much for the nomination. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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: Whether or not this RfA is successful, my main focus still will be to do what I have been doing lately, adding sources to articles that are at risk of being deleted. If the community sees fit to entrust me with the tools, I would be happy to help out by closing AfDs, especially when there is a backlog. I will start cautiously, with the least controversial ones, and, just as I did when I was a novice editor [16] I will seek out help from those more experienced if ever I feel that I'm in over my head.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: For a long time I was doing a lot of WikiGnomish activity such as cleaning up disambiguation pages, along with creating the occasional stub (mostly about Canadian music). Since I have taken to focusing more on AfDs I have been happy with my efforts to add sources to articles, and, as Icewedge noted, I believe I have saved quite a few. I still work at building articles, and although I have not taken articles I have created to GA, I believe I have become more skilled at sourcing these brief articles—some typical examples include Adam Cohen (musician) (which previously looked like this) and Major Maker. I typically do not work at the FA-article level, but I did a copy-edit of Opeth as it approached its promotion to feature-article status.
- 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: Being a volunteer editor here has been enjoyable and satisfying, and I am able to remind myself of that bigger picture. I have had some disagreements with other editors, but I've found that if I stick to my general approach, the stress for me is minimal. My general approach is to remain civil, to stick to the matter at hand and how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply (see Talk:David A. Dodge for example), and to make use of the wonderful aspect of working at a wiki—seek assistance from others. I try to keep in mind others' perspectives and will not hesitate to apologize when something I said has not come across as I intended.
- In my early days here, I learned much from frustrations I felt with an editor (since banned) who was trying to transform the disambiguation system contrary to consensus. My frustrations surfaced when I nominated one of that editor's created pages for deletion. I recognized my mistake, and that it was probably a passive-aggressive move on my part, and since then have made efforts to go edit something else, or walk away from the keyboard, if I ever feel stress. Fortunately my piano is right behind my computer desk chair!
Optional question from xenocidic
- 4. 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:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
- A: Thanks Xeno; that's a rather elaborate optional question you have put together. On the one hand, it is vulgar language, but on the other hand I see it as rather run-of-the-mill adolescent-level stuff and am not going to be thrown off by it. If I were to unblock that user, with the idea that some vandals do turn into productive editors, I would make sure that it was at a time where I was available online for a while so that I could check their contributions and re-block if necessary. Otherwise, I would leave the unblock request in place, for another admin to deal with it, as per the usual protocol.
Optional question from Tanthalas39
- 5. I've seen you around and have been very, very impressed with your article referencing, rescuing, and attitude in AfDs, such as this one on Polish reggae. I'm interested to know whether you are a
completeinclusionist, like DGG, or if you have some balance. Can you comment, and show some examples of when you nominated/!voted to delete an article?- A: Thanks for the question, Tan. I am inclusionist only insofar as that I enjoy adding references when they are available, and I do not like to see notable articles lost to deletion. I am willing to argue "weak keep" when the sourcing I have added is a little wanting, such as here. And I have no qualms at all in arguing "delete" when there is a lack of evidence of third-party sources, such as here, here, here, and here, which are all in the past few days. I am also willing to change my opinion over the course of a discussion as I did here.
Additional question from Nichalp:
- 6 As admin, you will come across several issues. For example, 1. A user uploads an image and tags it with GFDL, cc-by-(all), and PD. What will you do to correct the user's mistake? 2. You are to close an AFD of an article that might be notable, but with not many online sources available as the topic is from a smaller country with low internet penetration. The article is about a niche topic, and the author has provided sources to argue his stance. However those sources may not be very reliable, but the author argues that A-grade reliable sources are hard to get on this niche topic at his location. The AFD debate is unclear. How would you close this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: 1. I'm glad for the opportunity to brush up on image licensing, as it has been a while since I have looked at that. I would first ask the user which license they intended to use, and suggest they have a look at Wikipedia:Images#Uploading images and also this. If the user did not reply, frankly I would be uncertain as to what to do—I would guess that the assumption would have to be that the more restrictive licenses apply, in which case the PD would have to be dropped, though I do not know if someone else can validly do that on the uploader's behalf. Since I would not know for sure, I would take it to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some help.
- 2. If the debate is unclear due to low participation from other editors, then I would relist it. But when you say, "the AFD debate is unclear", I am assuming you mean that both sides have presented some valid arguments. I do see the argument that the article's author is making as something reasonable to take into account, if the sources provided are independent (and "B-grade" if not "A-grade"). I would close it as "no consensus" which defaults to keep. I would of course be more likely to delete (or at least stubify), though, if the topic is a BLP and there was contentious material.
- An editorial question from Sceptre
- 7. I think that the actions of an editor in editing articles is very important, especially regarding points of views, which sometimes are found when an editor discusses things in "meta-space" (i.e. anything over than mainspace). My question is as follows: A majority viewpoint about an article subject, X, features language that is very biased, Y. Would you?:
- Say "X is a Y", or;
- Say "T, U, V, and W (major proponents of the viewpoint) believe that X is a Y". or;
- Use undeniable facts that are agreeable to even the article subject to describe the subject which is compatible to the majority viewpoint (for example, court verdicts, observations by true neutral bodies, or even the subject's own major descriptors)?
- Please give reasons to your answer. Sceptre (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A: Thanks for this question which brings up neutral point of view, and how cautious editors need to be in contributing to a neutral encyclopedia. At least that is what I am taking your question to mean; please follow up if I am misunderstanding.
- Let's say hypothetically that a vast majority of music critics wrote that Little Jabs is Two Hours Traffic's worst album. It still could not be stated in the article "it is their worst album" without a qualifier. So option #2 would apply—"Music critics Smith, Jones and Woo have called it the band's worst album." A majority viewpoint is not a "truth" when it comes to a descriptor. Now, option #3 might apply if, say, reliable sources called it a "pop rock" album and the band's website said that as well (it wouldn't need to be stated "according to Jones and Woo..."). But the more negatively biased the language is, the more careful we need to be.
- That was a trite hypothetical example, but it illustrates the principle of handling NPOV in descriptors, and it becomes more serious when "Y" is a term with negative implications and a biography of a living person is involved.
Optional questions from Winger84
- 8. 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: I believe strongly in the human capacity for change—banned editors included. So it follows that trust can potentially be regained even when there has been behaviour that has prompted a very serious loss of trust. Understandably, the blocked or banned editor returning will need to be under more careful scrunity than other editors. How many edits it takes for the community to let them go without that watchfulness is not something easily set out in general terms, as it could vary widely depending on the specifics of the individual situation. It would depend on such factors as how severe the breach was, whether or not they returned to areas of the wiki that were trouble spots for them previously, how substantial the actual edits are, and how open they appear to be to feedback as they go about regaining trust.
- 9. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to the list of administrators open to recall?
- Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
- 10. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
- A: Kurt, I respect that you and I may have differences of opinion about this question, but I thank you for it—blocking other users is to be taken seriously, and I feel that reflecting upon this has been useful for me in thinking about how I will approach the whole issue of blocking other users, if this RfA is successful. I am not on the fence about this question at all. I agree with the policy that cool-down blocks, solely for the purpose of cooling someone down, are not to be used. Even if the policy were to change, I would not issue cool-down blocks, and I would even probably lobby to have the policy changed back. Let me expand a little.
- Being "heated" gets a lot of bad press, but it has the potential to be very useful. Let's take a hypothetical example of two angry editors. Editor A writes somewhere on a talk page something like, "I am ENRAGED about the amount of vandalism that is happening on Wikipedia!" Editor B feels the same: "I am SEEING RED!", he writes. Editor A then goes on recent-changes patrol and begins reverting vandalism, warning users appropriately, and making valid reports to AIV, feeling angry all the while. Meanwhile, Editor B starts making personal attacks against vandals and then even attacking people making good-faith but misguided edits. After unheeded warnings, editor B gets blocked. Editor A does not. That's how it should be. Both were angry and perhaps an admin might think they both needed to "cool down". But neither of them gets blocked on that basis. Editor B gets blocked on the basis of his behaviour, violating civility and NPA policies. Blocks are issued based on behaviour damaging to the project, not based on how angry an editor is while editing, and (in my view) they certainly should not be based on an admin's impression of how angry an editor is.
- That scenario of editors angry about vandalism can apply similarly in other scenarios. An editor might be severely hot-under-the-collar after seeing other editors trying to add non-neutral-POV to an article, and she says something impolite and gets warned. But then she might still contribute productively using the energy resulting from that anger to discuss passionately but civilly on a talk page, by finding more references to add to the article, or by persisting with an appropriate dispute resolution that leads to an effective compromise and a better encyclopedia article. That productive use of her anger might not have happened if she had been prevented from editing with a "cool-down block".
Optional question from Asenine
- 11. 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: Discussion, discussion, discussion. :) Newbies are encouraged to be WP:BOLD and, although it is advisable on a prominent article to check the talk page and the history before making a major edit, admonishing the newcomer would not be the way to go here. What puzzles me is how the editors came to an overwhelming consensus to add unverifiable content to the article. All mainspace content must be WP:V verifiable—that's policy. To put it another way, local "consensus" on a talk page (even if apparently "overwhelming") does not supersede project-wide consensus that WP:V is a requirement. I would try to facilitate a new talk page discussion, invite the newbie to participate, and remind everyone that what actually has "overwhelming consensus" is WP:V. I would try to understand where the editors were coming from and recognize their frustrations in having something removed that was discussed to some length already. The ideal—nay, the required—outcome would be to achieve a new consensus locally that does take into account the larger, project-wide consensus.
General comments
- See Paul Erik's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Paul Erik: Paul Erik (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/Paul Erik before commenting.
Discussion
- I've read question #7 three times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it. Tan ǀ 39 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Sceptre's question is: In case you encounter an article which is very biased, would you a.) say directly that it uses biased language, b.) say that others who share the point of view think it's biased (but not say so yourself directly) or c.) try to find reliable, definite sources to support the point of view but remove the biased sounding language? That is how I understood it but I admit I am mostly guessing and it's really confusing... So#Why review me! 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took it to mean an article that contains a specific descriptor that might imply something negative about the article's subject. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes. Good question, good answer. Too many variables for me at first :-) Tan ǀ 39 23:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the candidate got the gist of it, though I do agree it's confusing. What I mean is that, if majority viewpoint itself is very negative/positive (e.g. "brilliant", "terrible", "visionary", "idiot"), how should we present that? Option 1 would simply entail "John Doe is a brilliant actor". Option 2 would be like "Smith, Jones, and Robinson published in their analyses that John Doe is a brilliant actor". Option 3 would be "John Doe's films are notable for mainly positive reception; his films Lorem Ipsum and Placeholder were positively reviewed by the press, and he won an Academy Award for his role in the film Quick Brown Fox." Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes. Good question, good answer. Too many variables for me at first :-) Tan ǀ 39 23:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I took it to mean an article that contains a specific descriptor that might imply something negative about the article's subject. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Sceptre's question is: In case you encounter an article which is very biased, would you a.) say directly that it uses biased language, b.) say that others who share the point of view think it's biased (but not say so yourself directly) or c.) try to find reliable, definite sources to support the point of view but remove the biased sounding language? That is how I understood it but I admit I am mostly guessing and it's really confusing... So#Why review me! 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Support. No problems here, question answers are all good. Best of luck, don't go insane with the tools should you get them, and all that. Cheers! —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets my criteria. Good AfD work in the last 100 edits or so. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Checked talk page and recent contributions and everything looks good, good nomination and was impressed with your contributions at AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support. Absolutely. I encourage other participants in this RfA to read Q5, and the associated AfD links. A top-notch editor. Tan ǀ 39 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support First noticed this user on AfD where he does remarkable work researching sources for problematic articles; and upon review of contributions I see a superbly communicative and level-headed editor. Great admin material. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly support: I have only seen good work from Paul Erik, and he always comes across as sensible and experienced. No problems here. Acalamari 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Reliable contributor. Good answers. Axl (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For reasons similar to Acalamari, I'm happy to support. Regards, Anthøny(talk) 19:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from me and the otters. Seems to know what they're doing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — good answers to questions, and the fact that he works with articles to save them from deletion is an admirable quality. –xeno (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [ec]Support. Rescues articles = trustworthy with delete button. nancy talk 19:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because I have no reason not to. tabor-drop me a line 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Replies to questions seem reasonable, candidate is a consistent contributor, with significant contributions to various articles. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Paul Erik is an excellent contributor. I have a great deal of respect for any editor who takes the time to rescue articles rather than simply delete them or list them at CSD/AFD. Answers to the questions are very good too. I would definitely trust Paul Erik with the tools. Rje (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems like a great editor, 12,000 edits is no minor feat. Can't be all that bad if he has several admins supporting him. --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 19:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I trust you with the delete button for your excellant saving of artoicles. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support :P -Dureo (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Does great work at AfD and tries to rescue instead of delete. I was particularly impressed with the "Polish Raggae"-AfD, one that is as well discussed from another viewpoint somewhere else at the moment, and the work you put in there to keep it. You seem very civil as far as I can see, not trigger happy, use edit summaries etc. Of course, people might dig up something against you that makes me reconsider but I doubt it really. So#Why review me! 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support Model Wikipedian. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 20:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This to me is quite encouraging. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent editor, with enough experience and knowledge to earn my trust with the tools. Useight (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--LAAFan 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- naerii 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - A character to emulate. Asenine 21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Goodness me, yes indeed. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat Is grieving 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I love his approach to AFD. If everyone spent their time looking for sources instead of arguing about ideology I suspect that our Deletion Processes would be happier, and would achieve the correct result more often. --JayHenry (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no problems. Reyk YO! 23:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A pack of Dunhill Reds, a Powerball ticket and...oh, wrong line. Seriously...Support :) Ecoleetage (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - another excellent admin to mop up spillages. Civil, clue-full, and your contribs to AfDs seem to have built a knowledge of both WP:N and how to apply policy. Certianly more committed to improving random articles than I am! - Toon05 23:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Seems good to me, lots of edits and im sure he/she knows what their doing, spends alot of time on wikipedia. TOL (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I was leaning on supporting before asking, but I needed to make sure about how the writer presents his biases on Wikipedia, because very recently we've had admins whose viewpoints have negatively influenced their use of the tools. I see that, with his well-answered question, that the only thing his biases are going to influence is what subjects he writes about, instead of what he writes about the subjects - e.g. I write Doctor Who articles because I like the show, and I'm not squeamish for writing about it's faults, which is acceptable; writing how Doctor Who "sucks" or "rocks", with no thought of NPOV, is unacceptable. Oh, and decent taste in music too. :) Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll add, for the record, that I've even been known to write neutral articles about bands I heartily dislike. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You Canadians have more embarassing musicicans then them. Hey hey, you you... Sceptre (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, you're not supposed to admit that you know that song... :) Anthøny(talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, I know it because it's number one on YouTube... filthy cheater :/ Sceptre (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, you're not supposed to admit that you know that song... :) Anthøny(talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You Canadians have more embarassing musicicans then them. Hey hey, you you... Sceptre (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll add, for the record, that I've even been known to write neutral articles about bands I heartily dislike. :) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for this model wikipedian. The tools will enable him to contribute so much more. I wish he'd go through the articles that I frequently edit in order to improve them to his standards. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support: Content-building + civility = win. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An experienced and civil editor, with excellent mainspace contribution record and substantial projectspace and AfD participation as well. The AfD !votes are careful and well-reasoned and make it clear that the user actually does some research before !voting. Good answers to the RfA questions too. Will be an asset as an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I've seen him around and he does good work. A trustworthy, conscientious editor. --Muchness (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yanksox (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very impressive! Fantastic answers to the questions as well. GlassCobra 16:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Model wikipedian, exemplary administrator candidate, outstanding choice. Rudget 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Sure. --Cameron* 20:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Don't see anything that convinces me otherwise.--KojiDude (C) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great editor, trustworthy, good answers to questions. LittleMountain5 review! 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks great to me. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definately can have the delete button. -- Freakatone Talk 23:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per 1-46, above. Great editor, lots of clue. Keeper ǀ 76 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support generally I wouldn't even bother to check out a person whom I don't know and appears to be destined to get the MOP (eg supports outweigh opposes as lopsidedly as this one.) But I decided to take a quick look at Paul----but Ice's nom really caught my attention. Thus, I am going somewhat against my practice and supporting this exceptional candidate.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I applaud your contributions and I believe you'll make a great admin. Keep up the great work in the future. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, active user with experience.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - fair questions were asked; some very nice answers followed. Even in the absence of the commentary in the other sections, his answers (on their own) reveal a lot about himself as well - particularly his positive approach towards Wikipedia (and all of its contributors). He's an exceptionally talented user from what I've looked at, and certainly seems trustworthy to be an admin. Impressive candidate indeed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks a goodie. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Can't see anything to prevent supporting. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all seems fine to me. Maxim(talk) 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per a quality candidate and strong answers to my optional questions. --Winger84 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I found many reasons to support and no reasons to oppose this clueful candidate, though I now hold the absolutely irrelevant opinion that the list of Homer Simpson's jobs should be a list/article, not a redirect. — Athaenara ✉ 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reasons given by opposers as to why this user should not be given the tools. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid, nuanced answer to Q10, among many other reasons to support. Trustworthy and mature. Townlake (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - All of the questions were answered perfectly. My Account (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good contributions, well-answered questions... enough for a support. doña macy 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Understands deletion policies very well. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support quite apart from inclusionism one way or another DGG (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Paul Erik has more than 8,000 mainspace edits. I reviewed his other contributions and I couldn't find any major flaws. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Lengthy history of positive contributions. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support - not only does he meet my standards, but for his work rescuing articles from being deleted, this guy should get the mop, where he can do even better work. He's one of the best candidates in recent months. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. the wub "?!" 18:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No reasons not to; good edits and answers to questions; could do more work with the tools. Also (in small part) to counter Kurt's probable oppose. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No reasons for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a sterling set of contribs, and a sensible user. Lradrama 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work in Afd's. Will make a fine admin.America69 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like a well-qualified candidate. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems sensible and trustworthy. Will make a good administrator. Anthøny 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Indented duplicate vote –xeno (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies about the duplicate. :-) Anthøny 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems sensible and trustworthy. Will make a good administrator. Anthøny 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Indented duplicate vote –xeno (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - why not? --T-rex 14:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – overall work looks excellent and trustworthy, will make good use of tools. A note of caution – your response to question 7. choosing option #2 could, in my opinion, give undue weight to an extreme minority opinion, and per WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution it would probably be more appropriate to go for option #4 and write "the vast majority of music critics called it their worst album", citing Smith, Jones and Woo via an inline link. Depends on the circumstances, of course. . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Point well taken. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Point well taken. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, don't see any issues. Wizardman 15:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for, among many other reasons, understanding and answering question 7 so well. I disagree with Dave souza, and actually think stating "vast majority" carries the risk of misrepresenting the number of critics with this view from the total who reviewed the album, thereby placing additional, and unwarranted, negativity on the statement. It would always, of course, depend on the specifics of the situation, but depending on the notability of those named, I think it would most likely be more appropriate to go with option #2, as you have, optionally naming the publication they write for rather than them specifically. Jennavecia (Talk) 16:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No candidate is 100% perfect, but I see nothing sufficient to withhold support, certainly not in Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetlister (talk • contribs)
- Support Default good faith support, per outstanding contributions and no evidence of poor judgment. Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- duplicate vote above Gary King (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no reason to oppose. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- duplicate vote above Gary King (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Gary. I voted on this RFA on August 12 and I just forgot about it! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- duplicate vote above Gary King (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Default good faith support, per outstanding contributions and no evidence of poor judgment. Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Absolutely. Superb answers. Synergy 15:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sure. Very civil and intelligent on Wiki-issues. Flawless answers to the questions! Knows how to start out with adminship. He deserves the mop. IceUnshattered (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Support Itfc+canes=me (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Weak oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs (3rd nomination). He started off with the right idea, but was convinced by faulty logic inconsistent with the close. As admins close AfDs, I am somewhat concerned here about what therefore caused the change in argument. As it is the lone AfD in which we have both participated, I am only going with "weak" here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic that he represented was actually right on the button and was in line with Wikipedia's notability guideline that requires multiple independent sources. Whether it was inconsistent with the close does not make a difference. You and I both know that there are plenty of afd's that are closed with a result that is blatantly against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Besides, his vote was
actually moreas consistent with the resultthanas yours. His vote was "delete""netural", your vote was "keep", and the result was "no concensus". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His final vote was delete. - Icewedge (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of the article, why does it now redirect to Homer Simpson. The history states a merge consensus, but I can't find it anywhere. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the discussion here. Reyk YO! 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of the article, why does it now redirect to Homer Simpson. The history states a merge consensus, but I can't find it anywhere. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- His final vote was delete. - Icewedge (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The logic that he represented was actually right on the button and was in line with Wikipedia's notability guideline that requires multiple independent sources. Whether it was inconsistent with the close does not make a difference. You and I both know that there are plenty of afd's that are closed with a result that is blatantly against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Besides, his vote was
- Although I'm actually inclined to agree with you that his !vote didn't suggest the best possible course of action (which imho was to stubbify the article down to include only verifiable material, and if necessary merge into the main article until a half-decent stub can be put together), I don't see how his comments undermine your trust in his ability and willingness to apply the admin tools correctly. "[...] what therefore caused the change in argument" is a rather blurry statement. Perhaps you could be more specific? Moreover, I believe it would indeed be useful if you looked at a wider range of AfDs the candidate has commented in and especially ones that you yourself haven't participated in (and where you are perhaps less prejudiced by your own rationale on what should (have) happen(ed) with the article in question). user:Everyme 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
- I can't see any evidence that you can cope with controversial, disputed material or articles, or any consensus building on such articles. Also do you have any GA's or FA's that you have significantly contributed to. Will happily reconsider if I can see. — Realist2 05:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For coping with controversial, disputed material, I'd direct you to Talk:David A. Dodge if you have not taken a look at that already. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.