Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sebwite

Sebwite

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/11/4); Scheduled to end 04:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Sebwite (talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I am a user who has been around for several years. I have made quite a lot of contributions to existing articles, created several hundred articles (and become more familiar with notability and sourcing guidelines over time), created many templates, written many essays, and discussed many possible proposals. I have participated in New Page Patrol at times too. While at times, I have participated in AfDs, I have seldom proposed any articles for deletion, simply because I feel it is better if possible to try to salvage an article than to delete it. However, I have marked a lot of pages for speedy deletion during new page patrol that obviously do not belong, and marked many more for prod, hoping that before the prod expires that the creator would improve the article to meet inclusion guidelines. I have also, in my personal life (not visible online), coached several people to becoming good Wikipedia contributors. Sebwite (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to participate in closing deletion and other similar discussions, reviewing block situations, dealing with page protections, and other similar functions.

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

A: In the beginning, I was into creating articles, and over the years, I created several hundred articles. That is a major contribution. But that is not all. I have also organized a lot of related articles from being in an incoherent mess to being easy to find. As part of this effort, I created a lot of navboxes to make articles easy to find for readers of related articles. This also has the effect of de-orphaning those that are orphaned. I have written many essays, all with the intention of improving Wikipedia. The purpose of these essays is to teach and to make Wikipedia a more peaceful environment for editors. I have also written many proposals, either on the talk pages of existing project pages or as new ones. I am always looking for new things I can do to help. I have written some instructional pages, giving advice on how to write better articles, make articles better conform to Wikipedia standards, and to save articles from possible deletion. I have participated in AfDs, sometimes, mostly for the purpose of trying to save articles rather than getting them deleted. Outside of cyberspace, I have coached several acquaintences on how to be really good editors (though I do not get involved in their editing in order to avoid conflict of interest; in fact, I don't know the usernames of most of these people). My motivation behind all this is to improve Wikipedia.

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: Of course, some of my edits have not been liked by others. But I know I cannot please everyone. I went through this very early on in my Wiki life as I wrote many articles that were proposed for deletion, and I actually managed to reach a compromise not to delete the articles, but to merge them. At a later date, when I was able to make them better conform to Wikipedia standards (by providing sources), I was able to unmerge and improve them. If ever there is an edit war about to occur, I am always careful not to break 3RR. I try as much as possible to discuss the matter with the other parties involved and come to a compromise. I feel that all editors are equal, and the only way there can be any success is by compromise. No one is king and no one can "bully" their way to having it how they want. I have made many proposals that have been rejected, but that is okay, because I see this as an opportunity to talk it over and try something else. These rejections have resulted in new ideas that have very often turned into something better. Each time this happens, I learn something new. The way I plan to deal with problems in the future is to look for more compromises and better solutions.

Additional optional questions from Gigs

4. If you could add a new speedy deletion criteria, what would it be?

A: I have considered in the past if pages written blatantly in a fashion other than that of an encyclopedia should be speedied. For example, this includes blatant how-to pages (e.g. a page doing nothing but giving instructions on how to solve a Rubik's Cube). At the same time, I will bring up that there are some CSD that I feel should be eliminated or curtailed, most notably the one for recreation of previously deleted material. While I do support deleting, for example, an autobiography that was created once, and following deletion, is created again, many recreations are of pages that one in good faith is trying to modify so they meet inclusion guidelines, or in some cases, the same title is being used with an unrelated subject. I have seen speedy deletion overused in these cases in the past.

Additional optional questions from 7

5. What is your interpretation of the policy WP:OWN, and do you feel this talk page comment when you were first building List of Rescue 911 episodes was consistent with that policy? Note: I am not implying that there is anything wrong with the talkpage comment - I am just wondering if your feeling toward ownership has evolved during your time here.

A: I very much support WP:OWN, so much that I have mentioned it in many discussions, as well as some essays (including one I created the other day). However, there are many articles or groups of articles I have created over the years that are major projects, but I have found little or no help in getting them them written. This does not imply ownership, just lack of interest or knowledge that they exist. In fact, I have found that knowledge of their existence is one of the major issues facing new articles, and many of them face it for years to come. This led me to write the instructional page Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages, which encourages page creators to look for contributions from others, and addresses that articles are not owned. The nutshell box on the page states "The best articles on Wikipedia are worked on by multiple editors. It is to the benefit of yourself and all others if others are able to find and work on the article you create."

5b. Looking at the same article: List of Rescue 911 episodes - you created it and have made 458 edits to it, but you don't have it listed among the many pages that you have created on your user page. Any reason?

A: This is not a complete list. It is not practical to list 250+ article on my homepage. A complete list, however, is available here. It took 458 edits simply because it is a long list that without help took weeks to finish. Once I got the list done, I have moved on to working on other projects and pretty much left this behind. But I still have it on my watchlist, and it is music to my ears to see others helping to improve it now.

Additional optional question from Coffee

6. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus (such as this) how would you close it?

A: I would first evaluate the person's notability (based on guidelines and comments), whether or not there should even be an article about that person, as that is one really serious concern in articles on human beings. Next, I would try to determine if the article had any potentially damaging libelous information about that person, since it is important that Wikipedia contain no unsourced harmful information on human beings. I would also consider whether or not the article was written to promote the person. If I find the article is neither promotionary or libelous, I would look to determine if the sources provided qualify under WP:RS guidelines, and whether or not the person qualifies under all notability subguidelines (e.g. WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC). While I would be required to follow these, I would not overlook good-faith comments, because that is the purpose of the AfD. If the article was worthy of keeping but had some neutrality issues that could be fixed, I would tag it with {{POV}}.

I think you misunderstood my question. What I was trying to say was: What would be your set standard for closing an AFD of this nature? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Robofish

7. I notice you have written many essays on deletion and notability issues. Could you summarise here, in approximately one paragraph, your views on notability in Wikipedia?

A: Notability on Wikipedia means that the integrity of Wikipedia's mission is maintained along with the presence of an article on the subject. There are several factors that comprise notability. Basically, proof of accuracy and neutrality are important. For one thing, we do not want hoaxes, but that is not Wikipedia's most serious problem. Reliable sources are required for just that. Reliable sources are those that are trusted by society, that provide factual information on the subject. Having multiple sources independent of the subject and of each other is of prime importance as it further serves to ensure accuracy and to demonstrate society's neutral viewpoint of the subject. It is true that with many subjects it is possible to verify just the fact that they exist, either from their own website or from a blog with a series of anecdotes. But this does not guarantee there is no exaggeration either in favor of or against the subject. Still, this is not all. There are some topics for which there are multiple, reliable sources, and there is no difficulty in finding them. But no matter how many of them you put together, such an article cannot meet encyclopedia guidelines, because its inclusion would not be encyclopedic in style. WP:NOT addresses that issue and explains a number of things Wikipedia is not. For example, there are many published books that give instructions on how to solve a Rubik's cube. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so no matter how many of these books you cite, writing an article titled "How to solve a rubik's cube" is not appropriate. Given all this, I feel that quite a lot of information can be included on Wikipedia just by understanding these most basic guidelines, and many things that in one form cannot may be able to be included some other way.

Additional question from Keepscases

8. You are involved with a lot of articles on public places in Maryland. What are your thoughts on the casinos that are supposedly coming to Maryland within the next year or so? Would you be interested in working on articles on them?

A: To start, I feel that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss my personal political views. My views on casinos or any other political topic are irrelevant to my competency at being an administrator. Sure, it is possible that I may be interested in working on articles about Maryland's casinos one day, that, too, is irrelevant to my competency at being an administrator. Per WP:NOTMYSPACE guidelines, I do not feel it is proper to talk politics on Wikipedia. But if you would like to provide me an email address (at my talk page) where I can contact you outside of Wikipedia, I can let you know my opinion on the slots issue. Still, this should not factor in to how you comment on this board, as this discussion is about whether or not I am competent enough to assume administrative duties.

How do you reconcile this answer with your collection of userboxes? Keepscases (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

9. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: It depends on the situation. I have already wondered about, if I were to be an administrator, if I should have two separate role accounts, one for edits to articles, and one for administrative duties, so that my contributions do not get confused (with a note on the home page of each stating this).

Just to clarify, when you say "it depends on the situation" you're not saying that there are situations in which you would have an alternate account and not declare it in any fashion, are you? -- Atama頭 01:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Davewild

10. I am concerned over your answer to question 6, so consider these as follow up questions. What is the job of the admin who closes an AFD?

A: I have actually written about this in an essay already, which you can reach at Wikipedia:ABOUTADMIN. To give the best anology, an administrator is like a judge in a jury trial. S/he may not make his/her own rules, or make a decision based on his/her own biased beliefs. S/he must follow the recommendations of those who commented during the discussion. If administrators were allowed to go ahead and close AfDs as they wished, the comments from others would be pointless. I also feel that it is important for the closing admin to state why s/he reached that conclusion and not just say "the result was keep/delete," something I would do in every AfD I close. For the closing admin to not give a reason is no better than one of those who commented during the discussion simply saying "keep" or "delete." See WP:NOREASON for more details on this.

11. You come to an AFD intending to close it. Discussion is pretty evenly split with the debate focusing on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. On studying the article, sources and AFD discussion your personal opinion is that the article should be deleted as failing the notability guidelines. What do you do?

A: If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article. But articles that seem non-notable at one time may become notable later, or the subject may currently be notable, but just needs some improvement. If I really had to delete the article, I would, at the very least, offer to userfy it to the creator's userspace, and possibly that of other major contributors (unless it is a BLP or a subject with issues of similar sensitivity). This way, the creator would have a chance to make necessary improvements to reintroduce it, merge it, or add bits of it to places where they could belong.

Additional optional questions from  Btilm 

12. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:

13. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A:

14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A:

Additional optional questions from  Btilm 

12. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:

13. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A:

14.

Additional question from ~~

15. On what grounds do you feel that personal opinion is a reasonable excuse to close an AFD?

General comments

• Links for Sebwite: Sebwite (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sebwite can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page.  7  03:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• He may be on to something with the blatant how-to and other not-encyclopedia CSD... Anybody want to bring this up at WT:CSD?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea, I see such articles every once in awhile while patrolling proposed deletions and they should be speediable. Look at How to use an ipod, it's literally a numbered list in how to get an iPod set up. An article like that would never have any chance of becoming encyclopedic. -- Atama頭 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support solid editor with experience in policy areas. Triplestop x3 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 04:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Weak Support: Solid record in policy areas but needs more edits on talk pages. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Support for a longterm cluefull editor. ϢereSpielChequers 09:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I do not find the concern of lack of editing activity to be a problem to myself. The editor gives a solid and continous approach to editing over the long term. At this time i do not have reason to oppose. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Agree with Ottawa4ever. Pikiwyn ^talk 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Support per experience, talk page balance is a concern but not enough to stop support. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Support I have full confidence that Sebwite can easily communicate in a civil and thoughtful way with any user that he interacts with. I have interacted with him in the past and it's always been a good experience. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Looks okay to me. So far I don't see any red flags. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - seems fine to me, just needs some more experience in some areas. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support Seems alright to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to neutral per 6 and 11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Weak Support - I was going to go neutral due to the exceptionally low amount of communication with other editors (less than 7% of your edits). But what little communication you've had seems civil enough. Assuming no other legitimate concerns are raised I'll tentatively give my support. -- Atama頭 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) _{Switching to oppose. -- Atama頭 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)}

10. No reason to anticipate serious problems, solid and lengthy contribution history. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
11. No problems here and unlikely to misuse the tools, and barring a few minor CSD concerns mentioned, I see no other reason to oppose. AtheWeatherman 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - well qualified and great answers to all the questions.  7  22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, and opposers, please stop relying on numbers to make a decision. Majorly talk 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Highly experienced user, don't see how the relatively low activity makes him less competent as an admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sebwite has made some excellent contributions to the project, mainly the article namespace. Despite these contributions, I notice you have an remarkably low number of recent user talk page edits, less than 50 in the last 9 months. A good sysop must have strong history of talk page edits and the ability to engage in discussion while remaining civil. With so few talk page edits (and Wikipedia namespace edits, where you discuss with other users), it makes it very difficult to gauge your ability to interact with other users, something that you will no doubt encounter as a sysop. You state you wish to work in XfD, AIV, RFPP, yet I see you have little to no experience in any of these areas. Take your XfD contributions for instance. You have made no edits in this area since early July 2009. If you wish to work in this area, I would suggest you vote in these discussions more often or perhaps make several non-admin closures. Your contributions to Wikipedia contentwise have been very strong and I encourage you to keep it up. But if you want the mop and bucket, I'd recommend getting more involved in the management-related areas of the project. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. (i) 9k+ edits over 3 years with rather irregular counts. About 100+ edits per month recently, a few edits per month on user talk pages. Low activity is a big minus for a newcoming admin. (ii) Most of those 9k+ edits are on articles and policies, but, there is no visibly strong writing contributions (DYK/FA/GA, most of the regular edits are minor by my measures). As to policies, Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is not a brilliant example, judging from its talk page alone. (iii) Self-nomination, in this case, is also not a plus. I have no hard feelings, and do appreciate the candidate's work, but just require more from an admin. Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose not feeling comfortable with candidate's CSD work per GB, along with lack of personal interaction with editors. ArcAngel (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose editor does not have enough experience where it counts to be an admin RP459 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Could you be more specific? As someone who's on the fence somewhat I'm curious to see what you mean. -- Atama頭 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

5. While Sebwite claims to understand that an administrator is merely responsible for implementing the consensus decision at AfDs, his answers to questions 6 and 11 indicate that he is approaching AfD from the standpoint of a voter and not a closer. I am afraid that Sewbite will close AfDs based on his personal opinion of the article rather than based on the discussion. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. "If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article" - Very seldom is the personal opinion of the closing admin relevant to the result of an AfD. This is a fairly basic matter of policy, so unfortunately I think you need a bit more experience in terms of deletion policies. I think you do great work here however, and I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in a couple months. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - per Juliancolton. Policy is incredibly important when it comes to deletion and adminship, and not knowing the basic idea that the admin is the judge and the !voters are the jury leaves me rather uneasy with the candidate. As per others, the nominee would certainly be an excellent candidate once they gain more knowledge of policy, but I'd rather not see an admin just beginning to be comfortable with deletion policies. --tennisman 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose One of the most important parts of being an admin is being impartial. As such your answer to 11 alone is enough to for me to oppose. Admins who act in this way compromise the integrity of this site. Triplestop x3 01:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose due to the answer to question 11. I know this user has lots of experience, but the answer to question 11 makes me oppose. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Rather than my previous weak support, this is a firm opposition. The answers given since my support are disturbing. Answer 8 is frankly ridiculous, saying "I feel that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss my personal political views" when his user page is filled with userboxes saying to impeach politicians, who he supported in the last US presidential election, and what political party he is affiliated with. I honestly don't mind if a person gives their political beliefs on their user page but to do so and at the same time to say that they oppose presenting their political views looks like dishonesty and I have trouble trusting someone with such contradictions. I'll assume good faith with answer 9, that Sebwite means he might not disclose alternate accounts to bureaucrats because he would do so on the user pages of his accounts (though someone could interpret his answer to mean that he's not sure he'd disclose them in any manner). Answer 10 claims that administrators should always give a reason for declaring Keep or Delete on an AfD, and uses an essay that talks about voting as justification (even though an admin closing an AfD shouldn't be considering his close as a vote). Answer 11 just seems like the wrong answer, the correct answer should be that the decision is based on which side had the best appeal to policy, and ignore your own personal opinion. I don't have confidence that Sebwite could be trusted to properly close AfD discussions, and that is his first (and I assume primary) reason to request the tools. -- Atama頭 01:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose (triple edit-conflicted) This has absolutely nothing to do with the pace or volume of contribution history. If anything, I see a slow, steady history of contribution to be an indicator of long-term investment in the project and trust. That said, the point brought up by those above is valid and a deal-breaker for me. If you have strong feelings on an XfD's subject, you probably shouldn't be closing the discussion in the first place—let alone casting a tiebreaking !vote. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Sebwite needs to study up on the CSD reasons, most of what I saw in the deleted contribs was not accurate. db-author was used correctly a few time though. I saw nothing nomnated for AfD, is there anything at all? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Sebwite created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltimore bus beating back in January 2008. However, he said in his statement that he prefers to try to improve articles rather than nominate them for deletion. As for the CSD issues - could you provide a summary of the deleted contribs for the benefit of us non-admins? Robofish (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2. In March-June 2009 Sebwite authored and defended Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) which, in my opinion, demonstrated (past tense) Sebwite's misunderstanding of policies and top-level guidelines on the subject, severe US-centric approach to worldwide topics ... and other unacceptable flaws exposed on the talk page. See also Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, also from Sebwite. I'd recommend Sebwite to explain their current take on the subject. P.S. I de-facto retired from wikipedia, so this entry needs not be included in the vote count. NVO (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral the lack of edits to talk pages troubles me. On the other hand this user has had a good history (No blocks ect.) and has written several good essays.--Coldplay Expert 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral per 6 and 11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)