Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vilerage (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 20 July 2006 (/usr/sbin/support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sean Black

Discuss here (136/49/6) Ending 16:02, 2006-07-23 (UTC)

Sean Black (talk · contribs) – Well, I was previously an admin since November 2005. Sometime in June, in effort to avoid undue stress, I resigned that position. Recently, however, I have found a renewed urge for these tools; perhaps I should not have given them up in the first place, but I do think that my attempt at stress relief was at least partially successful.

While it is common to give numerical statistics at this point, I do not believe that these are a good measure of experience or suitably for becoming an administrator; to be perfectly honest, I do not know what the majority of these statistics actually are, nor do I care to find out. I hope that this decision will not deter your support.

In short, I hope that I have earned the trust of the Wikipedia community to the extent that I may regain the administrative tools that I voluntarily gave up. Thank you. SB | T 16:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Of course. Although some questions have come up regarding his professionalism, it's always something to work on if and when this user gets the tools back — especially given the very valuable criticism in the oppose section. — Deckiller 16:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Edit conflict support, You shouldn't have given up the tools in the first place. All my encounters with Sean Black have been nothing but positive (and he is easily approachable, through IRC or otherwise, to ask for help from). So, uh, give him the mop again. Cowman109Talk 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I didnt even know he wasn't an admin anymore. Or something. Definently works in the best interest of the project and if he wants the tools again, can certainly be trusted with them. --W.marsh 16:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Since you gave up the tools voulentarily. I can see why you would do that during a period of stress. I am happy to support you, and hope that you enjoy having the tools at your disposal once more!!! Abcdefghijklm 16:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Change to oppose Abcdefghijklm 10:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steel 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Sean has already shown that he is a capable and effective admin. Rje 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Naconkantari 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Obvious support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Can be trusted with the mop again. — TKD::Talk 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oui - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whimsical is good. Voluntary stand down - good. "For fuck's sake" - passable. Other incivility - bad. Withdrawing support. :( - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Ixfd64 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. StrikeIt Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Thought he still was one. 1ne 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I didn't realize you gave up your adminship in the first place either. -- joturner 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Awaiting answer to question.[reply]
  13. Support This Fire Burns Always 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. It's a good thing that you have the maturity to give up the tools when you are under significant stress. Alphachimp talk 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No brainer - here's the key to the closet, now undust that mop and go back to work, dear Sean ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Well, yes, of course; hope the adminbreak was relaxing. Sean is a dedicated contributor and a good guy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  18. Welcome back to the cabal ;) Jaranda wat's sup 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I also thought you were still an admin. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support no reason to oppose. Yanksox 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, certainly. —Xyrael / 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Very Strong Support - for one, I do not care if there is the odd "inpolite" edit/delete summary, I think we are all guilty at it at times and what point does that make on adminship none. Seriously, enough of the childish insults (such as the one's I've read below, I was about to hand out a {{npa}} on some of the personal attacks below, sure, RFA can be a tough place but it's not a place for two year old baby fights! Tawker 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - of course. He did a good job before, He'll do a good job again. pschemp | talk 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Can't see why not I think he's amply demonstrated he'll be a "safe pair of hand" with the extra buttons. --pgk(talk) 21:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. If he voluntarily resigned, I think he should get the admin tools back if he wants them. (not like some admins who were desysopped by Arbcom) ~crazytales56297 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Cleared for touch-n-go adminship --Pilotguy (roger that) 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Was and still will be a good admin. G.He 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. A good editor and a good admin. -Will Beback 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. DarthVader 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support I always found sean to be one of the best admins on Wikipedia, and I think most admins have the odd blemish on there record Benon 22:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support 172 | Talk 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong support. Jude (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support When Sean resigned his adminship I understood it was because he though that doing so would reduce the obligations he felt to the more stressful and time consuming parts of his involvement... I understand now that he discovered that it didn't result in the improvent he expected. To the admins in the opposition: are you offering to stand for Re-RFA yourself? --Gmaxwell 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. zOMG-I'm-going-to-kill-Sean-for-not-telling-me-he-was-on-RfA Support. I for one have not looked at the opposition (yet), but I haven't got used to him not being an admin anymore either, nor did I think he really needed to deop. So that's enough for me to support. --Keitei (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No reservations. Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Obvious support. A level-headed and dedicated guy. --Interiot 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Hottest. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, of course. We've seen that this user was not abusive of admin powers, and should not be denied having back what they gave up. --Gray Porpoise 01:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Just the kind of rogue admin we need. - Hahnchen 01:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. In my encounters with him he has been agreeable. His contributions indicate experience in maintenance matters, and I don't think it is especially problematic that he deleted things like "Template:O RLY?" with unexplaining messages. If he was an administrator before for 7-8 months with no real problems, I do not see why he should not be an adminstrator again, though it was a waste to ask to be de-admin'ed and then ask to be re-admin'ed. —Centrx→talk • 01:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - the opposition arguments did not convince me abakharev 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Pepsidrinka supports. 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Didn't destroy the wiki before, see no reason why he would this time. BryanG(talk) 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Absolutely Wikipedia will be better protected when Sean gets his extra tools back. User talk:Sean Black/Archive/7#Good quick work FloNight talk 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support hope it's less stressful in the future - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support clearly looks ready to take up admin tasks again.Voice-of-All 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Though I have had no personal interaction with Sean (to my recollection) I see no reason to deny the tools to someone who give them up volunteerily. - Glen 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Clueful and helpful. No reservations. Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. --Klemen Kocjancic 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Definitely, he did a pretty good job when he had adminship originally and I'm sure he'll do a good job now, the fact that he decided to give it up doesn't matter in my opinion in terms to his re-request. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong support. He was a very kind and helpful admin. AnnH ♫ 07:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per BryanG - well said. Kalani [talk] 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support See? This guy is honest. That's what I like..honesty! TruthCrusader 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, from what I saw of him as an admin, he always seemed to be doing a good job to me. No reason to expect anything different now. - Bobet 10:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support, but I'd rather not say why, in case he gets a swell head. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Extreme piñata support HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support', very much so. Proto::type 11:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support - never knew he was desysopp'd at all and see no reason why not to return the AdminPowersTM to their rightful owner. Good luck mate! —Celestianpower háblame 11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Never should have given up his admin bit, and glad to see him returning to the fold. Support ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support per Lar. —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. again.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. A bit rouge at times, but we are not supposed to be infallible, only sincere and open to criticism. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, with a reminder to be more professional than expected. GChriss 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support was a good admin once, will make a good one again. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - was a good admin. I don't see why he gave up the tools though -- having a vaccuum cleaner doesn't mean one uses it (as the state of my apartment sadly is testament) --Improv 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Of course, it's like he never gave up the position. Sean Black was an excellent admin (and will continue to be one!). All of the oppose reasons given below are utterly spurious. Admins naturally end up taking actions that some people don't like, and so you get lots of grousing. In this case it's the "Community Justice" people complaining that their vigilante template was deleted. Boo-fricking-hoo. Sean Black should be commended for that. --Cyde↔Weys 13:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support of course. Nice, civil user. - Tangotango 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the comments made by those opposing (including BigDT and Joturner's)? Petros471 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have; personally, the evidence given does not change my overall impression of him, and my "vote" still stands as originally written. - Tangotango 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, despite the useless crud masquerading as reasons to oppose this excellent user. — Jul. 17, '06 [14:44] <freak|talk>
  72. Support - Tom Harrison Talk 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, I'm useless crud, and some of my edits are also useless crud. I'm more than happy to support despite the points raised by the oppose voters. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Yeah, has shot his mouth off a time or two. Has also made exactly one adminstrative decision that I diagreed with. But has always been approachable, able to perform introspection, and responds with good grace to input. This is far more than I can say for many of our current admins who aren't re-applying. - brenneman {L} 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Homey 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Tony Sidaway 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Good chap.[reply]
  77. Support, in light of comments below. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per Kelly. — Philwelch t 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Yeah, okay. DS 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support: sometimes people retain admin 'rights' while taking a break, but just as valid not to. Welcome back (I trust!) --AlisonW 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Nothing's changed, and I don't find the opposes convincing. --maru (talk) contribs 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Was a high quality, active and helpful admin. Then he was a high quality, active and helpful user. Now he should be a high quality, active and helpful admin again. Has need of and will well use the extra buttons. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strong support. Any standing admin will accrue detractors such as those below, it's part of the position. That doesn't take away from the fact that Sean was, and will be, a good admin. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't lump everyone below in together. That I recall, I have never been in any conflict with Sean Black before, in his capacity as an administrator or otherwise. I looked through his contributions without prejudice. I offered an opinion based on those contributions. BigDT 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Ian¹³/t 18:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I've seen worse edit summaries by better (or at least more active) admins, so one case doesn't seem that big of deal. Stress induced break should certainly mean his entire time as a user and admin is counted in determining continued suitability. --StuffOfInterest 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support a very good admin. NoSeptember 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support, an excellent admin. Could be a bit more civil sometimes, perhaps, but reliably does the right thing. -- SCZenz 20:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Sean's a good chap; everyone says one or two things they'd like to take back. No reason not to support. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Do I think this user would use admin tools to help the site? Yes. That's all that matters. --mboverload@ 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, obviously.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Sean never abused his adin powers when he had them, and I see no reason why he shouldn`t be given them back. Even if his deletion of the CJ template was taken as abusive, his contributions to Wikipedia far outweigh it. Voluntarily giving up his admins powers to avoid undue stress, was, to me, a very mature and thoughtful thing to do. He has proved before that he can be trusted with admin powers, and I gladly support him now that he is ready to have them again.--§hanel 00:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, of course. Sean is a clear-thinking, affable fellow who has had a few difficulties in the past - but might I ask those below who oppose him on this count, surely don't we all have the occasional lapse in judgement and stressed-out state of mind? It is most impressive in particular that he voluntarily gave up his powers when he felt he was no longer responsible to apply them; lesser Wikipedians would have not done so. To quote Ryunosuke Akutagawa in The Story of a Head That Fell Off: "It is important - even necessary - for us to become acutely aware of the fact that we can't trust ourselves. The only ones you can trust to some extent are people who really know that." Thus, I think Sean deserves the return of his administrative privileges as he will, I have no doubt, be of greater service to our project with the ability to carry out administrative functions once more, as he has proven in the past. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Sean made a responsible choice to have his admin powers taken away when he felt it was right. Now he feels it is the right time to have them back, I think the time is right too. --Ali K 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support honest, direct, and decisive. And it was useless crud. Opabinia regalis 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support give him back his mop! --rogerd 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. I trust Sean and believe it shouldn't be held against him that he voluntarily asked to be desysoped. I feel comfortable granting him janitor status once again. Aren't I Obscure? 03:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, but don't make us do this again. BrokenSegue 03:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. MichaelZ526 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Me #100.--MONGO 06:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Fuck yes. Snoutwood (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. Aye, a fine admin is/was/will be Sean Black. He truly deserves this... -- Banes 08:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, no problem resysopping anyone who resigned, within reason. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 11:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support absolutely. I really should pay more attention to this page, I nearly missed this one. Of course Sean should be readmined if he wants it. And I understand 100% the taking time out when it gets stressy. That was exactly the reason I left the Arbitration Committee, taking time out when you need it shows good sense. And I trust Sean fully to know when he's ready to return to the good job he's always done. -- sannse (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, certainly. As you resigned from your previous position as admin, and were not forced to do so, I see no reason why you should not take up the position again. --Draicone (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, per Draicone, above. I agree. You were in good standing at the time you started your sabbatical; I see no reason why you shouldn't resume your duties. --Mhking 13:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Some reservations, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. He was an admin for quite a while and didn't seem to do too much wrong. He's shown that he can be trusted so I see no reason to oppose. --RicDod 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Basically, although I find examples of previous incivility disturbing, he was an admin, and, by all accounts, a good one. I personally believe that the requirements for re-sysopping somebody (that's not been involuntarily desysopped, of course) should be significantly lower than an initial sysopping. Given that, support, although if he passes, I'd respectfully ask nominee to take others' concerns about civility under consideration in his future actions. — Mike (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong support. --CharlotteWebb 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, I had no idea he resigned. Will (message me!) 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support: May we wish you a happy return. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Supporty McSupport. Sean's a good guy and a good admin. I'm sure he'll take the concerns about cranky edit summaries under advisement. This is requests for adminship, not sainthood. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. I see no reason not to. --Carnildo 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support I've talked with Sean on and off for most of the time I've been on #wikipedia and find him to be quite a bit more thoughtful and deliberate about admin actions than he seems to be given credit for. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support One of the best damn users on Wiki. Period. Sasquatch t|c 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strong support excellent admin, gave up adminship willingly, I don't think he should even have to go through this. He may have been hasty in his comments at times, however his actions have been perfectly in line, and his edit summaries aren't nearly bad enough for me to think of not supporting him. Mak (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support, he was one of the first people I met on IRC, and has always been helpful to me and sensible - even with my constant ribbing. -Dawson 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support, a head crammed full of Common Sense, something in far too short supply sometimes. --bainer (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Excellent history. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support While I have some concern about some of the difs and logs in the oppose votes, and Blnguyen's oppose is particularly disturbing (for the simple reason that I have a lot of respect for Blnguyen), that vast majority of Sean's edits have been fine, an occasionally flippant, rude, or terse summary of a block or a deletion does not seem to me to be fatal to adminship. Sean performed well as an admin and I have confidence he will perform well in the future. JoshuaZ 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Joshua .Feel free to debate and point out flaws in my reasoning. I am willing to take as good as I give (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Christopher Sundita), and as an admin I am supposed to be able to not take umbrage to people questioning my wisdom, so feel perfectly free. That applies to anybody else as well. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. EXTREME OMG-FORMER-ADMIN SUPPORT! -- Drini 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support per the help that I've received from Sean Black over the short time I've been at Wikipedia. Ryūlóng 07:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Was a good admin in the past. jni 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - No reason to believe admin powers would be abused, however I do find some issues with lack of civilty troublesome. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 12:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support: One may be forced at times to say goodbye to civility (of course, with a heavy heart and most unwillingly) to save the integrity of the Project we call wikipedia - the sum total of human knowledge. The sum total of Sean Black has prompted me to repose my confidence in him. I wish him all the best in his enterprise here. --Bhadani 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you very sure that civility, one of the very fundemental policies on Wikipedia and we have shown some people the door for the lack of it, can be substituted for human knowledge? You have always been a great editor, and I sincerely hope this isn't the case and I have greatly misunderstood you, in which I will offer my apologies. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Mailer. Nice meeting you. In the light of your insight into the issue, I am re-considering my position. Until then, I request that my support may be kept in abeyance. --Bhadani 14:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Good admin, has not and will not abuse tools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Not perfect, but on the balance, I think he's good enough and I trust him. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck as duplicate vote. Xoloz 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry. Thanks for catching this. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support one of the most upstanding and useful members of the encyclopedia. -Mask 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. This seems to be a case of RFA blowing problems out of proportion, to the point that even some of the people supporting seem to be buying into the idea that we're dealing with a constant source of inappropriate comments and summaries. That really isn't what we're looking at here; I see a few grumpy edit summaries and a few cases where his comments were too blunt, but we're talking about a very small number of edits. More to the point, we've already seen that he does substantially more good than harm as a sysop (no harm seems to have come from any of the cases cited below). So all in all we have a good (not perfect, but who is) former sysop offering to help out with admin work again; more fools we if we decline. --RobthTalk 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. A fine admin. HenryFlower 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Weak (but not weakest possible) support Though some of Sean's admin actions were deleterious, the net effect on the project of his being an admin was positive, Where a user is unlikely to abuse or misuse the admin tools, IMHO, or where a user's good admin actions are sufficient to militate against his not being approved for adminship (in view of those deleterious effects), he or she should be supported for adminship. There remain two issues of which one must dispose: (a) whether Sean's voluntary desysopping is sufficiently demonstrative of poor judgment or a mercurial disposition as to render him unfit for adminship and (b) whether Sean's request for resysopping, concomitant to which has been much discussion, parts of which have consumed the time of users who might otherwise have contributed to mainspace, has been sufficiently disruptive as to demonstrate a poor appreciation for the nature of the project, demonstrating some qualities that are particularly inauspicious vis-à-vis adminship; I resolve each question in the negative, although the answer to neither is plain. Joe 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Back from Wiki-break support He has a fine sense of what matters and what doesn't. He didn't abuse admin tools before and he won't now. He's blunt and could tone it down sometimes but he gets it. Rx StrangeLove 01:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support This is only the second RfA that I've voted in, but this seems unusual. However, I am willing to support on th egrounds that he has an idea of what he is getting into. If he tones down the retorts, he will be okay.--Chili14 03:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support... I thought long and hard on this one. IMHO, he didn't abuse the tools before, that's enough for me. No big deal and all. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Deleting Template:Tracker with the CSD: Eh? Useless crud. shows a complete disregarding of policy for policy. Computerjoe's talk 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone makes a blemish occasionally. While I feel that admins must always remain professional (afterall, they are still often seen as role-models, so they should seize the opportunity and help mold the communist), everyone has an occasional bad day. We just have to make sure that Sean's occasional bad day won't erupt into tool abuse in lieu of a somewhat rude deletion summary. I think he'll be fine. — Deckiller 19:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After combing through his deletion summaries, I do see other instances of similar edit summaries. Sean, although I'm sure most (if not all) of the deletions were justified, could you please be more professional with the edit summaries once you get the tools back? Thanks, and, again, I don't see it as a major issue, which is why I am certainly not opposing over it. — Deckiller 19:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW Computerjoe was the creator of that template. --pgk(talk) 21:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The "tracker" template is a stain on Joe's reputation, not Sean's, and rightly so. While a better deletion summary would undoubtedly have been a Good Thing, the mere act of deleting that tracker template was the best admin action Sean ever performed ... and I'm frankly shocked that Joe was silly enough to bring it up again, rather than leaving it buried where the forgotten stink of its existence cannot harm him unduly. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my greatest creation, granted, and it was crappy for my reputation. However, it doesn't justify deleting it with such regard for policy! Computerjoe's talk 14:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually deleting it did fall within policy, specifically WP:NOT. Your objection was that it didn't fall under process, which is something else entirely. --Cyde↔Weys 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least he could of removed the red links! Computerjoe's talk 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose while awaiting an explanation of why he resigned last month, particularly as he states above that it was in order to "avoid undue stress", while in the questions below he states that he has never been in a stressful situation. I did note that a mediation was started at about that time, which this user apparently refused to participate in [1]. If that was what precipitated the resignation, I wonder if this user would not be better off avoiding the stress of adminship for a more extended period. --JJay 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To summarise what Sean Black responded below, it wasn't Wikipedia stress in particular, but more personal stress. He de-admined in an attempt to lighten the load, and now finds himself wanting the tools again. His evaluation is that losing sysop status did not help in the way he hoped it would, and as he voluntarily desysoped, I think it's not too difficult for us to believe this. :] --Keitei (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. He actually says that it was both wikipedia and general stress, but refuses to discuss it. Given his less than thruthful response to question 3 + the various edit summaries and diffs discussed here, I can't support. --JJay 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what if he doesn't want to discuss his personal problems? They're PERSONAL. A person shouldn't be personally attacked, nor should inappropriate personal questions be asked. What do you want? A hand-written note from his physician, employer, or priest? I don't think the guy should be an admin again, but I think your attitude is terrible, your respect for personal privacy nonexistent, and I think you're being a giant hypocrite when your talk page has a giant threat against potential wikistalkers. Obviously, you enjoy your privacy, so let Sean have his. When and if you ever come up for adminship, JJay, I'll vote to oppose while asking what prescription meds you take and how much you drink in a day. You are clearly being uncivil by being nosy. The idea of an RfC on you is looking better and better. You've just violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and definitely WP:DICK, which you violate on almost a daily basis. Can't you just be nice for one week? Can you try at least that? Erik the Rude 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like I said to Moe yesterday, let's remember that fighting fire with fire does not actually put that first fire out. If you have problems with JJay, go bring it up at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; this is not the place for it. And to be honest, what you said was far, far worse than what he said. Perhaps you should read the policies you just cited. -- joturner 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope it didn't sound like I was fighting fire with fire with the italics; I apologize Erik (or anyone else) if that sounded unnecesarily harsh, but I'm sure you get my point. Forgive me please. -- joturner 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose. Deletion summaries like the one quoted by Computerjoe, and comments like the one in the diff provided by JJay are not the sort of thing I want to see in an admin. Being civil is one of my 'must haves' in my RfA criteria. Petros471 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose (from oppose) due to the further evidence of uncivil behaviour presented below. "fix the header for fuck's sake." [2] is just not acceptable. Add on to that the other evidence presented makes me strongly oppose you becoming an admin again. To be honest, I’m rather surprised that so many users that I deeply respect are supporting you despite this. Therefore you must have done a lot right. So if this RFA passes, please take the criticism presented here onboard and become that great admin again. Petros471 14:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Oppose-may change to Neutral - If you want sysop tools and privs, apply for them, u did u got them, u were happy, then u gave them up, due to whatever, u requested them removed, got rid of them, u were happy, now it seems you want them back again..? If you get them this time, try to be more decessive ;) Adminship is a big step. Good Luck! --Deon555|talk 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per JJay. --Guinnog 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm not nearly the "process-wonk" that some folks think I am, but Mr. Black is a bit too anti-deliberative/unilateral for me to support his reacquiring the mop [3]. He isn't the most civil user I've ever come across either. Xoloz 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you disagree with the deletion, or just the way it was performed? Dmcdevit·t 05:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to the manner in which it was done and defended by Mr. Black. Xoloz 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unhappy oppose. Calling someone else's work - created by an established editor in good faith - "useless crud" is really not a good idea. Way too many admins already have this attitude--I can't stand the thought of another (even though you already were one). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strongly oppose. Immature and has abused his tools previously. Exactly the sort of user who should not be an admin. I agree with Xoloz that Sean is not particularly civil but I'd add that he is rather more civil to those he feels have power than those he feels do not and that is not a good thing. Grace Note 07:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I'm opposing for the simple fact that I believe new users should wait a minimum of 6 months before applying to be an admin, and I believe it's only fair ask that de-admined (for whatever reason) users should wait the same amount of time. If I had to give a better reason, I would say that some of the language used by SB in the evidence seems a little harsh, and I would probably be upset if I was on the wrong side of those edits. Themindset 07:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that reasoning quite ridiculous. Sean Black isn't a new user and he has been around for a lot more than six months. He gave up the mop voluntarily and now he wants to continue doing good work with it; why should he arbitrarily have to wait six months? It doesn't make any sense. The situation with him isn't remotely comparable to the situation with a new user. Also, I disagree with your six month figure in general anyway. --Cyde↔Weys 15:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate you characterizing my reasoning as ridiculous - I believe what you meant to say was that you didn't agree with it. Many many users use the 6 month rule, and I believe that I'm entitled to my opinion without you making uncivil remarks about it. Also, I did supply an alternate reasoning for users just like you, so in the future please take such discussion to my talk page, as your comment did not even serve to "discount" my opinion. Themindset 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you explain why such a rule would apply to this user, when the reason it is usually applied to new users is specifically as a heuristic for experience, which it would not be in this case? —Centrx→talk • 20:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, in the case of a desysoping it would be a heuristic (as you put it) for re-experiencing Wikipedia as a non-admin. I definitely don't want to attract the ire of Cyde Weys for being "patronizing", so I won't elaborate further on the benefits that such a re-experience would bring. Themindset 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Reluctant Oppose Whilst you are undoubtedly an excellent user, I feel the 'Useless Crud' incident to be offensive. I did not know about this before I supported you, but other comments make me feel I should oppose. I will be looking in to the incident to see if I can possibly withdraw my oppose vote.Abcdefghijklm 10:43, 17 July 2006
    If it helps (for your personal knowledge, that is; not for you to change your mind — I'm not in the business of opposing opposers), what basically happened is this: Computerjoe, whilst in the thrall of a Very Very Bad Idea called "Community Justice", decided it would be cool to create a template he and other vigilantes could theoretically use to keep track of anyone who receives a boilerplate "civility" warning, for purposes sinister but unspecified. As well as being creepy as all get-out, the template could be accurately described as "useless crud", although it perhaps shouldn't have been. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose I had to think about this one quite a bit, but I have to say I'm sorry... I really am (and please don't let the size of this comment send the wrong message; I just wanted to be clear in my rationale). The fact of the matter is, I'm baffled by your decision to give up adminship. In your answer to my question regarding the reason for giving up adminship, you stated "As I said, it was an effort to avoid undue stress, both on Wikipedia and in general." I don't expect you to go into detail about the "in general", but I would have liked you to have shed at least some light on the Wikipedia part. This is especially interesting because in the answer to standard question three, you state, regarding whether you've ever gotten into conflicts and received stress, "Not really. I try to avoid fights. If anyone can point any out to me, then please do so." I'm not sure how one can say one gave up adminship due to stress, but then say they've never been faced with stress. But that alone left me on the fence. And so, I took a look at your contributions (especially around the time of deadminship since I wanted to get a sense of what may have caused you to give adminship up). The most notable red flag was the harsh reply in a Mediation Cabal case. There was also another Mediation Cabal case, which you didn't respond to (these definitely should have been mentioned in question three). Subsequently, a removal of a reasonable request from your user talk page. I see an unnecessarily rude edit summary regarding someone's signature and an unnecessarily rude statement regarding that signature as well. More recently, I saw some unnecessarily harsh edit summaries: biting a newcomer (July 16), attempt to be funny, but fighting insults with insults is not necessary (July 14), rudeness again (July 13). Okay, okay, perhaps I over-reacted on some of those, but combined with the diffs pointed out by Xolox and ComputerJoe, I get a bad feeling about this; at the very least, you need to be a bit more professional in your responses and edit summaries. -- joturner 14:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with you on the whole, but in the interest of being fair I just feel like I have to say that, as you noted, some of the examples you posted are not all that serious, or even worthy of comment. The 3 incidents of "Biting a newcomer", " attempt to be funny, but fighting insults with insults is not necessary", and "rudeness again" were all either meant to be humorous, or mildly, mildly rude. A misdemeanor at the most... AdamBiswanger1 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Originally, I went with just a simple "oppose" despite what appears to be a significant amount of incivility pointed out by me alone, primarily because the incivility in those last couple summaries, as both you and I mentioned, may have been exaggerated a bit because I had already noticed somewhat of a pattern of incivility. It was only after I saw BigDT's comment (as noted below), which extended the incivility case, that I changed to a strong oppose. I could refactor my statement to list only the most concrete instances of incivility, but I don't feel that's necessary (or appropriate; wouldn't that be just rubbing it in?). I'll simply let the entire body of oppose votes speak for why I maintain my position (and I presume why a few others have maintained theirs). -- joturner 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose per BigDT. He's right; this is not good at all. -- joturner 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that comment was thoroughly appropriate. WP:ANI is the administrator's incidents noticeboard, and is reserved for incidents requiring administrator intervention. All of us administrators are really tired of the content disputes that boil over onto ANI and create long annoying discussions that don't even belong there. I have no idea why you're trying to single out this edit by Sean; he was doing the right thing by increasing the signal to noise ratio of the page. --Cyde↔Weys 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't talking about Sean's comment; I was talking about his edit summary. I hope you don't think that was appropriate. -- joturner 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As was I BigDT 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG he said fuck. Whoopdidoo. It's just a word.--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people find that unnecessarily confrontational in an edit summary. I certainly do -- Samir धर्म 07:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - take a look at the user's deletion log [4] - several of the more recent summaries seem whimsical. Also of concern in the block log is this block [5]. Blocking a user without a single warning seems odd ... maybe he was a reincarnation of a banned user ... I don't know ... but if so, the block summary should have said so. Sean removed others' comments from an RFA [6] - in fairness, they were in response to him and rendered moot when he changed his statement, but still, IMO, removing someone else's comments is inappropriate, IMO. Inappropriate edit summary [7]. This UBX edit [8] is questionable as it takes a good-natured joke and turns it into something less than good natured. BigDT 14:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One other diff - [9]. The article probably should be deleted, but the unilateral changing to a redirect of a non-trivial article and the less than WP:CIVIL comment here raise red flags. BigDT 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "unilateral", I say "bold". Sean Black unequivocally made the correct decision there. --Cyde↔Weys 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    While the decision to change the article to a redirect is likely the correct one, (1) the diff I posted is less than polite, and (2) when his redirect was reverted, he should have sought consensus rather than simply reinstating it. Looking at his contributions for June 8 (the date of the second redirect), I see no attempt to discuss the issue and inform contributors of the reason for his change. In fact, when a user asked about it on his talk page (albeit with less than ideal courtesy), he reverted the question without reply [10]. When the question was reinstated, he removed it again [11] and violated WP:NPA in the edit summary. This is unacceptable behavior. Even if his analysis that the page should be changed to a redirect is 100% correct (which, personally, I think it should be deleted, but failing that, a redirect is fine), refusing to explain the action when questioned on his talk page and leaving a rude comment when the user attempted to seek a redress in a different forum is not acceptable. A new user may not understand what WP is - refusing to explain the issue doesn't help anyone and is only going to serve to anger the user. On the other hand, politely explaining that the subject of the article does not meet notability guidelines and providing links to relevant guidelines and policies may help the user(s) involved to become valuable contributor(s). BigDT 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. strong oppose Sean has presented himself as an unbiased meditor and later it was found that he had strong POV which lead the conflict get much worse. Other incidents lead me to think that he should not be given more tools to push his POV. Zeq 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you present a few examples? -- joturner 14:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly in reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq (see Log of blocks and bans)? BigDT 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose. I've seen his work, and he's pretty nasty and cranky. Also, to be perfectly honest, either he is a child, or he edits Wikipedia under the influence or on some pretty heavy medication. He just seems irritable and impaired to me. There are hundreds of editors who have never been admins who should be given a chance before this guy should be given his position back. He's one of the worst admins I've ever seen in action. Also, he's primarily a "pop culture" contributor, and we have too many of those, so I think we need an admin who is into more important topics than this guy. Erik the Rude 15:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That last statement is something I disagree with — admins don't normally just stay within their topics of interest, especially with the CSD and Orphaned Fairuse logs (which don't require specialty in anything but adminship tools and common sense). We don't have admins "representing" the various aspects of Wikipedia. That's what WikiProjects are for. Furthermore, I think pop culture sections need constant admin supervision, especially due to vandalism and deletions. But that's beside the point. — Deckiller 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm ... please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and consider revising your remarks. I'm not sure they are entirely appropriate. BigDT 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read all that stuff and more, and it's pretty rude to throw policy and wiki jargon at me, assuming I haven't read something, and it's more insulting than anything I may have said. I commented on Sean Black's work and how he presented himself in his position as admin. I don't know him personally, and I can't attack him on that front. I was just being honest about how he seemed to behave, and I resent being told that I can't be honest because of your interpretation of Wiki's Little Red Book. 63.23.2.31 09:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Oppose. I have always found this editor's actions to be baffling and standoffish. One of my first encounters with him was when I went to work on Bruce Campbell back when I was fairly new. He had recently blanked a large section of the article, an action I questioned on the article Talk page but to which he never responded. I thought it may have been a random edit, but he clearly watches and actively edits the article to this day. Then I got into AfD and found things like this, where he allowed himself to be drawn into flaming by Brian. Additionally, I find his inflammatory edit summaries to be unbecoming of an administrator. For example, "remove ugly and unnecessary templates", "Remove idiotic category", and this. Sorry, I request higher standards of conduct. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything wrong with the remove ugly and unnecessary templates dif, that's just his view, nothing uncivil in saying that Jaranda wat's sup 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per all above. Thumbelina 17:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose nasty and cranky is not good. I don't know why he have up the admin postion he had since he declines to go into it below, but I do NOT think it is ridiculous to wait six months until reapplying as someone above mentioned. Sean can use the time to do some valuable editing without getting caught up in all the trivial process stuff that ties up some of the best editors from being productive. David D. (Talk) 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, if he asked to be desysopped there was probably a good reason for it. Certainly the harsher comments he has made suggested he was taking his role as an admin too personally and getting frustrated too easily. As far as i am concerned anyone that gets too emotionally involved in being an admin is not a good thing for the encylopedia and it's probably not good for themselves. After the weighing the information presented here, I believe the encylopedia can benefit more from Sean Black's editing skills in articles rather than having his talents diverted by admin related duties. David D. (Talk) 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per joturner and BigDT. Eluchil404 19:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose; my first and only encounter with Sean was this thread on my talk page, where he wasn't especially civil (he apologized, but then started being uncivil again, at which point I cut the discussion). Here, I see that people have found more of this behaviour from him. There is just more than enough to oppose. (Liberatore, 2006). 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. While it's clear that Sean is a valuable good-faith contributor, and he did the right thing by resigning his adminship when he felt he was using it improperly due to real-life stress (I was witness to one quite questionable incident somewhat before he did, and I take it there were probably others): first of all, while being bold to enforce generally-accepted positions is fine, using admin powers to enforce points of view not specifically covered by policy is not. Saying that noting the opinion of four people (out of eleven) at a CFD as sufficient grounds to conclude no consensus is "ignoring all arguments and common sense", when they explained their views fairly extensively, is just too bold. It goes beyond the bounds of reasonable admin discretion.

    Second of all, Sean has some civility problems, and when he doesn't he tends to be too terse, providing little or no explanation for actions that he should know some will disagree with. It's important that anyone who takes action against users who can't reverse it always explain the reasons for their actions, and I'm afraid Sean just rarely seemed to have done that.

    Therefore, unless evidence is given that Sean is likely to do a great deal of good with admin tools, I must regretfully oppose for the time being. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  21. Regretful but strong oppose on the civility concerns raised above. De-adminning himself shows a degree of self-awareness that I praise. But if he could not trust himself just to step back and not use the tools, I'm reluctant to put them back in his hands. Bucketsofg✐ 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per joturner. Sorry. :( RandyWang (raves/rants) 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose with reservations regarding civility. RFerreira 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Sean Black has shown poor judgement in my personal experience, and his response when I confronted him about the situation did nothing to restore my confidence.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose this time, civility and your own judgement that you were not fit for the tools just a month ago. -- nae'blis (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose: I oppose on log/edit summary civility grounds, the userbox incident in external link 8, as well as the statement, "I have found a renewed urge for these tools". This suggests to me that they are just mere playthings that are whimsical or possibly a lustful desire for toys. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "This suggests to me that they are just mere playthings that are whimsical or possibly a lustful desire for toys." That seems like an awfully insulting way of stating it. (Possibly colored by my sincere belief that it is untrue.) I hope this was a misinterpretation of your tone, but I'd appreciate it if you could restate this in a different manner. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per joturner's reasoning. Maturity is a major concern -- Samir धर्म 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Joturner's comment made me oppose despite the fact that the candidate is very experienced and has been trusted with the tools before. --WillMak050389
  29. Oppose based on comments above. --A. B. 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Very strong oppose per all of the above opposes. I have observed this editor for a while, and I actually wrote part of an oppose factor in my RfA criteria based on his actions. My first observation of him was with this edit in opposition of an RfA, linking to the candidate's last 2000 edits without any surrounding context whatsoever. The ensuing discussion off the edit was an attempt by several editors (including a good faith attempt by that RfA's candidate) to guess what in the world this was supposed to be about... Sean Black never explained why he was opposing based on the last 2000 edits and dodged an opportunity to explain this after an offbeat comment on the situation from another user. I know the RfA was pretty much a forgone conclusion at that point, but you are an administrator. RfA is not a vote and you shouldn't be leaving everyone to guess what your intentions are, especially with an oppose opinion. I still consider it a disservice to the community and a disservice to the RfA candidate. It didn't help when I observed that he seemed to be using the RfA talk page to try to reform RfA simply as a knee-jerk reaction to a no consensus RfA that was opposed by more than 30 well-respected editors, and indeed I was shocked after reading the thread to find out he was an administrator (the opposite of the old RfA cliché.) After reading the evidence presented above (including the supports,) it sure seems like the lack of judgement I've observed in the past was not part of isolated incidents, and is making it very difficult for me to assume good faith in this particular case. It will be a long time before I can support a candidate who I directly associate with the kind of admin behavior I will never condone on Wikipedia. Grandmasterka 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose, per BigDT and others...  Grue  11:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Incivility overrides whatever good that he has done. Tintin (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Reluctant oppose on the basis of his nasty response to my 1FA essay [12]. Only toned down after advice from fellow Wikipedians. Sorry, but I feel that he needs more time to reflect before passing the mop again. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. While I think Themindset's suggested threshold of six months before reapplying after resigning adminship is a bit too much, I also think that reapplying after just one month is too short a period for someone who found the whole idea of being an admin so stressful that they felt the need to resign very recently. Zaxem 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, per joturner and BigDT. Avenue 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per the "crud" deletion summary and the Xoloz RfA vote. Kimchi.sg 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per Petros471. --Shizane 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose after reading all the discussion here and checking the diffs Grandmasterka, Joturner, and others have provided. Sorry. Jonathunder 17:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose for above examples of incivility. I'm sorry to say, but I don't think that just because someone has become an admin means they are automatically qualified to continue indefinately despite new behavior that would have probably kept them from succeeding in their first RfA (or at least that I would have opposed for), or in this case, re-earn the position despite it. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose: Admins are seen as role models and mentors. Disparaging edit summaries and lack of communication reported above make otherwise good bold actions potentially damaging. Stephen B Streater 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose mainly for incivility in above diffs. Dlyons493 Talk 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Very Strong Oppose. Well I counted that in 8 months of sysop, he did 516 deletes, 159 blocks and 48 protects, which isn't a lot (For the record I have 3602, 411, 65 in about 20% of the time). Personally I feel that administrators need to set a good example and be a role model for the community, as this is the biggest impact that they can have in their actions, and from the edit summaries and antics given I don't think that this is the case. And for those who feel that I am rankled by the actions themselves - this is not correct, I don't have a stake in any of the deletions at all, but I think some of the comments are impolite and flippant. And this has occurred many times. He also seems to get rankled easily when others try to debate him which does not appear at all accountable. The response to the Mailer Diablo test also appears to show an unnecesary level of indignation and perhaps an easily wounded ego ("...this idea that anyone who hasn't brought an article up to featured article status isn't a "real" editor. That's just insulting. I'm a real editor, dammit, and I don't appreciate any implication otherwise. Ridiculous.) which is not what I want in an admin. As for the stats above, I can't see how his achievements are great enough to outweigh all of this. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Very strong oppose per Blnguyen and others. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose It's been said above. Karmafist p 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per all above. Appears to show frequent flashes of incivility--AdamBiswanger1 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose partially per all above, but mostly for the answer to Lar's question. A tendency towards losing one's head combined with an unwillingness to subject oneself to scrutiny do not make me confident... --AaronS 14:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, he didn't say he wasn't willing to subject himself to scrutiny, he said it was a nice idea in theory but wasn't sure it would work in practice. (since it hasn't yet been put to the test, as far as I know, no admin has yet been asked to be reviewed/recalled using it. Therefore it's not clear whether it would or not which is a fair point, I think... I happen to think it would, but there is not supposed to be any pressure for every admin to be willing to do it.). So I'm not sure that's a fair cop. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I hear what you're saying, but I found the answer to be telling, nonetheless. It's not so much whether they answer yes or no, but how they answer yes or no. --AaronS 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose due to civility concerns. Silensor 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong oppose due to persistent incivility, as was established by the examples others have already given. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong oppose. Civility issues. I think a simple mistake like putting three dashes instead of two is something that can be overlooked, but SB seems to make quite a pickle of it. We all make mistakes and there is no reason to be blasted for it. Aaрон Кинни (t) 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Knife-edge Neutral Sean's proven himself largely capable as a sysop and thus earns my initial trust, but the problems raised by Computerjoe and JJay make me uncertain. I'll wait a bit to see how this goes. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has on occasion been helpful, but on the evidence raised by the objectors does appear as a hardliner. A certain degree of tolerance is important to the growth of Wikipedia. By application of that principle, everybody is entitled to having a bad day once in a while. Neutral for now. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Randy Wang. Roy A.A. 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per elaboration to question #1. --ZsinjTalk 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will keep my contribution to this RfA in this category. --ZsinjTalk 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards support. I have some concerns that someone who recently took time out from WP because of stress should want to jump right back in as an admin, though. Grutness...wha? 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. I really, really want to support, but his retort to the mediator bothers me. I'm not sure we need admins who take their toys and go home (or threaten to do so) when challenged or questioned. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Not sure at the moment. Some of the oppose votes concern me, especially joturner's. Robert 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • See Sean Black's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • I'd like to make a comment on the Mediation Cabal issue. I do not believe that what Sean said was harsh or inappropriate. We deal with things like that every day, where one or more users isn't interested in mediation. This is absolutely fine!! It's informal, and we're only interested in helping those who are involved and who want to be helped. Sean said very politely that he wasn't interested in mediation, but thanks anyways. Perhaps "unencyclopedic" could be considered "incivil"... but that's sort of ridiculous. Sean didn't agree with it, and I don't think there's anyone who could say that have never disagreed with something, and he is completely entitled to his opinion. Also, the mediator of said case was also the second supporter in this RfA :] I think he was the opposite of stressed with this case, more entirely apathetic.
Oh heck, while I'm making long winded comments, I might as well respond to a few more of the opposes/comments. As far as the 'grossly inappropriate edit summary' or what have you, in which he said "for fuck's sake", substitute "for heaven's sake" or generic word of your choice and nobody would care. It's not an incivil comment, he just said a word that has been arbitrarily made "bad". He also said (on IRC) that it bewildered him how several (seven or so) edits could be made with a glaring mistake such as that (an extra = in the header), without anybody fixing it. So it wasn't even directed at one person. And as far as the more harsh and rash edits/deletions he made before desysopping, I think those were what alerted him to the fact that he was letting real life encroach on Wikipedia life and should take a break. I don't personally think that the red flags that he personally saw and nobody talked to him about (or he at least didn't get RfC'd or RfAr'd about) should be held against him. It, to me, shows that he's aware of his actions and whether they're civil or not, and if he feels he's ready again, he actually knows. And I do think he can gauge his own stress better than any of us can. :] --Keitei (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: History merges and deleting pages to make way for moves would be especially useful, as I have been frequently frustrated when this has to be done with the intervention of other administrators; while they performed perfectly adequately, it would have been much easier to do on my own. See the history and logs for Power Rangers: Operation Overdrive, Deep Throat, and most recently Vrillon. In addition, rollback would be exceedingly useful for reverting vandalism in the areas that I edit in, most of which are fairly obscure and do not have many editors besides myself monitoring them.
While I see how history merges and page deletions would be convienient, I do nto see why it is difficult to use WP:AIAV, espically for "obscure" areas that need attention like this to get vandals dealt with. Would you care to emphasize why else you feel you need the tools of adminship? --ZsinjTalk 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I emphasised why I feel I need adminship in my initial answer; the fact of the matter is that I don't focus on reverting vandalism now, nor do I plan to start, so "blocking vandals" and "reverting vandalism" are very low on my list. Obviously, if I see vandalism on my watchlist, I would revert it, which would be easier if I had rollback, as I said. --SB | T 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: A Feast Unknown, Kamen Rider Stronger, and Battlefield Baseball are favorites of mine, due to retaining quality despite their relatively obscure nature.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Not really. I try to avoid fights. If anyone can point any out to me, then please do so. --SB | T 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Simetrical: When Category:Disaster movies was undergoing CFD as to whether it should be moved to Category:Disaster films, you added a template to move it. The CFD template was still visible, so you must have known that it was at least being considered, and if you had followed the link, you would have seen that it had already been closed as no consensus. So, why did you do that? And given that you did, why didn't you even leave an edit summary explaining your reasoning?
Because the CFD was wrong, and determined strictly by counting heads, ignoring all arguments and common sense.--SB | T 19:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Joturner: Why did you request to be desysopped?
As I said, it was an effort to avoid undue stress, both on Wikipedia and in general. As such, it was something of a personal issue -- the personal issues are personal, and I do not feel the need to discuss them here. With regards to my editing, Greg Maxwell is correct, what I thought would be bettered by giving up adminship were in mostly unaffected, so I see no reason not to regain the beneficial aspects of adminship.--SB | T 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lar:

(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of Category:Administrators_open_to_recall? What do you think of it? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in this category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of Category:Rouge admins? What do you think of it? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here, my comment is already recorded...) ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. The recall idea is good on paper, but I don't think it works in practice. The other one stopped being funny a while ago, but it is otherwise harmless. I am not concerned if anyone edits my user page for any purpose, but I do not typically add myself to user categories.--SB | T 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh? I never did figure out what that actually means. If you don't think either of these are workable in practice, perhaps you might consider contributing to the discussion at the relevant talk pages... I've generally found your comments polite and insightful, even if others do not.++Lar: t/c 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, from our sister project, Wiktionary: "Meh: An onomatopoeia expressing indifference or apathy; the verbal equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders." — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Deckiller:

As a means to all of us to understand this fully, why do you compose some edit summaries in a controversial manner described above?
I don't. I compose edit summaries to inform whomever may read them what the edit I'm making is. They sometimes express frustration, because I am sometimes frustrated. They sometimes express humour and good cheer, because I am sometimes happy. They sometimes express apathy, because I am sometimes apathetic. They sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude. They are sometimes blunt, because I am sometimes blunt. They always express humanity, because I am always human. I see no reason to pretend that I have no emotions under the guise of being "civil"; if my emotions are extreme to the point that I will do something I will regret, then I cease editing. That is all I have to say on the matter, despite the fact that I'm sure it will be misinterprated in the extreme.--SB | T 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the whole point - you don't have to say everything on your mind. Civility means that even if you think the edit is trash and the guy is a frickin' moron, you bite your tongue and avoid "being rude, insensitive or petty". You can be polite even though you have a strong emotional opinion on the subject. BigDT 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sean_Black_2&oldid=64818560"