Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sean Black 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Sean Black

[edit]

Final (159/63/6) Ended 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]
  9. Nevermind, resupport - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:45, 23 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]
  10. Support --Ixfd64 18:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. StrikeIt Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 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. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Awaiting answer to question.[reply]
  14. Support This Fire Burns Always 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 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]
  16. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 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]
  18. 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]
    Is Sean perfect? No, of course not, who is? Has he said/done some things he shouldn't have? Well, sure. Could he take more care to be civil even when frustrated? Of course. Does it outweigh the other 95% of the time when he's doing the right thing? I don't believe it does. Sean's not a saint. But he was a good admin, and I don't doubt his continued suitability; some of my strongest impressions of him were formed watching him attempt to go between two users in a particularly bitter dispute, and I thought he did that well. I also thought it was good of him to request a desysopping when he was in a mental state where he didn't think he would be able to do the job; someone who was truly lusting for power, as one of the opposition stated, or not concerned about using it appropriately, would never so willingly give it up. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome back to the cabal ;) Jaranda wat's sup 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure now, I supported Sean Black the last RFA and I don't mind some of the civilty issues as he was an excellent admin before but I have to agree with Knowledge Seeker. May change back to support later on. Jaranda wat's sup 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Back to Support per Danny below Jaranda wat's sup 05:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I also thought you were still an admin. Garion96 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support no reason to oppose. Yanksox 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, certainly. —Xyrael / 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. Cleared for touch-n-go adminship --Pilotguy (roger that) 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Was and still will be a good admin. G.He 21:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. A good editor and a good admin. -Will Beback 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. DarthVader 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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]
  34. Strong support 172 | Talk 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support. Jude (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. Support No reservations. Good egg. Hamster Sandwich 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Obvious support. A level-headed and dedicated guy. --Interiot 01:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Hottest. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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]
  42. Support - Just the kind of rogue admin we need. - Hahnchen 01:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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]
  44. Support - the opposition arguments did not convince me abakharev 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Pepsidrinka supports. 01:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Didn't destroy the wiki before, see no reason why he would this time. BryanG(talk) 03:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm withdrawing my support unless and until I hear a very good explanation for that list of users (see the more recent opposers). BryanG(talk) 17:07, 22 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. Michael 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]
    Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 11:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. 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]
  105. 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]
  106. 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]
  107. 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]
  108. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. 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]
  110. 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]
  111. Strong support. --CharlotteWebb 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, I had no idea he resigned. Will (message me!) 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support: May we wish you a happy return. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. 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]
  115. Support. I see no reason not to. --Carnildo 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. 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]
  117. Support One of the best damn users on Wiki. Period. Sasquatch t|c 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. 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]
  119. 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]
  120. Support, a head crammed full of Common Sense, something in far too short supply sometimes. --bainer (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. Excellent history. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. 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]
  123. EXTREME OMG-FORMER-ADMIN SUPPORT! -- Drini 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. 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]
  125. Support. Was a good admin in the past. jni 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. 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]
    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]
    In the light of several "in-puts", I am changing my support to oppose. --Bhadani 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. 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]
  129. Support one of the most upstanding and useful members of the encyclopedia. -Mask 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. 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]
    Support. A fine admin, but hasn't responded well to this mess. HenryFlower 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. 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]
  132. 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]
  133. 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]
  134. 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]
  135. Support Good admin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Sensible gentleman, already approved once... Thesocialistesq 13:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - This guy isn't an administrator yet? Viva La Vie Boheme 21:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. One of the more light-hearted-yet-sensible users on Wikipedia. Esteffect 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. This page is 101 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable. Lets not rant on people. In the absence of evidence that suggests the candidate had ever abused the mop or are there any reasonable suggesting this I hereby vote support. --Cat out 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. User has served with distinction on ArbCom [as an Admin], which of course has resulted in opposition to him by those whose behaviour has resulted in deserved sanction. - Amgine 16:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He is neither a current nor a former abitrator. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Perhaps you may have confused him with Sean Barrett. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all other members are also serving with distinction. --Bhadani 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, you're right. Mistaken for Sean Barrett. IOW: his character and history is in very fine company. Still support as an admin with distinction. - Amgine 18:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. Once an admin, always an admin. --Terrancommander 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Maximum Hotness --InShaneee 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Was a fine admin before, will make a fine admin again. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Weak but firm support. To Sean: I like you, but if this happens again, I will most likely have to oppose. If you're stressed out again, take a wikibreak, which does not require deadminning, and spare us having to validate you with new votes. Tomertalk 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Welcome back to the front/fold (delete as appropriate). - FrancisTyers · 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. Quite frankly, I don't think someone giving up their adminship for a period is reason to deny it to them when they ask for it back. Are there no questionable admins, who simply hold on to their adminship, even though, if there was a revote, they would in no way pass? Either create a system where each admin is subject to re-election at set intervals, or allow admins to keep their adminship for all time. Do not enforce a system where the only people punished are the people who act responsibly by temporarily waiving their admin powers. Danny 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - relinquished admin rights in good faith, I know you were a good administrator, and I'd welcome you back with a mop and bucket. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support He is an excellent and trustworthy editor, and we would all benefit if he got his tools back. Regarding what the opposition said, incivility can be a problem. But since SB has been here so long and people have only come up with a handful of diffs, and based on my examination of his talkpage, I don't think incivility is a major problem with him. And he admitted his mistakes and implicitly agreed to work not to repeat them in the future; this shows that he is willing to take constructive criticism, which is an excellent quality for an admin. -- Where 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. Rebecca 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. 'Nuff said support Misza13 T C 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Maybe he was being dramatic by asking to be de-sysoped, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a rock solid contributor who has consistently exhibited some of the finest qualities in an admin, especially towards new users and folks in trouble. If WP desysopped or punished everyone who made a bid for attention or did something silly once in a while, it'd turn into a ghost town overnight. SB has my support and my confidence. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Supportize. What else can I do? He's too useful. Opposes proves my point of useful admins getting opposed on re-rfa because they've pissed off too many people. ;-) Kim Bruning 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly which opposes do you believe are based on the fact that Sean pissed the editor off? Or do you believe it is impossible that anyone could objectively oppose this RfA? I really find these sorts comments harmful to the whole process here. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Start with Oppose 1 below. Note that anytime you use an admin tool, it's a win-lose situation. One person is happy, the other is not. If you have been an admin for long enough, then inevitably you will have a lot of people disliking you. Kim Bruning 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
    I don't think ComputerJoe's !vote was a revenge !vote. His comment was essentially he deleted my template with an incivil statement, not he deleted my template, and I loved that template. If a candidate were to say an insulting, blatantly incivil comment to me - completely hypothetically, not saying the deletion comment was blatantly incivil and insulting - and I were to !vote oppose on that candidate's RfA, would that be considered a revenge !vote? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (unindent)I am an admin on another project and understand perfectly what you mean. However general comments regarding "Opposes" is really not helping the whole RfA process here. Others have already pointed out that the first oppose had been involved with Sean in his admin capacity. There are still 58 other people who found reasons to oppose. How many others do you believe to biased by personal anger because they were somehow censured by Sean?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not nescesarily personal anger. Some days you make better descisions than others. RFA is heavily biased towards catching those days when you were down, and tends to ignore the days when you were good. This is amplified for admins, where at least one side will always tend to get the short end of the stick. You don't need to be vengeful, like Tariqabjotu pointed out above. Everyone can be acting in good faith, but the current procedure stresses mistakes, and ignores what people did right.
    We don't often have admins back up for RFA, so most of the time, it's not a problem. I'm just pointing out that this problem does appear to exist today. I happen to know sean black, and on balance he does really great work most of the time. :-) (and when he does mess up in some small way, we all tell him off, and he fixes it! :-) ) Kim Bruning 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am somehow finding myself agreeing with Kim. Everyone does make mistakes and almost every editor has done something that could be deemed objectionable. Often times people forget that and dig to find mistakes (I know, I know... you're going to say that's what I did). I think the problem is deciding whether those objectionable actions are typical; if it's a once in awhile thing or it hasn't happened in awhile, it shouldn't be a big deal. Some people have higher standards for "typical" and others have lower standards. I, for one, would not have opposed based on one objectionable comment, like ComputerJoe, but we're all different. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think claiming this RfA proves your point is strong wording to use if you do not list which opposers he has "pissed off." I know I am not pissed at him, and can only speculate that I am not the only one who does not prove your point. Yes RfA is skewed towards finding the negative but that is true for all canidates not just past admins. I don't mean to pick on you alone as others have made vague comments to discredit the opposers, it is just the you are the only one to do so since I made a plea on the talk page against it. These sort of remarks are really not a good thing, I looked at the other RfA's and was happy to see that at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CheNuevara you were actually questiong the opposers instead just scratching your head at them. Since there are so many here maybe you would like to ask gerneral questions of the opposers on the talk page? I am sure at least some of them would like to show you that you are mistaken regarding their objectivity. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people don't look at the talk page, especially because it's not linked from the main RfA page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's assume that everyone is acting in good faith, and is entirely objective. To do otherwise would in fact cloud what I'm trying to say. Perhaps it's a question of terminology? A person doesn't have to be boiling over with anger to be pissed off imho. If someone is sufficiently unimpressed to oppose a person's adminship, I'd say they were definately displeased. Kim Bruning 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I mm satisfied with Kim's explanation but am disappointed in the sum total of vague comments made againt the "oppositon." I said this on the talk page and am only repeating here as it has been said that people are unlikely to read that page. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Very Support--Steve-o 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Orane (talk • cont.) 04:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support; capable admin and I trust him to do the job well again. He's human, and this is a request for adminship, not a canonisation to sainthood. Antandrus (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support KillerChihuahua?!? 06:08, 23 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. -- tariqabjotu (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. -- tariqabjotu (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 Oppose - see below original text - 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) **: Sorry, but after seeing the 'useless crud' thing, i tend to disagree, but it's very close.. Good Luck! --Deon555|talk 04:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per JJay. --Guinnog 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to Strong oppose as I didn't like the list either. --Guinnog 17:17, 22 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 givevotes/seats 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. -- tariqabjotu (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). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose per BigDT. He's right; this is not good at all. -- tariqabjotu (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. -- tariqabjotu (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? -- tariqabjotu (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]
    Changed to strong oppose based on list in question at ANI. This isn't grade school -- Samir धर्म 08:51, 22 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. ReluctantStrong oppose of course. On the basis of his nasty response to my 1FA essay [12] in which he only toned down after advice from fellow Wikipedians, as well as the B-list. 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]
    I was unaware that a count of one's deletes, page protections, and blocks was an adequate or suitable indication of how good an admin you are. For the record, I have perhaps 200 deletes, 100 or so blocks, and around 40 page protections. Am I a bad admin? Should I perhaps consider asking that my adminship be removed?--Surely, I have such low figures, I can't be doing the job properly and should resign. Jude (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got 300 deletes, NO blocks, and sometimes I decide to work on some non-admin backlogs instead. Sometimes I even neglect my admin duties to fix bugs in toolserver tools. Apparently I am a bad admin as well. --Interiot 13:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By those standards I think I ought to resign as well. (And I do think it is insulting to imply that anyone who doesn't have a featured article isn't a real editor, very much so; his response was stronger than mine but the sentiment is the same.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To Mindspillage, Interiot and Jude, if I gave the impression that I was think that you were bad admins and bad arbitrators and should not be in your position, then I am sorry because this is not what I meant and perhaps it could be spelt out more explicitly. What I meant was that I feel that although people say that "adminship is no big deal.." - in the technical sense I agree, but in the sense of what admin conduct, in particular, civility, has on the morale of contributors, I feel that the role model aspect is very important. I did NOT mean to imply that I feel that those admins that did not meet a certain quota of admin actions were a negative impact and should be removed, but rather that I feel that I would override what I perceive to be insufficient civility only with a high degree of admin work, so that the service in clearing backlogs would be "worth" the negative aspects that an uncivil manner may have. Of course in the case of an admin who I feel sets a good example in their dealing with others, I would not mind if they only used a sysop function once every week, or even less. As for the 1FA Mailer Diablo criterion, it was introduced less than a day before my RfA started on May 22, and although I was mildly felt embarrassed about possibly being the inaugural candidate to be opposed under this criteria, I personally don't feel hurt at all by this. Throughout my academic career as a student, in competitions etc, there have always been plenty of people far superior to me, so I don't really feel at all threatened at all by somebody having a high bar. I don't feel that Mailer diablo thought less of me as an editor at all or thought of me as a "fake editor", but that 1FA offered an indication of some personal skills that he was looking for. I am currently trying to improve my all-round abilities to contribute in many areas, such as doing some Vietnamese translations and pronunciations, drawing some primitive diagrams - and it is clear to me that I am nowhere close to even being a "complete editor" - I would like to do an FA in the future, do some better graphic design, constructing better tables and templates with better code knowledge, understand how the system works to see if I can use my mediocre programming skills to make a bot, draw maps, write in more diverse and obcure fields of pure mathematics and theoretical physics, contribute photographs, maybe FPs someday...and I see many editors who are extremely multilingual who can help in many ways more than I can, in which I can't, so I simply admire their work and try to be inspired to take courage and contribute more in my weak areas rather than becoming indignant and wounded. I feel that it is a good sign to just simply carry on and try to expand one's repertoire at all times. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the number of deletions, blocks, protections, etc., I'd like to point out that an extremely important use of admin tools is in the protection of people who are being stalked on Wikipedia. I don't mean "wiki-stalked" in the sense of an annoying editor following your contributions and turning up at pages that you've just edited: I'm referring to real stalking when people deliberately post personal details about other editors on pages at Wikipedia, and when this is accompanied or followed by personal threats, and real-life stalking. We recently lost one of our very finest (and nicest) admins because of that, and I lost a very good wiki-friend in April for the same reason. I would like to say that there are very few admins who have done more than Sean in helping victims of such harassment. I probably have a stronger dislike of "naughty words" than anyone else at this page, but I know that there are plenty of admins who don't swear but who haven't been jumping in to help stalking victims the way Sean did when he had those tools. AnnH ♫ 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to second that. Sean has been unhesitatingly helpful to people who were being harassed. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that Blnguyen's statements on 1FA was spot-on. I was looking out for editorial skills in the editors, and to a degree an all-aroundedness. Also, the lack of use of the mop and bucket does not nessecarily makes one a bad sysop. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 21 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]
  50. Oppose. Patterns of incivility are well-documented above, especially by User:Joturner. I wasn't planning to vote, but when scanning the comments looking for an explanation or perhaps a resolve to improve, I found a rather disturbing reply, including "They [my edit summaries] sometimes express rudeness, because I am sometimes rude." This is absolutely not the attitude I want in an administrator. It's not even the attitude I want in a contributor. If one cannot or does not wish to keep one's emotions under control, then he has no business being an administrator, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. This is a user with a genuine desire to do good by the project. However, while I do not strongly disagree with any single incident that has been quoted, the overall impression is of one who regularly antagonises others, and it's a sad day when I oppose because I feel I'll regret not doing so. A bit more inclusionism and constructive negotiation would go such a long way, Sean! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Capricious page deletions, questionable blocks, incivility, and disregard for consensus as is evident even in his responses below. Owen× ☎ 01:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, incivility, deletions, Joturner and Blnguyen as well as the others said it all. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose He has been an admin before, the fact that wikipedia stresses him out isnt enough to justify my oppose, however if he had been nominated by someone else he would probably have my support, however it was a self-nom so oppose. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would very happily have nominated him, and I'm sure others would have too. AnnH ♫ 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto, not a good self-noms are not a good reason to oppose somebody. Jaranda wat's sup 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have nominated too. (I offered when he stepped down.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Oppose: changed from Support, in the light of available "in-puts". It took me more than 24 hours to decide! And, a day of wiki-break. --Bhadani 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hang my head in shame at the type of unusual edit-summary-style. Is the admin-class de-generating fast? Or, is this an exceptional case? Changed Oppose to Strong Oppose. --Bhadani 17:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I was unaware Sean Black was no longer an admin. I always have misgivings about administrators who ask to be desysop'd so as to avoid undue stress; I'm slightly more understanding of those who do so on philosophical grounds (Kim Burnning comes to mind). I expect an admin to have the self-control to simply refrain from using admin tools if the work that this entails proves too taxing. I, myself, have done so and for about a month mostly focused (compare) on authoring and translating articles (mostly on the IDF). But this isn't the reason I'm opposing. I find that SB has the tendency to involve himself in issues which he is not entirely familiar with, and is prone to exclamations which are overly emotional and indiscreet. I am refering specifically to the plea he issued to myself here, which I found both surprising and disheartening; and was dissapointed that such a note was not communicated to me privately. I do not wish to revisit the issue behind that note and will only do so if there remains exceptionally strong interest. I will, however, note that I always got along fine with SB. I realize that this opposition is less related to use of admin tools, still, it is enough for me to withdraw the support I extended SB in his first RfA. El_C 16:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from perhaps the part about not sending it privately, I have trouble figuring out what was actually wrong with that diff. It seemed to be an honest, genuine attempt to express his feelings on an issue that clearly troubled him, and I thought it was well thought out and well written. So much so that your very reason for opposing is now making me consider a switch to support. Themindset 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I fealt it was a betrayel of the private discourse we were already engaged in, so I do not find it to be an aside, nor did I find it well thought out, considering the overall context. That said, I am not inclined to expand on this beyond what I've written above. El_C 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - Civility is a big deal for me -- Lost 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose per Grandmasterka. Mexcellent 02:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose; I'd probably have opposed anyway, but that disturbing secret list of oppose voters really seals the deal. Everyking 08:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I could not follow you. --Bhadani 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? As in "known trouble makers" type of list? David D. (Talk) 08:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See [13] and WP:ANI#User:Kelly Martin/B. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would request that the list be recreated or restored to understand and analyse the same. I am rather curious! --Bhadani 10:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an admin- there's nothing stopping you from seeing it. HenryFlower 13:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Or one can just use what links here to find other examples of the list. David D. (Talk) 13:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous, Sean Black had nothing to do with making that list. --Cyde↔Weys 13:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Given what cactus man wrote below, was your comment above based on ignorance or were you assuming good faith with regard to Sean Black adding Xoloz to the list? Also your flippancy in creating your own list at cyde/B is not really helping this issue. You really think that this is not a big deal? Why do you think people who vote against a certain group need to be watched? David D. (Talk) 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, apparently he added one thing to the list. Big deal. And User:Cyde/B isn't flippant, I'm making my own list now. And I don't think people who vote against a certain person need to be watched. I wasn't adding people to a list for anything like that. Mainly, on my own list, I've been listing me and Jimbo. The reasons are my own. --Cyde↔Weys 17:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ZOMG!!1! I'm being monitored??!!1! Deadmin! Deamin! Or, um, *shrug*. Hopefully Cyde will actually monitor my actions and tell me when I screw up. Guettarda 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You write:"And I don't think people who vote against a certain person need to be watched. I wasn't adding people to a list for anything like that." I think it's obvious that when i wrote "Why do you think people ... need to be watched?" I was not referring to your own list but the list of people who opposed this RfA. At least two users seem to have had this list in their user space. I'm glad you don't think that people need to be watched and obviously your own list was not for that purpose, unless you need to watch yourself. Since you don't think people need to be watched, why do you suppose this list of people opposing Sean Blacks RfA is neccesary? David D. (Talk) 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asking the wrong person; I'm the one who deleted the list in the first place. I'm kind of disheartened that it's been recreated in multiple locations in userspace, though. CSD G3? --Cyde↔Weys 19:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I'm sorry, I misinterpreted that delete as trying to erase the transgression from general view after Gurch pointed it out on the 20th July: "08:16, 20 July 2006 . . Gurch (Talk | contribs | block) (ehh... what did I do?)". I had assumed that the edit you made adding people to the list just prior to the that: "18:39, 17 July 2006 . . Cyde (Talk | contribs | block) (Add one)" was an endorsemnet for the list validity. I'm glad you agree that lists not relevent to a persons negative editing habits in articles are not appropriate. I am sorry that i had assumed, in bad faith, that your contributions to the list were an endorsement of the list. David D. (Talk) 01:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the list from the one link given above. I do not find any purpose for creating such a list. In any case, this page shall remain with all the comments and names. --Bhadani 13:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post this link to the deleted content here in response to Bhadani's question, but I see that he has already seen the content, being an admin. I feel it's important that non admin's can see this deleted content as well, hence I have now posted it. I make no comment at present on this RfA, other than to say to Cyde that the edit history clearly demonstrates that Sean did contribute to the making of the list. He was contributor #4, adding Xoloz, with the rather questionable edit summary of "yeah..." --Cactus.man ✍ 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a "Christmas gift" that we can expect after this RfA. ;) - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose per Matt Yeager, Petros471, Bucketsofg, and the others. Also, the inordinate (seemingly impossible number of support votes) for this editor makes me suspicious of a collaberated effort at getting him nominated. I have stated this suspicion at two other rfa's and still say the same thing. Shannonduck talk 23:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see if I understand this. You're suspicious that too many people are supporting him? He hasn't even approached the record. I find your comment disturbing, to say the least. Mackensen (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Per ComputerJoe's reasoning above. --Wisden17 01:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose, because of incivility and the deleted lists of oppose voters.--Ávríl 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose per all above .-Bharatveer 05:00, 23 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]
Changed to Oppose per joturner's comment, above. RandyWang (raves/rants) 23:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  1. Neutral per Randy Wang. Roy A.A. 22:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Neutral. Not sure at the moment. Some of the oppose votes concern me, especially joturner's. Robert 13:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral, leaning much more towards support than oppose. I've seen sean do good work as an admin; i've also seen him use his admin duties in ways i wouldn't support at all, but due to the circumstances and the fact that i see some things differently than many others here, i don't at all think that those instances are enough to warrant an oppose . . . if it weren't for his civility issues, which i think are especially important when we're talking about admins, i'd still be putting my name under support. --heah 22:38, 22 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]

Question from ElC: the KM "list" and (IRC)secrets?

I notice that the contents of User:Kelly Martin/B (Deleted revision as of 3 July 2006) features the following:

  • {{Userlinks|Micoolio101}}
  • {{Userlinks|M. Burmy}}
  • {{Userlinks|SirGrant}}
  • {{Userlinks|ClemMcGann}}
  • {{Userlinks|Jtdirl}}
  • {{Userlinks|Juppiter}}
  • {{Userlinks|Splash}}

{{incomplete-list}}

Then, the next edit by Sean Black features the following (addition in italics):

  • {{Userlinks|Micoolio101}}
  • {{Userlinks|M. Burmy}}
  • {{Userlinks|SirGrant}}
  • {{Userlinks|ClemMcGann}}
  • {{Userlinks|Jtdirl}}
  • {{Userlinks|Juppiter}}
  • {{Userlinks|Splash}}
  • {{userlinks|Xoloz}}

{{incomplete-list}}

My question, then, is what was meant by that addition, and if you have time, maybe a hint as to the purpose behind the entire thingy. Thanks. El_C 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sean_Black_2&oldid=1150709994"